Delegates made major changes to state government, including abolishing the office of state highway commissioner and banning the death penalty, in Michigan’s 1961-62 convention.
Photo courtesy of Eugene G. Wanger Collection, Archives of Michigan
(Ed. Note: This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. Visit the newsroom online: bridgemi.com.)
By Jordyn Hermani
Bridge Michigan
LANSING — Michigan voters will decide in November whether to rewrite the state Constitution, a chance they automatically get every 16 years.
If approved, Proposal 1 would trigger the first constitutional convention in more than 65 years.
But what would that look like, and how would it work? Some fear a Pandora’s box of possibilities, while others see it as a means to address structural problems in state government and cut through political noise.
Most everyone agrees the process could be complicated: Voters would elect 148 delegates to the convention.
Those delegates would then meet and decide on what should be added — or removed — from the current constitution before their proposed rewrite goes back to voters for potential approval in the next statewide election.
What’s not clear? How often delegates would meet, what they’d be paid and most importantly, what changes they’d ultimately propose making to the Michigan Constitution.
“In practice, it would be a whole lot of things happening in a very short amount of time,” said Eric Lupher, president of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, which has published a series of in-depth reports on the prospect of a constitutional convention.
Here’s what you need to know.
—————
Trojan horse or voter empowerment?
Since adopting the current Michigan Constitution in 1963, voters have approved several amendments to the governing document but repeatedly rejected convening a convention for a full rewrite.
Just 33% of voters — or about 983,000 Michiganders — approved the proposal last time it was on the ballot in 2010. That was an all-time high.
Recent polling suggests there may be more interest this time around, but several well-known groups in Michigan are urging a “no” vote and warning delegates could try to remove popular constitutional protections.
“We see it as a dangerous Trojan horse that can roll out the welcome mat for wealthy special interests and the very same corporations that we’re also concerned have been buying our elections,” said Christy McGillivray, executive director of Voters Not Politicians.
The nonprofit advocacy group is part of a bipartisan coalition called Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests that is opposing the ballot measure. It includes dozens of organizations from across the political spectrum, including the Michigan Catholic Conference, chambers of commerce, pro- and anti-abortion organizations, unions and business groups.
While there is no official “yes” campaign, there are some who see merit in the idea of calling a constitutional convention.
“There’s this unholy alliance of Lansing swamp creatures who are opposed to it — but normal Michiganders seem to support it,” said Dennis Lennox, a Republican political consultant who led an unsuccessful vote-yes effort in 2010.
According to Lennox, ordinary Michiganders share common ground on various topics, such as data centers and increasing property taxes, which enjoy expanding bipartisan agreement. However, he maintains that minimal progress occurs on these issues due to Lansing and the heavily funded special interest groups operating there.
With a constitutional convention, he said, anything could be on the table.
“Something needs to change in Michigan,” Lennox added, “because the Michigan of 2026 is not the Michigan of 1961 and 1962, when the last Constitution was written.”
—————
Selecting convention delegates
If voters approve Proposal 1 this fall, it would begin what could be a lengthy process.
That means partisan primary elections to nominate delegates to the constitutional convention, followed by a general election by mid-2027. Voters would ultimately select 148 delegates — one for each state House and state Senate district.
Following their election, delegates would convene in Lansing by Oct. 5, 2027, or “an earlier date if provided by law,” according to the current Michigan Constitution. Delegates would then choose convention officers, determine the rules of the convention and hire staff. The Legislature would decide how much they’re paid.
Could one political party control the convention? It’s possible, as there is no requirement in the current Constitution for partisan balance.
In 1961, the state’s last constitutional convention, there were 99 Republican delegates and 45 Democrats, according to state records.
A 2027 convention would likely be more evenly split. Currently, 76 Republicans and 72 Democrats represent the state House and Senate districts that would be used to elect delegates.
Lupher, with the Citizens Research Council, believes conflict of interest laws would prohibit current state lawmakers from serving as delegates to the constitutional convention. Others, like Lennox, say that may not be the case because delegate qualifications aren’t clearly spelled out in the state Constitution.
—————
How long would it take?
The current Constitution does not limit how long the convention could last, how often or where delegates would meet, or how they would decide on what should or should not make it into a new Constitution.
What it does require, however, is that Michigan voters get a say on the proposed constitutional rewrite “not less than 90 days after final adjournment of the convention.”
In 1961, delegates worked for an estimated 500 hours between Oct. 3 and Aug. 1 of that year, according to state records.
Delegates made more than 800 proposals, some of which could’ve resulted in a drastically different form of state government. Failed ideas included a unicameral legislature, giving state Supreme Court justices geographic districts and banning absentee voters from participating in state elections.
It could cost the state about $80 million to hold a constitutional convention, according to a preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency. That would cover the pay for delegates and staff, along with the cost of printing and distributing any associated documents, or journals related to the proposed Constitution, among other things.
But funding a convention would require legislation, says state Sen. Jonathan Lindsey, R-Coldwater, who’s currently reviewing the 1960s-era bills that enabled that year’s constitutional convention in order to be prepared in case voters approve the effort this fall.
Lindsey, who says he’ll be voting yes on Proposal 1, says his initial focus is “just on the election processes for the delegates,” such as outlining how the elections would take place. Some questions, he added, may need to be resolved by way of an attorney general opinion.
“The future elements that I would be interested in working on are making sure the resources are there through appropriations, but also any other guardrails that need to come,” Lindsey added, mentioning the need for possible campaign finance disclosure or conflict-of-interest rules for campaigning delegates.
—————
What changes could be made?
Anything, technically, is up for grabs once a constitutional convention is called.
That’s a concern for some, including McGillivray, who warn that delegates could remove voter-approved amendments to the current Constitution, like abortion rights, the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, no-reason absentee voting and early in-person voting.
In recent weeks, state Rep. Jay DeBoyer — the running mate of Republican gubernatorial candidate John James — floated the idea of using a constitutional convention to repeal Proposal 3 of 2022, which amended the Michigan Constitution to ensure abortion access.
“Sometimes, you have to say to yourself, ‘This might be our only way,'” DeBoyer said, according to a recording published by The Detroit News that he later attempted to walk back.
Right to Life of Michigan, which opposes legal abortion, announced it is against calling a constitutional convention. President Amber Roseboom argued it is wrong to suggest “that abortion is on the ballot” in November.
But state Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks — the running mate of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson — has said DeBoyer’s comments show Republicans could try to use a convention to “erode things that have passed with popular support in recent years.”
Voters should “understand that the things that they have worked for over the last decade or so are at risk if we let the Republicans fool us into putting this on the table and opening it up,” Brinks said.
Lennox, the Republican political consultant, noted that anything changed via constitutional convention would still need to be approved by voters in a statewide election.
“The idea that any delegate would want to touch a subject that the people have in recent years overwhelmingly voted for is crazy,” he told Bridge.
By Jordyn Hermani
Bridge Michigan
LANSING — Michigan voters will decide in November whether to rewrite the state Constitution, a chance they automatically get every 16 years.
If approved, Proposal 1 would trigger the first constitutional convention in more than 65 years.
But what would that look like, and how would it work? Some fear a Pandora’s box of possibilities, while others see it as a means to address structural problems in state government and cut through political noise.
Most everyone agrees the process could be complicated: Voters would elect 148 delegates to the convention.
Those delegates would then meet and decide on what should be added — or removed — from the current constitution before their proposed rewrite goes back to voters for potential approval in the next statewide election.
What’s not clear? How often delegates would meet, what they’d be paid and most importantly, what changes they’d ultimately propose making to the Michigan Constitution.
“In practice, it would be a whole lot of things happening in a very short amount of time,” said Eric Lupher, president of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, which has published a series of in-depth reports on the prospect of a constitutional convention.
Here’s what you need to know.
—————
Trojan horse or voter empowerment?
Since adopting the current Michigan Constitution in 1963, voters have approved several amendments to the governing document but repeatedly rejected convening a convention for a full rewrite.
Just 33% of voters — or about 983,000 Michiganders — approved the proposal last time it was on the ballot in 2010. That was an all-time high.
Recent polling suggests there may be more interest this time around, but several well-known groups in Michigan are urging a “no” vote and warning delegates could try to remove popular constitutional protections.
“We see it as a dangerous Trojan horse that can roll out the welcome mat for wealthy special interests and the very same corporations that we’re also concerned have been buying our elections,” said Christy McGillivray, executive director of Voters Not Politicians.
The nonprofit advocacy group is part of a bipartisan coalition called Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests that is opposing the ballot measure. It includes dozens of organizations from across the political spectrum, including the Michigan Catholic Conference, chambers of commerce, pro- and anti-abortion organizations, unions and business groups.
While there is no official “yes” campaign, there are some who see merit in the idea of calling a constitutional convention.
“There’s this unholy alliance of Lansing swamp creatures who are opposed to it — but normal Michiganders seem to support it,” said Dennis Lennox, a Republican political consultant who led an unsuccessful vote-yes effort in 2010.
According to Lennox, ordinary Michiganders share common ground on various topics, such as data centers and increasing property taxes, which enjoy expanding bipartisan agreement. However, he maintains that minimal progress occurs on these issues due to Lansing and the heavily funded special interest groups operating there.
With a constitutional convention, he said, anything could be on the table.
“Something needs to change in Michigan,” Lennox added, “because the Michigan of 2026 is not the Michigan of 1961 and 1962, when the last Constitution was written.”
—————
Selecting convention delegates
If voters approve Proposal 1 this fall, it would begin what could be a lengthy process.
That means partisan primary elections to nominate delegates to the constitutional convention, followed by a general election by mid-2027. Voters would ultimately select 148 delegates — one for each state House and state Senate district.
Following their election, delegates would convene in Lansing by Oct. 5, 2027, or “an earlier date if provided by law,” according to the current Michigan Constitution. Delegates would then choose convention officers, determine the rules of the convention and hire staff. The Legislature would decide how much they’re paid.
Could one political party control the convention? It’s possible, as there is no requirement in the current Constitution for partisan balance.
In 1961, the state’s last constitutional convention, there were 99 Republican delegates and 45 Democrats, according to state records.
A 2027 convention would likely be more evenly split. Currently, 76 Republicans and 72 Democrats represent the state House and Senate districts that would be used to elect delegates.
Lupher, with the Citizens Research Council, believes conflict of interest laws would prohibit current state lawmakers from serving as delegates to the constitutional convention. Others, like Lennox, say that may not be the case because delegate qualifications aren’t clearly spelled out in the state Constitution.
—————
How long would it take?
The current Constitution does not limit how long the convention could last, how often or where delegates would meet, or how they would decide on what should or should not make it into a new Constitution.
What it does require, however, is that Michigan voters get a say on the proposed constitutional rewrite “not less than 90 days after final adjournment of the convention.”
In 1961, delegates worked for an estimated 500 hours between Oct. 3 and Aug. 1 of that year, according to state records.
Delegates made more than 800 proposals, some of which could’ve resulted in a drastically different form of state government. Failed ideas included a unicameral legislature, giving state Supreme Court justices geographic districts and banning absentee voters from participating in state elections.
It could cost the state about $80 million to hold a constitutional convention, according to a preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency. That would cover the pay for delegates and staff, along with the cost of printing and distributing any associated documents, or journals related to the proposed Constitution, among other things.
But funding a convention would require legislation, says state Sen. Jonathan Lindsey, R-Coldwater, who’s currently reviewing the 1960s-era bills that enabled that year’s constitutional convention in order to be prepared in case voters approve the effort this fall.
Lindsey, who says he’ll be voting yes on Proposal 1, says his initial focus is “just on the election processes for the delegates,” such as outlining how the elections would take place. Some questions, he added, may need to be resolved by way of an attorney general opinion.
“The future elements that I would be interested in working on are making sure the resources are there through appropriations, but also any other guardrails that need to come,” Lindsey added, mentioning the need for possible campaign finance disclosure or conflict-of-interest rules for campaigning delegates.
—————
What changes could be made?
Anything, technically, is up for grabs once a constitutional convention is called.
That’s a concern for some, including McGillivray, who warn that delegates could remove voter-approved amendments to the current Constitution, like abortion rights, the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, no-reason absentee voting and early in-person voting.
In recent weeks, state Rep. Jay DeBoyer — the running mate of Republican gubernatorial candidate John James — floated the idea of using a constitutional convention to repeal Proposal 3 of 2022, which amended the Michigan Constitution to ensure abortion access.
“Sometimes, you have to say to yourself, ‘This might be our only way,'” DeBoyer said, according to a recording published by The Detroit News that he later attempted to walk back.
Right to Life of Michigan, which opposes legal abortion, announced it is against calling a constitutional convention. President Amber Roseboom argued it is wrong to suggest “that abortion is on the ballot” in November.
But state Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks — the running mate of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson — has said DeBoyer’s comments show Republicans could try to use a convention to “erode things that have passed with popular support in recent years.”
Voters should “understand that the things that they have worked for over the last decade or so are at risk if we let the Republicans fool us into putting this on the table and opening it up,” Brinks said.
Lennox, the Republican political consultant, noted that anything changed via constitutional convention would still need to be approved by voters in a statewide election.
“The idea that any delegate would want to touch a subject that the people have in recent years overwhelmingly voted for is crazy,” he told Bridge.
Huizenga, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Boost Great Lakes Conservation
U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Holland Twp., and a bipartisan group of his fellow House colleagues have introduced legislation to bolster federal support for Great Lakes research and conservation.
Huizenga was joined last week in introducing the Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act by Reps. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), David Joyce (R-Ohio) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio). Huizenga and Kaptur co-chair the Congressional Great Lakes Task Force.
The legislation designates the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) as the official Regional Great Lakes Partnership within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Regional Ocean Partnerships Program.
This designation ensures that the Great Lakes region receives a fair share of program funding, delivering federal resources to support the GLC’s longstanding work to coordinate Great Lakes research and conservation efforts.
“I have made it my mission to have the federal government recognize the Great Lakes as a national priority,” Huizenga said. “The Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act furthers this objective by enhancing the Great Lakes Commission’s steadfast work to protect and conserve Michigan’s most valuable natural resources.”
The Great Lakes Commission (GLC) brings together eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces to protect the Great Lakes and promote economic growth in the Great Lakes basin. The GLC is composed of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
“As the largest freshwater system in the world, the Great Lakes are one of Michigan’s greatest assets,” Scholten said. “I’m proud to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting the Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act. This commonsense bill will strengthen the research and coordination that keeps the Great Lakes region healthy. Investing in our Great Lakes is investing in our future, and it’s crucial that we conserve this resource for the next generation.”
NOAA’s Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROPs) coordinate interstate ocean and coastal resource management efforts and create opportunities for increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Although NOAA administers four Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROPs) across the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Gulf, and West Coast, the Great Lakes currently lack an ROP. Designating the GLC as the region’s ROP will ensure the Great Lakes region receives its fair share of program funding, Huizenga said.
Companion legislation, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), has been advanced by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
Huizenga was joined last week in introducing the Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act by Reps. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), David Joyce (R-Ohio) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio). Huizenga and Kaptur co-chair the Congressional Great Lakes Task Force.
The legislation designates the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) as the official Regional Great Lakes Partnership within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Regional Ocean Partnerships Program.
This designation ensures that the Great Lakes region receives a fair share of program funding, delivering federal resources to support the GLC’s longstanding work to coordinate Great Lakes research and conservation efforts.
“I have made it my mission to have the federal government recognize the Great Lakes as a national priority,” Huizenga said. “The Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act furthers this objective by enhancing the Great Lakes Commission’s steadfast work to protect and conserve Michigan’s most valuable natural resources.”
The Great Lakes Commission (GLC) brings together eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces to protect the Great Lakes and promote economic growth in the Great Lakes basin. The GLC is composed of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
“As the largest freshwater system in the world, the Great Lakes are one of Michigan’s greatest assets,” Scholten said. “I’m proud to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting the Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act. This commonsense bill will strengthen the research and coordination that keeps the Great Lakes region healthy. Investing in our Great Lakes is investing in our future, and it’s crucial that we conserve this resource for the next generation.”
NOAA’s Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROPs) coordinate interstate ocean and coastal resource management efforts and create opportunities for increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Although NOAA administers four Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROPs) across the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Gulf, and West Coast, the Great Lakes currently lack an ROP. Designating the GLC as the region’s ROP will ensure the Great Lakes region receives its fair share of program funding, Huizenga said.
Companion legislation, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), has been advanced by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
