As many of you know by now, I am from Michigan, and I was sitting here in my family room just now, stressing over these 3 horrid ballot proposals. Proposals 1, 2, and 3, and I was thinking to myself, “Gosh, I hope every conservative and independent knows to vote NO on these terrible proposals, and then I was wondering how I could get the word out, and then I remembered, “Oh yeah, I am a political blogger, and I can tell a lot of people…”
I kid you not, that’s exactly how it happened. Ha ha.
So, here I am, to inform you about these horrible proposals, and ask that you please vote NO on all three. And also ask that if you’re not in Michigan, you share this, so that the people who are, can see it. It’s so important that we vote these progressive proposals down.
Here we go:
Michigan Ballot Proposal 1:
This is another deceiving proposal, that you need a master’s degree to understand, the left is able to hide their stuff so well.
Proposal 1 is separated into two main parts: The first requires top state officials to disclose some financial information after 2023, things like income sources and assets of state lawmakers, the governor, the secretary of state, and the attorney general. The second deals with term limits for state legislators, replacing the current limits of six years in the House and eight years in the Senate from a 14-year total, to a 12-year total in any combination of service in the House or Senate.
But for Patrick Anderson, who helped pass the current term limits back in 1992, the proposal is deceiving.
“The legislature is trying to extend their own time in office by repealing the existing term limits, but kind of mixing it in…hiding it behind a proposal to at some future year to adopt a disclosure law,” Anderson said.
Anderson says he’s been pushing for disclosure laws as well, but the language of this specific proposal is too vague. For example, the wording in Prop 1 says elected officials would have to provide “income sources”, not an actual dollar amount.
“I think some of them might be writing things like I work hard for the citizens, that’s the source of my income,” Anderson argues.
Trust me, these people are not excited to vote themselves out of office, or disclose their finances. This is a smokescreen, designed to make it appear as if that’s what’s happening when it’s not. We need to pass a clean proposal that forces REAL financial disclosure, not this nonsense they’re trying to weasel through so we’ll get off their backs.
Vote NO on Proposal 1.
Michigan Ballot Proposal 2:
Michigan voters will determine whether to allow early in-person voting, private donations for public elections, and a slew of other voting changes when considering Proposal 2 on Nov. 8.
Voting “yes” would amend Michigan’s constitution to allow nine days of early in-person voting, add an absentee-ballot box in every city and township and allow clerks to accept outside donations to fund their elections.
Voting “no” would curb the proposed changes and keep current election procedures.
Now, the concerning thing about proposal 2, is that people don’t know what it means… American Thinker has a great, full-throttle piece on this lousy “Dem cheating” proposal that I encourage you to read. Here’s a small sampling:
A fierce battle is underway in Michigan over Proposal 2, the Right to Voting Policies Amendment (also known as the “Promote the Vote” initiative). If this passes in the midterm election on November 8, it would embed into the state constitution practices and procedures that would strike a death blow to the notion of election security and integrity. Amendments to the constitution are nearly impossible to change. It would be permanent.
Grassroots Republican conservatives have called for an “all hands on deck” approach to fight this proposal. They have instituted the “Manhattan Project,” named after the American led effort in World War II to develop an atomic weapon so as to prevail against the Axis enemies.
The real intent and danger of Proposal 2 has been in full view from the get-go for those who have read the fine print of this initiative. But for those people who have not, the deceptive marketing and promotion of this proposal has confused them and is leading them to approve of something they ordinarily would not have. Polls are showing a 70% approval rate for this proposal.
If we want to keep Michigan as an open playing field for both Democrats and Republicans, vote NO. If you want Michigan to be Dem-controlled and “blue” from here on out, vote yes.
Michigan Ballot Proposal 3:
If you care about human life, I urge you to vote NO on Proposal 3.
How would this change Michigan’s abortion law? Michigan’s existing pre-Roe law prohibits abortion except to save the mother’s life, in addition to numerous other laws that regulate abortion. Under this amendment, all those laws would be revoked, and it would be nearly impossible for the Legislature to pass any laws to regulate abortion and protect women and children.
Why is this amendment being proposed? This proposal was launched in anticipation that the U.S. Supreme Court would strike down Roe. The Supreme Court ruling allowed abortion regulation to return to individual state legislatures to decide, yet this amendment would take that power away from the Legislature by locking unlimited abortion access into the state constitution.
How would passing this amendment compare to when Roe v. Wade was in effect? This amendment would take Michigan far beyond what was allowed for abortion under Roe. In the half century since Roe, dozens of laws have been passed to regulate abortion. Under this amendment, those protections would be gone, and abortion would be unrestricted and unregulated.
How late into pregnancy would an abortion be allowed under this amendment? The amendment would allow for abortions all throughout pregnancy. The amendment appears to allow a ban on late-term abortions, but provides an exception based on the mother’s physical and mental health. That means a late-term abortion could be justified for almost any reason.
How would Michigan compare to other states if this amendment passed? According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, Michigan is one of 36 states that require parental involvement in their child’s decision to have an abortion, one of 32 states requiring abortions be performed by a licensed physician, and one of 43 states that prohibit abortion after a specified point in pregnancy.
Under Proposal 3, Michigan would no longer require parental consent, that physicians perform abortions, or a limit to when an abortion can happen in a pregnancy, putting Michigan in the minority of states in all three categories.
Again, I implore you to share this, just so we can spread the word because a lot of conservatives are also being fooled by these proposals, especially if #2. And if that passes, Michigan will never see a “Republican” anything, ever again.
Remember, Michigan — vote NO on 1, 2, and 3.
I'm glad you're here, WayneDupree.com comments! Please maintain polite and on-topic conversations. You could see comments from our Community Managers, who will be identified by a "WD Staff" or "Staff" label, in order to promote fruitful and civil discussions. We stop accepting comments on articles three days after they are posted in order to provide the optimal user experience. The conversations forums on WayneDupree.com welcome comments for an unlimited period of time. For further information, please refer to our community policies.
SIGN UP HERE and join us!
Follow Wayne on Rumble!