Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018)

	;
Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

	Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$16,604,573.07
Opposition:	$393,180.38

Michigan Proposal 2
	Election date; November 6, 2018
	Topic; Redistricting measures
	Status; Approved
Type; Constitutional amendment	Origin; Citizens
	List of Michigan measuresMichigan Proposal 1Michigan Proposal 2Michigan Proposal 3Submit

Michigan Proposal 2, the Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative, was on the ballot in Michigan as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.^[1] The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported transfering the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to an independent redistricting commission.

A "no" vote opposed transfering the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to an independent redistricting commission.

Election results

Michigan Proposal 2
Result	Votes	Percentage
Yes	2,519,975	61.27%
No	1,592,910	38.73%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Before Proposal 2, what was the congressional redistricting system in Michigan?

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. As of 2018, the Michigan State Legislature was responsible for drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries. These boundaries were subject to the governor's veto power. Adopting congressional or state legislative redistricting plans required a simple majority vote in both chambers of the state legislature. Prior to 2018, the last time that the legislature adopted congressional maps was in 2011, which followed the 2010 U.S. Census. Republicans controlled the state Senate, state House, and governor’s office, thus holding a trifecta in state government.

What did Proposal 2 change about congressional redistricting?

Proposal 2 transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a 13-member independent redistricting commission. The ballot initiative required four of the commissioners to be Democrats, four to be Republicans, and five to be independents or members of third parties. The affirmative votes of at least seven members, including a minimum of two Democrats, two Republicans, and two members not affiliated with the major parties, were to be needed to pass a redistricting plan. Proposal 2 required commissioners to prioritize specific criteria, including compliance with federal laws; equal population sizes; geographic contiguousness; demographics and communities of similar historical, cultural, or economic interests; no advantages to political parties; no advantages to incumbents; municipal boundaries; and compactness.^[1]

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

The committee Voters Not Politicians led the campaign in support of Proposal 2. Voters Not Politicians raised $16.60 million, including $6.02 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund and $5.11 million from the Action Now Initiative.^[2]

Opponents organized the Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution and the Committee to Protect Voters Rights. The opposition committees had raised $393,180, including $136,260 from a Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC.^[3]

What states voted on redistricting measures in 2018?

In 2018, voters decided six ballot measures in five states designed to change how congressional districts, state legislative districts, or both types are drawn following the decennial U.S. Census. As of 2018, six was the highest number of redistricting-related ballot measures in a single year since 1982, when nine measures were on the ballot. Joshua Silver, CEO of the organization Represent.Us, described the measures as "the best reform map we’ve seen in decades."^[4] The ballot measures followed the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous dismissal of the case Gill v. Whitford, which addressed the claim of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing. Therefore, the justices did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims can be brought to trial under the U.S. Constitution.^[5] The following measures were on the ballot in 2018:

Measure	Description	Status
Colorado Amendment Y	Create an independent commission for congressional districts	Approved a
Colorado Amendment Z	Create an independent commission for state legislative districts	Approved a
Michigan Proposal 2	Create an independent commission for congressional and state legislative districts	Approved a
Missouri Amendment 1	Create the position of state demographer to draw state legislative districts	Approved a
Ohio Issue 1	Change state legislative requirements to approve maps of congressional districts	Approved a
Utah Proposition 4	Create an independent commission for to recommend congressional and state legislative districts	Approved a

Initiative design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of Proposal 2.

Commission Membership Application: application process to be considered for a position as commission member

Proposal 2 allowed registered and eligible voters in Michigan to submit applications to be considered for positions on the 13-member redistricting commission. The initiative banned individuals who, during the six years prior, were partisan candidates, partisan elected officials, officers of political parties, paid consultants or employees of candidates, officials, campaigns, or political action committees, state legislative employees, lobbyists, other specified state employees, and their parents and children from serving on the commission. Applicants were to be required to attest under oath that they meet the qualifications to serve on the commission and identify their party affiliation.^[1]

The secretary of state's office was required to make applications available to the public not later than January 1 of the census year. The office was also instructed to mail applications for commissioner to 10,000 random registered voters in Michigan by January 1 of the census year and to continue to mail applications at random until at least 30 qualifying Democrats, 30 qualifying Republicans, and 40 qualifying individuals not affiliated with the two major parties submit applications. The secretary of state was required to accept applications for commissioner until June 1 of the census year.^[1]

Commission Membership Selection: selection of individuals to serve on redistricting commission

Proposal 2 was designed to require the secretary of state, on July 1 of the census year, to eliminate non-qualifying applicants and randomly select 60 applicants from the pool of Democrats, 60 applicants from the pool of Republicans, and 80 applicants from the pool of voters not affiliated with either party. The measure required the office to use statistical weighting methods to make the pools reflect the geographic and demographic makeup of Michigan.^[1]

The secretary of state was to submit the selected applicants to the state Senate majority leader, state Senate minority leader, speaker of the House, and state House minority leader. Proposal 2 permitted each legislative leader to strike up to five applicants from any pool, adding up to 20 strikes between the four leaders.^[1]

By August 1 of the census year, the secretary of state was to randomly select four of the remaining applicants from the Democratic pool, four of the remaining applicants from the Republican pool, and five of the remaining applicants from the pool of voters not affiliated with either party—for a total of 13 commissioners.^[1]

If a commissioner's seat becomes vacant, the secretary of state was to randomly select a new commissioner from the same pool as the vacating commissioner.^[1]

For five years following the date of appointment, commissioners were made ineligible to serve in elective partisan offices in state or local government.^[1]

Commissioners were to be compensated in an amount equal to 25 percent of the governor's salary.^[1] As of 2016, the governor's salary was $159,300, meaning that 25 percent was $39,825.

Commencement, Public Hearings, and Meetings: requirements for public hearings before and meetings

Proposal 2 said the redistricting commission was to commence by October 15 of the census year. The Michigan State Legislature was required to appropriate revenue for the commission's activities before the commission begins.

Before drafting any redistricting plans, Proposal 2 required the commission to hold a minimum of 10 public hearings throughout the state to inform the public about the commission, its purpose, and its responsibilities and to solicit information from the public.

After drafting at least one redistricting plan for state legislative districts and one redistricting plan for congressional districts, the commission was to publish the plans, along with the data behind the plans, for the public to view. Proposal 2 allowed each commissioner to file one proposal for each type of district. The commission was to hold five meetings throughout the state to receive feedback from the public on the proposals.

Proposal 2 required that all meetings of the commission be open to the public. The secretary of state was to serve as the commission's non-voting secretary and was to provide technical services for the commission.

Redistricting Criteria: criteria to be considered when drawing district maps

Proposal 2 required commissioners to prioritize the following criteria, in the order as listed, for proposing and adopting redistricting plans:^[1]

(a) districts shall be of equal population and comply with federal laws;

(b) districts shall be geographically contiguous;

(c) districts shall reflect the state's demographic population and communities of similar historical, cultural, or economic interests;

(d) districts shall not provide an advantage to any political party;

(e) districts shall not favor or disfavor an incumbent official;

(f) districts shall reflect consideration for county, township, and municipal boundaries; and

(g) districts shall be reasonably compact.

Adopting Redistricting Plans: rules and requirements for adopting redistricting plans

By November 1 of the year following the census year, the commission was required to adopt a redistricting plan.^[1]

The commission was required to provide at least 45 days prior to a scheduled vote on redistricting plans for public comments.^[1]

The redistricting commission was to adopt congressional and state legislative plans through a majority vote, provided that at least two members of each political party and two members who do not affiliate with either party approve it.^[1]

If the commission fails to adopt a plan through majority vote, commissioners were to rank the plans in order of preference using a point system, and the plan receiving the most points would be adopted, provided that at least two members of each political party ranked the winning plan in their top half and the two members who do not affiliate with either party ranked the winning plan in their top half.^[1]

Within 30 days after adopting the plans, the commission was required to publish the plans, along with the data and materials behind the plans, for public viewership.^[1]

Redistricting plans were to become law 60 days after being adopted by the commission.^[1]

The Michigan Supreme Court was given jurisdiction over challenges to the plans and would call the commission back to take actions to comply with the court's judgment.^[1]

Aftermath

2020-2022 redistricting cycle

See also: Redistricting in Michigan after the 2020 census

Proposition 2 created the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC), which oversaw the decennial redistricting process for the first time in 2021. MICRC adopted congressional and state legislative maps on December 28, 2021.

The new maps were used in the general election on November 8, 2022. Democrats gained control of both chambers of the Michigan State Legislature, creating a Democratic trifecta with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also being a Democrat.

U.S. House of Representatives: Michigan lost one seat, from 14 to 13, in the U.S. House due to reapportionment. Democrats retained seven seats, the same number as in the previous election. Republicans won six seats, one fewer than in the previous election.

State Senate: The Senate flipped from Republican- to Democratic-controlled. Before, the Senate was divided 22 Republicans to 16 Democrats. After, the Senate was divided 20 Democrats to 18 Republicans. Democrats had a net gain of four seats.

State House of Representatives: The House flipped from Republican- to Democratic-controlled. Before, the House was divided 56 Republicans to 53 Democrats. After, the House was divided 56 Democrats to 54 Republicans. Democrats had a net gain of three seats.

Lawsuits

Daunt v. Benson

On July 30, 2019, Michigan Freedom Fund Executive Director Tony Daunt and several state Republican officials filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Western Michigan seeking to block implementation of the redistricting commission. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) was named as the defendant. Daunt said, "This is a fundamental question of Michigan citizens’ ability to participate in the political process without being punished for that participation. This commission flips that on its head and says if you’re already engaged, if you’re already active, you’re not allowed to serve on this and neither are your family members. Of everything, I think that’s the most egregious and ridiculous part of that. Simply by virtue of being married to someone who is (politically active) you’re prohibited, even if you have 180-degree-opposed political beliefs."^[6]

Jamie Lyons-Eddy of Voters Not Politicians, which sponsored the ballot initiative, responded, "It’s no surprise that politicians who directly benefit from drawing their own election maps and choosing their own voters want to undermine the voice of voters again. Now that citizens are in charge of a fair, impartial, and transparent redistricting process, we know that some politicians who will lose power to draw maps in secret for their own benefit will make a last-ditch effort to hold on to it."^[6]

Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), representing Secretary of State Benson, asked the U.S. District Court to dismiss the complaint. Attorney General Nessel said, "This is essentially no different than excluding people from jury duty who have a relationship to the parties or have a stake in the outcome of the case."^[7]

On November 25, 2019, Judge Janet Neff decided that the court would not enjoin Secretary of State Benson from implementing Proposal 2 while the case is being considered.^[8]

Michigan Republican Party v. Benson

On August 22, 2019, the Michigan Republican Party filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Western Michigan seeking to block Proposal 2. Laura Cox, chairperson of the state Republican Party, said Proposal 2 violated the party's freedom of association as the amendment prevented parties from picking their own members to serve on the redistricting commission.^[9]

Proposal 2 requires candidates for the redistricting commission to attest under oath regarding their partisan affiliation. However, Proposal 2 does not require the state department to confirm individuals' partisan affiliation. As of 2019, voters in Michigan do not have an option to declare their partisan affiliation on voter registrations.^[9]

Proposal 2 was designed to allow the legislative leaders from the two major parties to strike up to five applicants each (between the leaders, 20 strikeouts total) from the pool of 60 Republicans, 60 Democrats, and 80 non-affiliated applicants. Thereafter, a random selection from each partisan pool takes place, with four Republicans, four Democrats, and five non-affiliated applicants being selected.^[9]

The Michigan GOP's legal complaint said applicants could self-affiliate with the Republican Party "without any involvement or consent of the applicable political party and without any specific consideration of the applicants’ past or current political activity, expression, or involvement." The process, according to attorneys Gary Gordon and Charlie Spies, could allow Democrats to self-affiliate as Republicans "in an effort to alter the party’s selection process and weaken its representation on the commission by individuals who genuinely affiliate with MRP." Stu Sandler, general counsel for the Michigan GOP, said, "In every other system that’s been created like this, political parties or legislative leaders have had the ability to select, or there’s been a strong history of voter registration so that you can tell who’s been a part of the party and who hasn’t."^[9]

Former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), finance chairperson for the National Republican Redistricting Trust, commented on the litigation, saying, "Proposition 2 punishes people for exercising their constitutionally protected rights – among them the right to associate with a political party."^[10]

Responding to the Michigan GOP filing the lawsuit, Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) said, "Our position on this matter has not changed. Our office will continue to vigorously defend Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and the legality of the redistricting commission, preserving the will of the people and their right to adopt amendments to Michigan’s Constitution at the polls."^[11]

Consolidation of Daunt and MI Republican Party

On September 11, 2019, Daunt v. Benson and Michigan Republican Party v. Benson were consolidated into a single case before the court. On November 25, 2019, the U.S. District Court denied an injunction.^[12] The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied requests for the court to hear an appeal regarding the injunction.^[13] The Sixth Circuit said that plaintiffs complaints were “relatively insignificant,” given “(1) their ability to serve on the Commission after their six-year period of ineligibility expires, (2) the lack of any direct prohibition or regulation of pure speech, and (3) the absence of any fundamental right to be a member of the Commission."

On July 6, 2020, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff dismissed the case, writing, "the Court holds that the Lead Plaintiffs have failed to state plausible claims for relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that dismissal of this case is warranted."^[14]

The Michigan Republican Party appealed the ruling to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 15, 2020, the appellate court upheld the lower court ruling.^[15] On May 27, 2021, the 6th Circuit dismissed the case.^[16]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:^[17]

“

Proposal 18-2. A proposed constitutional amendment to establish a commission of citizens with exclusive authority to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives and U.S. Congress, every 10 years.^[18]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:^[17]

“

This proposed constitutional amendment would:

Create a commission of 13 registered voters randomly selected by the Secretary of State:
- 4 each who self-identify as affiliated with the 2 major political parties; and
- 5 who self-identify as unaffiliated with major political parties.
Prohibit partisan officeholders and candidates, their employees, certain relatives, and lobbyists from serving as commissioners.
Establish new redistricting criteria including geographically compact and contiguous districts of equal population, reflecting Michigan’s diverse population and communities of interest. Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates.
Require an appropriation of funds for commission operations and commissioner compensation. Should this proposal be adopted?

Should this proposal be adopted?

[ ] YES

[ ] NO^[18]

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article IV, Michigan Constitution

The measure amended Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Article IV, Sections 1, 2, and 4 of Article V, and Sections 1 and 4 of Article VI. The following underlined text was added and ~~struck-through~~ text was deleted:^[1]

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

Article IV - Legislative Branch, Section 1

Except to the extent limited or abrogated by Article IV, Section 6 or Article V, Section 2, the legislative power of the State of Michigan is vested in a senate and a house of representatives.

Article IV - Legislative Branch, Section 2

Senators, Number, Term

The senate shall consist of 38 members to be elected from single member districts at the same election as the governor for four-year terms concurrent with the term of office of the governor.

~~Senatorial districts, apportionment factors~~

In districting the state for the purpose of electing senators after the official publication of the total population count of each federal decennial census, each county shall be assigned apportionment factors equal to the sum of its percentage of the state’s population as shown by the last regular federal decennial census computed to the nearest one-one hundredth of one percent multiplied by four and its percentage of the state’s land area computed to the nearest one-one hundredth of one percent.

~~Apportionment rules~~

~~In arranging the state into senatorial districts, the apportionment commission shall be governed by the following rules:~~

(1) Counties with 13 or more apportionment factors shall be entitled as a class to senators in the proportion that the total apportionment factors of such counties bear to the total apportionment factors of the state computed to the nearest whole number. After each such county has been allocated one senator, the remaining senators to which this class of counties is entitled shall be distributed among such counties by the method of equal proportions applied to the apportionment factors.

(2) Counties having less than 13 apportionment factors shall be entitled as a class to senators in the proportion that the total apportionment factors of such counties bear to the total apportionment factors of the state computed to the nearest whole number. Such counties shall thereafter be arranged into senatorial districts that are compact, convenient, and contiguous by land, as rectangular in shape as possible, and having as nearly as possible 13 apportionment factors, but in no event less than 10 or more than 16. Insofar as possible, existing senatorial districts at the time of reapportionment shall not be altered unless there is a failure to comply with the above standards.

(3) Counties entitled to two or more senators shall be divided into single member districts. The population of such districts shall be as nearly equal as possible but shall not be less than 75 percent nor more than 125 percent of a number determined by dividing the population of the county by the number of senators to which it is entitled. Each such district shall follow incorporated city or township boundary lines to the extent possible and shall be compact, contiguous, and as nearly uniform in shape as possible.

Article IV - Legislative Branch, Section 3

Representatives, Number, Term; Contiguity of Districts

The house of representatives shall consist of 110 members elected for two-year terms from single member districts apportioned on a basis of population as provided in this article. ~~The districts shall consist of compact and convenient territory contiguous by land.~~

~~Representative areas, single and multiple county~~

Each county which has a population of not less than seven-tenths of one percent of the population of the state shall constitute a separate representative area. Each county having less than seven-tenths of one percent of the population of the state shall be combined with another county or counties to form a representative area of not less than seven-tenths of one percent of the population of the state. Any county which is isolated under the initial allocation as provided in this section shall be joined with that contiguous representative area having the smallest percentage of the state’s population. Each such representative area shall be entitled initially to one representative.

~~Apportionment of representatives to areas~~

After the assignment of one representative to each of the representative areas, the remaining house seats shall be apportioned among the representative areas on the basis of population by the method of equal proportions.

~~Districting of single county area entitled to 2 or more representatives~~

~~Any county comprising a representative area entitled to two or more representatives shall be divided into single member representative districts as follows:~~

(1) The population of such districts shall be as nearly equal as possible but shall not be less than 75 percent nor more than 125 percent of a number determined by dividing the population of the representative area by the number of representatives to which it is entitled.

~~(2) Such single member districts shall follow city and township boundaries where applicable and shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly square in shape as possible.~~

~~Districting of multiple county representative areas~~

Any representative area consisting of more than one county, entitled to more than one representative, shall be divided into single member districts as equal as possible in population, adhering to county lines.

Article IV - Legislative Branch, Section 4

~~Annexation or Merger with a City~~

In counties having more than one representative or senatorial district, the territory in the same county annexed to or merged with a city between apportionments shall become a part of a contiguous representative or senatorial district in the city with which it is combined, if provided by ordinance of the city. The district or districts with which the territory shall be combined shall be determined by such ordinance certified to the secretary of state. No such change in the boundaries of a representative or senatorial district shall have the effect of removing a legislator from office during his term.

Article IV - Legislative Branch, Section 5

~~Island areas are considered to be contiguous by land to the county of which they are a part.~~

Article IV - Legislative Branch, Section 6

~~Commission on Legislative Apportionment~~ Independent citizens redistricting commission for state legislative and congressional districts

A commission on legislative apportionment is hereby established consisting of eight electors, four of whom shall be selected by the state organizations of each of the two political parties whose candidates for governor received the highest vote at the last general election at which a governor was elected preceding each apportionment. If a candidate for governor of a third political party has received at such election more than 25 percent of such gubernatorial vote, the commission shall consist of 12 members, four of whom shall be selected by the state organization of the third political party. One resident of each of the following four regions shall be selected by each political party organization: (1) the upper peninsula; (2) the northern part of the lower peninsula, north of a line drawn along the northern boundaries of the counties of Bay, Midland, Isabella, Mecosta, Newaygo and Oceana; (3) southwestern Michigan, those counties south of region (2) and west of a line drawn along the western boundaries of the counties of Bay, Saginaw, Shiawassee, Ingham, Jackson and Hillsdale; (4) southeastern Michigan, the remaining counties of the state.

~~Eligibility to membership~~

No officers or employees of the federal, state or local governments, excepting notaries public and members of the armed forces reserve, shall be eligible for membership on the commission. Members of the commission shall not be eligible for election to the legislature until two years after the apportionment in which they participated becomes effective.

~~Appointment, term, vacancies~~

The commission shall be appointed immediately after the adoption of this constitution and whenever apportionment or districting of the legislature is required by the provisions of this constitution. Members of the commission shall hold office until each apportionment or districting plan becomes effective. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as for original appointment. Officers, rules of procedure, compensation, appropriation. The secretary of state shall be secretary of the commission without vote, and in that capacity shall furnish, under the direction of the commission, all necessary technical services. The commission shall elect its own chairman, shall make its own rules of procedure, and shall receive compensation provided by law. The legislature shall appropriate funds to enable the commission to carry out its activities.

~~Call to convene; apportionment; public hearings~~

Within 30 days after the adoption of this constitution, and after the official total population count of each federal decennial census of the state and its political subdivisions is available, the secretary of state shall issue a call convening the commission not less than 30 nor more than 45 days thereafter. The commission shall complete its work within 180 days after all necessary census information is available. The commission shall proceed to district and apportion the senate and house of representatives according to the provisions of this constitution. All final decisions shall require the concurrence of a majority of the members of the commission. The commission shall hold public hearings as may be provided by law.

~~Apportionment plan, publication; record of proceedings~~

Each final apportionment and districting plan shall be published as provided by law within 30 days from the date of its adoption and shall become law 60 days after publication. The secretary of state shall keep a public record of all the proceedings of the commission and shall be responsible for the publication and distribution of each plan.

~~Disagreement of commission; submission of plans to supreme court~~

If a majority of the commission cannot agree on a plan, each member of the commission, individually or jointly with other members, may submit a proposed plan to the supreme court. The supreme court shall determine which plan complies most accurately with the constitutional requirements and shall direct that it be adopted by the commission and published as provided in this section.

~~Jurisdiction of supreme court on elector’s application~~

Upon the application of any elector filed not later than 60 days after final publication of the plan, the supreme court, in the exercise of original jurisdiction, shall direct the secretary of state or the commission to perform their duties, may review any final plan adopted by the commission, and shall remand such plan to the commission for further action if it fails to comply with the requirements of this constitution.

(1) An independent citizens redistricting commission for state legislative and congressional districts (hereinafter, the “commission") is hereby established as a permanent commission in the legislative branch.

The commission shall consist of 13 commissioners. The commission shall adopt a redistricting plan for each of the following types of districts: state senate districts, state house of representative districts and congressional districts. Each commissioner shall:

(a) be registered and eligible to vote in the State of Michigan;

(b) not currently be or in the past 6 years have been any of the following:

(i) a declared candidate for partisan federal, state, or local office;

(ii) an elected official to partisan federal, state, or local office;

(iii) an officer or member of the governing body of a national, state, or local political party;

(iv) a paid consultant or employee of a federal, state, or local elected official or political candidate, of a federal, state, or local political candidate's campaign, or of a political action committee;

(v) an employee of the legislature;

(vi) any person who is registered as a lobbyist agent with the Michigan Bureau of Elections, or any employee of such person; or

(vii) an unclassified state employee who is exempt from classification in state civil service pursuant to Article XI, Section 5, except for employees of courts of record, employees of the state institutions of higher education, and persons in the armed forces of the state;

(c) not be a parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, or spouse of any individual disqualified under part (1)(b) of this Section; or

(d) not be otherwise disqualified for appointed or elected office by this constitution.

(e) for five years after the date of appointment, a commissioner is ineligible to hold a partisan elective office at the state, county, city, village, or township level in Michigan.

(2) Commissioners shall be selected through the following process:

(a) The secretary of state shall do all of the following:

(i) make applications for commissioner available to the general public not later than January 1 of the year of the federal decennial census. The secretary of state shall circulate the applications in a manner that invites wide public participation from different regions of the state. The secretary of state shall also mail applications for commissioner to ten thousand Michigan registered voters, selected at random, by January 1 of the year of the federal decennial census.

(ii) require applicants to provide a completed application.

(iii) require applicants to attest under oath that they meet the qualifications set forth in this Section; and either that they affiliate with one of the two political parties with the largest representation in the legislature (hereinafter, "Major parties"), and if so, identify the party with which they affiliate, or that they do not affiliate with either of the major parties.

(b) Subject to part (2)(c) of this Section, the secretary of state shall mail additional applications for commissioner to Michigan registered voters selected at random until 30 qualifying applicants that affiliate with one of the two major parties have submitted applications, 30 qualifying applicants that identify that they affiliate with the other of the two major parties have submitted applications, and 40 qualifying applicants that identify that they do not affiliate with either of the two major parties have submitted applications, each in response to the mailings.

(c) The secretary of state shall accept applications for commissioner until June 1 of the year of the federal decennial census.

(d) By July 1 of the year of the federal decennial census, from all of the applications submitted, the secretary of state shall:

(i) eliminate incomplete applications and applications of applicants who do not meet the qualifications in parts (1)(a) through (1)(d) of this Section based solely on the information contained in the applications;

(ii) randomly select 60 applicants from each pool of affiliating applicants and 80 applicants from the pool of non-affiliating applicants. 50% of each pool shall be populated from the qualifying applicants to such pool who returned an application mailed pursuant to part 2(a) or 2(b) of this Section, provided, that if fewer than 30 qualifying applicants affiliated with a major party or fewer than 40 qualifying non-affiliating applicants have applied to serve on the commission in response to the random mailing, the balance of the pool shall be populated from the balance of qualifying applicants to that pool. The random selection process used by the secretary of state to fill the selection pools shall use accepted statistical weighting methods to ensure that the pools, as closely as possible, mirror the geographic and demographic makeup of the state; and

(iii) submit the randomly-selected applications to the majority leader and the minority leader of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representatives and the minority leader of the house of representatives.

(e) By August 1 of the year of the federal decennial census, the majority leader of the senate, the minority leader of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the minority leader of the house of representatives may each strike five applicants from any pool or pools, up to a maximum of 20 total strikes by the four legislative leaders.

(f) By September 1 of the year of the federal decennial census, the secretary of state shall randomly draw the names of four commissioners from each of the two pools of remaining applicants affiliating with a major party, and five commissioners from the pool of remaining non-affiliating applicants.

(3) Except as provided below, commissioners shall hold office for the term set forth in part (18) of this Section. If a commissioner's seat becomes vacant for any reason, the secretary of state shall fill the vacancy by randomly drawing a name from the remaining qualifying applicants in the selection pool from which the original commissioner was selected. A commissioner's office shall become vacant upon the occurrence of any of the following:

(a) death or mental incapacity of the commissioner;

(b) the secretary of state’s receipt of the commissioner’s written resignation;

(c) the commissioner’s disqualification for election or appointment or employment pursuant to Article XI, Section 8;

(d) the commissioner ceases to be qualified to serve as a commissioner under part (1) of this Section; or

(e) after written notice and an opportunity for the commissioner to respond, a vote of 10 of the commissioners finding substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office.

(4) The secretary of state shall be secretary of the commission without vote, and in that capacity shall furnish, under the direction of the commission, all technical services that the commission deems necessary. The commission shall elect its own chairperson. The commission has the sole power to make its own rules of procedure. The commission shall have procurement and contracting authority and may hire staff and consultants for the purposes of this Section, including legal representation.

(5) Beginning no later than December 1 of the year preceding the federal decennial census, and continuing each year in which the commission operates, the legislature shall appropriate funds sufficient to compensate the commissioners and to enable the commission to carry out its functions, operations and activities, which activities include retaining independent, nonpartisan subject-matter experts and legal counsel, conducting hearings, publishing notices and maintaining a record of the commission’s proceedings, and any other activity necessary for the commission to conduct its business, at an amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the general fund/general purpose budget for the secretary of state for that fiscal year. Within six months after the conclusion of each fiscal year, the commission shall return to the state treasury all moneys unexpended for that fiscal year. The commission shall furnish reports of expenditures, at least annually, to the governor and the legislature and shall be subject to annual audit as provided by law. Each commissioner shall receive compensation at least equal to 25 percent of the governor’s salary. The state of Michigan shall indemnify commissioners for costs incurred if the legislature does not appropriate sufficient funds to cover such costs.

(6) The commission shall have legal standing to prosecute an action regarding the adequacy of resources provided for the operation of the commission, and to defend any action regarding an adopted plan. The commission shall inform the legislature if the commission determines that funds or other resources provided for operation of the commission are not adequate. The legislature shall provide adequate funding to allow the commission to defend any action regarding an adopted plan.

(7) The secretary of state shall issue a call convening the commission by October 15 in the year of the federal decennial census. Not later than November 1 in the year immediately following the federal decennial census, the commission shall adopt a redistricting plan under this Section for each of the following types of districts: state senate districts, state house of representative districts, and congressional districts.

(8) before commissioners draft any plan, the commission shall hold at least ten public hearings throughout the state for the purpose of informing the public about the redistricting process and the purpose and responsibilities of the commission and soliciting information from the public about potential plans. The commission shall receive for consideration written submissions of proposed redistricting plans and any supporting materials, including underlying data, from any member of the public. These written submissions are public records.

(9) After developing at least one proposed redistricting plan for each type of district, the commission shall publish the proposed redistricting plans and any data and supporting materials used to develop the plans. Each commissioner may only propose one redistricting plan for each type of district. The commission shall hold at least five public hearings throughout the state for the purpose of soliciting comment from the public about the proposed plans. Each of the proposed plans shall include such census data as is necessary to accurately describe the plan and verify the population of each district, and a map and legal description that include the political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, and townships; man-made features, such as streets, roads, highways, and railroads; and natural features, such as waterways, which form the boundaries of the districts.

(10) Each commissioner shall perform his or her duties in a manner that is impartial and reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process. The commission shall conduct all of its business at open meetings. Nine commissioners, including at least one commissioner from each selection pool shall constitute a quorum, and all meetings shall require a quorum. The commission shall provide advance public notice of its meetings and hearings. The commission shall conduct its hearings in a manner that invites wide public participation throughout the state. The commission shall use technology to provide contemporaneous public observation and meaningful public participation in the redistricting process during all meetings and hearings.

(11) The commission, its members, staff, attorneys, and consultants shall not discuss redistricting matters with members of the public outside of an open meeting of the commission, except that a commissioner may communicate about redistricting matters with members of the public to gain information relevant to the performance of his or her duties if such communication occurs (a) in writing or (b) at a previously publicly noticed forum or town hall open to the general public.

The commission, its members, staff, attorneys, experts, and consultants may not directly or indirectly solicit or accept any gift or loan of money, goods, services, or other thing of value greater than $20 for the benefit of any person or organization, which may influence the manner in which the commissioner, staff, attorney, expert, or consultant performs his or her duties.

(12) Except as provided in part (14) of this Section, a final decision of the commission requires the concurrence of a majority of the commissioners. A decision on the dismissal or retention of paid staff or consultants requires the vote of at least one commissioner affiliating with each of the major parties and one non-affiliating commissioner. All decisions of the commission shall be recorded, and the record of its decisions shall be readily available to any member of the public without charge.

(13) The commission shall abide by the following criteria in proposing and adopting each plan, in order of priority:

(a) districts shall be of equal population as mandated by the united states constitution, and shall comply with the voting rights act and other federal laws.

(b) districts shall be geographically contiguous. Island areas are considered to be contiguous by land to the county of which they are a part.

(c) districts shall reflect the state’s diverse population and communities of interest. Communities of interest may include, but shall not be limited to, populations that share cultural or historical characteristics or economic interests. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

(d) districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage to any political party. A disproportionate advantage shall be determined using accepted measures of partisan fairness.

(e) districts shall not favor or disfavor an incumbent elected official ora candidate.

(f) districts shall reflect consideration of county, city, and township boundaries.

(g) districts shall be reasonably compact.

(14) The commission shall follow the following procedure in adopting a plan:

(a) Before voting to adopt a plan, the commission shall ensure that the plan is tested, using appropriate technology, for compliance with the criteria described above.

(b) Before voting to adopt a plan, the commission shall provide public notice of each plan that will be voted on and provide at least 45 days for public comment on the proposed plan or plans. Each plan that will be voted on shall include such census data as is necessary to accurately describe the plan and verify the population of each district, and shall include the map and legal description required in part (9) of this Section.

(c) A final decision of the commission to adopt a redistricting plan requires a majority vote of the commission, including at least two commissioners who affiliate with each major party, and at least two commissioners who do not affiliate with either major party. If no plan satisfies this requirement for a type of district, the commission shall use the following procedure to adopt a plan for that type of district:

(i) each commissioner may submit one proposed plan for each type of district to the full commission for consideration.

(ii) each commissioner shall rank the plans submitted according to preference. Each plan shall be assigned a point value inverse to its ranking among the number of choices, giving the lowest ranked plan one point and the highest ranked plan a point value equal to the number of plans submitted.

(iii) the commission shall adopt the plan receiving the highest total points, that is also ranked among the top half of plans by at least two commissioners not affiliated with the party of the commissioner submitting the plan, or in the case of a plan submitted by non-affiliated commissioners, is ranked among the top half of plans by at least two commissioners affiliated with a major party. If plans are tied for the highest point total, the secretary of state shall randomly select the final plan from those plans. If no plan meets the requirements of this subparagraph, the secretary of state shall randomly select the final plan from among all submitted plans pursuant to part (14)(c)(I).

(15) Within 30 days after adopting a plan, the commission shall publish the plan and the material reports, reference materials, and data used in drawing it, including any programming information used to produce and test the plan. The published materials shall be such that an independent person is able to replicate the conclusion without any modification of any of the published materials.

(16) For each adopted plan, the commission shall issue a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with plan requirements and shall include the map and legal description required in part (9) of this Section. A commissioner who votes against a redistricting plan may submit a dissenting report which shall be issued with the commission’s report.

(17) An adopted redistricting plan shall become law 60 days after its publication. The secretary of state shall keep a public record of all proceedings of the commission and shall publish and distribute each plan and required documentation.

(18) The terms of the commissioners shall expire once the commission has completed its obligations for a census cycle but not before any judicial review of the redistricting plan is complete.

(19) The supreme court, in the exercise of original jurisdiction, shall direct the secretary of state or the commission to perform their respective duties, may review a challenge to any plan adopted by the commission, and shall remand a plan to the commission for further action if the plan fails to comply with the requirements of this constitution, the constitution of the united states or superseding federal law. In no event shall any body, except the independent citizens redistricting commission acting pursuant to this Section, promulgate and adopt a redistricting plan or plans for this state.

(20) This Section is self-executing. If a final court decision holds any part or parts of this Section to be in conflict with the united states constitution or federal law, the Section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the united states constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid is severable from the remaining portions of this Section.

(21) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, coerce, or retaliate against any employee because of the employee’s membership on the commission or attendance or scheduled attendance at any meeting of the commission.

(22) Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, or any prior judicial decision, as of the effective date of the constitutional amendment adding this provision, which amends Article IV, Sections 1 through 6, Article V, Sections 1, 2 and 4, and Article VI, Sections 1 and 4, including this provision, for purposes of interpreting this constitutional amendment the people declare that the powers granted to the commission are legislative functions not subject to the control or approval of the legislature, and are exclusively reserved to the commission. The commission, and all of its responsibilities, operations, functions, contractors, consultants and employees are not subject to change, transfer, reorganization, or reassignment, and shall not be altered or abrogated in any manner whatsoever, by the legislature. No other body shall be established by law to perform functions that are the same or similar to those granted to the commission in this Section.

Article V - Executive Branch, Section 1

Executive Power

Except to the extent limited or abrogated by Article V, Section 2, or Article IV, Section 6, the executive power is vested in the governor.

Article V - Executive Branch, Section 2

Principal Departments

All executive and administrative offices, agencies and instrumentalities of the executive branch of state government and their respective functions, powers and duties, except for the office of governor and lieutenant governor and the governing bodies of institutions of higher education provided for in this constitution, shall be allocated by law among and within not more than 20 principal departments. They shall be grouped as far as practicable according to major purposes.

Organization of executive branch; assignment of functions; submission to legislature

Subsequent to the initial allocation, the governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for efficient administration. Where these changes require the force of law, they shall be set forth in executive orders and submitted to the legislature. Thereafter the legislature shall have 60 calendar days of a regular session, or a full regular session if of shorter duration, to disapprove each executive order. Unless disapproved in both houses by a resolution concurred in by a majority of the members elected to and serving in each house, each order shall become effective at a date thereafter to be designated by the governor.

Exemption for independent citizens redistricting commission for state legislative and congressional districts

Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution or any prior judicial decision, as of the effective date of the constitutional amendment adding this provision, which amends Article IV, Sections 1 through 6, Article V, Sections 1, 2 and 4, and Article VI, Sections 1 and 4, including this provision, for purposes of interpreting this constitutional amendment the people declare that the powers granted to independent citizens redistricting commission for state and congressional districts (hereinafter, “commission") are legislative functions not subject to the control or approval of the governor, and are exclusively reserved to the commission. The commission, and all of its responsibilities, operations, functions, contractors, consultants and employees are not subject to change, transfer, reorganization, or reassignment, and shall not be altered or abrogated in any manner whatsoever, by the governor. No other body shall be established by law to perform functions that are the same or similar to those granted to the commission in Article IV, Section 6.

Article V - Executive Branch, Section 4

Commissions or Agencies for Less Than 2 Years

Except to the extent limited or abrogated by Article V, Section 2 or Article IV, Section 6, temporary commissions or agencies for special purposes with a life of no more than two years may be established by law and need not be allocated within a principal department.

Article VI - Judicial Branch, Section 1

Judicial Power in Court of Justice; Divisions

Except to the extent limited or abrogated by Article IV, Section 6 or Article V, Section 2, the judicial power of the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice which shall be divided into one supreme court, one court of appeals, one trial court of general jurisdiction known as the circuit court, one probate court, and courts of limited jurisdiction that the legislature may establish by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house.

Article VI - Judicial Branch, Section 4

Except to the extent limited or abrogated by Article IV, Section 6 or Article V, Section 2, the supreme court shall have general superintending control over all courts; power to issue, hear and determine prerogative and remedial writs; and appellate jurisdiction as provided by rules of the supreme court. The supreme court shall not have the power to remove a judge.^[18]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the and formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state board wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 21, and the FRE is -2.0. The word count for the ballot title is 31, and the estimated reading time is 8 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Voters Not Politicians, also known as Yes on 2, led the campaign in support of Proposal 2.^[19] Katie Fahey, founder of Count MI Vote, was the executive director of Voters Not Politicians.^[20]

Supporters

Officials

Sen. Steve Bieda (D-9)^[21]
Rep. Jon Hoadley (D-60)^[21]
Rep. Jeremy Moss (D-35)^[21]
Mayor Rosalynn Bliss (D), Grand Rapids^[21]
Commissioner Ruth Kelly, Grand Rapids^[21]
Mayor Andy Schor (D), Lansing^[21]
Councilmember Peter Spadafore (D), Lansing^[21]
Councilmember Aaron Stephens, East Lansing^[21]

Former officials

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-California)^[21]
U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D)^[21]
U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz (R)^[21]
Rep. Bill Bobier (R)^[21]
Rep. Nancy Crandall (R)^[21]
Rep. Pan Godchaux (R)^[21]
Rep. Jon Jellema (R)^[21]
Rep. Rick Johnson (R)^[21]
Rep. Mickey Knight (R)^[21]
Rep. Rick Johnson (R)^[22]

Municipalities

Marquette County Board^[21]
Humboldt Township Board^[21]
Meridian Township Board^[21]
Powell Township Board^[21]

Organizations

Labor organizations

A. Philip Randolph Institute
American Federation of Teachers - Michigan^[21]
Michigan Education Association^[21]
Michigan Nurses Association^[21]
Michigan State Utilities Worker Council^[21]
State Employees Retirees Association^[21]
United Auto Workers^[21]
United Steelworkers^[21]

Individuals

Jennifer Lawrence, actress^[25]

Arguments

Voters Not Politicians stated the following about the initiative campaign:^[19]

“

On election day, we, the voters of Michigan, deserve to have our say. We expect our elections to be fair and transparent so that our votes matter and our voices are heard.

Politicians don't agree. They manipulate our voting maps to keep themselves in power. They draw voting maps that directly benefit themselves, instead of putting community interests and voter needs first. This allows politicians the power to choose their voters, instead of giving the voters the power to choose their politicians. This process gives us inattentive, ineffective, and unpopular representatives who keep getting re-elected over and over.^[18]

”

Rep. Rick Johnson (R), former Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives and convention delegate for Donald Trump in 2016, said:^[22]

“

We need change. This might not be the only change, but I hope it’s something. This country and this state can’t continue down the road we’re on right now because we’ll all be broke. There won’t be a legitimate unit of government that can stand this stuff that’s going on.^[18]

”

Opposition

The Committee to Protect Voters Rights led the campaign in opposition to Proposal 2.^[26]

Opponents

Officials

Rep. Eric Leutheuser (R-58)^[27]

Parties

Michigan Republican Party^[22]

Organizations

Michigan Freedom Fund^[28]

Arguments

Robert LaBrant, a Republican political strategist, said that under the initiative commissioners would be "absolute neophytes... not having a clue about redistricting."^[29] He also said:^[26]

“

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having an independent redistricting commission. My concerns probably focus on two areas: One, the very convoluted way that an independent redistricting commission gets created, and then the criteria for drawing those districts.

It’s so limited to people who have really no experience either in government or with political parties, and some would see that to be a virtue. Well, I think all we have to do is take a look at term limits in Michigan to see that inexperience is not necessarily a virtue.^[18]

”

Sarah Anderson, a Michigan Republican Party spokesperson, stated:^[22]

“

VNP [Proposal 2] places the power of redistricting out of the hands of elected officials who are held accountable to voters and into the hands of a randomly selected group who will be unelected and unaccountable with no qualifications, eliminating checks and balances.^[18]

”

Media editorials

Support

Detroit Free Press: "But the major parties have utterly failed to collaborate on a redistricting process that serves the interests of voters, especially independents who don't consistently gravitate to one party's candidates. VNP's ballot initiative offers voters a practical way to assure fairer representation and encourage more robust political competition in a state that needs both. That's why the Free Press recommends a YES vote on Proposal 2."^[30]
Lansing State Journal: "Because of this structured approach that puts a premium on balance and fairness, the LSJ Editorial Board supports Proposal 2. It’s time for all voices to be heard, and that’s a tall order in districts that are so red or so blue that a dissenting opinion barely registers. It disenfranchises voters and puts in office legislators who are safe to cater to their base rather than represent the interests of all of their constituents."^[31]
Traverse City Record Eagle: "Michigan’s current system of legislative redistricting looks a bit like the old-school game of Tetris. Spin the shape to make it fit; amass lines of fit-together shapes for points. ... We’re ready for more fair play, one that might add more democracy, and subtract lobbyists, donors and self-interested parties from making the rules."^[32]

Opposition

The Detroit News: "If Prop 2 fails to deliver on its promise of eliminating gerrymandering, the fix would require another ballot measure. A better solution would be for Democrats and Republicans to embrace the use of technology to draw balanced districts made up of voters with similar concerns without absurdly distorting the geographic map. In addition, the language defining how communities of interest should be grouped is vague and opens the door to endless litigation. Voters should say no to Prop 2."^[33]

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Michigan ballot measures

There was one ballot measure committee, Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee, registered in support of the measure. The committee raised $16.60 million and expended $16.31 million.^[2]^[34]

The top contributor to the support campaign was the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which donated $6.02 million.^[2]

There were two committees, Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution and Committee to Protect Voters Rights, registered in opposition to the measure. Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution raised $393,180 and spent $393,501 (expenditures exceeded contributions), while the second committee had not reported contributions or expenditures.^[3]

The top contributor to the opposition campaign was the Michigan Chamber PAC II, which donated $136,260.^[3]

Support

The following were the contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.^[2]

Supporting committees	Cash contributions	In-kind services	Cash expenditures
Committees in support of Proposal 2
Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee	$16,265,629.25	$338,943.82	$15,967,911.14
Total	$16,265,629.25	$338,943.82	$15,967,911.14

Totals in support
Total raised:	$16,604,573.07
Total spent:	$16,306,854.96

Donors

The following were the top five donors to the support committee:^[2]

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Sixteen Thirty Fund	$6,000,000.00	$17,250.00	$6,017,250.00
Action Now Initiative	$5,002,580.59	$110,500.00	$5,113,080.59
Kathryn Murdoch	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
SEIU-UHW West	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Stacy Schusterman	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Opposition

The following were the contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.^[3]

Opposing committees	Cash contributions	In-kind services	Cash expenditures
Committees in opposition to Proposal 2
Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution	$305,000.00	$88,180.38	$305,320.33
Committee to Protect Voters Rights	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$305,000.00	$88,180.38	$305,320.33

Totals in opposition
Total raised:	$393,180.38
Total spent:	$393,500.71

Donors

The following were the top five donors to the opposition committees:^[3]

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Michigan Chamber PAC II	$135,000.00	$1,260.00	$136,260.00
John C. Kennedy	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Michigan Chamber Litigation Center	$0.00	$85,000.00	$85,000.00
Fair Lines America, Inc.	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Realtors PAC of Michigan II	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00

Reporting dates

Michigan ballot question committees filed a total of six campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:^[35]

2017 campaign finance reporting dates
Date	Report	Period
1/31/2018	Annual Report for 2017	1/01/2017 - 12/31/2017
2/15/2018	Report #1	1/01/2018 - 2/10/2018
4/25/2018	Report #2	2/11/2018 - 4/20/2018
7/25/2018	Report #3	4/21/2018 - 7/20/2018
10/26/2018	Report #4	7/21/2018 - 10/21/2018
12/06/2018	Report #5	10/22/2018 - 11/26/2018
1/31/2019	Annual Report for 2018	1/01/2018 - 12/31/2018

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: 2018 ballot measure polls

Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size

Glengariff Group 10/25/2018 - 10/27/2018	58.5%	26.5%	15.0%	+/-4.0	600
EPIC-MRA 10/18/2018 - 10/23/2018	59.0%	29.0%	12.0%	+/-4.0	600
The Glengariff Group 9/30/2018 - 10/2/2018	55.0%	22.7%	22.3%	+/-4.0	600
EPIC-MRA 9/21/2018 - 9/25/2018	48.0%	32.0%	20.0%	+/-4.0	600
The Glengariff Group 9/05/2018 - 9/07/2018	38.0%	31.0%	31.0%	+/-4.0	600
Target Insyght 6/24/2018 - 6/26/2018	47.0%	24.0%	29.0%	+/-3.0	800
AVERAGES	50.92%	27.53%	21.55%	+/-3.83	633.33
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Redistricting in Michigan

See also: Redistricting in Michigan

Before 2018, the Michigan State Legislature was responsible for drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries. These lines were subject to the governor's veto power. Statute provided the Michigan Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to congressional and state legislative district boundaries.^[36]

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Michigan after the 2010 census

In 2011, Republicans controlled both chambers of the Michigan State Legislature. Republicans also controlled six of the nine seats on the House Redistricting Commission and six of nine seats on the Senate Redistricting Commission. Maps for congressional and state legislature districts were passed along partisan lines, and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed off on bills for the maps.

Methods of redistricting in U.S.

In general, states vest one of the following three entities with redistricting authority:^[37]

State legislatures: In 37 of the 43 states required to conduct congressional redistricting, state legislatures have the final authority to draft and implement congressional district maps.^[38] Likewise, in 37 of the 50 states, state legislatures are primarily responsible for state legislative redistricting. In these states, legislatures typically adopt district lines by a simple majority vote in each chamber. A state's governor may usually veto the legislature's redistricting plan.^[36]
Independent commissions: The composition of independent redistricting commissions varies from state to state. However, in all cases, the direct participation of elected officials is limited. Independent redistricting commissions exist in six states (in four of these states, independent commissions draw congressional and state legislative boundaries; in two, independent commissions draw only state legislative district boundaries).
Politician commissions: The composition of politician redistricting commissions varies from state to state. For example, in some states, specific officials (e.g., governors, secretaries of state, etc.) are de facto commission members; in others, legislative leaders appoint other legislators to serve as commissioners. In all cases, elected officials may participate directly by sitting on the commissions. In two of the 43 states required to conduct congressional redistricting, politician commissions are responsible for drawing the maps. In seven states, politician commissions are responsible for state legislative redistricting.

Procedures for congressional redistricting in U.S.

Most states are required to draw new congressional district lines every 10 years following completion of United States Census (those states comprising one congressional district are not required to redistrict). In 33 of these states, state legislatures play the dominant role in congressional redistricting. In nine states, commissions draw congressional district lines. In two states, hybrid systems are used, in which the legislatures share redistricting authority with commissions. The remaining states comprise one congressional district each, rendering redistricting unnecessary. See the map and table below for further details.^[36]^[39]

Procedures for state legislative redistricting in U.S.

In 33 of the 50 states, state legislatures play the dominant role in state legislative redistricting. Commissions draw state legislative district lines in 14 states. In three states, hybrid systems are used, in which state legislature share redistricting authority with commissions. See the map and table below for further details.^[36]

Michigan League of Women Voters v. Johnson

On December 22, 2017, the Michigan League of Women Voters (LMV), along with 11 registered Democratic voters, filed litigation to overturn the district maps for state legislative and congressional races in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (R) was named as the defendant.^[40]^[41]

LMV argued that the district maps enacted following the 2010 decennial census violated the constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection. The lawsuit said, "Michigan Democrats based on their political affiliation, and intentionally places them in voting districts that reduce or eliminate the power of their votes."^[41]

On April 25, 2019, a three-judge federal panel ruled in favor of plaintiffs, ruling that 34 congressional and state legislative districts were gerrymandered to benefit Republicans. The court ordered the state to redraw district maps in agreement with Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D).^[42] However, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On October 21, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the lower court's decision.^[43]

Election policy on the ballot in 2018

Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.

Redistricting:

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot

Ohio Issue 1, Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment (May 2018) a - The Ohio State Legislature, through a bipartisan vote, referred Issue 1 to the ballot for the election on May 8, 2018. The measure was written to change the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards used in congressional redistricting in Ohio. Voters approved Issue 1.

Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts. Democrats and Republicans in the Colorado State Legislature voted to refer the measure. It was approved.

Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's state House and state Senate. Democrats and Republicans in the legislature voted to refer the amendment. It was approved.

Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) a - The organization Voters Not Politicians collected more than the required 315,654 signatures for the initiative. The initiative was designed to transfer the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the Michigan State Legislature to an independent redistricting commission. It was approved.

Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.

Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The measure created a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts. The committee Utahns for Responsive Government collected more than the required 113,143 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot.

Voting requirements and ballot access:

Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - Issue 2 was designed to require individuals to present a valid photo ID to cast non-provisional ballots in person or absentee. The Arkansas State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot, with Republicans and four of 30 Democrats voting to put Issue 2 on the ballot. It was approved.

Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) a - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.

Louisiana Amendment 1, Felons Disqualified to Run for Office for Five Years Amendment (2018) a - This measure was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 9 in 1998 to prevent convicted felons from seeking or holding public office for 15 years following the completion of their sentences. Amendment 9 was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2016. It was approved.

Maryland Question 2, Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment (2018) a - Legislative Democrats voted to place the amendment the ballot. The measure was designed to authorize a process for registering qualified individuals to vote at a precinct polling place on election day. It was approved.

Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018) a - Promote the Vote collected more than 315,654 valid signatures to get the initiative placed on the ballot. Proposal 3 was designed to add several voting policies to the Michigan Constitution, including straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day voter registration. It was approved.

Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) a - The Montana State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot, through the support of 80 of 91 Republicans and one of 59 Democrats. The measure was written to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. It was approved.

Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018) a - The measure was designed to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Nevada Election Administration Committee, a project of iVote, collected more than the required 55,234 signatures to get Question 5 placed on the ballot. It was approved.

North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.

North Dakota Measure 2, Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Citizen Voting collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure was designed to clarify that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal, state, and local elections in North Dakota. It was approved.

Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.

Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:

Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) d - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.

Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative was designed to establish a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood. It was approved.

Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - Besides the redistricting provisions of Amendment 1 described above, Missouri Amendment one also made changes to the state's lobbying laws and campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates.

North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Public Integrity collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. Measure 1 established an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest. It was approved.

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) d - The committee Represent South Dakota collected more than the required 27,741 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was designed to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and enact new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It was defeated.

South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative banned out-of-state contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures within South Dakota. Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored the initiative. It was approved.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

Process in Michigan

In Michigan, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election. Signatures older than 180 days are invalid, which means all signatures must be collected within a 180-day window. Amendment petitions must be filed 120 days prior to the election.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2018 ballot:

Signatures: 315,654 valid signatures were required.
Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 9, 2018.

Signature petitions are filed with the secretary of state and verified by the board of state canvassers using a random sample method of verification.

Details on the initiative

On August 17, 2017, the Michigan Board of Canvassers voted 4-0 to approve the initiative for signature gathering.^[44] On December 18, 2017, proponents of the initiative reported submitting more than 425,000 signatures.^[45]

The Michigan Bureau of Elections announced that an estimated 394,092 signatures were valid. On May 24, 2018, the Board of State Canvassers was planning to decide whether the initiative would be certified but canceled citing ongoing litigation.^[46] On June 20, 2018, the Board of State Canvassers voted 3-0 to confirm that enough valid signatures had been collected, allowing the initiative to appear on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018.

Cost of signature collection:
Ballotpedia found no petition companies that received payment from the sponsors of this measure, which means signatures were likely gathered largely by volunteers. A total of $0.00 was spent to collect the 315,654 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.00. Sponsors hired Practical Political Consulting to check the validity of signatures, spending $151,591.66 or $0.48 per signature.

Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Would the ballot measure violate the state's prohibition on initiatives that change the fundamental operation of state government?
Court: Michigan Supreme Court (appealed from the Michigan Court of Appeals)
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendants, keeping the measure on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018
Plaintiff(s): Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution	Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State and Michigan Board of Canvassers
Plaintiff argument: The initiative would change "the fundamental operation of state government," which state law prohibited.	Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the subject restriction on initiated constitutional amendments.

Source: Michigan Supreme Court

On April 25, 2018, a ballot measure committee, Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution (CPMC), that opposed the ballot initiative filed a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Appeals to keep the proposal off the ballot in Michigan. CPMC argued that the initiative would change "the fundamental operation of state government," which state law prohibited.^[47] The ballot measure committee Voters Not Politicians, which sponsored the signature drive for the initiative, motioned to intervene in the case, which was granted.^[48]

On June 7, 2018, the state Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, decided that the initiative "is not a general revision of the constitution, where it is narrowly tailored to address a single subject." The court ordered the "Board [of Canvassers]... to take the necessary steps to place the proposal on the ballot for the general election."^[49]

Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution appealed the ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court.^[50] On July 6, 2018, the state Supreme Cout agreed to take up the case. The justices heard arguments on July 18, 2018.^[51]

On July 31, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled in favor of the defendants, keeping the measure on the general election ballot.^[52]^[53]

Justice David Viviano, writing for the court’s four-justice majority, said that the initiative would not "significantly alter or abolish the form or structure of our government" nor "propose changes creating the equivalent of a new constitution." Therefore, according to Justice Viviano, the ballot initiative did not violate state law. Justices Elizabeth Clement, Bridget McCormack, and Richard Bernstein concurred with Viviano's opinion.^[52]^[53]

Chief Justice Stephen Markman wrote the three-justice dissenting opinion. He stated that the initiative “would affect the ‘foundation’ power of government by removing altogether from the legislative branch authority over redistricting and consolidating that power instead in an ‘independent’ commission made up of 13 randomly selected individuals who are not in any way chosen by the people, representative of the people, or accountable to the people.” Justices Brian Zahra and Kurtis Wilder concurred with the dissenting opinion.^[52]^[53]

Reactions

Katie Fahey, executive director of Voters Not Politicians: "Our state Constitution begins with, ‘All political power is inherent in the people.’ The court’s decision upholds our right as citizens to petition our government for positive change."^[52]

Rich Studley, CEO of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce: "The Michigan Chamber is very disappointed with the State Supreme Court decision that the redistricting ballot proposal met the legal requirements to appear on the November General Election ballot. Unfortunately, Michiganders are now left to wonder what the rules are for future petition drives and ballot proposals."^[54]

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Michigan

Poll times

In Michigan, polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time. Most of the state is observes Eastern Time, while several counties observe Central Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.^[55]

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Michigan, you must be a United States citizen and a resident of your city or township for at least 30 days. Voters must be at least 18 years old by Election Day.^[56]

Voters may register to vote online, by mail, or in person at clerk's offices in their county, city, or township or at a state department branch office at least 15 days before an election.^[56]

Same-day registration is available on Election Day and during the 14 days prior. "Individuals who register to vote within the 14-day period immediately preceding an election must appear in person at their city or township clerk’s office and provide proof of residency."^[56] Acceptable documents for proving residency include:

Michigan driver’s license or State ID card
Current utility bill
Bank statement
Paycheck or government check
Other government document^[56]

Automatic registration

Michigan automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they apply for or update a driver’s license or personal identification card.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Michigan has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Michigan allows same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Michigan law requires 30 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Michigan does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Verifying your registration

This page, administered by the Michigan Department of State, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Michigan requires voters to present photo identification while voting.^[57]

The following list of accepted ID was current as of July 2023. Click here for the Michigan Secretary of State page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.^[58]

Michigan driver’s license
Michigan personal identification card
Current driver’s license or personal ID card issued by another state
Current operator's or chauffeur's license
Current federal, state, or local government-issued photo ID
Current U.S. passport
Current military identification card with photo
Current student identification with photo from an educational institution
Current tribal identification card with photo.

A voter who does not have an acceptable form of identification can cast a ballot by signing an affidavit.^[57]

Voters can obtain a state identification card at a secretary of state branch office for $10. Voters over the age of 65, voters who are blind, and voters whose driving privileges have been terminated due to a physical or mental disability can obtain an identification card for free. Additionally, voters who can present a reason for having the fee waived may also obtain an ID for free. Visit the Michigan secretary of state’s page or call (888) SOS-MICH (767-6424) for more information.^[57]

External links

Text of the Initiative

Footnotes

↑ ^1.00 ^1.01 ^1.02 ^1.03 ^1.04 ^1.05 ^1.06 ^1.07 ^1.08 ^1.09 ^1.10 ^1.11 ^1.12 ^1.13 ^1.14 ^1.15 ^1.16 ^1.17 ^1.18 Michigan Secretary of State, "Voters Not Politicians Initiative," accessed June 26, 2017
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 ^2.4 Michigan Secretary of State, "Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee BQC," accessed December 13, 2017
↑ ^3.0 ^3.1 ^3.2 ^3.3 ^3.4 Michigan Secretary of State, "Committee to Protect Voters Rights Ballot Committee BQC," accessed December 26, 2017
↑ New York Times, "Drive Against Gerrymandering Finds New Life in Ballot Initiatives," July 23, 2018
↑ SCOTUSblog, "Gill v. Whitford," accessed August 20, 2018
↑ ^6.0 ^6.1 Bridge MI, "Michigan Republicans sue to stop redistricting commission before it starts," accessed July 31, 2019
↑ MLive, "Michigan Attorney General asks federal court to drop GOP redistricting lawsuit," August 20, 2019
↑ The Detroit News, "Judge: Michigan GOP redistricting challenges unlikely to succeed," November 25, 2019
↑ ^9.0 ^9.1 ^9.2 ^9.3 The Detroit News, "Michigan Republican Party sues to stop independent redistricting commission," August 22, 2019
↑ National Republican Redistricting Trust, "NRRT Finance Chairman Scott Walker Applauds New Michigan Lawsuit," August 22, 2019
↑ NBC 25, "AG Nessel issues statement on redistricting lawsuit," August 22, 2019
↑ Campaign Legal Center, "Daunt v. Benson," March 17, 2020
↑ Click On Detroit, "Michigan appeals court won’t hear cases questioning redistricting reforms," June 21, 2020
↑ U.S. District Court for Western Michigan, "Daunt and MI Republican Party v. Benson," July 6, 2020
↑ MLive, "Michigan Republican Party loses appeal in attempt to stop redistricting commission," April 15, 2020
↑ U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, "Daunt and MI Republican Party v. Benson," May 27, 2021
↑ ^17.0 ^17.1 Michigan Secretary of State, "Official Ballot Wording," accessed September 10, 2018
↑ ^18.0 ^18.1 ^18.2 ^18.3 ^18.4 ^18.5 ^18.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
↑ ^19.0 ^19.1 Voters Not Politicians, "Homepage," accessed August 17, 2017
↑ Voters Not Politicians, "Leadership," accessed September 4, 2018
↑ ^21.00 ^21.01 ^21.02 ^21.03 ^21.04 ^21.05 ^21.06 ^21.07 ^21.08 ^21.09 ^21.10 ^21.11 ^21.12 ^21.13 ^21.14 ^21.15 ^21.16 ^21.17 ^21.18 ^21.19 ^21.20 ^21.21 ^21.22 ^21.23 ^21.24 ^21.25 ^21.26 ^21.27 Voters Not Politicians, "Endorsements," accessed August 31, 2018
↑ ^22.0 ^22.1 ^22.2 ^22.3 The Detroit News, "Former Michigan House speaker backs anti-gerrymandering initiative," September 19, 2018
↑ Detroit Free Press, "Democratic group gives $250K to redistricting initiative," September 12, 2018
↑ Our Revolution, "Our Initiatives," accessed September 23, 2018
↑ Detroit Free Press, "Jennifer Lawrence campaigns for Michigan's Proposal 2," October 18, 2018
↑ ^26.0 ^26.1 Michigan Radio, "New committee opposing ballot initiative on gerrymandering hints at partisan fight ahead," October 17, 2017
↑ The Daily Reporter, "Leutheuser: “I am against all of the ballot initiatives," September 11, 2018
↑ The Detroit News, "Conservative group spending $1.2M to defeat Proposal 2 redistricting commission," October 23, 2018
↑ U.S. News, "Anti-Gerrymandering Group Defies Odds With 2018 Ballot Drive," November 20, 2017
↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan elections are rigged. Proposal 2 offers a path to fairness," September 23, 2018
↑ Lansing State Journal, "Editorial: How we vote matters, so support Proposals 2 and 3," October 8, 2018
↑ Traverse City Record Eagle, "Editorial: Proposal 2 — Give democracy a chance," October 24, 2018
↑ The Detroit News, "Editorial: Vote no on all ballot proposals," October 9, 2018
↑ Michigan Secretary of State, "2018 Ballot Proposals," accessed December 13, 2017
↑ Michigan Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Filing Schedule," accessed November 20, 2017
↑ ^36.0 ^36.1 ^36.2 ^36.3 All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed December 14, 2017 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "loyola_who" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "loyola_who" defined multiple times with different content
↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
↑ Seven states contain only one congressional district each, rendering congressional redistricting unnecessary.
↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "National Overview of Redistricting: Who draws the lines?" June 1, 2010
↑ MLive, "Gerrymandering targeted in federal lawsuit filed by League of Women Voters," December 23, 2017
↑ ^41.0 ^41.1 Detroit Free Press, "League of Women Voters joins Michigan Democrats in lawsuit targeting gerrymandering," December 22, 2017
↑ Federal judges rule Michigan gerrymandering unconstitutional, order maps redrawn by 2020," April 25, 2019
↑ NBC News, "Supreme Court wipes out ruling on Michigan partisan gerrymander," October 21, 2019
↑ MLive, "Redistricting petition cleared for signature gathering," August 17, 2017
↑ Huffington Post, "Michigan Gerrymandering Reform Hits A Major Milestone," December 18, 2017
↑ The Detroit News, "Redistricting group has signatures, still fighting to make ballot," May 24, 2018
↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State," April 25, 2018
↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State," May 11, 2018
↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State," June 7, 2018
↑ U.S. News, "Michigan Court Orders Redistricting Measure to Go on Ballot," June 7, 2018
↑ The Detroit News, "Michigan High Court to hear arguments over redistricting proposal," July 6, 2018
↑ ^52.0 ^52.1 ^52.2 ^52.3 The Detroit News, "Mich. Supreme Court: Redistricting plan goes on Nov. ballot," July 31, 2018
↑ ^53.0 ^53.1 ^53.2 Detroit Free Press, "Michigan Supreme Court says let voters decide gerrymandering proposal," July 31, 2018
↑ Crain's Detroit, "Michigan Chamber loses court fight to keep redistricting proposal off ballot," July 31, 2018
↑ Michigan Secretary of State, "Frequently Asked Questions: Elections and Voting," accessed April 16, 2023
↑ ^56.0 ^56.1 ^56.2 ^56.3 Michigan Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed April 16, 2023
↑ ^57.0 ^57.1 ^57.2 Michigan.gov, "Notice to Voters: Voter Identification Requirement in Effect," accessed April 17, 2023
↑ 'Bill Track 50, "MI SB0373," accessed June 21, 2023

[text-1] 1.00 ^1.01 ^1.02 ^1.03 ^1.04 ^1.05 ^1.06 ^1.07 ^1.08 ^1.09 ^1.10 ^1.11 ^1.12 ^1.13 ^1.14 ^1.15 ^1.16 ^1.17 ^1.18 Michigan Secretary of State, "Voters Not Politicians Initiative," accessed June 26, 2017

[supportfin-2] 2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 ^2.4 Michigan Secretary of State, "Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee BQC," accessed December 13, 2017

[oppositionfin-3] 3.0 ^3.1 ^3.2 ^3.3 ^3.4 Michigan Secretary of State, "Committee to Protect Voters Rights Ballot Committee BQC," accessed December 26, 2017

[4] New York Times, "Drive Against Gerrymandering Finds New Life in Ballot Initiatives," July 23, 2018

[5] SCOTUSblog, "Gill v. Whitford," accessed August 20, 2018

[bridge-6] 6.0 ^6.1 Bridge MI, "Michigan Republicans sue to stop redistricting commission before it starts," accessed July 31, 2019

[7] MLive, "Michigan Attorney General asks federal court to drop GOP redistricting lawsuit," August 20, 2019

[8] The Detroit News, "Judge: Michigan GOP redistricting challenges unlikely to succeed," November 25, 2019

[secondlawsuit-9] 9.0 ^9.1 ^9.2 ^9.3 The Detroit News, "Michigan Republican Party sues to stop independent redistricting commission," August 22, 2019

[10] National Republican Redistricting Trust, "NRRT Finance Chairman Scott Walker Applauds New Michigan Lawsuit," August 22, 2019

[11] NBC 25, "AG Nessel issues statement on redistricting lawsuit," August 22, 2019

[cons-12] Campaign Legal Center, "Daunt v. Benson," March 17, 2020

[13] Click On Detroit, "Michigan appeals court won’t hear cases questioning redistricting reforms," June 21, 2020

[districtruling-14] U.S. District Court for Western Michigan, "Daunt and MI Republican Party v. Benson," July 6, 2020

[15] MLive, "Michigan Republican Party loses appeal in attempt to stop redistricting commission," April 15, 2020

[16] U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, "Daunt and MI Republican Party v. Benson," May 27, 2021

[title-17] 17.0 ^17.1 Michigan Secretary of State, "Official Ballot Wording," accessed September 10, 2018

[quotedisclaimer-18] 18.0 ^18.1 ^18.2 ^18.3 ^18.4 ^18.5 ^18.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content

[support-19] 19.0 ^19.1 Voters Not Politicians, "Homepage," accessed August 17, 2017

[20] Voters Not Politicians, "Leadership," accessed September 4, 2018

[se-21] 21.00 ^21.01 ^21.02 ^21.03 ^21.04 ^21.05 ^21.06 ^21.07 ^21.08 ^21.09 ^21.10 ^21.11 ^21.12 ^21.13 ^21.14 ^21.15 ^21.16 ^21.17 ^21.18 ^21.19 ^21.20 ^21.21 ^21.22 ^21.23 ^21.24 ^21.25 ^21.26 ^21.27 Voters Not Politicians, "Endorsements," accessed August 31, 2018

[trio-22] 22.0 ^22.1 ^22.2 ^22.3 The Detroit News, "Former Michigan House speaker backs anti-gerrymandering initiative," September 19, 2018

[23] Detroit Free Press, "Democratic group gives $250K to redistricting initiative," September 12, 2018

[24] Our Revolution, "Our Initiatives," accessed September 23, 2018

[25] Detroit Free Press, "Jennifer Lawrence campaigns for Michigan's Proposal 2," October 18, 2018

[miradio1-26] 26.0 ^26.1 Michigan Radio, "New committee opposing ballot initiative on gerrymandering hints at partisan fight ahead," October 17, 2017

[27] The Daily Reporter, "Leutheuser: “I am against all of the ballot initiatives," September 11, 2018

[28] The Detroit News, "Conservative group spending $1.2M to defeat Proposal 2 redistricting commission," October 23, 2018

[29] U.S. News, "Anti-Gerrymandering Group Defies Odds With 2018 Ballot Drive," November 20, 2017

[30] Detroit Free Press, "Michigan elections are rigged. Proposal 2 offers a path to fairness," September 23, 2018

[31] Lansing State Journal, "Editorial: How we vote matters, so support Proposals 2 and 3," October 8, 2018

[32] Traverse City Record Eagle, "Editorial: Proposal 2 — Give democracy a chance," October 24, 2018

[33] The Detroit News, "Editorial: Vote no on all ballot proposals," October 9, 2018

[fin-34] Michigan Secretary of State, "2018 Ballot Proposals," accessed December 13, 2017

[date-35] Michigan Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Filing Schedule," accessed November 20, 2017

[loyola_who-36] 36.0 ^36.1 ^36.2 ^36.3 All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed December 14, 2017 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "loyola_who" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "loyola_who" defined multiple times with different content

[37] All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017

[38] Seven states contain only one congressional district each, rendering congressional redistricting unnecessary.

[brennan-39] Brennan Center for Justice, "National Overview of Redistricting: Who draws the lines?" June 1, 2010

[40] MLive, "Gerrymandering targeted in federal lawsuit filed by League of Women Voters," December 23, 2017

[backgroundlawsuit-41] 41.0 ^41.1 Detroit Free Press, "League of Women Voters joins Michigan Democrats in lawsuit targeting gerrymandering," December 22, 2017

[42] Federal judges rule Michigan gerrymandering unconstitutional, order maps redrawn by 2020," April 25, 2019

[43] NBC News, "Supreme Court wipes out ruling on Michigan partisan gerrymander," October 21, 2019

[44] MLive, "Redistricting petition cleared for signature gathering," August 17, 2017

[reportfile-45] Huffington Post, "Michigan Gerrymandering Reform Hits A Major Milestone," December 18, 2017

[46] The Detroit News, "Redistricting group has signatures, still fighting to make ballot," May 24, 2018

[47] Michigan Court of Appeals, "Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State," April 25, 2018

[48] Michigan Court of Appeals, "Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State," May 11, 2018

[49] Michigan Court of Appeals, "Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State," June 7, 2018

[50] U.S. News, "Michigan Court Orders Redistricting Measure to Go on Ballot," June 7, 2018

[51] The Detroit News, "Michigan High Court to hear arguments over redistricting proposal," July 6, 2018

[dr-52] 52.0 ^52.1 ^52.2 ^52.3 The Detroit News, "Mich. Supreme Court: Redistricting plan goes on Nov. ballot," July 31, 2018

[dfpr-53] 53.0 ^53.1 ^53.2 Detroit Free Press, "Michigan Supreme Court says let voters decide gerrymandering proposal," July 31, 2018

[54] Crain's Detroit, "Michigan Chamber loses court fight to keep redistricting proposal off ballot," July 31, 2018

[55] Michigan Secretary of State, "Frequently Asked Questions: Elections and Voting," accessed April 16, 2023

[mireg-56] 56.0 ^56.1 ^56.2 ^56.3 Michigan Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed April 16, 2023

[mvid-57] 57.0 ^57.1 ^57.2 Michigan.gov, "Notice to Voters: Voter Identification Requirement in Effect," accessed April 17, 2023

[sb0373-58] 'Bill Track 50, "MI SB0373," accessed June 21, 2023

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

Michigan Proposal 2

Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Redistricting measures
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$16,604,573.07
Opposition:	$393,180.38

	v • e State of Michigan Lansing (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? \| Elections in 2024 \| How to vote \| How to run for office \| Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? \| U.S. President \| U.S. Congress \| Federal courts \| State executives \| State legislature \| State and local courts \| Counties \| Cities \| School districts \| Public policy

Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018)

Election results

Overview

Initiative design

Aftermath

2020-2022 redistricting cycle

Lawsuits

Daunt v. Benson

Michigan Republican Party v. Benson

Consolidation of Daunt and MI Republican Party

Text of measure

Ballot title

Ballot summary

Constitutional changes

Readability score

Support

Supporters

Officials

Former officials

Municipalities

Organizations

Labor organizations

Individuals

Arguments

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

Parties

Organizations

Arguments

Media editorials

Support

Opposition

Campaign finance

Support

Donors

Opposition

Donors

Reporting dates

Methodology

Polls

Background

Redistricting in Michigan

Redistricting after the 2010 census

Methods of redistricting in U.S.

Procedures for congressional redistricting in U.S.

Procedures for state legislative redistricting in U.S.

Michigan League of Women Voters v. Johnson

Election policy on the ballot in 2018

Path to the ballot

Process in Michigan

Details on the initiative

Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State

Reactions

How to cast a vote

Poll times

Registration requirements

Automatic registration

Online registration

Same-day registration

Residency requirements

Verification of citizenship

Verifying your registration

Voter ID requirements

See also

External links

Footnotes

Information about voting

2024 Elections

2025 Elections

Analysis

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Trending

SITE NAVIGATION