11/06/2006

What your vote means for proposals

LANSING (AP) — Many voters will step into the voting booth Tuesday knowing they want to keep mourning dove hunting or guarantee more money for education.

But with five measures on the ballot — the highest number since 1996, when there were six — deciphering how to vote can be confusing. A "yes" vote doesn't always bring about change, and a "no" vote doesn't always mean keeping the status quo.

Here's a guide to help voters negotiate the measures they'll see on the ballot Tuesday.

---

PROPOSAL 1 (Trust Fund): This measure would provide constitutional protection to 13 conservation and recreation funds that get their money from licenses and permits for hunting, fishing and boating. The measure would stop the governor and state legislators from diverting the money — which pays for everything from state parks to marinas — for other uses.

Voting "yes" would ban the money from being diverted.

Voting "no" would keep the funds from getting constitutional protection.

---

PROPOSAL 2 (Affirmative Action): This proposal was prompted by a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a general affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan's law school but struck down the undergraduate admission formula as too rigid because it awarded points based on race.

Voting "yes" would ban the use of race and gender preferences in public university admissions as well as in government hiring and contracting.

Voting "no" would allow affirmative action to continue at those public institutions. Private businesses would not be affected if the constitutional amendment passes.

---

PROPOSAL 3 (Dove Hunting): The state's ban on dove hunting stood for nearly a century until the Legislature and Gov. Jennifer Granholm lifted it in 2004. The proposal to ban dove hunting is a referendum on that law, which was suspended once the measure got on the ballot.

Voting "yes" would let mourning doves be hunted during a hunting season.

Voting "no" would restore the ban on dove hunting.

---

PROPOSAL 4 (Eminent Domain): This proposal would prevent governments from claiming eminent domain to seize private property for economic development projects. The practice already is prohibited by a 2004 Michigan Supreme Court ruling, but this measure would enact the ban in the state constitution.

It also would require property owners to get 125 percent of their property's fair market value if it is seized for a public use like a highway or railroad.

Voting "yes" would put the eminent domain ban in the state constitution, where it would be very difficult to change.

Voting "no" would keep the tighter restrictions from being added to the constitution, although some already are essentially in force because of the state court decision.

---

PROPOSAL 5 (Education Funding): The proposed law would boost education spending by at least $565 million, but that money might have to come from the general fund, which could leave less for other areas such as prisons, child protection or grants to local governments.

Voting "yes" would automatically increase funding for public K-12 schools, community colleges and universities each year by at least the annual inflation rate. It also would cap the amount local schools pay for teachers' retirement and shift responsibility for an additional retirement costs to the state.

Voting "no" would keep the status quo, with state lawmakers and the governor increasing or decreasing school funding levels depending on their priorities and the money available.