TheReview_Sept_Oct_2021_FINAL

CAMPAIGNING WITH A PURPOSE: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES/OFFICIALS SUPPORT OF BALLOT PROPOSALS By Christopher Trebilcock

M ichigan’s 1963 Constitution continued the tradition of direct democracy, including the power to amend the Constitution and propose and repeal laws by petition of electors through initiative and referendum. In addition to these statewide initiative powers, Article VII, Section 22 granted this authority to local units of government, where bond issues and charter amendments are regularly presented to voters. Ballot initiatives in Michigan at the state, regional, and local levels are regular and routine. Since adoption of the 1963 Constitution, 33 initiatives for constitutional amendments, 14 statutory initiatives, and 10 referenda have been placed on the ballot for consideration by Michigan electors. 1 This is in addition to the 43 proposed constitutional amendments and 14 referenda placed on the ballot by the Michigan Legislature. 2 Not included in these numbers are the 10 times the Legislature adopted a statutory initiative during the 40-day period after the initiative was presented by the Secretary of State to the Legislature to either adopt or reject. This later process was used most recently to repeal the 1945 Emergency Powers of Governor Act (EPGA) used by Governor Whitmer to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. What often comes with these direct legislative efforts is the desire and need for local government officials to weigh on a proposals’ merits, including passing resolutions, holding forums, and publishing summaries regarding the substance of the proposal. The recent statewide ballot initiative to repeal the EPGA saw local officials at all levels speak in support of and against the initiative. For example, Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel supported the initiative, saying “No one person should have endless authority and ability to bypass another branch of government.” 3 But when does expressing support or educating the public about an initiative violate the prohibition against using public resources for political purposes under the Section 57 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act?

SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

17

THE REVIEW