Proposal 2 – The League of Women Voters of Michigan opposes Proposal 2, which would ban affirmative action programs. More information on the negative consequences of Proposal 2

Proposal 5 – The League of Women Voters of Michigan opposes Proposal 5 (Mandatory School Funding). For more information on the negative consequences of Proposal 5.

League Opposes Ballot Proposals 2 and 5
The League of Women Voters (LWV) has taken positions opposing both Proposal 06-2, the anti-affirmative action proposal, and Proposal 06-5, known as the "K-16" school funding proposal. Although the LWV never supports or opposes candidates for elected office, it does take positions on selected public policy issues. 

Proposal 06-2: The LWV continues to support affirmative action. It has become clear that the term "affirmative action" is widely misunderstood. It is NOT the selection of an unqualified female or minority over other candidates who are qualified. In fact, federal regulations explicitly prohibit that. Affirmative action addresses this question: Who gets the job (contract, placement) among a number of qualified candidates when there are more QUALIFIED applicants than positions?

Affirmative action is about expanding options for women and minorities; it is about inclusion, not exclusion. It is a tool to promote fair decision-making, not about unfair preferences.

Affirmative action programs counteract continuing injustice caused by discrimination in education, hiring and contracting. Will such injustice disappear if affirmative action disappears? No, rather, one way of addressing inequality will be lost. The LWV believes that Proposal 2 supporters are not acting in the best interests of Michigan's citizens. We urge a NO vote on Proposal 06-2.

Proposal 06-5:  The League of Women Voters has traditionally supported adequate funding for education and recognizes the serious financial problems faced by our public education system. However, LWVMI believes that Proposal 5 is not the appropriate solution.

LWV opposition to Proposal 5 is based primarily on the premise it is unwise to earmark revenues or prioritize expenses for specific purposes without allowing the legislature to evaluate and address competing needs. The League opposed a similar proposal in 2002 that would have earmarked the tobacco settlement revenue for health care programs. Although Proposal 5 is not a constitutional amendment, it would require a three-fourths vote of both houses of the Legislature or another vote by Michigan citizens to overturn or modify this legislation in any way. The 3/4 supermajority provision is a very high barrier for changing controversial, voter-passed legislation. It means, effectively, that 25.1% of either house can prevent any changes in the law. This provision exists for a reason - to keep changes from being made - and that is the way it has worked over the years.

Senate Fiscal Agency analysis shows that if this proposal passes, there would be an immediate mandated increase to the overall state education budget of $566 million. The recent state budget included an increase to schools without this proposal. The question is whether school funding levels should remain within the control of the Legislature as they adopt the state budget from year to year, or whether school funding increases should be taken out of their control.

LWV is not abandoning support and advocacy for adequate funding and better schools. However, the mandated increase will mean less money for everything else unless the Legislature raises taxes. Either state money will be shifted from non-mandated school programs (such as adult education, school readiness or middle school math grants), or other areas the state supports such as social services and public safety will be cut, or perhaps both will be required for the Legislature to balance the state budget.

Sixty-eight percent of the projected first year increase would be a new mandated state funding of the teacher retirement system (MPSERS). The mandate in what the state will be obligated to pay to the MPSERS will make that growing expense a priority over other state budget items for the foreseeable future. Adequate support for schools and state budget priorities are issues that must continually be addressed. Creating mandates without creating mandated revenue is not fiscally responsible. The League urges citizens to vote NO on Proposal 06-5.