Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Chacham's Journal: Chronicle/Michigan: State Proposals on the 2006 Ballot. 4

Journal by Chacham

Amendments changes in two years.

I got my sample ballot for precinct 2 at Oak Park City Hall from the City Clerk's Office.

A clerk asked what my precint was, i didn't know, especially since we (in the former Royal Oak Township) were taken over by Oak Park recently. She asked my name, but when i gave it, and later splled it, she seemed not to be able spell it correctly. Finally got it right, and told me my precinct. As she was getting the ballot and handing it to me, i saw a map on the wall, with the precincts distinctly laid out. If only she would have asked me to look, i could have saved her all that time.

I was wondering if i would get the sample ballot, given business hours and my distance from them. But, i had to pay a fine, and 45B District Court is in City Hall, so i grabbed it on the way out.

Here are the Michigan State Proposals on the 2006 Ballot:

PROPOSAL 06-1

A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

  Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.

  Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.

  Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.

  Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.

PROPOSAL 06-2

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

  Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

  Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

PROPOSAL 06-3

A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 160 OF 2004 - AN ACT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNTING SEASON FOR MOURNING DOVES

Public Act 160 of 2004 would:

  Authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.

  Require a mourning dove hunter to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp.

  Stipulate that revenue from the stamp must be split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.

  Require the Department of Natural Resources to address responsible mourning dove hunting; management practices for the propagation of mourning doves; and participation in mourning dove hunting by youth, the elderly and the disabled in the Department's annual hunting guide.

PROPOSAL 06-4

A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PRIVATE PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

  Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.

  Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property's fair market value.

  Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.

  Preserve existing rights of property owners.

PROPOSAL 06-5

A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY SCHOOL FUNDING LEVELS

The proposed law would:

  Increase current funding by approximately $565 million and require State to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges, and higher education (includes state universities and financial aid/grant programs).

  Require State to fund any deficiencies from General Fund.

  Base funding for school districts with a declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment average.

  Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities; shift remaining portion to state.

  Reduce funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance.

And the "fill in the arrow" checking in gone. Now there's an oval to color in, as can be seen on the linked PDFs.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chronicle/Michigan: State Proposals on the 2006 Ballot.

Comments Filter:
  • What happens if large numbers of H-1b Visa holders move in, pushing population far faster than the rate of inflation?
  • by benhocking (724439) <benjaminhockingNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @12:22PM (#16503975) Homepage Journal
    I'd be frightened if I lived in a big city. I can see it now:
    What happened? Drive-by shooting?
    No, Dick Cheney was hunting mourning doves.
  • ...that morning doves were really mourning doves. (I've only ever seen them in the morning, inadvertently reinforcing my incorrect assumption.) I learn something every day.

    On #5, mandatory funding levels generally make me shudder. I've heard the (reasonable, I think) argument that it gives lawmakers less flexibility to adjust priorities during down economic times.
    • by Chacham (981)
      (I've only ever seen them in the morning, inadvertently reinforcing my incorrect assumption.)

      Maybe they're mourning that misconception? :P

      On #5, mandatory funding levels generally make me shudder.

      Same here.

      I've heard the (reasonable, I think) argument that it gives lawmakers less flexibility to adjust priorities during down economic times.

      But i still don't trust them. Open the budget to public scrutiny, i say.

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.

Working...