Michigan Voters Face Two Ballot Proposals on November 3

Michigan voters will decide two statewide ballot proposals on November 3, 2026, determining whether the state should convene a constitutional convention and impose new restrictions on political contributions from regulated utilities and government contractors. The measures could affect constitutional protections, campaign finance rules, political advertising disclosures, and how organizations communicate about elections.

According to ClickOnDetroit, voters in Livingston County will also encounter local measures involving road maintenance, police funding, school improvements, and community college taxes, depending on their residence. The county has no countywide proposals on the ballot.

Proposal 1 would authorize a convention of elected delegates in 2027 to draft a comprehensive revision of Michigan's Constitution, subject to voter approval. Proposal 2 would prohibit certain political contributions from regulated electric and gas utilities, government contractors with more than $250,000 in annual government contracts, and specified individuals associated with those entities.

Proposal 2 would also expand disclosure requirements for political communications, including certain online advertisements and messages that identify candidates or ballot questions without explicitly urging voters to support or oppose them. The Detroit News reported that violations could result in financial penalties, canceled state contracts, or misdemeanor charges.

Opponents argue that Proposal 2 could impose excessive restrictions on political expression and create legal uncertainty. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce warned that the measure could disproportionately affect businesses and other organizations.

"This egregious proposal appears to silence the voices of job providers and limit free speech for some while giving others, like labor unions, a free pass," the chamber said in a July 22 press release.

Michael Van Beek, vice president for research at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said the proposal could extend campaign finance regulations to a broader range of public communications.

"Proposal 2 would turn neutral, educational information about elections into regulated campaign speech," Van Beek wrote in an email to Michigan Capitol Confidential.

John Sellek, spokesperson for Protect MI Free Speech, said the proposed restrictions could discourage people and organizations from participating in public debate.

"If passed, Proposal 2 will have a chilling effect on perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who don't have anything personally at stake," Sellek said.

Sellek also questioned the initiative's financial backing and raised concerns about potential litigation.

"Perhaps in the ultimate betrayal of its volunteer base, millions and millions of dark money dollars are funding Proposal 2," Sellek said.

Heather Lauer, chief executive officer of People United for Privacy Foundation, argued that the measure could affect nonprofit organizations and donor confidentiality.

"Michigan voters are being sold a false bill of goods that promises the impossible — to remove money from politics — while imposing unworkable rules on basic political speech," Lauer wrote in an email to Michigan Capitol Confidential.

Lauer also warned that the measure could make it harder for citizens to challenge established political interests.

"Ironically, the proposal could increase corruption by making it more difficult for citizens to organize against powerful politicians and the interests already entrenched in Lansing," Lauer said.

Supporters counter that restrictions on contributions could reduce potential conflicts of interest between public officials and organizations affected by government decisions. A Detroit News-WDIV-TV poll conducted August 31 through September 3 found that 71.5% of 600 likely general election voters supported Proposal 2, while 16% opposed it and nearly 13% remained undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Christy McGillivray, co-chairwoman of the steering committee for Michiganders for Money out of Politics, said the initiative targets relationships between political donors and officials who regulate or oversee their interests.

"This is an important first step in getting money out of politics," McGillivray said.

She acknowledged that approval would likely trigger legal challenges.

"There's no silver bullet," McGillivray added.

McGillivray described the group's position on the anticipated legal disputes.

"We're expecting legal challenges. We welcome the fight. And we have attorneys that are very excited about making sure that we put a stop to pay-to-play politics and get back to making sure that our state government is functioning like a democracy should," she said.

McGillivray also explained why the initiative identifies particular offices and officials.

"The pay-to-play relationship is really critical; that's what we're going after," McGillivray said.

Ken Whittaker, an executive committee member for Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, said the group considered the relationship between government responsibilities and political influence when developing the measure.

"We didn't just throw all the positions on there," Whittaker said.

Whittaker described the group's approach to identifying relevant officials.

"We took our time to understand who influences what, who can be influenced, either directly or indirectly," he said.

The Detroit News reported that supporters believe existing restrictions on government contractors in other states could help defend portions of Proposal 2 in court. Karlee Weinmann of the Energy & Policy Institute said Michigan's proposed restrictions on utility contributions appear broader than comparable rules elsewhere.

"are unlike what we know to be on the books in other states," Weinmann said.

Separately, opponents of Proposal 1 have organized a campaign urging voters to reject a constitutional convention. Former Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan and former Michigan Senate Majority Leader and U.S. Representative Mike Bishop joined business and voter advocacy organizations at a Detroit Regional Chamber event on October 19 to raise concerns about a possible constitutional rewrite.

Duggan argued that a convention could disrupt local government planning and the delivery of public services.

"As the state's largest city, Detroit needs to be able to count on the delivery of essential services and investment in our neighborhoods," Duggan said.

He also warned that the convention could complicate municipal budgeting and investment decisions.

"A Constitutional Convention would prevent planning needed to ensure consistent delivery of important programs and services. A Con-Con would create chaos and confusion, making it harder for local governments to budget responsibly, invest and deliver for their residents," Duggan said.

Bishop said a comprehensive constitutional rewrite could expose the state to pressure from wealthy interests and political insiders.

"Having served Michigan at both state and federal levels, I know how important the state constitution is to protect the rights and freedoms of Michiganders of all stripes," Bishop said.

He urged voters to retain the existing process for making specific constitutional amendments.

"A complete rewrite would risk turning it into a political playground for lobbyists, wealthy special interests and political insiders. Michigan voters already have a process to make targeted constitutional changes, one issue at a time. I urge them to vote NO on Proposal 1," Bishop said.

Sandy K. Baruah, president and chief executive officer of the Detroit Regional Chamber, said a convention could create uncertainty during a period of political and economic change.

"Michigan's economy cannot afford two more years of uncertainty and distraction that would come with a Constitutional Convention. Regardless of the election outcomes in November, our state will undergo tremendous political and leadership changes — we have enough on our plate as we plot our trajectory to increase our educational outcomes, improve our per capita income, grow next generation jobs and expand our population. A Con-Con does nothing to achieve any of these objectives. The Chamber strongly urges a vote NO on Proposal 1," Baruah said.

Micheal Davis, Jr., executive director of Promote the Vote Michigan, said a convention could threaten protections already established in the state constitution.

"The Michigan Constitution belongs to the people, not to wealthy special interests looking for a back door to rewrite the rules," Davis said.

Davis also emphasized the importance of preserving voting rights.

"A Con-Con would endanger hard-fought voting rights Michiganders voted to put in our state constitution to protect our access to the ballot. Voters are in charge. Let's keep it that way. Vote NO on Proposal 1," he said.

Rev. Horace Sheffield III, chairman and chief executive officer of the Detroit Ecumenical Ministers Alliance, also opposed convening a convention.

"Michiganders have fought hard for civil rights, voting rights and equality, and we have to protect those freedoms," Sheffield said.

Sheffield warned that rewriting the constitution could jeopardize existing protections.

"We can't risk losing rights and protections enshrined in our state constitution in a Con-Con," he said.

Bishop Edgar L. Vann II, senior pastor and chief executive officer of Detroit's Second Ebenezer Church, said voters had rejected the constitutional convention question on three previous occasions.

"A total rewrite of our constitution would open the door to unpredictable and harmful changes to our state constitution," Vann said.

He also warned that a convention could divert attention from everyday government responsibilities.

"A Con-Con could create years of uncertainty and divert attention from focusing on making government work for everyday Michiganders, not opening the door to a sweeping rewrite of our state constitution," Vann said.

Local ballot questions in Livingston County include a proposed four-year road millage in Handy Township, which would generate an estimated $471,000 in its first year if approved. Pinckney voters will consider a police department millage estimated to raise $248,100.05 in its first year if levied in full.

Brighton Area Schools is seeking authorization to borrow up to $90,275,000 for building renovations, safety improvements, technology, additions, and athletic facilities. The ballot also includes a Mott Community College millage renewal for voters within its district, along with additional school funding questions in the region.

Michigan voters will consider both statewide proposals during the November 3 general election, alongside races for governor, the U.S. Senate, and other public offices.