The ACRI blog documents this mastery of frivolous abuse of process in Missouri.

The Missouri Secretary of State Jean Carnahan is submitting the same ballot summary proposal language that a court rejected last year, following a renewed request by MoCRI organizers to qualify for the 2010 ballot. That's an abuse of power of the highest level (reminding us of Doyle O'Connor).

Simultaneously, the ACLU has already stepped up its frivolty by filing a lawsuit based on arguments it also lost in the last legal battles in Missouri.

If this doesn't prove that preference-based affirmative action supporters will willfully abuse the legal system for the illegal and immoral purpose of financially draining opponents, I don't know what does.

The Michigan State University tuition is rising 9.6%. It's president, Lou Anna K. Simon, is making excuses at this very moment on WJR 760 AM radio's Paul W. Smith show. The question is why?

For several months, Zarko Research has possessed the complete salary database of MSU (and the University of Michigan), for several years. Enough data that, unlike the Lansing State Journal's publication of one year's worth of state employee data, can be analyzed for trend and aggregate information.

The biggest reason for these tuition increases is that outrageously paid administrators can't help but continuing to both increase their own pay and their own number of employees. For example, U-Michigan has roughly 38,000 employees, up 5% from last year, with nearly all of the top 1000 employees in 6 figure incomes. President Mary Sue Coleman makes more than the President of the United States or Governor of Michigan, by over 50% in the former case, at an outlandish and ever increasing $600,000 annually. The argument is made that U-M needs to pay these rates to "remain competitive" - yet Ms. Coleman is the highest paid public university president in the nation. A slow reigning in of the salary - even if we weren't number one in the category - would hardly destroy the university. Indeed, we may be "competitive" in elite liberal circles of thought, and professors might love us mightily for what we do to their pocketbooks, but "competitiveness" is also measured by price and value. As a former U-M alum, I love the school, but the price-value delivered to students isn't "competitive" from an outsiders' perspective.

At 38,000 employees, U-M is both approaching a 1-to-1 ratio of employees to students and is nearly as bloated as the State of Michigan, which employs 55,000 persons (on a much larger budget with larger mission). And that's not saying there isn't room for efficiency in the state - its saying U-M is a bureaucratic beast - not a lean wolverine.

The story at MSU isn't quite as bad in raw appetite but the outline is similar.

ZR will be publishing these lists - at least their top 1000s, along with contextual analysis and statistics.

Smith Interviews Cox on Libby
In other radio interview news, Attorney General Mike Cox is criticizing the George Bush pardon of Scooter Libby. Smith's logical question to the AG is whether he was taking the position to buttress his potential 2010 run for Governor. I'd suggest it reinforces recent on-the-street speculation that Cox might run against Carl Levin for US Senate - a move that would be endorsed by ZR. The Libby question is more focused on foreign policy and judiciary questions that such a race would entail, and Cox's maneuver makes sense. With even left wing blogs reporting on Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski's recent fundraising letter to challenge Levin a second time, the time is now to think about who will challenge Levin. And Rocky - although a nice guy - shouldn't be the person. There would be little downside in having Cox run in 08 for the seat - and while even a Cox win is remote, he's a serious contender - serious enough to require some thought and resource from Levin, whereas Rocky isn't.

Pictured are the relationships between Democratic "Base" (left) precincts and Prop 2 votes and the same for the Republican "Base" precincts (calculated by looking at % of votes going to Michigan State Trustees of each party, subtracting from those bases what amounts to about a 25% dissatisfaction with both main parties due to "undervote" and "third parties" in those races) below. The pictures show a tight correlation, obviously, between precincts with certain party loyalties and Prop 2 votes, as would be expected.

Recently, the Secretary of State finally released databases of voting data for all precincts. The data points therefore are precincts, but with nearly 600 precincts in Oakland County and 1400 in Wayne, this provides a good sample to do some work with. While the SOS data is organized in ways that are far from ideal, they allow some quick aggregate analysis that was previously impossible, here on a county-by-county basis. The graphs show Oakland County, which, as an aggregate, was very near the statewide average (57% voted yes on Proposal 2 here, 57.9 yes statewide). Oakland County also has perhaps the broadest range of types of precincts, from 70% Republican precincts to 10% Republican precincts in Pontiac and Southfield, but mostly in between. It is probably much closer to a cross-section of the state than the data for Wayne (only Oakland is pictured, though I describe numbers from both counties).

The correlation, this time, is surprisingly tighter for Democrats than it is Republicans, with Democrats showing a -.94 correlation coefficient (that doesn't mean 94% voted against Prop 2, it means that 94% of the variation in Prop 2 change on a precinct-by-precinct level results from the party pre-disposition). Republicans chime in at about an .86 coefficient. This would suggest that Democrats broadcast their message on the issue through party channels somewhat efficiently. Visually, one can see wider variation in the highest Republican precincts, suggesting more flexibility at least on this issue (it should also be evident that the Republican base is now smaller than the Dem base in Oakland County!).

In Wayne county the coefficient is .65 for Republicans and -.49 for Democrats, suggesting far more volatility in those precincts (.70 for Republicans and -.66 for Democrats if you look at Detroit only, which is logical given Detroit's greater statistical extremes). This makes some sense given the statistical smallness of Republican sample sizes (we're talking literally 1% of votes (a dozen or less raw votes in many) in some precincts for Republicans) in many of those precincts (which would decrease the statistical reliability and increase variation). It should be noted that in Wayne County, Proposal 2 out-polled Dick DeVos by 12 points just about everywhere (40%-28% (or roughly a 40% relative raw vote margin), and even out-polled top Republican vote getter Terri Lynn Land by a point. In Detroit only, Proposal 2 took 6.7% of the vote (14,902 votes) while DeVos took 4.3% of the vote, or 9,903 votes. That's the same county-wide relative vote margin (40-50% more votes in raw vote gains). If you consider the difference between Land (an MCRI-opponent but no one knew it) and DeVos as soft-persuadables, clearly a different position by DeVos could have had an impact (sufficiently large to win, but unlikely one issue would have done all of it). In Oakland County the soft-persuadables get even bigger. There is also about a .68 correlation in Oakland County with the group I label "Party Dissatisfaction" (the 20% of those who didn't vote for MSU Trustee and 5% who voted third-party for that office) and a Yes vote on Proposal 2. That jives with the theory of independents voting in larger numbers for Proposal 2, although the magnitudes of variation in numbers of independents aren't nearly as great as the magnitudes for party loyalty based on geographic changes, so the measurement would have a smaller effect. Still, as independents grew as a percentage, Proposal 2 support grew as a percentage, proving perhaps the most important point here. Since independents are the only really change-able thing in politics, this shows that a DeVos change on MCRI would have played strong where it counted, and it's already proven that it couldn't have hurt him in Detroit. The Republican theory of the election that gave more weight to Detroit turnout than independent swings simply flips traditional electoral math on its head.

The data is both good news and bad news for Democrats. The Oakland County tightness shows that they got their message out - and Democrats generally responded (although the tightness of response doesn't indicate that there weren't a huge number of Democrats voting for Proposal 2 or that a plan couldn't be devised solely around tightening further, it just means the "defectors" were uniformly spread throughout the state, at my guess about about 25-35% of Democratic voters, which is lower than the early polling data in 2004 which put the number at 45-50% and obviously higher than the exit polls). It also means they got creamed among independents and Republicans. That means in future states, making sure their base sticks isn't going to be enough (unless they follow people into the voting booth). If you look at their strategy - the negativity and style of attack suggests it probably closed some of the gap in their base but that it backfired with everyone else (probably more than the closure). Either the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) language wasn't that deceptive to voters in Detroit (6.7% voted for it), or the strategy of calling MCRI deceptive tightened that base, but at the same time alienated independents outside of Detroit.

Again, there is no way to tell whether a Prop 2 voter would have voted for DeVos or Republicans, had they supported Prop 2. But these numbers show it was a mistake everywhere - including even the City of Detroit - to oppose Proposal 2. They also show that in the highly contested swing areas like Oakland County, DeVos had more room to shore up voters on the edge than the Democrats did. While I doubt the change would have caused DeVos to win the race with that issue alone (since no one can know the "tipping point" in each individual mind), even a tiny bump wins enough votes in the key state House seats to retain control over that body, and it keeps DeVos in a realm of competitiveness in the long-run.

The Lansing State Journal reports important news that Governor Jennifer Granholm is "open" to a Con-Con:

Granholm also said:

• She is open to the idea of a constitutional convention and ideas like the establishment of a progressive state income tax and changes in term limits for legislators.

I've extolled the dangers of the Con-Con, but if Granholm supports it ... and look at the combination of terms there! Establishment of income tax changes, term limit expansion, and a Con-Con.

ZR has been doing a bit of research on Constitutional Convention in Michigan, and this fascinating history at the Bentley Historical Library's online archive, written in 1996 by a U-M researcher, presents to us revelation after fascinating revelation of the process by which the Michigan Constitution's equal protection clause only contained reference to race and national origin and not to sex. This, of course, was a core issue to the anti-MCRI group 44 years later, and also represents evidence of a danger of Con-Cons (Constitutional Conventions).

When Proposal No. 26 came back to the convention for a third and final reading on May 7, Cudlip noted that Kelly, Joiner, and many lawyer delegates were "very much disturbed" at the action the convention had taken regarding the sex issue. Cudlip read from Kauper's letter to explain why all reference to sex as well as the Donnelly amendment should be dropped from Proposal No. 26. "Women," he said, "need to be discriminated against for their own benefit many, many times."

There was quite a debate in 62 about the issue, and Proposal 26 was originally lost by 4 votes. Kauper is a U-M Law Professor who was giving the Convention scholarly advice. At that time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had not been passed, and there was no experience with its "bona fide" exception (segregated restrooms, lockerrooms, etc.).

But that's a remarkable quote in a remarkable time-frame.

The rest of the scholarly history goes on to discuss other issues of the Convention, notably the controversy over creating a state Civil Rights Commission like the US Commission that had recently been formed at that time. The Commission was created.

If there is another Convention in 2009 or 2011 (hopefully there isn't, but...), let's work to abolishing both the MCRC and the Board of Canvassers. Keep that in mind if you're on the left and think a Convention might be a good idea - you can be certain I'll be running for delegate if it happens.

The Detroit Free Press analyzes and interviews Mike Cox regarding his chances of running for Governor of Michigan in 2010. In doing so, it unearths this great quote which hits the nail on the head.

Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos "made a mistake" by coming out against Proposal 2, Cox said. The issue would have been a terrific opportunity for DeVos to "show that he was in touch with the concerns of ordinary people."

The Free Press notes:

A lot of Republicans were "just afraid to talk about it," because they didn't want to be criticized by elite leaders in business and the media, Cox said.

He didn't add that their silence made his advocacy more conspicuous (and valuable in a GOP primary down the road).

But we will.

Cox didn't plan it that way. It was the vacancy of the rest of Republican establishment that gives Cox the right to claim to a banner in 2010. And it appears that MCRI as an issue isn't going away anytime soon. There will be straggling legal issues and upcoming brouhahas about a Constitutional Convention and other states fighting the battle.

Right now, the Michigan Republican Gubernatorial picture has Mike Cox and Terri Lynn Land standing like twin towers as leaders. But heavyweights like Candace Miller could appear, and Craig DeRoche is already trying to plot paths of various types to the office. Jack Hoogendyk of Kalamazoo and Nancy Cassis here in Oakland County both ran in 2006 until DeVos got in, and presumably some purpose was in their heads.

In major news that ZR appears first to report publicly, HB 4024 - HJ2 was read and introduced yesterday and referred to the House Ethics and Elections Committee.

Sponsored by Rep. Dave Hildenbrand (R), HB 4024 is an attempt to place on the 2008 ballot a ballot question that would call for a Constitutional Convention, which would thereby convene in 2009. Hildenbrand may be doing some bidding for former Speaker DeRoche, whom Tim Skubic speculated wanted to chair a convention as a road to the Governor's mansion (mirroring the way George Romney did in 1963). The problem for DeRoche previously was the timing. There will be a 2010 ballot question by law (Michigan's Constitution requires the question be asked every sixteenth year). A 2010 ballot question could only have produced a Convention as early as 2011, doing gubernatorial candidates little good.

Here's the text of the proposed joint resolution to create place the issue on the ballot:

HOUSE BILL No. 4024
January 22, 2007, Introduced by Rep. Hildenbrand and referred to the Committee on Ethics and Elections.
A bill to provide for submitting the question of whether to call a constitutional convention to the electors of this state.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. (1) At the 2008 general November election, the question of whether to call a constitutional convention to draft a general revision of the state constitution of 1963 shall be submitted to the electors of this state. The question submitted to the electors shall be substantially as follows:
"Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened to draft a general revision of the state constitution of 1963 for presentation to the state's electors for their approval or rejection?
Yes ____
No ____".
(2) If a majority of electors approve the question presented in subsection (1), a constitutional convention shall be called in accordance with section 3 of article XII of the state constitution of 1963.

With all due respect to the Republican former-Speaker and Representative, ZR opposes this unwise effort that risks major achievements by the people in restraining tax growth, protecting the civil rights of all, defining marriage, and allowing the people access to their Constitution.

Paul Jacob, according to this google news alert article (on the Constitutional Convention in Michigan) I just received from Free Market News, recognizes the danger presented by Citizens for Michigan. Jacob is a national libertarian organizer, most known for the Term Limits movement of the early 90s.

MICHIGAN POLS SEEK MORE POWER
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

They call themselves "Citizens for Michigan," but to Paul Jacob of Common Sense, they are hardly your rank-and-file "citizens," and their ideas do very little to promote "citizens' rights."

On the contrary, he notes, if this group has its way there would be far less direct citizen input into the running of the Land of 1000 Lakes. "Sure, they're citizens, too," he admits. "But they’re a little different than your average Michigander. You can tell by the changes they advocate. All have one thing in common: stopping Michigan citizens from voting ... on anything."

He lists among these measures their efforts to put an end to referendum petitioning, election of both judges and State Board of Education members, and even open votes on legislative pay-increases. Instead, all laws would be passed by the elected officials, the governor would appoint the judges, and the pay-raises would become automatic. And in the realm of Jacob's own favorite issue, the plan would repeal, or at least weaken severely, the existing term limits on elected officials. - ST

Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network

ZR is working on more information regarding this issue. The MCRI implications alone warrant its spot on the radar, but if that were the only concern it wouldn't be that big of an issue. The broader agenda of Citizens for Michigan to completely gut the people's ability to act as check on legislators, and to repeal many popular initiatives that the people may almost now take for granted, is worth the attention. And its not just a hypothethical issue - it will, for certain by law, be on the 2010 ballot.

David Eggert of the Associated Press writes here about the ongoing battle between Justice Elizabeth Weaver and the four other Republicans on the Michigan Supreme Court.

Weaver continues to maintain her old 2002 campaign website, and has some of the materials including her dissents attacking the other justices on the front page. Ironically, I found four of her "10 Principles", posted in the reverse-Letterman-top 10 style, to be most interesting:

6. Avoid Unnecessary Disputes and Confrontations. They cause friction, and friction wears things out.

5. Don't Let the Turkeys Get You Down.

4. You Catch More Bees With Honey Than Vinegar. Treat people as you would have them treat you.

1. Be a Goodfinder, a person who seeks out the good in himself or herself and others.

Weaver comes up for re-election in 2010, although she talking about resigning in 2005 (as probably part of this rift). Regardless, it's a dispute that needs to be resolved.

Apparently, Jack Lessenberry has joined the fray of those liking the idea of a Constitutional Convention. Here, he writes (and you can hear him too) about and interviews John Axe, Chair of Citizens for Michigan, on his radio show.

What, mind you, is Jack's favorite part about Citizens for Michigan's proposal:

Best of all, the recommendations make it harder -- though not impossible -- to amend the constitution.

No surprise. You may recall Jack Lessenberry as one of the most vitriolic, anti-Ward Connerly writers during the Proposal 2 effort. The attacks were personal and vindictive. If Lessenberry believes something, that very fact, though alone not enough, leads one to ask whether it is something that should be believed.

Regardless, Lessenberry, unlike Phil Power who accepts C4M's recommendations minus the Con-Con, has bought into the whole story hook, line, and sinker.

Can Citizens for Michigan get this done without having a constitutional convention? Maybe … but I doubt it. My guess it that they will work to get the voters to approve a con-con four years from now. And I think that is a good idea.

Lessenberry is keen to make some other points.

So now our constitution has more amendments than the federal one. There are so many that they are starting to cripple the lawmakers’ ability to govern.

This is why he praises crippling the people's ability to act as a check against failed and corrupt lawmakers - because he sees the world first as something to be "governed" by elite lawmakers, not as a place where final authority rests with the people. Who cares whether the people of Michigan have changed their Constitution more than the US Constitution has been changed. They have done so BECAUSE THEY CAN, and they can because they should be allowed to. If anything, Lessenberry's argument could be made to ease the federal Constitution's change requirements (if I eased it at all, it would be a very small increment, like allowing the states to initiate their own amendments rather than requiring state ratification only after Congressional initiation and approval), although the "stakes" are higher there and there are no multiplicities of states allowing for "state experimentation". Once a mistake is made federally, it affects all the states - hence, there should be a higher hurdle. Mistakes in a few states during experimentation is actually a built-in benefit of the federal system - we can't innovate without some error.

Another point Lessenberry was keen to make is about C4M's "bi-partisian" composition - with particular attention to the presence of L. Brooks Patterson and Attorney-General Frank Kelley.

Citizens for Michigan was formed to address that. This is a truly bipartisan group. Longtime state attorney general and liberal Democrat Frank Kelley once ran against L. Brooks Patterson, the conservative Republican czar of Oakland County.

I have to say that, although I have tremendous respect for Brooks Patterson (and Frank Kelley in a different way), this Con-Con issue is going to be one that cuts across party lines on boths sides, and throwing around such names hardly answers the question of what is right or the best policy. And we need to separate personalities and endorsements from issues, just as we should also separate the question of a Constitutional Convention from what may be some worthy reforms that are part of the 63 recommendation package. If the reforms are "housecleaning" or so good, why can't the legislature put them up on the ballot individually and let the people vote on them. The winning ideas should be able to survive on their own - not lumped into a an all-or-nothing package. This would be true leadership by the legislature. Certainly, we can all agree with C4M that about 30 recommendations are housecleaning removals of unconstitutional language, etc. And we can probably come to a consensus even on some of the policy reforms likes changing the Regental selection process (although going to Gubernatorial appointment strikes me as the wrong approach - our local history has always been a separate independent branch of governance for Regents - we could at minimum change the party caucus nomination process to an elected primary (alone, that would be a world of improvement), and from there I'd narrow the Regents elected territories to something mirroring Congressional districts so that the money requirements for a statewide race wouldn't be in play (right now, it could easily be one Regent for every two, although redistricting would have to be accounted for). Or why not simply do away with Regents altogether - if you've sat in on their meetings, they appear to be unnecessary relics - and simply have a statewide election for each of the big-three's university presidents (make it a 12 year term, or something long). Imagine a U-Michigan president that was actually responsive to the people?

And if you don't like me or these ideas, imagine all the ideas that could come out a Consitutional Convention?

The following update was added to my original response to the news of the Constitutional Convention recommendations by Citizens for Michigan.
UPDATE: 1/3/2007
A closer reading of Phil Power's original op-ed (and several variations across different papers now), shows that he is against a Constitutional Convention, and would prefer that all or most of C4M's recommendations be adopted by the legislature or in segments through the normal process. He's also listed as resigned from the C4M board - originally ZR thought this was due to other considerations, but some of it may have to do with their recommendation of the "ConCon" (Constitutional Convention). Why is Power against the ConCon? Because their are too many radical right and left wingers around today, and he is the self-proclaimed paragon of the Center for Michigan. I suspect it is a combination of factors - and that Power remains highly allied with C4M, but is pursuing the other track (legislative placement on the ballot of specific issues) on this issue. With his point that each individual issue should be addressed, I concur so long as the people of Michigan vote on them. And some of the recommendations of C4M are worthwhile - even a blind squirrel gets its nuts - such as reform of the Regents and Judicial (s)election processes, cleaning up unconstitutional sections, etc. But the serious changes to our tax levying process, lengthening term-limits, and ending the citizen-initiative are serious policy changes. Say no to anything that curtails the citizen-initiative, and if you have a serious proposal to lengthen term-limits or the tax-process, while I would probably oppose both I have no objection to groups either collecting the signatures or getting the legislators to put it on the ballot and letting the people decide. I suspect C4M knows though what the outcome of those votes is likely to be and thinks it can squeeze them into a ConCon.