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.

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.

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.