Michigan’s Three State Proposals Clarified


By Doug Marrin, STN Reporter

Michigan voters will decide on three State proposals in the Nov. 8 General Election. Here are nonpartisan summaries of the proposals. For Proposal 3 regarding reproductive rights, we’ve included arguments for and against. For a more comprehensive look, visit the sources listed at the end of the article.


A proposal to amend the state constitution to require annual public financial disclosure reports by legislators and other state officers and change state legislator term limit to 12 total years in legislature

This proposed constitutional amendment would:

  • · Require members of legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general file annual public financial disclosure reports after 2023, including assets, liabilities, income sources, future employment agreements, gifts, travel reimbursements, and positions held in organizations except religious, social, and political organizations.
  • · Require legislature implement but not limit or restrict reporting requirements.
  • · Replace current term limits for state representatives and state senators with a 12- year total limit in any combination between house and senate, except a person elected to senate in 2022 may be elected the number of times allowed when that person became a candidate.

Voting “Yes” supports this constitutional amendment changing the term limits for state representatives to three 2-year terms (6 years) and state senators to two 4-year terms (8 years) or a combined 12 years total in the state legislature.

It also requires state legislators and executive officials to file annual financial disclosure reports on their income, assets, liabilities, gifts from lobbyists, positions held in certain organizations, and agreements on future employment.

Voting “No” opposes this constitutional amendment, favoring instead the continuance of term limits for a state representative to be three 2-year terms (6 years) and a state senator to be two 4-year terms (8 years).


A proposal to amend the state constitution to add provisions regarding elections.

This proposed constitutional amendment would:

Recognize fundamental right to vote without harassing conduct;

  • Require military or overseas ballots be counted if postmarked by election day
  • Provide voter right to verify identity with photo ID or signed statement
  • Provide voter right to single application to vote absentee in all elections
  • Require state-funded absentee-ballot drop boxes, and postage for absentee applications and ballots
  • Provide that only election officials may conduct post-election audits
  • Require nine days of early in-person voting
  • Allow donations to fund elections, which must be disclosed
  • Require canvass boards certify election results based only on the official records of votes cast.

Voting “Yes” supports amending the state constitution to include the above voting policy changes.

Voting “No” opposes amending the state constitution to include the above voting policy changes.


A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy and abortion; allow state to regulate abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right

This proposed constitutional amendment would:

  • · Establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy, such as prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility
  • · Allow state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, but not prohibit if medically needed to protect a patient's life or physical or mental health
  • · Forbid state discrimination in enforcement of this right; prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment
  • · Invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment.


  • ACLU of Michigan
  • Michigan Voices
  • Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan
  • The Michigan Daily


  • Sommer Foster, co-executive director of Michigan Voices: "Michigan has a 1931 law on the books that would not only ban the right to have an abortion, but also would criminalize the procedure. And so we think that this is the best way to protect your reproductive health in Michigan."
  • Loren Khogali, executive director of ACLU of Michigan: "Now is the moment for us to come together to protect this fundamental right for Michigan as we hold our collective breath for the Supreme Court’s ruling. It is an all-hands-on-deck moment, and we will pursue every option available to secure reproductive freedom for all Michiganders."
  • Nicole Wells Stallworth, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan: "We have reached a critical moment in history for abortion access in Michigan with the Supreme Court poised to overturn nearly 50 years of precedent and restrict abortion access for 2.2 million Michiganders. We are exploring a ballot measure that would preserve every individual’s constitutional right to make the very personal decision about reproductive healthcare."


  • Michigan Catholic Conference
  • Right to Life of Michigan


  • Michigan Catholic Conference: "We are committed to defeating this extreme proposal that allows abortions up to the moment of birth and invalidates every common sense limit on abortion, such as parental consent, health and safety regulations on abortion clinics, and more."
  • Citizens to Support MI Women and Children: "This poorly-worded amendment would repeal dozens of state laws, including our state’s ban on tax-funded abortions, the partial-birth abortion ban, and fundamentally alter the parent-child relationship by preventing parents from having input on their children’s health."
  • Rebecca Mastee, policy advocate for the Michigan Catholic Conference: "While the legality of abortion is contingent upon democratic structures, it is unfortunate that the judicial branch is being used to try to invalidate a longstanding policy approved by elected representatives and left untouched by the Legislature for nearly a century since.


Michigan Board of State Canvassers https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/bsc

Ballotopedia https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_2022_ballot_measures

Michigan State University https://www.canr.msu.edu/michigan-ballot-proposal-forum/index

I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified