Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to
              help Democrats
    The problem: A historical view
   Democrats have not controlled the entire State
    Legislature in 25 years
   Democrats have never controlled the Governor,
    Senate and House when redistricting has
    occurred in the modern one person/one vote
    era, 1965-present
   Since World War II (62 years), Democrats have
    controlled the Governor, Senate and House
    simultaneously for one year: 1983
                       The result
   Democrats have been reduced to a de-facto permanent
    legislative minority in Lansing, especially since 1990

   Democratic constituencies -- women, minorities, labor,
    consumers, the poor and environmentalists -- have little
    voice in the Legislature on issues such as:
       Tort law: Kreiner
       Campaign finance reform
       Health care reform
       Civil rights
       Canadian trash
       Etc.
        The problem: Redistricting
   Redistricting: Definition
     The process by which legislative district lines are
      drawn for 10 years
     In 2002, this process was controlled by
      Republicans and led to a gerrymandered
      reapportionment plan that favored Republicans
     The next redistricting happens in 2011-12 and will
      be in effect for 2012-2021
          Redistricting: Process
   Must control Governor, Senate, House and
    Supreme Court to control the process as
    MIGOP did in 2001-02; Democrats have never
    controlled all four simultaneously in a
    redistricting year
   Control of Supreme Court most important:
    Court can overturn redistricting done by the
    other three
          Redistricting: Criteria
   Focus on preserving county, city and township
   NCEC and other studies show these criteria
    systematically biased against Democrats
The problem: Democrats unlikely to
  control redistricting in 2011-12
    2010 elections will use the Senate and House districts
     gerrymandered against Democrats in 2002
    Many legislative Democrats in marginal districts term
     limited out in 2010
    Mid-term election: Democratic turnout lower
    Continuing political fallout of 2007 Democratic tax
     increase votes
    Governor’s seat is open in 2010
    Democrats must defeat two of three incumbent GOP
     Justices up for re-election in 2008 and 2010 at $10
     million per election in the face of ballot incumbency
     designation; an incumbent Justice has not been defeated
     since 1984
    Controlling redistricting by typical
   Controlling redistricting in 2011 by winning
    Governor, Senate, House and Supreme Court
    (or even just the Supreme Court) is an extremely
    expensive and very long shot proposition
    The problem: 2010 and beyond
   Without significant reform of legislative redistricting
    and the Supreme Court before 2010, the historical
    pattern will continue
   Michigan Democrats likely will not control Michigan
    State Government during 2012-2021
   GOP control of Governor, Senate and House is more
    likely than Democratic control
    in 2010-2020; another “Engler era” quite possible
   Harm to Democratic constituencies will continue: labor
    and tort “reform,” erosion of civil rights and
    environmental protections, budget cuts, privatization
Redistricting reform in 2008 or 2010?
   Redistricting reform by itself will not be approved by
    the voters
   As failed ballot proposals during 2005 in California and
    Ohio demonstrate, redistricting reform by itself is very
    difficult to enact: complex topic, issue becomes partisan
   To succeed, redistricting reform must be a small part of
    a larger, popular state government reform proposal
     The path to change the political
    rules: Streamline state government
   In 2008, use the public’s very negative mood
    and high level of discouragement about state
    government (the worst in 25 years) to enact a
    ballot proposal which comprehensively reforms
    state government, including changing the
    structural obstacles to Democratic control of
    state government in 2012-2021
       Focus groups
       Polling
       Ballot testing
         Affordable way test a specific ballot proposal by
          giving voters the actual ballot language and re-
          create the voting process as faithfully as possible
     The bleak mood of Michigan
   Based on nine focus groups and two statewide
    polls from May-October 2007 performed by
    Greenberg Quinlan Rosner:
       82% believe Michigan on “wrong track”
            Highest wrong track in 27 years of polling
     12% approval of legislative job performance
     25% approval of governor’s job performance

     66% oppose recent tax increases
      Quinlan: environment is ripe
   “The current environment in Michigan is ripe for enacting major
    reforms to the state government.”
   “…voters express broad support for a package of reforms to all
    three branches of the government and the electoral process.”
   “They support these reforms because they make government
    more accountable for its actions and get government back to
    focusing on the most important problems.”
   “Voters react very favorably when introduced to the proposed
    ballot initiative. In the focus groups, about three-quarters of
    participants say they would vote for it, and similarly, respondents
    in the survey begin with nearly four-to-one support, 77 to 20
Reforming the Legislative Branch
   Legislators’ benefits after leaving office to be the
    same as retired state employees
   Stop the revolving door between the Legislature
    and lobbying with one- or two-year lobbying
   Require annual public disclosure of income and
    assets by all legislators
   Reduce legislative salaries by 25 percent – back
    to 2002 levels
Reforming the Legislative Branch
   Reduce the Senate from 38 to 28 and the House
    from 110 to 82
   Redistricting done once per decade by a nine-
    person nonpartisan commission
     Commission must create equal number of
      Democratic and Republican leaning districts, while
      also creating swing districts
     No judicial appeals
      Reforming the Judicial Branch
   Judicial benefits after leaving office to be the
    same as retired state employees
   Reduce judicial salaries by 25 percent
   Toughen disciplinary and conflict of interest
   Require annual public disclosure of income and
    assets for all judges and justices
    Reforming the Judicial Branch
   Add 10 judges to the lower courts
   Reduce the number of Supreme Court Justices
    from seven to five; two GOP Justices eliminated
   Reduce the Court of Appeals from 28 to 20
    judges, most of them Engler appointees
Reforming the Executive Branch
   Benefits after leaving office for the four statewide
    elected officials to be the same as retired state
   Reduce the salaries of the four statewide elected
    officials by 25 percent
   Stop the revolving door between the executive branch
    and lobbying
   Require annual public disclosure of income and assets
    for the four statewide elected officials
Reforming the Executive Branch
   Reduce the constitutional cap on the number of
    state government departments from 20 to 18
   Reduce the number (250+) of state boards and
    commissions to 200
                Election reforms
   Make the Bureau of Elections independent of
   Allow no-reason absentee voting.
   Require post-election audits of election procedures
   Require paper trails for all voting systems
   Ban election official campaign role(s)
   Enact anti-fraud measures
   Prohibit illegal immigrants from registering and voting
Quinlan Analysis of Ballot Proposal
   Disclosure, reduced salaries and benefits are the most
    well-received proposals
   Overwhelmingly, voters are favorable toward some of
    the changes affecting judges, statewide elected officials,
    and legislators:
       Annually disclose income and assets (66 percent strongly
        support, 83 percent total support)
       Reduce health care benefits after leaving office (59 percent
        strongly support, 76 percent total support)
       Reduce their salaries by 25 percent (57 percent strongly
        support, 76 percent total support)
Quinlan Analysis of Ballot Proposal
   Voters feel that they’ve suffered a lot in this
    economic recession, and that the government
    should share in their burden.
   Voters are also supportive of reducing the
    number of state boards and commissions from
    250 to 200 (52 percent strongly support, 80
    percent support).
      Keep but reduce both houses
   Reducing both houses is the most favorable way to cut the
   Voters have reservations about a unicameral Legislature
   Dramatic change with no foreseeable benefits
   Also reservations on part-time legislature
       Voters want a legislature that is working overtime to help move the state
        in a better direction, not one that is scaled back in its commitment to the
   The survey confirms that voters are generally favorable to
    reducing both houses, and attacks that it would create political
    mayhem generate just mild concerns
         Legislative redistricting
   Voters initially favored the redistricting reforms,
   Maintained majority support even after a series
    of tough attacks based on illegal immigration,
    cost and implementation
   The key to its passage is packaging it with the
    other very popular reforms
Term limits taint entire proposal
   Voters do not favor expanding term limits
   Including a term limits repeal or revision could
    tank the reform proposal
     60 percent of voters say expanding term limits to 12
      years in each house would make them less likely to
      vote for the proposal
     Only 33 percent said expansion of term limits would
      make them more likely to vote for the proposal
          “Reorganizing” the courts
   One half of those surveyed heard the judicial cuts as originally
    proposed (cuts only)
        Cutting Supreme Court: 50 percent favor, 40 percent oppose
        Cutting Court of Appeals: 58 percent favor, 31 percent oppose
   Other half heard an alternative plan to reorganize the number of
    judges at each level (cut Appellate and Supreme Court while
    adding local judges)
        Reorganizing courts: 70 percent favor, 20 percent oppose
   This preference for an adjustment in the courts instead of cuts
    fits with the core of this proposal: making the government more
    accountable and focused on the state’s priorities
Executive changes well-received
   Voters react favorably to the proposed cuts to
    the executive branch.
     52 percent of voters say that they strongly favor
      reducing the number of state boards and
      commissions from 250 to 200
     45 percent say they strongly favor reducing the
      number of state government departments from 20 to
              Election reforms
   Election reforms are popular, according to
    polling from 2005-06
   Can pass as part of a package
   However, allowing registration on Election Day
    or within 30 days of an election jeopardizes the
   Anti-fraud and illegal immigrant provisions
    added to preempt attacks
               Budget: Petition drive
   500,000 Signatures                                    $1,250,000
        (10% of 2006 gubernatorial vote + 25% cushion)
        x $2.50/signature
        (includes printing)
   Legal                                                 $150,000
        Drafting petition
        Board of Canvassers
        Litigation
        @ $300/hr. x 500 hrs.)
   Staff supervision of petition drive                   MDP in-kind
   Compliance                                            MDP in-kind

   Petition total: $1,400,000
                Budget: Fall campaign
   Media (3 weeks statewide TV)                                   $2,500,000
   Phone-mail-phone (targeted @ women)                            $475,000
   Literature (1,000,000 x $0.10)                                 $100,000
   Polling (1 baseline and 3 trackers)                            $55,000
   Administration (office, computers, phones, etc.)               $40,000
   Compliance                                                     MDP in-kind
   Legal ($350/hr. x 100 hrs.)                                    $35,000
   Staff                                                          $306,000
        Director (8 months @ $7,000/mo.)                $56,000
        Deputy Director (6 mos. @ $6,000/mo.)           $36,000
        Communications Director (8 mos. @ $5,500/mo.)   $44,000
        Press Secretary (6 mos. @ $5,000/mo.)           $30,000
        Fundraisers (2 for 6 mos. @ $5,000/mo.)         $60,000
        Volunteer Coordinator (4 mos. @ $4,000/mo.)     $16,000
        Taxes                                           $27,000
        Health Insurance ($500/mo.)                     $22,000
        Mileage                                         $15,000

   Campaign total: $3,511,000
                     Grand total
   Petition drive                   $1,400,000

   Fall campaign                    $3,511,000

 Total                            $4,911,000
                    Budget analysis
   Less than half the cost of trying to beat an incumbent GOP
    Supreme Court Justice
   More is spent every four years trying to win the House and
    Senate, usually unsuccessfully
   Less than half the cost of a presidential election year
    Coordinated Campaign
   If the proposal passes, it will reduce the cost and increase the
    prospects of winning the State Legislature every cycle
   Dec. 2007 – Jan. 2008
       Petition drafting

   By Feb. 1, 2008
       Petition drive begins

   July 7, 2008
       Signatures due

To top