Background: Authorizes the Governor to appoint an Emergency Manager to make decision in financially distressed communities or school districts.
What it does: Gives non-elected gubernatorial appointees the power to change laws and contracts passed by locally elected officials that voters have chosen. Undermines democracy by preventing locally elected officials from taking any government action to serve residents.
Proposal 1 is opposed by:
A. Philip Randolph Institute
AFT Michigan Alliance for Immigrants Rights / Michigan Organizing Project
America Votes
Clean Water Action
Equality Michigan
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA) of Greater Lansing Area
Michigan AFL-CIO
Michigan AFSCME Council 25
Michigan Education Association
Michigan Laborers Union
Michigan NOW
One Michigan
Progress Michigan
ROC – Michigan
SEIU Michigan State Council
Sierra Club Michigan Chapter
Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice
UAW
UFCW
Xicano Development Center
Proposal 1 is supported by:
Independent Tea Party Patriots
Lapeer County Tea Party Patriots
Rattle With Us Tea Party
ReTakeOurGov Tea Party
Vote no on this proposal,lets not let the tea party over turn our elected officials . VOTE NO ,hell N0!
Amen, and Allelujah! ;3
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO………
To me, the emergency manager idea never made sense. Smacks of a government attempt to abuse authority, and I certainly won’t be voting for it. I also don’t get why the tea party would be supporting this. Last I checked, the tea party was against the idea of “big government” controlling what local government does. Tea party mantra is “let the states decide”. Does this “local government>big government” philosophy cease to exist when it’s the Governor telling local governments in our state what to do? Seems like Republicans duped them into falling in line already even when it goes against their beliefs..that didn’t take long. Vote no on Prop 1 folks. Let’s keep the power in the hands of who WE THE PEOPLE elect, not who LANSING wants to pay back.
stick with it league of responsible voters you guys are amazing and i thank you so much for the information even if a lot of people these days dont seem to care others do and your website really helped me.
This one goes over the heads of elected local officials undermining the voters entirely. Definitely voting no on this one.
While I agree with a lot that is said here I find it off-putting that the site says how to vote before it even says what the proposal is. I’ve never had a class where I was given the answer before the topic was ever discussed. I like the idea of having a non-partisan site inform its readers and really dive into the pros and cons to allow the reader to decide for his/herself. Great concept, but I believe you missed the mark.
I am voting no, but because I decided it…
I 100% agree with you!
This one is tough for me. I don’t think they are trying to abuse power they just want to help turn a city/school whatever around because apparently the current people dont’ have a clue how to or it’s city vs the mayor and nothing gets accomplished. I could be wrong but anytime I have heard this happening it’s because the location in need of assistance is facing a complete disaster. When the appointed official takes over I hear of a lot of wasted money they find or of something illegal going on. I get that these people were elected and they deserve a shot but it they are just stealing from the state then the state should be able to place someone in better fit until another election takes place even if an emergency election is needed. Like I said this one is tough for me. Still not sure, probably will go with a NO vote.
My biggest concern is that an Emergency Manager are
a) The mechanism for selecting the EM
b) Who pays the wages of the EM, especially in a financially distressed community
c) There are no checks and balances on the EM
d) No known process to remove the EM
e) How do you determine the ethics of the EM. Too much risk of corruption.
Vote NO. This arrangement disenfranchises citizens. It arranges for a dictatorial form of governing. It is unconstitutional and predisposes that cities of people can not and will not solve problems. While, at the same time, not recognizing cities (urban centers) that have shouldered the burden of every social problem, … answering the needs of the homeless (who usually don’t flock to suburbia, illegal immigrants, and especially losing much-needed income to urban flight (paying for roads, new municipalities, etc.) Let us remember, “…of the people, by the people, for the people…”; our republic living democratically.