Traverse City Record-Eagle

Other Views

November 5, 2011

Another view: 'Appropriations' for voters

----

When it comes to “appropriations,” lawmakers are increasingly appropriating something that isn’t theirs — the public’s power to reject unpopular state laws — and they should quit taking it.

Michigan and many other states allow voters to repeal unpopular laws using a ballot referendum. A common exception includes “appropriation” acts, which involve spending money “for state institutions or to meet deficiencies in state funds” (Michigan Constitution, Article 2, Section 9).

The system makes sense. If voters feels strongly enough about most laws to go through the cost and effort to put them on the ballot, they should have the ability to override the Legislature. At the same time, voters predictably won’t like taxes that balance the books. The state shouldn’t risk a mid-year default each time that happens.

However, state lawmakers are lately including spending measures in decidedly non-spending laws. That tactic can only be viewed as an attempt to pass laws that the public cannot repeal.

The latest example in Michigan are bills that would overhaul medical coverage for auto insurance. Bills to change the state’s mandatory, catastrophic-coverage auto insurance include a $50,000 appropriation purportedly for a report and study on the law’s effects, according to Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township.

Yet $50,000 is minuscule relative to the state’s multi-billion dollar insurance system.

True, a report isn’t a bad idea. However, is it essential to implementing this law? Does anything prevent its passage as a separate bill? The obvious answer is no.

A similarly questionable appropriation — $100,000 for a state website and education — was included earlier this year as part of the Legislature’s single-item pricing law for stores. Another was attached to the state’s political redistricting law. Ohio Republicans did the same thing with their redistricting map. Even with good proposals, such add-ons are a problem.

To be clear, chipping away at voters’ rights is a bipartisan irritant. While the Michigan and Ohio statehouses have Republican majorities, similar problems are unfolding elsewhere. In Maryland, a Democratic majority and governor enacted a “DREAM” law in May to give some illegal immigrants new taxpayer-subsidized reduced tuition. Supporters of the law sued to block a referendum, claiming the law was an appropriation.

Sometimes, the issue goes to court and judges rule an appropriation was not necessary and that a referendum may take place.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently did just that with that state’s redistricting map.

It would be better, however, if lawmakers avoided the problem in the first place. They should remember that, if voters are barred from reversing an unpopular law, one likely alternative is to recall state officials who might otherwise be doing good work. ...

(I)t serves everyone’s interests to remove trivial appropriations, such as the auto insurance bill’s $50,000 report, and to allow voters what is legitimately theirs.

— The Daily Telegram (Adrian)

Text Only