2006 House Joint Resolution Z (Require Constitutional amendments to be appoved twice )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Chris Ward on July 26, 2006, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to require future Constitutional amendment initiatives to be approved by the majority of voters in two successive general elections before they are adopted.
- Referred to the House Oversight, Elections and Ethics Committee on July 26, 2006.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Chris Ward on July 26, 2006. New Comment

1) Good for the goose? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2006]
If two initiatives is going to be the standard for the people, lets add that no law shall be effective unless passed in two different election cycles of the legislator. That would slow down partisian bills
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Awesome [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2006]
or we can just vote two times at the poll. Maybe that would get it through to them.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) WCTaxpayer [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2006]
One man two votes. Shall we do that on everything? This is a warning to every taxpayer. Find out if your legislator votes for this resolution. My guess is he is serving his interest not yours. Just like they throw out both sinatures on a petition without evidance that it was done deliberately, this is another attempt to disenfranchize the voter.

Better we pass a constitutional ammendment requiring legislators to read the entire bill that they are voting on and to write a 5000 word essay on the effects it would have on their constituents. That would take up their time and give then less time for these foolish resolutions.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) HJR Z [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2006]
2006 House Joint Resolution Z (Require Constitutional amendments to be appoved twice )

Is Rep. Chris Ward out of his mind? Does he think we are all imcompetent to vote properly?

A citizens iniative (petition drive) takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. How dare he propose that we are all idiots and have to vote twice on an iniative in order to get it right.

Where would the Headlee Tax Limitation Amendment be if it had to get voted on twice, and take another year of waiting for the next general election before it can be passed. What an insult to all of us who wish to have the right of redress.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Step In The Right Direction [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2006]
Excellent proposal.

Amending the constitution of our state is very serious business. Having to approve a proposed amendment twice before it is adopted would provide a proper opportunity for reality check.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) proper opportunity [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2006]
the time and place for the proper opportunity for a reality check is before you cast the vote.

it's your duty and your responsibility to do it.

doing it twice implies that you can't do it right the first time.

how many times will it take before the libs are satisfied with the results?

Reply New Comment

Line

7) Good Practice and Public Policy [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2006]
This is not a iberal or conservative issue. It is about what consitutes good public policy and practice when it comes to amending the Michigan Constitution.

>how many times will it take before the libs are satisfied with the results?<

I believe the resolution in question would require that any referendum proposal to amend the Michigan Constitution would have to be approved by voters in two consecutive general elections before it could be adopted. That is a very reasonable proposition, given the gravity of any decision to change the basic rules of our state government.

The only sorts who would object to such a reasonable proposal are those who fear the propositions they support might not stand much chance of prevailing twice in a row. Propositions that might not withstand the test of time over a measly two years seem like something short of good additions to the constitution. Those capable of receiving a second consecutive approval votes after two years of real public scrutiny almost certainly are stronger amendments.

Reply New Comment

Line

8) Hmmm [by Anonymous Citizen on July 31, 2006]
makes you wonder why someone would want to amend our constitution in this way. I wonder what his agenda is?
Reply New Comment

Line

9) constitutional amendments [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2006]
It is my firm beleif that Mr. Ward is trying evenything in his power to stop the democratic process in this state and since I know he is not smart enough to be doing this on his own I would love to know who is designing this attack.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) His supporter [by Anonymous Citizen on July 30, 2006]
Mr. Ward is/was smart enough to get elected, and he will be elected again.

Unless you are an elected offical, please walk in his shoes before you pass judgement.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) to "supporter" [by crazycajun on August 1, 2006]
why on earth would he want to have constitutional amendments voted on TWICE?

the only logic in it is to be able to slow down or stop the process of constitutional amendments.

i'll bet if we suggested that all lawmaker pay raises had to be voted on by the people TWICE that he'd be against it.

i am of the opinion that this legislation is in response to the recent introduction of joint resolution "Y", which is to bring the death penalty to michigan.

if the man you support believes that the death penalty is wrong, let him vote against it, ONCE.

one man, one vote.
Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site