They’re not part of the recent federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a new Michigan law that limits the ability of local governments and school districts to provide information regarding ballot issues to voters, but local officials are certainly no fans of what opponents are calling a ‘gag order.?
‘I don’t like the law,? said Addison Twp. Supervisor Bruce Pearson. ‘You should at least be able to tell (voters) the facts. To sit there and act stupid and say, ‘I can’t tell you anything? is kind of idiotic.?
‘It’s just wrong,? said Oxford Twp. Supervisor Bill Dunn. ‘Everybody always talks about how voters need to have all the facts and then, the state goes and ties our hands when it comes to putting information out there. Somebody wasn’t thinking when they wrote this thing.?
‘It’s trampling the Constitution,? said Leonard Village President Mike McDonald. ‘Unfortunately, I think this type of legislation coming from our state House and Senate (is) indicative of the type of people that are trying to micro-manage (government at the local level). I think it overstepped every bound of rational thinking . . . It’s such a broad-sweeping law that it just defies common sense.?
On Jan. 6, Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law Public Act 269, which contains a provision ? Section 57(3) ? that prohibits a public body, or a person acting for a public body, from using public funds or resources, during the 60-day period before an election, for a communication by means of radio, television, mass mailing or prerecorded telephone message if the information it contains refers to a local ballot question.
An individual who knowingly violates this provision faces a fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to one year in jail. If the violator is not an individual, the fine is $20,000 or an amount equal to the improper expenditure, whichever is greater.
‘I think it’s too far-reaching because we are not able to inform residents of the facts,? said Addison Twp. Clerk Pauline Bennett.
‘I think it’s unfortunate,? said Oxford Twp. Clerk Curtis Wright. ‘I guess if (voters) want that information they’re going to have to talk to somebody else besides us.?
‘Obviously, I don’t agree with it,? said Oxford Village Councilman Bryan Cloutier, who’s also the director of the Oxford Public Library. ‘As the informational hub of the community, we’re all about access to information and getting factual data out to the public when they request it. Obviously, this (law) does limit us in that respect and that doesn’t sit well with any of us in the library industry.?
Proponents of the new law say it’s designed to prevent local governments and school districts from using public money to campaign, either directly or indirectly, for proposals such as millage requests and bond issues.
But prior to this, the state already had a law on the books that prohibited using tax money to advocate for or against ballot issues.
Opponents of PA 269 point out that over a three-year period, the Michigan Department of State had only five valid complaints in which local entities violated existing state law.
Opponents also say PA 269 goes too far because it prohibits the dissemination of purely factual information as well.
Last week, 17 government and school officials, along with one private citizen, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Detroit to block the new law, claiming Section 57(3) is unconstitutional. The suit argues this provision violates First Amendment free speech rights and 14th Amendment protections of due process.
Wright believes that as an elected official, he has a ‘duty? to do his very best to supply voters with all the facts, so they can make informed decisions at the polls. This new law deprives voters of a quick and easy resource, in his opinion.
‘That’s what we’re here for ? to try to help people out if they have a question,? he said. ‘We’re here to share information.?
‘A lot of people, a week before the election, that’s when they get motivated to start reading material (about) what’s on the ballot,? Pearson said. ‘You should at least be able to tell them the facts. It shouldn’t be biased in any way.?
‘When people come and ask me something, I try to be truthful and straightforward in my answers. I don’t tell them how to vote,? the supervisor continued. ‘I try to be open and transparent. I don’t care if they vote yes or no, that’s up to them. But they should at least have the opportunity to be informed.?
One of a local government’s primary functions is to provide information to the public because it’s the level that’s closest to the citizenry and the most accessible, according to Pearson.
‘When you come into the township, you want immediate answers,? he said. ‘That’s basically what people are expecting from us. You go to Lansing, you get the answer in a month.?
When Snyder signed PA 269, he called upon the state Legislature to address the concerns expressed by local government and school officials. In a letter to lawmakers, he wrote that school districts and local governments ‘should still be allowed to distribute basic information about an election including the proposed or final ballot language and the date of the election.?
Cloutier views this new law as an example of state legislators acting in haste.
‘They often times do things rather quickly at the last moment and (don’t) really, completely, fully understand what they’re doing,? he said. ‘I think they sometimes unintentionally pass laws without really realizing all of the negative impacts they can have.?
The controversial Section 57(3) was part of a floor amendment during a late evening vote in December, according to a statement released by Michigan Townships Association.
‘This amended version included language that was not subject to testimony or public review,? the statement read.
‘I don’t think, at least I hope that it wasn’t their intent to basically place a gag order on us,? Cloutier noted.
McDonald views the law as an example of state lawmakers? hypocrisy.
‘They won’t reform (campaign) finance laws that affect them, but if affects anybody else, it’s okay,? he said. ‘That’s the message that I get from this.?
State Rep. Brad Jacobsen (R-Oxford), who voted in favor of the law, said there’s a desire in the legislature to address this issue, but the federal lawsuit has complicated matters.
‘We know there’s a problem. We’re trying to fix it. It’s just a matter how do we go about fixing it now with a lawsuit out there,? he said. ‘That’s put a wrench into the fix.?
Jacobsen said it’s going to be up to the state’s legal advisors to determine whether the legislature carries on with changing things or waits for a decision from the court.
Two bills to repeal Section 57(3) have been introduced, one in the House and one in the Senate. Another set of bills was introduced in both chambers to modify PA 269 by permitting the production or dissemination of factual information and requiring a public body to provide a ‘fair presentation? of facts.
Jacobsen believes calling the new law a ‘gag order? is ‘really overblown.?
‘What the bill really did is reinforce what’s already law, that you can’t use public money for advocating for a ballot proposal,? he said.
This reporter pointed out the provision in PA 269 doesn’t make any distinctions between communications designed to advocate for or against ballot issues and those intending to simply provide factual information to voters.
But Jacobsen doesn’t believe it prohibits informational communications from local governments and school districts as opponents are claiming.
‘I don’t think it’s that extreme,? he said. ‘I guess it’s a matter of interpretation.?
However, he did admit it’s not very clear.
‘It was an attempt for clarification that just muddied things up actually worse,? Jacobsen said.
The state representative, who served as an Oxford Township trustee from 1984-2000, noted he is not opposed to public bodies disseminating objective information to voters.
‘I’ve been there,? Jacobsen said. ‘I know at the township, we always worked very strenuously to make sure that we didn’t overstep what we could and could not do with statements (concerning ballot proposals). I don’t have a problem with that.?