Proposal 1
On November 7, Michigan voters will decide whether funds held or earmarked for conservation and recreation should be protectected for that use only, through a constitutional amendment.
Provisions included in Proposal 06-1 would create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the State Constitution, and establish existing accounts as components of the fund.
Other provisions in Proposal 1 include:
* Using current funding sources such as state park entrance fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund the accounts.
* Establishing the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and Non-game Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
Proponents of Proposal 1 believe its passage would eliminate the chance of the conservation and recreation accounts being raided to balance future budgets. The feel it would protect these restricted funds and ensure user fees are spent only on intended programs.
Supporters also suggest that funds already receiving constitutional protection are growing steadily and serving their intended purpose, without diversion.
Proposal 1 has the support of various conservation and recreation organizations and Michigan State Chambers of Commerce. There is no organized oppostion to the ballot proposal.

Proposal 2
State Proposal 06-2, called the ‘Michigan Civil Rights Initiative,? made the Nov. 7 ballot through a successful petition drive inspired by California businessman Ward Connerly, who successfully backed similar initiatives in California and Washington.
If passed, the state constitution would be amended to ban ‘affirmative action? programs in the state government, local governments, public colleges and universities and school districts.
The major impact would be in college admission policies and public hiring and contracting practices.
Advocates, including the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Committee, say policies which give preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin are no longer needed, and may actually harm people of certain socioeconomic backgrounds.
Opponents of the proposal, including an umbrella group called One United Michigan, say affirmative action programs are still needed.
Some groups claim the amendment, if approved, may have unintended consequences such as negating opportunities for women in education.

Proposal 3
A referendum on Mourning Dove hunting in Michigan, known as Proposal 06-3, will face state voters on the November 7 general election ballot.
A ‘yes? vote on this proposal would allow Mourning Dove hunting by reclassifying them as a game bird.
A ‘no? vote would return Mourning Doves to the status of a song bird and continue the ban on hunting them in Michigan.
Dove hunting was legalized Michigan in 2004 for a three-year trial hunt in six counties along the state’s southern border. The purpose of the trial was to allow for a scientific evaluation of the hunt’s effect.
However, the 2005 and 2006 trial seasons were suspended when dove hunting opponents collected enough signatures to call a referendum and place the issue on the 2006 ballot.

Proposal 4
A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
? Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
? Provide that if an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125 percent of property’s fair market value.
? Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
? Preserve existing rights of property owners.

Proposal 5
Proposal 06-5 is a legislative initiative to establish mandatory school funding levels.
If passed, the proposed law ‘will require the state to provide annual inflationary based increases to local public schools, community colleges and four year universities?, said Ken MacGregor, a spokesperson for proposal sponsor, the K-16 Coalitions for Michigan’s Future is a group comprised of statewide education organizations including the Michigan Education Association (MEA).
n The proposed law would increase current funding by about $565 million, and require the state to fund any deficiencies from the General Fund.
MacGregor responded: ‘The initial increase will be $565 million and that rate will change each year with based on the previous years inflation. This funding would come from the General Fund. It would be up to lawmakers to determine this funding.?
n Require State to fund any deficiencies from the General Fund. ‘If the district is short money the state would have to fund the deficiencies rather than the school district pushing taxpayers for more money.?
n Funding would be based on a three-year student enrollment average for districts with declining enrollment.’By using the enrollment average over three years to determine funding rather than a yearly count this would lessen the sudden impact on schools with big declines in enrollment in a given budget year.?
n Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public education facilities.
‘Currently, employees pay a portion and the school picks up the remaining funding for retirement. Under Proposal 5 the state would pay a portion of the retirement along with the employee and school. The district’s amount would be capped at about 14 percent.?
n Reduce funding gap between districts receiving per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving the maximum foundation allowance.
‘Currently the gap is $1,300 and over the next three to five years that gap would be reduced to about $1,000.?