On Tuesday, November 7, Michigan voters will have the option of voting for or against five ballot proposals, some of which would require amending the state constitution.
The following information provides a brief overview of each ballot proposal, along with the positions of various groups supporting or opposing the proposal.

State Proposal 06-1 will determine whether funds held or earmarked for conservation and recreation should be protectected for that use only, through a constitutional amendment.
Provisions included in Proposal 1 would lead to the creation of 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.

State Proposal 06-2, called the ‘Michigan Civil Rights Initiative,? made the ballot through a successful petition drive inspired by California businessman Ward Connerly, who successfully backed similar initiatives in Western states.
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 policiesand public hiring and contracting.
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.

A referendum on Mourning Dove hunting in Michigan, known as Proposal 3, will also face state voters on November 7.
A ‘yes? vote 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 hunting ban.
Dove hunting was legalized in the state in 2004, for a three-year trial hunt in six counties.
However, the 2005 and 2006 trial seasons were suspended when dove hunting opponents collected enough signatures to call for a referendum and place the issue on the 2006 ballot.
Supporters say the money spent on gear, travel and licenses related to dove hunting would give the state’s hunting industry and economy a critical boost in these hard times.
They add that migratory bird hunting is enjoyed by tens of thousands of hunters, who in turn contribute millions of dollars to habitat conservation/management and local economies.
Opponents believe that hunting Mourning Doves serves no wildlife management purpose. They add that doves have very little edible meat and during the shooting season of September through October, are at their lightest body weight.
Finally, they say dove hunting is unnecessary because there are more than 115 game species to hunt in Michigan, 40 of which are birds such as pheasant, woodcock, grouse, geese and duck.

Passage of State Proposal 04-1 would create a constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes.
The provisions of Proposal 4 would also include:
* Prohibiting the transfer of property to another individual or business for the purpose of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
* Ensuring that an individual’s private residence cannot be taken by the government unless he/she is compensated at least 125 % of the fair market value.
* Requiring government to prove that taking private property for public use has merit, such as eliminating blight.
* Preserving the existing rights of property owners.

Proposal 06-5 is a legislative initiative to establish mandatory school funding levels. If passed, the 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.
The Coalition is a group of statewide education organizations including the Michigan Education Association (MEA).
The proposed law would:
* Increase current funding by about $565 million, and require the state to fund deficiencies from the General Fund.
*Require the state to fund any deficiencies from the General Fund.
* Funding would be based on a three-year student enrollment average for districts with declining enrollment.
* Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public education facilities.
* Reduce funding gap between districts receiving per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving the maximum foundation allowance.