Are you ready to vote on the most important measure in Michigan's 2026 midterms?

Every federal, state or local elected or appointed official swears an oath to the constitutions of the United States, their state and their local government.
Given the abuse federal and state politicos are currently shoveling onto constitutions, it's a wonder the constitutions don't swear back at them.
Which leads to the most boring but ultimately critical question you will face in Michigan's 2026 election: How will you vote on the ballot proposal to call a new state Constitutional Convention?
There will no shortage of headlines about the 2026 election.
It's the first time there has been both an open gubernatorial and U.S. Senate seat in the same election.
Whatever major disasters or stunning (and surprising) miracles President Donald Trump concocts will guide how voters decide the makeups of the U.S. Congress and our Legislature.
There will be specific ballot issues.
All these candidates and issues will be hyped with massive buckets-'o-bucks, ads, flyers, calls, door knocking, social media harangues … leaving us overwhelmed.
But in this upcoming election, one ballot issue is already designated as Proposal 1 ― so ordered under Article XII, Section 3 of the Michigan Constitution ― and whether Michiganders vote "yes" or "no" could completely change our governmental and legal structure, affecting every aspect of life in this state:
How your business runs, your kids are educated, how prisoners are punished, our natural resources managed, what taxes we pay and what the taxes pay for, who will govern us; everything we know now about Michigan rules and regulation could be turned inside out, depending on how we vote on holding a Constitutional Convention.
The Michigan Constitution (last revised in 1963) requires voters be asked every 16 years if a new Con-Con (short for 'Constitutional Convention,' natch) should be called. In 1978, 1994 and 2010, voters overwhelmingly said no.
Next year, voters will be asked this question again. So, start thinking about it. Time also to acquaint yourself with Michigan's Constitution, if you know nothing about it.
Pay attention to this very boring subject, which, like most boring subjects, is really damn important.
More Trump's crypto, the Qatar jet ― will supporters finally admit something's wrong?
Constitutions are our supreme laws, guiding everything that governs and affects our lives. In some respects, the U.S. Constitution, Michigan's Constitution and your local city charter dictate how you act daily more than more than whatever scripture you follow (or ignore). Officials from the president to members of local municipal commissions (ask my wife, Cindy, who spent years on Huntington Woods' beautification commission) swear to follow and defend those supreme laws.
Or they are supposed to. We have expected, experienced and enjoyed such compliance with the rules for most of this nation's nearly 250 years.
What is happening now? Trump swore to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution (didn't have his hand on the Bible, but still …) yet he questions if he has to 'uphold' the Constitution. How can you 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution if you do not 'uphold' it?
His administration has ignored, thus violating, judicial rulings. He has tried to alter whole sections of the Constitution through Executive Orders, which is not permitted. He has accepted foreign gifts in violation of the Constitution. In open defiance of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the administration is shredding the rule of law.
Now there is talk the administration may suspend habeas corpus, an essential right guaranteed in the Magna Carta. (That's a governing document agreed to in 1215 by King John of England, under pressure from rebel barons.) Suspending habeas corpus is allowable only under extreme circumstances defined by the Constitution.
Those circumstances do not exist.
When asked to define habeas corpus, Homeland Security Security Kristi Noem gave the baffling response that it guaranteed Trump's right to remove people from the country. Nope, not even close.
More Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run
In Michigan, our constitutional worries are less extreme, but still concerning. State House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland, has refused to submit bills passed in the previous session to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, though Michigan's Constitution specifically says that must be done (the argument wasn't helped by a goofy Court of Claims ruling that the bills should be presented, but the court didn't want to interfere in the spat.)
Hall has also recently suggested passing a budget isn't required by the state constitution (granted, the constitution doesn't set requirements on enacting a budget, but refers to a budget. A little thing called state law requires when a budget be passed).
And earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal brought by 11 Republican legislators challenging the citizens' right to amend the state constitution on certain election issues. Lower federal courts already told the legislators to stuff it, though in nicer legal terms.
Approaching the 2026 Con-Con vote, we face a populace and political establishment arguably more badly divided than in any period since maybe the Civil War. Many are driven by fear, anger and even hatred towards their fellow citizens, and unsympathetic to our constitutional principles.
Michigan is under its fourth constitution (tidbit: Michigan's Archives will soon transport the first 1835 Constitution ― drafted two years before we became a state ― to Boston specialists for a bit of fixup before it enters a new display in Lansing). After the 1835 Constitution ― which specified only white men could vote ― we had constitutions written in 1850 and 1908.
Our current constitution was drafted at the 1961-62 Con-Con, which launched a number of major political careers. Primary among them: George Romney, one of Michigan's greater governors, and longtime Detroit Mayor Coleman Young.
Including Michigan, 11 states are on their fourth constitution. Another 20 states use their original constitutions, with Massachusetts' Constitution adopted in 1780. Louisiana is on its 11th constitution, and Georgia's 10th constitution is the most recent, adopted in 1983.
Because state constitutions deal with more minutia involving state and local operations, they are longer than the 4,500 or so words in the U.S. Constitution. Michigan's comes in around 31,200 words; a breezy read compared to Alabama's 7th constitution, at nearly 403,000 words.
State constitutions are also amended more frequently. In 237 years, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. Michigan's voters have amended our constitution 39 times, with 85 proposed amendments since it took effect in 1963.
The state constitution, and its amendments, state essential Michigan principles. The constitution bans capital punishment, and establishes our court system, principles of education and which schools get state funding ― through our tax dollars ― and guarantees our state colleges and universities are free from political and legislative interference.
It prohibits a graduated income tax. It guarantees ― through a recently adopted amendment ― reproductive rights for women. It also sets rules on overall state finance, on how old you must be to go boozing, it determines that we elect 148 total legislators and not hundreds more, and that we have a Senate and House and not a unicameral legislature.
The current constitution was written to simplify and modernize Michigan government to face more current realities. The state endured serious recessions in the 1950s, and simply ran out of money. Neither the 1908 Constitution nor lawmakers were able to resolve the problems. Lots more officials were elected ― including the state treasurer and highway commissioner ― and every official served for two-year terms, exhausting voters.
That 1960s Con-Con reflected new social and economic realities. It was the first to include women and Black delegates. Labor with business and agricultural interests played a major role.
And in those post World War II years, the state and nation had a more positive outlook. There were tensions, of course, with the Cold War, changing roles of women, the Civil Rights movement; but most Americans were optimistic to the future. The chief issue dividing support for the 1963 constitution was that it did not did not recognize the principle of one man-one vote (that issue was resolved eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court).
The last three times they were asked, voters declined to call a new Con-Con. But, in each election opposition has declined. In 1978 nearly 77% said no; by 2010, it was nearly 67%. Still a landslide, but what drives the increased support for a new Con-Con? An actual call for change ― either for more progressive government or more conservative ― or just a 'yeah, whatever' mood too many people seem to currently embrace?
Or, given our current discontent with one another, do some voters see a new constitution as a way of imposing greater control over those they dislike? The question cannot be ignored.
You, the voters, will answer these questions soon enough. Make sure you know why you are answering them the way you do.
Free Press contributing columnist John Lindstrom has covered Michigan politics for 50 years. He retired as publisher of Gongwer, a Lansing news service, in 2019. Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters, and we may publish it online and in print.
Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access with a Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Will Michigan say yes to Constitutional Convention in 2026? | Opinion

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

36 minutes ago

• Politico

White House tries to find messaging balance on Trump's regime change comment

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday sought to explain President Donald Trump's comment suggesting he's open to regime change in Iran, saying that the president 'believes the Iranian people can control their own destiny.' 'If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful, diplomatic solution, which the president is still interested and engaging in by the way, why shouldn't the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for decades?' Leavitt told Fox and Friends. She continued, 'Our posture has not changed. Our military posture has not changed. These were decisive precision strikes that were successful on Saturday evening. But the president is just simply raising a good question that many people around the world are asking.' Over the weekend, the U.S. bombed three Iranian nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan — entering a conflict between Israel and Tehran just days after Trump said he would make a decision about joining the conflict in two weeks. Though administration officials have repeatedly said the White House did not strike the Iranian nuclear sites to bring about a regime change in the country, Trump floated the idea in a social media post. He did not, however, directly call for a change in Iranian leadership. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump said in a Truth Social post over the weekend. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the administration's stance, told POLITICO that if the Iranian people were to rise up against the current regime, Trump is not saying the U.S. would contribute — but they also said Trump isn't saying the U.S. wouldn't contribute. 'He's just saying the Iranian people control their own destiny and why wouldn't there be a regime change if the regime is refusing to do what's right by their people,' the official added. Leavitt also told ABC News on Monday that the administration is 'confident' the U.S. bombers 'completely and totally obliterated' all of Iran's nuclear sites. 'The President wouldn't have launched the strikes if we weren't confident in that,' she said. 'So this operation was a resounding success, and administration officials agree with that as well as Israel.' On Sunday, Vice President JD Vance said on NBC's Meet the Press that the strikes on Iran 'substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon. And that was the goal of this attack.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has advocated for a change in Iranian leadership throughout his career. In recent weeks, Netanyahu has urged the U.S. to join its war against Iran if America wants to remain safe. Iran has already vowed retaliation for the strikes, worrying some about the safety of Americans in the region as well. But the White House official told POLITICO that 'immense preparations' were taken pre-strike to minimize American troops in the region in case of retaliation. On Monday, Leavitt said that the strikes were necessary to keep Americans both in the U.S. and the Middle East safe. 'Just to be clear, this strike on Saturday did make our homeland safer because it took away Iran's ability to create a nuclear bomb,' Leavitt said on Fox. 'This is a regime that threatens death to America and death to Israel and they no longer have the capability to build this nuclear weapon and threaten the world.' Megan Messerly contributed to this report.

Fox News

38 minutes ago

• Fox News

Democrats need their ‘own Trump,' podcaster urges in NY Times

A recent opinion piece in The New York Times said that the key to the Democratic Party succeeding again is having their own version of President Donald Trump. "If the next Democratic nominee wants to build a majority coalition — one that doesn't rely on Republicans running poor-quality candidates to eke out presidential wins and that doesn't write off the Senate as a lost cause — the candidate should attack the Democratic Party itself and offer positions that outflank it from both the right and the left," Galen Druke, host of the "GD Politics" podcast, wrote in a Monday guest essay in The New York Times. "It may seem like an audacious gambit, but a successful candidate has provided them a blueprint: Donald Trump," Druke added. Druke noted that the Democratic Party is "historically unpopular," citing a 2025 Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel and saying that "The Democratic Party's favorability rating is 22 percentage points underwater — 60 percent of respondents view it unfavorably, 38 favorably." He cautioned that Democrats should not look for their own Trump figure who would "violate democratic norms and destabilize American institutions, but rather the one for resetting how Americans view a party and its leaders." Secrets behind Trump's success, Druke said, included the president bucking his own party's stances from both sides of the spectrum. Druke also hinted at the trust Democrats need to rebuild within their base after they "stood by a deeply unpopular president despite clear signs that Democratic voters did not think he was suited to another term." Druke mentioned a recent CNN poll that showed the Democratic Party's favorability rating at a record low among Americans, with 52% to 48% of Democratic-learning voters saying the party is going in the wrong direction. The poll also showed the favorability rating for the Democratic Party at 29%, calling it a "record low" that goes back to 1992, and saying that it was a 20-point drop from January 2021. Druke also said that Democrats should take a page from former President Bill Clinton's playbook and be liberal in terms of healthcare policy, where he says the candidate should push for universal healthcare "far more progressive than the Affordable Care Act," but have more right-leaning policies when it comes to issues like government spending and crime. Democrats should treat social issues similarly, Druke said, adding that the party should "assert that the goal is for all people to be treated with dignity and that Democrats got carried away with ideas that ultimately didn't further that goal." "To be truly successful, the next Democratic nominee will transform how Americans view the Democratic Party as a whole, leading the way to winning voters not currently viewed as 'gettable' in states that have been written off," Druke wrote.

40 minutes ago

How US strikes on Iran will impact travel as State Dept. issues 'worldwide caution'

The State Department has issued new warnings for Americans traveling around the world following U.S. airstrikes on Iran. On Saturday night, President Donald Trump confirmed the U.S. military carried out strikes on three key nuclear facilities in Iran -- Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan -- using 14 "bunker-buster" bombs known as MOPs, or Massive Ordnance Penetrators. As a result of the U.S.' involvement, which initially started as a conflict between Israel and Iran, after Israel launched a strike against Iranian military and nuclear facilities on June 13, the U.S. State Department issued an alert on Sunday advising U.S. citizens overseas to exercise increased caution. State Department issues Worldwide Caution Security Alert "The conflict between Israel and Iran has resulted in disruptions to travel and periodic closure of airspace across the Middle East," Sunday's alert read. "There is the potential for demonstrations against U.S. citizens and interests abroad." The State Department advised Americans to exercise increased caution globally and to check its specific country advisories, as well as "any recent security alerts when planning travel." Where to find latest US travel security status The State Department's country-specific travel advisories and security alerts can be found on its website and should be consulted when planning travel. Travelers can also join the department's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program, or STEP, which allows users to "get important alerts and updates from the U.S. embassy or consulate for the destination in which you are visiting or living." "STEP messages are sent to your email. It also helps the U.S. embassy or consulate reach you or your emergency contact in an emergency," the website reads. Departure efforts and information to help US citizens leave the Middle East Israel and the West Bank The State Department issued new updates on Sunday with embassy branch information for Americans planning to leave Israel and the West Bank, including passport services, crossing operations schedules, exit tax fees and flight delay or cancellation expectations. The embassy has advised U.S. citizens seeking to leave Israel or the West Bank to "take the first available option, even if it is not your first choice of destination." The embassy remains on authorized departure status and has carried out at least two military flights to evacuate nonessential staffers and diplomats' family members from the country in the past week, bringing the total number of evacuees from the embassy to over 100, per an official. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said Saturday that the U.S. began running assisted departure flights for private American citizens, but as of time of publication there was no update to the status of those efforts. A department official anticipated flights could ramp up in the coming days. According to the official, over 6,000 people in Israel have contacted the embassy about departure options. The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and Branch Office in Tel Aviv are closed Monday for emergency U.S. passport services. "The U.S. Embassy is also aware that there are commercial opportunities to depart Israel by ship, and U.S. citizens should check local media if other commercial opportunities arise to depart as we may not be able to provide the information before such travel options sell out," the latest security alert stated. Limitations on departing flights from Israel Israeli airlines will operate outbound flights from Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport on Monday out of Terminal 3 for the first time since June 13 but will have a strict limit of 50 passengers per plane. "Ticket purchases are open to all applicants and without preference for passengers. Priority will be given to life-saving, humanitarian cases, and those based on security and national considerations," the Israeli Airport Authority stated. Although the U.S. has no diplomatic presence in Iran, the State Department is encouraging Americans in the country to depart "by land to Azerbaijan, Armenia, or Türkiye if they deem conditions are safe/if they can do so." The State Department is encouraging U.S. citizens in Iran to enroll in STEP and fill out its crisis intake form, found online here, in order to receive information about consular assistance. "However, because of the limitations on consular support in Iran, we do not anticipate offering direct U.S. government assisted departure from Iran," a security alert stated. "U.S.-Iranian dual nationals must exit Iran on Iranian passports and should be prepared to encounter checkpoints and questioning from Iranian authorities before departing Iran," the alert read. "The Iranian government does not recognize dual nationality and will treat U.S.-Iranian dual nationals solely as Iranian citizens. U.S. nationals are at significant risk of questioning, arrest, and detention in Iran." The State Department said it is aware of hundreds of Americans who have successfully crossed Iran's land borders in recent days, and hundreds more who are awaiting authorization to enter neighboring countries, per an official. Iraq According to the State Department, officials impacted by the ordered departure issued on June 11 are continuing to depart from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. "The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and Consulate General in Erbil have temporarily suspended all routine visa services. Both the Embassy and the Consulate General continue to provide services for U.S. citizens," a security alert issued Sunday read. The alert continued, "There is increased potential for foreign terrorist organization-inspired violence or attacks against U.S. businesses and locations frequented by U.S. citizens. We urge all U.S. citizens in Iraq to avoid locations frequented by foreigners and any large gatherings or crowds. The land borders to Kuwait and to Türkiye remain open." Lebanon As of Sunday, the State Department has ordered the departure of family members and non-emergency U.S. government personnel from Lebanon due to the volatile and unpredictable security situation in the region. "Due to ongoing regional events, we remind U.S. citizens to continue to exercise caution and encourage them to monitor the news for breaking developments," a security alert stated, advising "commercial transportation options to leave Lebanon remain available but limited." Middle East countries with heightened alerts, new restrictions Jordan Officials say they do not anticipate offering government-assisted departure options or evacuations from Jordan in the immediate future, but that they are actively planning for situations where that becomes necessary. "The Department of State's Travel Advisory for Jordan remains at Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution. We have no announcement about assisting private U.S. citizens to depart Jordan at this time. The Department of State is always planning for contingencies to assist with private U.S. citizens' departure from crisis areas," a travel advisory stated. "We will alert the U.S. citizen community if there is additional information to share regarding departure options." Turkey On Sunday, the State Department issued an updated advisory for travel in Turkey cautioning U.S. government personnel "to maintain a low profile" and "avoid personal travel to the U.S. Consulate Adana consular district, which comprises Türkiye's 22 southeasternmost provinces." "Negative sentiment toward U.S. foreign policy may prompt actions against U.S. or Western interests in Türkiye," the alert continued. "In the past, such activities have included demonstrations, calls for boycotts of U.S. businesses, anti-U.S. rhetoric, and graffiti. Large gatherings may result in enhanced police presence, road closures, and traffic disruptions. Any gathering, even those intended to be peaceful, could escalate and turn violent on short notice." Saudi Arabia "Given reports of regional hostilities, the U.S. Mission to Saudi Arabia has advised its personnel to exercise increased caution and limit non-essential travel to any military installations in the region," an update on Sunday stated. "We recommend American citizens in the Kingdom do the same. The U.S. Mission to Saudi Arabia continues to monitor the regional situation." The statement continued, "We encourage all travelers to review our most recent Security Alerts, review any travel plans in case of disruptions, and make appropriate decisions for themselves and their families. At this time, U.S. Mission staffing and operations are unchanged, and consular services continue as normal."