This November, Michigan voters will encounter a ballot question that appears only once every 16 years: whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. While the decision may sound procedural, it carries potentially far-reaching implications for how state and local government operate.
To help readers understand what the vote means – and what it doesn’t – Detroitisit spoke with Eric Lupher of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, a nonpartisan organization releasing a series of educational resources ahead of the election to help residents make informed decisions.
Eric Lupher
Q: For readers who may be unfamiliar, what is a constitutional convention in practical terms, and what would actually happen if voters approved one?
A: The easiest way to think about it is to go back to a high school civics framework. A constitution establishes the foundation of government – defining the powers of each branch, the authority to tax, and the roles and limits of state entities such as universities, school districts and local governments. It sets the structure within which laws are written and public systems operate.
If voters approve convening a convention, that vote is only the beginning of the process. Two additional elections would follow, during which delegates would be chosen from each state House and Senate district – 148 delegates in total. Those delegates would meet in Lansing, organize themselves, establish their own rules and draft a proposed constitution. There is no fixed timeline, but once they complete their work, the proposed document would go back to voters for final approval or rejection.
Q: Michigan voters see this question every 16 years. Why was that mechanism built into the system, and what does it say about how the state approaches governance and accountability?
A: Michigan added this provision in 1850 with its second constitution, and it reflects a longstanding belief that citizens should periodically evaluate whether their governing framework is serving them well. In that sense, it is an accountability tool – an opportunity for voters to express whether they believe the constitution is functioning as intended.
Michigan’s current constitution dates to 1963, making it relatively young compared with some states. Massachusetts, for example, still operates under a constitution written before the United States formally existed. Since 1963, Michigan voters have considered the convention question in 1978, 1994 and 2010. It has not passed, but support has gradually increased each time. The recurring question acknowledges that constitutions should be stable documents, but also that citizens deserve the chance to reassess them periodically.
Q: How should voters think about the difference between amending a constitution and convening a full constitutional convention?
A: An amendment addresses a specific provision.
A convention, by contrast, places the entire document on the table. There are no limits that confine delegates to one topic or section – every article is open for consideration.
Amendments are generally best suited to single-issue questions, such as tax policy changes or specific rights provisions. But if citizens believe there are broader structural or systemic issues – for example, questions about how different levels of government interact or how authority is distributed – those are often more appropriately examined in the context of a full convention.
Q: What knowledge gaps are you seeing among voters that led the Citizens Research Council to launch its educational series?
A: The most common gap is simply understanding what is in the constitution and how it affects everyday governance. Our staff focuses on state and local policy, and we realized many people are unfamiliar with the document’s contents or its practical implications.
Our goal is not to advocate for a yes or no vote. It is to provide accessible information so residents can make informed decisions. Constitutional structure may not feel front-and-center in daily life, but it shapes nearly every public system people rely on.
Q: What are the biggest misconceptions people tend to have about constitutional conventions?
A: One common misconception is that a convention would address only a specific issue. In reality, once convened, the entire constitution is subject to revision. Delegates are tasked with proposing a complete document that they believe improves upon the existing one. That scope is important for voters to understand before they decide whether to authorize a convention.
Q: Historically, what conditions have led states to approve conventions, and do you see any of those conditions present in Michigan today?
A: Looking back to when Michigan adopted its current constitution in the early 1960s, there was a sense among many residents that government was not operating as effectively as it could. Economic challenges and social tensions contributed to a perception that structural change might be necessary.
Constitutional conventions are relatively rare. Michigan is on its fourth constitution, and only a small number of states have revised theirs in the same timeframe. Today, there are certainly policy concerns that attract attention, such as municipal finance challenges. But broadly speaking, we are not in what most people would describe as a crisis moment.
Q: What key questions should voters ask themselves before voting on this issue?
A: One important consideration is whether you believe the state’s systems – education, local governance, fiscal structures – are functioning as effectively as they should. Another is the process itself. Delegates would be elected, and the outcome would depend on whether a majority of those delegates hold views similar to your own. In a politically diverse state, that can be an uncertain proposition.
Q: Looking long term, what potential opportunities or risks could a constitutional convention create for Michigan:
A: Any risk is moderated by the fact that voters must approve the final document. If citizens felt a proposed constitution threatened their rights or interests, they could reject it.
On the opportunity side, a convention could allow the state to address structural inefficiencies and potentially strengthen systems in ways that improve quality of life and economic competitiveness. The risk, of course, is that revisions could move in the wrong direction and make the state less attractive. Ultimately, voters would decide which path they believe the proposal represents.
NOTE: The Citizens Research Council plans to continue releasing educational materials leading up to the election, including a public webinar later this year designed to present the information in an accessible format. For more information go here.
As always, be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates on all things Detroit and more.
