Governor Snyder casts ballot, says Proposals 2 and 5 could be most damaging to Michigan
Related Story: Long lines reported at polling places in Ann Arbor
Complete election coverage
Republican Governor Rick Snyder waited with his family for about half an hour to vote at his home polling station in Superior Township.
The governor has not been shy with his opinions on the statewide ballot proposals, and said that of all the proposals on the ballot, he is most concerned about the impact Proposals 2 and 5 could have on the state if they pass.
Governor Snyder takes one last look at his ballot before casting it at his polling station in Superior Township Tuesday morning.
Ben Freed | AnnArbor.com
“That’s the one that if it were to pass would bring our recovery to a grinding halt. Proposal 5 would also have very negative consequences. So from a relative perspective No on 2 and No on 5 are most important to me.”
Proposal 2 would grant constitutional right to organize for public and private sector employees, while Proposal 5 would require a two-thirds majority in the state houses or a public referendum to pass any tax increases.
Governor Snyder said he felt that many of the advertising campaigns relating to the ads had been disingenuous, misleading and inaccurate.
“The ‘Yes on 6’ campaign is a good example of that,” he said.
“I saw a commercial and the accurate parts were ‘there’s a bridge’ and ‘there’s Michigan’ but the rest was just misleading.”
Follow the results
Keep an eye on the voter tallies as they come in
The Ypsilanti and Willow Run school consolidation plan was not on the governor’s ballot, but he did praise the efforts of those behind the measure.
“I’m pleased to see that people are looking at those kinds of opportunities,” he said.
“I leave it up to the citizens to decide, but I’ve been a big advocate of sharing and services consolidation. I haven’t been pushing legal consolidation, but it’s a precursor to that to say if you can work through those issues there might be better way to do things.”
Snyder said nationally that he continued to support Mitt Romney because Washington has been “holding back the economic recovery in Michigan.”
“Not having a budget, the national debt, and the need for tax reform,” he cited as issues that national politicians need to solve. “We’ve done them in Michigan. In the first year and a half we took care of those issues.”
Ben Freed covers business for AnnArbor.com. You can sign up here to receive Business Review updates every week. Reach out to Ben at 734-623-2528 or email him at benfreed@annarbor.com. Follow him on twitter @BFreedinA2
Comments
katmando
Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.
Now the real push to make Michigan an "at will " state will begins there will be all kinds legislation pushed for "right to fire " laws.
Hemenway
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.
Governor Snyder raised my taxes. Thanks Gov.
harry
Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 4:05 p.m.
Obama says its patriotic. Pay your taxes and be quiet.
DonBee
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.
If proposal 2 was about private sector unions and their rights, I would vote for it in a heart beat, but it was not and is not. It is about public sector unions and their benefits. Casting public sector benefits into the state constitution is wrong. I agree with the idea that everyone should have the right to negociate, and that unions once formed should have the rights to represent their members. The balance in many public institutions has gotten out of whack. In the school district I grew up in the Superintendent thought he was sitting down with the head of the local union to talk about the next contract. The district has less than 300 students. Instead he was met by 5 union officials from outside the district. No way a small town superintendent has the ability to match wits with 5 full time union paid officials. This proposal would make those kinds of meetings even worse, because it would further tip the balance to the unions. I am sorry, I can't in good faith agree with proposal 2. Now, that said, if someone tries a right to work law in Lansing, I will be there with a bullhorn and picket sign to protest the idea of passing right to work in Michigan. It is about balance and this proposal offers no balance.
dsponini
Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
We can just change our name to Michibama...or Michississipi
skfina2
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 10:48 p.m.
Don Bee, I'm going to hold you to that if Prop 2 goes down. Because you know that will be the next item on the Republicans' agenda: making Michigan a right-to-work state, just like Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana...need I say more?
chapmaja
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 10:03 p.m.
I agree with those who think Snyder has been economically damaging to Michigan. With that said, I did agree with him on some proposals and disagreed on others. I personally have a major problem with an appointed individual being able to do as much as an EFM is allowed to do under the law, so I opposed him on that. I also disagreed with him on Prop 2. I am very concerned that the leadership in the state will attempt to be more reactionary (moving us back to the pre-union days of history), following the lead of places like Wisconsin. On the remainder of the proposals however I do agree. I voted no on 3-4-5-6 because I have issues with each of them. Prop 3 does not allow the government to make decisions based on the latest information and locks us into a plan without knowing if it will save or cost us. What is a company develops a method of removing a large portion of the emissions from coal power plants in 3 years. Now we are stuck on a plan that will cost more than it's worth because it is locked into the state consitution. Prop 4 is nothing but a power grab by a union that has attempted to get a free money from home workers in the past. This is nothing more than an attempt at forcing people to join the union who may or may not want to be union members. This is the same ploy that was tried and failed years ago under the Mole's administration. Prop 5 and Prop 6 got my no votes because of the same reason. As much as I distrust the leadership in this state, there is one person I distrust even more. Matty Moron over in Detroit. He is the backing for these proposals and that is a good enough reason for me to vote no. Add in the fact the 2/3 majority has proven to be bad policy elsewhere an that was a no-brainer.
groland
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 8:23 p.m.
I voted yes on 1 and yes on 2. In my view there is a balance. Allow for collective bargaining but have the threat of a financial manager there so that parties bargain in good faith and with a vision towards a sustainable fiscal future.
Basic Bob
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 10:06 p.m.
Proposal 2 trumps the ability of the emergency manager to modify contracts. But a federal bankruptcy judge is not bound by state law.
maallen
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 9:56 p.m.
Here is just one of many reasons why Proposal 2 is so scary: "Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements." In other words, all the unions have to do is put stuff in their bargaining agreements, demand employers to agree or else, and they get everything they want. Unions want to override state laws. That is bad.
Ghost of Tom Joad
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.
That might seem logical, but it rests its premise on the concept that the EFM actually does any good. Even from the words of the EFM in Pontiac and Benton Harbor, there have been no improvements made in the respective budgets. EFMs have not, and will not, be implemented to help cities in need. They've been used as power grabs to take control of Democratic strongholds.
Ghost of Tom Joad
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.
Of course he opposes prop 2, it would prevent him and his buddies from repeating the union busting tactics of Wisconsin.
harry
Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
Yes ... And the funny thing is most american agree with the gov of Wisconsin as we seen in the recall and now in the overwhelming NO vote from the citizens of Michigan.
Carissa Lewis
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.
Proposal 2 guarantees employees the basic right to negotiate with employers about workplace issues. Vote YES to protect the fundamental right of Michigan's working families to negotiate for fair wages, benefits, and safer working conditions!!
Jim Esparza
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.
Of course the governor is against Proposal 2. It means the end of the money grab by his corporate special interest buddies. The governor claims to support collective bargaining but then enacts laws that chip away at it. That is why we need Proposal 2 to Protect Collective Bargaining. It willhelp keep corporate special interests from being able to pressure Lansing politicians to take away our basic right to collectively bargain.
harry
Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.
I am soooo happy Prop 2 failed. And overwhelmingly did it fail. Michigan is not a right to work state. Unions are already protected by law except in the private sector. Hopefully this is a start to end all private unions.
PersonX
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.
In my humble opinion it is Gov. Snyder who is most damaging to Michigan ...
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.
Did they check his I.D.?
harry
Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 6:07 p.m.
Why wouldn't they. They run everyones ID. Strange comment.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 6:17 p.m.
"In Superior Township, voters were being asked to weigh in on the bond proposal for a new downtown Ann Arbor library. Snyder did not say whether he voted for the bond, but did comment that he thought it was a good thing that there was a substantial amount of discussion and healthy disagreement within the Ann Arbor community." Rick 'Profiles In Courage' Snyder.
RayA2
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.
Of course Slick is against Prop 2. Protection of collective bargaining transfers preserves middle class control over their own destiny and interferes with the class warfare of the 0.01% that slick represents. Slick made his real intentions very obvious when he robbed the K-12 education fund to hand $1.8billion to his wealthy business owning friends and with just about every act of his administration since he took office.
chapmaja
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 10:08 p.m.
The Silverdome was sold for the price it was because nobody was willing to pay more for that property. What beneift is there to that property? In the state it was in it cost more in upkeep that the City could afford. The financial savings they realized comes in several potential ways. First, they don't have to pay to maintain the property anymore. That was over 1 million per year savings. Second, they realized some financial gain from the sale of the property. Third, with the property sold to a developer, the property is now privately owned and may (depending on deals in place) be subject to property taxes. The property tax revenue now may not be that high, but if the property is developed that could increase substantially as the property value increases.
maallen
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 9:47 p.m.
leaguebus, You do realize that the pontiac silverdome was sold at a sealed bid auction, don't you? And you do realize that there were only 4 bidders, don't you? And you do realize that they went with the highest bidder, don't you? And it was costing pontiac $1.5 million just for the upkeep. And it was 2009.
John S. Armbruster
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
Having typing problems today. I meant to say private industry as a whole does not have these benefits and why should the non public union taxpayers be expected to give you benefits that we don't have for ourselves.
John S. Armbruster
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 9:28 p.m.
Unfortunately this proposal has nothing to do with collective bargaining. It is a power grab by the public unions want to keep cushy pension and benefit plans and to avoid having to face layoffs and job cuts. Private industry on the whole. Why she we be expected to pay for it so yo can avoid economic reality.
leaguebus
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.
An EM sold the Pontiac Silverdome for cents on a dollar and then went to work for the company that bought it. Too much power corrupts.
B2Pilot
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
KMGEB - The governor is an elected official, and is elected by the people so you are not entirely correct in your argument that it removes elected officials. The bank CEO stuff not sure what that has to do with prop 1??? wouldn't that be a federal thing or board of directors ? anyways As far as Prop 1 if you really want an alternative vote no and let a bankruptcy judge make the calls That would also take all elected officials out of the equiation leaving the mess to one person to decide what goes, and yes that one person could certainly void a union contract with no voter backlash. just sayin
kmgeb2000
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.
However, he is good with Prop 1 – the ability to removing properly elected officials from office without due process, and the ability to sever legally binding contracts. What part of democracy does he not understand? It is OK to sever a union contract, but a bank CEO's contract which pays them million regardless of their actions or business failures must never be broken. Such hypocrisy.
B2Pilot
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 5:54 p.m.
1.8 billion to his friends really ? your just not making that up ? The budget model Governor Granholm used; taking stimulas money to finance the education budget was not a sustainable model either you do realize that right-
Tom Todd
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
Snyder has been Economically devastating to Michigan.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.
Yeah, let's go back to the prosperous Granholm years.
maallen
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.
Tom, What are your economic indicators that proves Snyder has been "economically devastating to Michigan?" Care to share them with us?
GoNavy
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 5:27 p.m.
Your hyperbole is devastating to your credibility.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 5:02 p.m.
....because things are worse here than when he took office? Please.