You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 11:21 a.m.

Information presented in brochure meant to educate voters on proposals misleading, biased

By Letters to the Editor

I’d like to thank Michigan House Representative Nancy Jenkins for clarifying some of the more confusing ballot proposals voters will decide on this November.

I’d LIKE to thank her, but I will not.

I am familiar with the subtle and not so subtle power of words and rhetoric. The brochure produced and distributed by Rep. Jenkins seems on the surface to be an unbiased explanation of the ballot proposals. But it is not. Not by a long shot.

When Rep. Jenkins greets her readers with “Dear Friends,” she attempts to ingratiate herself with the reader. And when she claims “the language of each proposal is provided exactly as approved by the State Board of Canvassers” and “the accompanying analyses have been prepared in keeping with the facts” she attempts to gain our trust. However, a quick read reveals her real motivation.

The most obvious case of bias is found in the analysis of Proposal 4. Under the section titled “People voting NO say” it reads, “This proposal would effectively force in-home care workers, including relatives of the patient, to join a union and pay union dues.” But wait, Rep. Jenkins. I thought the analyses were “inkeeping with the facts.”

Clearly there are those who will misread or otherwise fail to grasp the wording of a particular proposal. Should one then repeat that ridiculousness and intentionally confuse voters? Am I really to believe that I’ll be forced to join a union if I provide home health care for a loved one? Well, I’ve read the proposal and there’s nothing there to warrant this kind of scare tactic. Nothing.

Democracy only works if people are provided with factual information and educate themselves. How dare you use a position of power to intentionally confuse voters. I don’t buy what you’re selling, Rep. Jenkins. Not one little bit. You will never receive my vote, nor will I be swayed by your propaganda.

Karin Wraley Barbee

Tecumseh

Comments

noshopadopt

Sun, Oct 21, 2012 : 3:01 a.m.

Since the focus of this opinion regards Proposal 4, please allow me, a Home Help worker employed by a relative, to have a say. This article explains it well: http://northville.patch.com/articles/state-sen-colbeck-the-truth-about-proposal-4-in-michigan. Here is the core of the matter from the article: "The utterly shameful fact of the matter is that SEIU has been skimming $6 Million in union dues annually from the poorest among us since 2006, but has not provided ANY of the benefits advertised. In 2012, Governor Snyder, a majority of my fellow legislators, and I said NO to this despicable practice with the passage of PA 76 of 2012. In response, SEIU put the money that they have collected from union dues to work lobbying you to give them more money. They now wish to enshrine the forced unionization of Medicaid-funded home healthcare workers in our Michigan Constitution via Proposal 4." So yes, this Proposal WILL force any Home Help worker to be part of the union. I was, and still pay forced union dues. Voting NO does not prevent workers from joining the union if they CHOOSE to.

noshopadopt

Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 3:09 p.m.

@talker: The quote you refer to is from the article I referenced, it is not me speaking. The article accurately explains the situation as it stands, and Proposal 4 would allow the SEIU to keep taking union dues from Home Help workers. Bias? Well, yes, I don't think it should be "enshrined in the Constitution" that you must be forced to join their union in order for your relative to hire you as a Home Help aide. They are, in effect, snatching 6 million a year from Medicaid.

talker

Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 1:28 a.m.

"Governor Snyder,, a majority of my fellow legislators, and I said NO..." Readers, please note the bias in the comment from "noshopadopt" and then evaluate the issue for yourself.

jcj

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.

Changing the State Constitution is a poor way to do things every time you want to make a change!

Stan Hyne

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.

Re. NoSUVforMe I prefer laws being changed rather than the Constitution being changed. Bad decisions are easier to rectify.

NoSUVforMe

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.

Is it better to have politicians and judges bought and paid for by special interests? An informed electorate can do the right thing while politicians do the wrong thing.

Jill DeYoe

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.

What's wrong with letting home health care workers unionize? And the other one, letting collective bargaining be legal. Shouldn't it be legal? I don' t get it. And the bridge seems like a step forward just using common sense. So I don't get it, why not turn to renewable energy sources like wind and solar, etc? Is big business behind these proposals, corporations, and they're lying about what they will do just to get them passed? I say if rich people stand to gain, vote no, but if working people stand to gain, vote yes.

talker

Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 1:24 a.m.

Zoe wrote that "the bridge seems like a step forward." It's not clear if you wrote that to encourage yes or no votes. Since "yes" on that proposal would delay Canada from building the bridge that they will pay for entirely, I'd recommend voting "no" on the proposal pushed by the non-government owner of the existing bridge who wants to maximize the toll income from his current bridge and build the second bridge near the Ambassador Bridge. Michigan citizens would only be giving up the first few years of tolls from that bridge, which is giving up nothing because we don't receive tolls from the privately owned Ambassador Bridge. The ad misleads people into thinking we would be taxed for the new bridge, even though Canada has promised to pay to build the entire bridge. Ontario and Michigan are each other's biggest trading partners and the delay to build the second bridge between Detroit and Windsor could cost many Michigan jobs as push Ontario to concentrate on trading with New York via the Peace Bridge and other bridges (existing and new) that connect Ontario with Buffalo, New York and Niagara Falls, New York. This one seems to call for a definite "no" vote, as does the vote about emergency managers. There will likely be many more discussions about the other proposals.

Z-man

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 5:23 p.m.

Zoe, there's a big difference between letting home healthcare workers unionize and forcing them to unionize and forced to pay union dues without receiving any discernible benefits.

jcj

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:13 p.m.

You are over simplifying each point.

average joe

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.

There is nothing in the state constitution currently that would prevent Home health care workers to unionize. The bigger question of course is do we need it in the constitution at all.

GoNavy

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 6:54 p.m.

Vote NO on every amendment. Attempting to amend the Constitution in this fashion, for these ends, is simply an end-run around our established system of representative democracy.

MIke48162

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.

If current politicians in Lansing represented Michigan citizens we wouldn't need proposals and amendments to have our say!

Billy Bob Schwartz

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 2:28 p.m.

I thought our system included the power of the people, by ballot, to amend the basic document we call the Michigan Constitution. Didn't we agree on that process when last we held a state constitutional convention? It seems to me this is actually using our system of representative democracy in the way it was established.

jcj

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 5:23 p.m.

Karin You say "I am familiar with the subtle and not so subtle power of words and rhetoric" I would suppose you are since you are trying to do the same thing you accuse someone else of doing!

Sully

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.

The writer is either very misinformed or is intentionally misleading readers. My household got the same brochure from Rep. Jeff Irwin, a hardcore Democrat, with the exact same language. The proposal presents the exact ballot language from the State Board of Canvassers along with three reasons from BOTH those who say no and those who say yes on why they have their respective positions. Both sides are represented and please note the word "Say". It's silly that the writer is presenting this pamphlet, which has been sent out by Reps from both partys, as some kind of insidious propaganda.

Dog Guy

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.

"People voting NO say" it reads, "This proposal would effectively force in-home care workers, including relatives of the patient, to join a union and pay union dues." Representative Nancy Jenkins is absolutely truthful in saying this. I am a person voting NO and I say, "This proposal would effectively force in-home care workers, including relatives of the patient, to join a union and pay union dues." It is an unquestionable fact that I say exactly this and believe this to be the ONLY purpose of this amendment proposal. Even Karin Wraley Barbee must agree that I, who am voting NO, do indeed say exactly, "This proposal would effectively force in-home care workers, including relatives of the patient, to join a union and pay union dues."

average joe

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.

I received a copy of the same brochure about the 6 proposals, but mine was "produced & distributed" by my 54th district rep, David Rutledge(D).

average joe

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 8:51 p.m.

Gee, people are testy now- I only stated a fact, & didn't imply or take a position on anything.

YpsiGirl4Ever

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 7:47 p.m.

And so what? This material DID NOT tell anyone how to vote on the proposals. What now, State Representatives can't send out mail....SMH...

Bob Zuruncol

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.

Politicians knew exactly what they were doing when they exempted themselves from the Truth in Advertising laws years ago. Yet we often accuse them of not being so bright. Reversing that is one referendum I would really like to see.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.

Disgusting. Of course, this particular election, at all levels, has been filled with lies. There'a really no other fair way to characterize it. Did you know that, while schools and fire depts. and police services have been cut, the government of Michigan wants to spend all that money to build a bridge? What a pack of lies. There are many, many other examples, from President to Village clerk. What a shame that we have lost the ability to try to tell the truth in our own way without making it all into lies. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will get a chance one day soon to put an end to this ability of some to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy offices for those who support their side of things. I also hope that, in the meantime, voters will read carefully, make sure they know what the issues really are and what propositions really will do, and then vote accordingly, including canning some of these people who use their positions in government to warp the election.

NoSUVforMe

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.

Supreme Court has four extremists that hate democracy. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. RATS. Unfortunately, life-time appointments is one of the biggest flaws in our constitution. An Obama victory and nature will hopefully take care of the RATS.