Michigan attorney general rejects union bargaining-rights ballot bid

Fri Aug 3, 2012 8:48pm EDT

An American Federation of Teachers union member attending the AFT convention in Detroit, Michigan, wears a ''Protect Working Families'' sticker on his shirt to encourage voters to support a November ballot measure that would make collective bargaining a constitutionally protected right in Michigan July 29, 2012. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

An American Federation of Teachers union member attending the AFT convention in Detroit, Michigan, wears a ''Protect Working Families'' sticker on his shirt to encourage voters to support a November ballot measure that would make collective bargaining a constitutionally protected right in Michigan July 29, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Rebecca Cook

Related Topics

(Reuters) - A proposed referendum that would enshrine the right to collective bargaining in Michigan's state constitution is too complicated for the ballot, the state's top legal official said, dealing a major blow to the labor movement's campaign for the measure.

Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican, said in a legal analysis obtained by the Detroit Free Press and published on Friday that Michigan ballot measures are limited to 100 words and the implications of the proposed measure are so numerous that it would be impossible to communicate them.

"Just to give a single word to each constitutional and statutory alteration would require double the allowable words," Schuette wrote.

A coalition of unions, supporters of the "Protect Our Jobs" measure, submitted petitions with nearly 700,000 signatures, twice the number needed, to get the measure on the ballot. Petition challenges must be filed by the close of business August 8, and a decision whether to place it before voters by a state election board is expected by mid-August.

The coalition includes the AFL-CIO labor federation, the United Auto Workers and the Michigan Education Association.

In an analysis prepared at Governor Rick Snyder's request and dated July 20, Schuette said the proposed referendum could limit or eliminate parts of 18 provisions in the state constitution and 170 state laws, and raises fundamental questions about the future control of private and public employment in Michigan.

In addition to publishing the analysis, The Free Press posted a copy on its website.

The union organizers responded quickly Friday. "Silencing the voice of all voters on the basis of a faulty legal argument defies the spirit of democracy and protections offered to citizens by our constitution," Dan Lijana, spokesman for the petition organizers, said in a statement.

DIVISIVE ISSUE

Snyder's spokeswoman, Sara Wurfel, said the governor had not taken an official position and sought the attorney general's opinion because there have been many questions about what the measure would and would not do.

"He has been pretty clear all along that he believes measures like this have a tendency to be divisive and we actually already use collective bargaining in Michigan and have a long history of doing so," Wurfel said.

Only a handful of states, including Florida and Missouri, protect union activity such as collective bargaining in state constitutions, while 23 states have "right to work" laws that bar employers from requiring workers to pay fees for union representation. Snyder is also on record opposing a "right to work" law.

Earlier in 2012, Indiana became the latest state to adopt a "right to work" law and the first in the industrial Midwest.

Unions also suffered a setback in Wisconsin earlier this summer when Republican Governor Scott Walker survived a recall election prompted by a new state law he championed that severely reduced the power of public-sector unions such as teachers.

The Michigan ballot measure would cripple efforts to pass a "right to work" law in the state, which has been hit hard by the decades-long struggles of Detroit-based automakers.

Critics say the Michigan measure would discourage businesses from bringing new jobs to the state and encourage some to leave. Experts say the proposal likely would increase voter turnout in the fall presidential election.

The United Auto Workers union is a significant though diminished political force in Michigan following heavy job losses in the auto industry.

Unions also are asking Michigan voters to repeal a law that widened the powers of state-appointed emergency managers to cut spending in municipalities and school districts deemed to be experiencing a "financial emergency." Such spending cuts have resulted in the loss of union jobs among teachers, police officers and firefighters.

The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the emergency manager law repeal question should be on the ballot.

That law has been used to take over more than half a dozen financially ailing cities and school systems in the state in recent years and to void union contracts.

(Additional reporting by Karen Pierog in Chicago; Editing by Greg McCune and Eric Walsh)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (12)
Abulafiah wrote:
“… a legal analysis obtained by the Detroit Free Press and published on Friday that Michigan ballot measures are limited to 100 words and the implications of the proposed measure are so numerous that it would be impossible to communicate them.”

Then change the word limit to 200 words. Simple. Unless Bill Schuette is finding an excuse to stop the electorate voting…

Aug 03, 2012 12:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:
How about this? “Workers have a right to freely associate under the 1st Amendment as incorporated against the state of Michigan under the 14th Amendment.” Twenty two words. Leave it to a Repo attorney general to complicate it.

Aug 04, 2012 1:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Chazz wrote:
“Protect Our Jobs” measure…? If it’s precise language that’s needed then perhaps that statement is more correctly written as, “Guarantee Our Jobs” measure.

One thing that’s become crystal clear over the last three or four years is that having something written in a Constitution doesn’t make it rock solid. Our fine lawyer-leaders know exactly how to parse words to get around anything.

Aug 04, 2012 11:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus