I wasn’t looking for another project.
A few days before voting began, I started looking seriously at Proposal 1—the question of whether Michigan should hold a Constitutional Convention in 2027. The more I learned, the more convinced I became that Michigan voters weren’t hearing the other side of the argument.
More than 60 organizations had joined together urging Michigan voters to vote No. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were being spent making that case. Yet, as far as I could tell, there was no organized effort asking voters to consider voting Yes.
So I decided there ought to be one.
I’m not being paid to do this. No organization recruited me. I’m simply a Michigan citizen who believes this is an opportunity worth considering—and that voters deserve to hear more than one side before making their decision.
Why Yes?
Because every generation should occasionally have the opportunity to take a fresh look at the document that defines how its state government works.
Michigan’s present Constitution was written more than six decades ago. Since then, our state, our economy, our technology and the ways citizens interact with government have changed enormously. The Constitution itself has been amended 39 times and has grown from roughly 19,000 words to nearly 37,000.
That doesn’t mean our Constitution is bad. It means it is worth asking whether we can make it better.
A Constitutional Convention gives 148 citizens, elected from every Michigan House and Senate district, the opportunity to examine the Constitution as a whole—to preserve what works, modernize what needs updating, simplify what has become unnecessarily complicated, and consider ideas for making state government work better for the people it serves.
And here is what matters most to me: the delegates don’t get the final word. We do.
Whatever they propose must come back to Michigan voters. We can approve it—or reject it. Voting Yes on Proposal 1 isn’t voting for an unknown new constitution. It is voting to begin a public process and ultimately let the people decide.
Why Now?
Because Michigan’s Constitution itself says we should periodically be given this choice.
The people who wrote our present Constitution deliberately required that the question of calling a Constitutional Convention return to Michigan voters every 16 years. They understood that no generation can anticipate every challenge, opportunity or change the future will bring.
It has now been 65 years since Michigan citizens last gathered in a Constitutional Convention to examine how their state government should work. The Constitution they produced has served Michigan for more than six decades—longer than any previous Michigan Constitution.
But longevity alone shouldn’t end the conversation. Michigan in 2027 will be a profoundly different place from Michigan in 1961. We communicate differently. We conduct business differently. Technology has transformed our lives. The relationship between citizens and government has changed. And we have accumulated six decades of experience with what works well—and what might work better.
If not after 65 years, when?
Proposal 1 gives us the opportunity the Constitution intended us to have: not to throw away what previous generations created, but to examine it thoughtfully, preserve what still serves us well, and decide whether anything can be improved for the generations that follow.
What About the Risks?
Of course there are risks. Any process that opens the Constitution for review creates the possibility that delegates will propose changes some of us strongly oppose.
I certainly wouldn’t agree with every idea that might be proposed by 148 independently elected delegates. I wouldn’t expect you to either. That is the point of having delegates representing every part of Michigan—and of conducting their work in public.
But a proposal is not a decision. The convention cannot impose a new Constitution on Michigan. Whatever it ultimately proposes must come back to the voters for approval or rejection.
That safeguard matters. Michigan voters have repeatedly demonstrated that they are quite capable of making consequential constitutional decisions themselves. When they strongly support a constitutional protection, I don’t believe we should assume they will suddenly abandon it simply because a convention proposes something different.
Consider reproductive freedom. In 2022, Michigan voters approved constitutional protection for reproductive freedom by approximately 57% to 43%. I supported that protection and continue to support it. A convention could propose changing it—but delegates could not make that change themselves. Michigan voters would still have the final decision.
To me, the greater risk is adopting the idea that Michigan citizens should be afraid to examine their own Constitution because we cannot trust ourselves with the result.
I trust Michigan voters more than that.
Why Me?
There’s nothing particularly special about me deciding to do this. And maybe that’s part of the point.
I’m one Michigan citizen who started asking questions, reading the Constitution, looking at the history and following the arguments. What I found convinced me that the case for voting Yes deserved to be heard.
I do bring some experience to the subject. Years ago, I had the privilege of serving four terms in the Michigan House of Representatives. Since then, my life has taken me through business, public service and a number of causes I cared enough about to get involved in. I’ve seen government from the inside—and spent plenty of years looking at it from the outside.
That experience hasn’t left me believing I have all the answers. Quite the opposite. It has made me believe that good government benefits when ordinary citizens ask questions, challenge assumptions and have a meaningful voice in the decisions that affect them.
I have no organization behind me and no financial interest in the outcome. Nobody recruited me to lead a Yes campaign. I simply saw one side of an important question being very well represented—and the other side barely being heard.
So I raised my hand.
What I’m Asking You to Do
Don’t take my word for it.
Read Proposal 1. Look at the Michigan Constitution. Read the independent research. Examine the arguments being made by both sides. Follow the sources on this website and decide whether what I’m telling you holds up.
You may reach a different conclusion than I have. That’s democracy. But I hope you won’t vote No simply because someone tells you a Constitutional Convention is too dangerous, too unpredictable or too risky for Michigan voters to consider.
I believe we are capable of examining our own Constitution. I believe we can elect thoughtful citizens to do that work. And I believe we can be trusted to judge whatever they ultimately propose.
I’m voting Yes on Proposal 1.
Not because I know what a Constitutional Convention will propose.
I’m voting Yes because I believe the people of Michigan should have the opportunity to find out—and then make the final decision ourselves.
Let the People Decide.