Proposal 1Constitutional convention question · Required by the constitution
Call a state constitutional convention
Explain it like I'm 5
This asks whether Michigan should hold a big meeting to review and possibly rewrite the state Constitution. Voters would later approve or reject any new version.
Yes vote
Michigan would elect delegates in 2027 to draft a general revision of the Constitution for a later statewide vote.
No vote
Michigan would not call a convention now, and the current Constitution would remain in effect.
The question to ask yourself
Is a broad chance to review the whole Constitution worth the risk and cost of reopening every provision?
The case for
- A convention could update the 1963 Constitution as a whole instead of changing it one piece at a time.
- Voters would elect delegates and retain final approval over any proposed revision.
- A broad review could address structural issues that individual amendments cannot easily resolve.
Backed by: Yes for Proposal 1, Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall, Michigan Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt
The case against
- A convention could reopen rights and protections that voters already approved.
- Well-funded interests could influence delegate elections and the convention's agenda.
- Michigan can amend specific constitutional provisions without rewriting the entire document.
Opposed by: Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, ACLU Michigan, Michigan League of Conservation Voters
- Money
- Senate Fiscal Agency scenarios reported costs from $10.2 million to $47.3 million for convention operations, plus up to $60.9 million for elections.
- Don't be misled
- A yes vote would not immediately rewrite the Constitution, because delegates would draft changes and voters would later approve or reject them.