State House proposals represent a step in the right direction

An article by The SCN Editorial Board    No Comments

We know we’re not alone in lamenting the timing of some elections featuring millage or bonding ballot questions, as we often hear complaints about so-called “stealth elections” that include funding questions. We’re not really fans of that particular term, but we share the aversion to seeking an increased, new, or even renewed tax question on an odd-numbered year date or any date in an even-numbered year other than the traditional August primary or November general election date. So we were pleased to recently discover that the Michigan House of Representatives has been asked to consider a bill mandating that any property tax proposal that would increase revenues to the unit putting the measure on the ballot would have to appear on a November ballot of an even-numbered year.

House Bill (HB) 5219, introduced by state Reps. Marty Knollenberg (R-Troy) and Bill Rogers (R-Milford), really amounts to a single sentence: “After Dec. 31, 2011, any question to the electors of a taxing unit that will result in an increase in revenue for that taxing unit shall be placed on the November ballot of an even-numbered year.”

According to Knollenberg, the legislation would accomplish three things — maximize voter turnout for tax proposals, make the election timing “more logical” for voters, and “minimize stealth elections.”

He’s right, although his second and third points are essentially the same. We do take issue with the “stealth election” label, as all elections are publicized by municipalities in a number of ways — sometimes per statute and other times voluntarily — and by numerous news media outlets. The “stealth election” moniker came into vogue as a result of the Oakland Intermediate School District’s (OISD) Sept. 25, 2001 special election involving a 1.1704-mill increase for special education programs and a 0.2279-mill increase for vocational education. Both proposals were approved by county voters, leaving the soreheads who didn’t like that outcome to commonly use the “stealth election” handle. Yet, this newspaper wasn’t alone among media outlets that reported on the proposals several times over the months and weeks prior to that election: So, the stealth characterization is pure rubbish.

Yet, we agree that the timing of that election wasn’t ideal. There’s no way the OISD could know terrorists were plotting to attack America just a couple of weeks before that election, leaving us all in a daze of shock, disbelief, sorrow and anger that made it tough to focus on anything but terrorists perpetrating their violence right here in America. But, the intermediate district surely could have waited a year for a regularly scheduled 2002 primary or general election — when voters expected to have to cast ballots on any number of political races and/or questions.

Anger over the new OISD millages rekindled the so-called election consolidation movement in the state Legislature. Unfortunately, state lawmakers made a bad situation worse by shifting around various election date requirements so many times and in so many ways that no one had a clue when to expect to vote on anything — with the exception of the even-numbered year August primary and November general elections. It’s taken Lansing a decade to move things close to a logical, truly consolidated election cycle; but, there’s still work to do in that regard, and HB 5219 gets us closer to that end.

The bill would require funding ballot questions to appear on “more logical” dates. As such, voter participation in deciding funding questions would be greatly improved. That would make voting results more accurate reflections of the voters’ will.

Just as important is the cost savings that would result from the new requirement. Municipal clerks have to hold elections on that date, when political races for everything from local positions to state representatives, congressional seats and more are decided. Holding a millage election in an odd-numbered year in a township, for example, can cost the municipality as much as $50,000 or more, depending on the number of precincts involved. That’s an unjustified and unacceptable waste of public money.

Knollenberg says he’s also is working on a bill as part of a larger package that would, among other things, require that renewals — not just increases — of existing levies be held on November dates. That legislation, as well as HB 5219, would apply not only to cities, villages and townships, but also school districts, public safety departments, and other taxing authorities.

If a compromise must be made, it should be to also allow millage questions to appear on August primary election ballots in even-numbered years.

One remaining issue to address is how to handle millage renewal elections involving collections expiring in odd-numbered years. A reasonable solution would be to require a renewal election during the even-numbered November — or August — election date immediately preceding the millage’s odd-year expiration date. If making that happen requires lawmakers to enact additional reforms, then they should get to it as soon as HB 5219 and it’s companion bill are enacted.