Amendments to the Michigan Constitution

Michigan has approved four constitutions over the course of the state’s history. The state’s first constitution was drafted during the summer of 1835 by 91 elected delegates meeting in Detroit. Despite warnings from President Jackson and Congress that Michigan could not be admitted to the Union because of an unsettled boundary dispute with Ohio, delegates drafted a constitution, which was later ratified by voters. True to its warnings, Congress rejected Michigan’s bid for statehood. Congress instead passed a bill that would cede the disputed Toledo Strip to Ohio and grant Michigan the western two-thirds of what is now the Upper Peninsula. Michigan initially rejected this compromise in an 1836 “Convention of Assent,” at which time tensions had escalated into the Toledo War. Michigan mobilized its militia to prevent Ohio from setting up local governments, but the “war” involved more political posturing than armed conflict—there was only one casualty, which occurred during a tavern brawl. At the same time, the Michigan Territory was suffering a financial crisis and could not afford to support this standing militia indefinitely. Spurred on by the territory’s fiscal difficulties, a “Second Convention of Assent,” later coined the “Frostbitten Convention,” passed a resolution to accept Congress’s compromise. Subsequently, on January 26, 1837, Michigan was formally admitted as the 26th state in the Union. 

Michigan’s current constitution was adopted in 1963. It can be amended by legislative or citizen-initiated proposals, both of which require approval by popular vote. In addition, the constitution gives Michiganders the chance to vote every 16 years on whether to hold a constitutional convention to revise or replace the constitution, and the legislature can also place a convention request on the ballot at any time.

Reproductive Freedom Amendment

In 2022, Michigan voters passed an amendment to create an express state constitutional right to reproductive freedom. The amendment limits how the state may regulate the provision of abortion care and forbids adverse state actions against individuals based on miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. This amendment originated as an initiative petition in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn Roe v. Wade. Dobbs resulted in the revival of Michigan’s 1931 abortion ban, although a state court blocked enforcement of that law ahead of the vote on the amendment, citing the state constitution’s due process clause. The legislature ultimately repealed the 1931 law following the passage of this constitutional amendment.

Voting Rights and Election Reform

Politicians continued to spar over voting rights and election rules after voters enshrined a series of voting-related provisions in the constitution in 2018. The Republican-controlled legislature proposed laws that would tighten rules regarding voter ID, absentee ballots, and drop boxes. The state’s Democratic governor vetoed these measures, and the legislature then sought to circumvent that veto by employing a provision of the state constitution that allows lawmakers to enact proposed initiative petitions that reach the signature threshold. These legislatively adopted initiative petitions are not subject to the popular vote or the governor’s veto. 

As lawmakers and their allies began to gather signatures for their voting proposals, the same group behind the 2018 amendment spearheaded an alternative amendment proposal that rejected the legislature’s measures and instead enshrined new constitutional protections for voting rights. Michigan voters ultimately approved this alternative amendment. Among other things, the amendment guarantees nine days of early voting, makes absentee voting easier, and allows local governments to use certain private donations to administer elections, subject to disclosure.

The amendment also clarifies that canvassing boards have a “ministerial” duty to certify election results based only on the official records of votes cast and explicitly recognizes the exclusive role of the Board of State Canvassers in certifying statewide and federal results and supervising recounts. This particular provision responded to events in November 2020, when the Wayne County Board of canvassers initially declined to certify the election results, and sought to ensure that county boards of canvassers would properly discharge their duties in future elections. 

For more information on voting reforms, see 2018.

Protections Against Searches and Seizures of Electronic Data

In 2020, Michigan voters approved an amendment to add protections against unreasonable search and seizure for electronic data and communications. Just as the government is required to obtain a search warrant to search a person’s home or seize a person’s things, the amendment requires a search warrant to access a person’s electronic data and communications. The amendment saw wide support, including members of both major parties, the Michigan State Police and the American Civil Liberties Union. Although the U.S. Supreme Court had previously held that a search warrant is necessary to search a person’s cellphone, proponents of the Michigan amendment emphasized that the court could overturn its prior decision and that the amendment would give Michiganders independent protections.

Voting Rights Reforms

In 2018, Michigan voters approved an initiated amendment that enacted a series of voting rights reforms. The amendment enumerated eight specific rights:

A secret ballot

Receipt of absentee ballots by military and overseas voters at least 45 days before an election, by request

Straight-party voting

Automatic registration when applying for, updating, or renewing a driver’s license or state-issued identification card

Extending in-person registration up to and including election day

Guaranteeing mail-in registration up to 15 days before an election

No-excuse absentee voting

Right to statewide audit of election results

Each of these reforms had already been adopted by other states, which led some proponents of the amendment to characterize Michigan’s laws as having “fallen behind” those of other states.

For more on voting rights reforms, see 2022.

Redistricting Commission Amendment

The 1963 Constitution apportioned legislative districts using formulas that considered both population and geography. Those formulas became inapplicable in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” rulings, which set new federal constitutional standards for district population equality. Michigan also experienced repeated deadlocks under the 1963 Constitution’s redistricting provisions, forcing courts to step in after multiple decennial censuses to adopt new maps. When political actors did manage to adopt maps, they faced criticism for engaging in gerrymandering.

In an effort to improve the state’s redistricting processes and outcomes, Michigan voters approved an initiated amendment in 2018 establishing the Michigan Independent Redistricting Commission and adopting new mapmaking standards. The commission consists of four members affiliated with each major political party and five unaffiliated members, all chosen randomly from a pool of applicants. To protect the independence of the commission, the amendment also stated that the “powers of the commission are legislative functions not subject to the control or approval of the legislature” or the governor, and asserted that legislative, executive, and judicial power may be limited when it comes to redistricting commission oversight. Proponents expressed hope that this system would insulate mapmaking from machinations by legislators to prioritize their own reelection over the will of the voters. Following passage of the 2018 amendment, Michigan’s new redistricting commission survived several legal challenges and drew its first maps in 2022.

For more on redistricting, see 1952.

Prohibiting Affirmative Action

In 2006, Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 to prohibit affirmative action programs in public employment, education, and contracting. The amendment originated as an initiative petition in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld certain aspects of the University of Michigan’s admissions policy allowing for the consideration of race in admissions decisions. 

A day after the proposition was approved, opponents challenged it in federal court. They contended that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause for Michigan voters to place a ban on racial preferences into the state’s constitution and thereby prevent affirmative action policy from being made through ordinary state lawmaking processes. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the challenge and upheld the amendment in Schuette v. BAMN (2014). In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Grutter and held that the U.S. Constitution itself bars race-conscious admissions schemes. 

Restricting Eminent Domain

Michigan voters also approved an amendment to restrict the use of eminent domain and provide a minimum value for compensation. This legislatively referred amendment placed the Michigan Supreme Court’s interpretation of eminent domain law into the state constitution. The amendment was intended to “prevent more expansive future state court rulings or legislation.” The legislature was concerned that, if these restrictions on eminent domain were not constitutionalized, that state courts might follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court, which had recently ruled that a city could take private property to sell for private development to advance the city’s interest in promoting economic development. The amendment directly responded to this decision by forbidding property from being taken for transfer to a private individual or business for economic development or increased tax revenue and subjecting takings to eliminate blight to a higher standard of proof to demonstrate public use.

Term Limits for Federal and State Officials

Michigan voters adopted a voter-initiated petition amending the constitution to establish term limits for several elected offices. The amendment limited congressional representatives to three terms in 12 years, congressional senators to two terms in 24 years, state representatives to three terms, and state senators to two terms. It also limited the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general to two terms. Proponents of the measure argued that term limits would “end the era of ‘career politicians,’ create more political competition and reduce the influence of special interests.” Or, as the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals put it, “the people of Michigan chose a citizen legislature, not a professional one.” Part of this amendment was invalidated in 1995, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down congressional term limits, holding that such limits functionally add a qualification for federal office that the U.S. Constitution does not permit.

In 2022, voters approved a legislatively referred amendment changing state legislative term limits to 12 total years of service, in any combination of state representative and state senator. The 2022 amendment also added an annual financial disclosure requirement for members of the state legislature, the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.

State Officers Compensation Commission

In 1968, Michigan voters approved a legislatively referred amendment establishing the State Officers Compensation Commission (“SOCC”). The SOCC, as originally designed, determined compensation for members of the legislature, the governor and lieutenant governor, and justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, with the legislature only able to reject these recommendations by a two-thirds majority in each house. Prior to this amendment, the legislature set the salary for all state officers, including its own. The commission was formed in response to concerns that legislators should not be setting their own salaries.

In 2002, Michigan voters approved a legislatively referred amendment extending the SOCC’s authority to include setting the compensation for the attorney general and secretary of state. The amendment also expanded the legislature’s control over the SOCC by requiring a majority of the legislature to approve the SOCC’s compensation determinations. The legislature was also given the authority to amend the SOCC’s determinations but only to raise the salary. This has largely had the effect of freezing compensation increases for Michigan state officials, because lawmakers have proven reluctant to approve salary increases.

Gubernatorial Appointment to Fill Judicial Vacancies

Voters also adopted a legislatively referred amendment allowing the governor to fill judicial vacancies by appointment. As ratified in 1963, the constitution allowed the Michigan Supreme Court to fill judicial vacancies by appointing retired former judges to the position. These judges would be ineligible to run in the election to fill the position they were temporarily occupying. The 1968 amendment transferred the power of appointment to the governor, set the election to permanently fill the vacancy to occur at the next general election, and permitted the appointed judge to run for election. The supreme court retained the power to appoint former judges to fill temporary positions or perform specific judicial duties. This amendment restored the gubernatorial power of judicial vacancy appointments, which had existed in Article VII, Section 20 of the 1908 Constitution but was removed in 1963. Supporters argued that the system implemented by the 1963 Constitution caused delays and backlogs and that returning the power to the governor would “insure just determinations” that would be “made with dispatch . . . as closely related in time to the incident giving rise to the dispute as possible.”

Judicial Tenure Commission

A 1968 amendment created the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, which is empowered to “hold state judges, magistrates, and referees accountable for their misconduct without jeopardizing or compromising the essential independence of the judiciary.” As adopted, and holding true today, the commission is comprised of nine members: four judges, elected by their peers; three members of the state bar, elected by the State Bar of Michigan; and two members appointed by the governor who may not be judges, retired judges, or members of the state bar. Based on the commission’s recommendations, the supreme court could censure, suspend, retire, or remove a judge for “conviction of a felony, physical or mental disability which prevents performance of judicial duties, misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conduct that is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice,” and other violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or Rules of Professional Conduct.

The amendment was supported by the Emergency Committee for Judicial Reform, a group that included state supreme court justices and appellate court judges. Proponents of the amendment characterized the commission as a “check against an arrogant or otherwise unwise unpopular judge” and a way to bring “balance” to “the otherwise complete independence [judges] are granted once the voters have approved them.”     

Michigan’s Fourth Constitution

In addition to lowering the threshold for a successful constitutional convention referendum, the 1960 gateway amendment also included a provision putting another constitutional convention referendum on the April 1961 ballot. By a narrow margin of 23,421 votes, the referendum was approved. A number of local and statewide electoral offices were also on the ballot, and the referendum would have failed had it been subjected to the pre-1960 threshold.

Voters elected 144 delegates to serve in the constitutional convention, which met for eight months starting in October 1961. In preparation for the convention, the governor appointed the Constitutional Convention Preparatory Commission (which was funded by the Kellogg Foundation after the legislature refused to allocate more than $5,000 for preparatory work). Other private grants funded convention-related research efforts.

The resulting 1963 Constitution differed from the 1908 Constitution in a number of ways, such as:

Including a state equal protection clause

Explicitly stating that legislature’s authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections is subject to state constitutional requirements and limitations

Clarifying that sufficiency of grounds for recall is a political, not judicial, question

Providing for Michigan Supreme Court advisory opinions

Declaring conservation and development of natural resources a matter of “paramount public concern”

Requiring consolidation of executive and administrative agencies and limiting the number of such agencies to 20 departments

Creating the Michigan Court of Appeals

Establishing the bipartisan Commission on Legislative Apportionment, comprised of four members from each major party

The proposed constitution was ratified, following a recount, by just over 7,000 votes, and went into effect the following year.

Gateway Amendment

In the period leading up to 1960, Michigan voters once again struggled to call a constitutional convention. Between 1926 and 1961, there were five referenda on the question of revising the 1908 Constitution, of which three were proposed by the legislature independent of the automatic ballot question. On two occasions, in 1948 and 1958, a substantial majority of electors who voted on the convention question supported it, but the proposal failed to gain support from the required majority of electors voting in the election. For example, in 1958, 821,282 voted in favor and only 608,265 against, and yet the proposal failed to carry because over two million votes were cast in the gubernatorial election.

Following the failed 1958 referendum, supporters of a constitutional convention again asked the Michigan Supreme Court to determine whether the required majority was a majority of voters on the question or a majority of voters at the election. The court once again confirmed that the correct denominator was the number of voters who participated in the election, writing, “[a] study of the contemporaneous legal history leaves no doubt as to the answer” and that “[a] call for a convention cannot be carried by the indifference of the electorate.”

Not long after, leading civic organizations in Michigan developed an initiative proposal to amend the 1908 Constitution to make it easier to call a constitutional convention by reducing the threshold to a majority of votes on the convention question. The amendment, called the “gateway amendment,” passed in November 1960.

Population-Based Redistricting

In 1952, Michigan voters considered two separate initiated constitutional amendments to equalize the population of electoral districts. The first proposal, which was rejected, would have shifted the reapportionment authority to the secretary of state. The second, which prevailed, required only the House to be reapportioned based on population—Senate districts would remain fixed by geography—and retained the reapportionment power with the legislature; however, if the legislature failed to reapportion the state, the duty would fall to the state board of canvassers. Proponents of the second redistricting amendment feared that population-based redistricting of the entire legislature would not be “fair to those . . . who reside[d] in the rural areas of the state.”

For more on redistricting, see 2018.

Nonpartisan Elections for Judicial Officers

In 1939, Michigan voters approved a voter-initiated constitutional amendment which replaced the prior system of partisan judicial elections with a system of nominally nonpartisan judicial elections. This initiative was part of a series of attempted judicial reforms, all of which sought to move the state away from partisan judicial elections. These earlier efforts, such as a 1938 initiative to introduce a merit-based judicial selection system, were rejected by voters. States with non-partisan judicial elections typically have non-partisan primary and general elections. Following the 1939 amendment, Michigan employed a hybrid system whereby most judges were selected through non-partisan primary and general elections but supreme court candidates continued to be nominated at partisan conventions. Michigan is the only state to employ this type of “hybrid” system. 

In April 1913, Michigan voters approved a trio of legislatively referred amendments bolstering direct democracy. In the preceding years, there had been growing demands for direct democracy in the state. The delegates that drafted the 1908 Constitution considered these demands but only narrowly approved comparatively weak direct democracy provisions.

Initiative and Referendum 

The initiative power adopted in the 1908 Constitution was described as “restrictive” and “hollow,” in part because of the onerous signature requirement and opportunities for legislative intervention. Furthermore, in addition to constituting a simple majority of votes on the question itself, the affirmative vote on any initiated constitutional amendment also had to equal at least one-third of the votes cast in the election, based on whichever race drew the most voters. The referendum power had remained limited to approving or rejecting legislatively referred constitutional amendments, with delegates declining to expand the power to include the ability to reject statutes.

Following ratification of the 1908 Constitution, the initiative powers “proved to be of no value, and they were never used.” Successive governors supported additional reforms, culminating in two amendments to create a “more liberal plan for popular initiative and referendum,” which gave “much wider power to the voters.” The new initiative power gave voters the ability to initiate both constitutional amendments and statutes. The signature threshold for initiated amendments was lowered from 20% of the vote cast in the prior secretary of state race to 10% of the prior gubernatorial race and set at 8% for initiated statutes and 5% for statutory referendums.

Voters took advantage of these new features almost immediately, successfully placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 1914, although it failed to receive the requisite majority vote at the election. A later 1932 amendment repealing prohibition and establishing a liquor control commission was the first citizen-initiated amendment to pass in Michigan. Both the initiative and referendum were carried forward in the 1963 Constitution and continue to play an active role in Michigan politics.

Recall of State Officers

In the same election, Michigan voters approved a legislatively referred amendment that provided for the recall of any elected official other than judges. Unlike the sections on initiative and referendum, which specified the mechanisms for initiating a measure or calling a referendum, the procedures for recall were left up to the legislature. The 1913 law passed by the legislature to effectuate the amendment set the signature threshold at 25% of turnout in the official’s electoral district. Subsequent amendments to the recall statute in 1917 and 1931 made few changes, except to prohibit the recalled officer from running to fill the vacancy created by their removal from office.

Difficulty in Calling Constitutional Conventions

Following the failed attempts at constitutional revision in 1868 and 1874, it wasn’t until 1908 that Michiganders successfully adopted a newly revised constitution. During the intervening period, Michigan voters rejected the opportunity to call a constitutional convention on five more occasions; legislative action placed the question on the ballot in 1890, 1892, and 1904, and the 16-year constitutional provision submitted the question to the voters in 1882 and 1898.

When the convention question appeared in 1892 and 1898, there were more votes in favor of a convention than against one; however, the yes votes were short of constituting a majority of all voters in the election. In 1899, the legislature requested clarification from the attorney general on the question of what the appropriate majority was for calling a convention under the terms of the 1850 Constitution. The attorney general concluded that calling a convention required a majority of those participating in the election to vote in favor of calling a convention, not limited to those votes on the specific convention question. Legislators then took the issue to the Michigan Supreme Court, but the court agreed with the attorney general. In 1904, the convention question was again put to voters, and again it suffered the same fate with a majority of affirmative votes on the question itself, but not an overall majority of all election participants. 

Then, in 1905, the Legislature “tried a new approach.” It passed a law requiring that the question of whether to hold a constitutional convention should be submitted to the voters at a special election, where the vote on the question would be the only vote, and, thus, the same as the total vote at the election. The language of the 1850 Constitution authorized the legislature to hold such an election “at such other times as the Legislature may by law provide.” The legislature called the special election on April 2, 1906, where the question of calling a constitutional convention finally received the necessary majority vote. 

Michigan’s Third Constitution

Following the April election, voters elected 96 delegates to the constitutional convention, who met from the end of 1907 through the beginning of 1908. The revised constitution included several new provisions, such as:

Governor line-item veto power over appropriations bills.

Home rule authority for localities

Compromise initiative system, requiring signatures equivalent to 20% of the vote for secretary of state at the prior election and giving the legislature the opportunity to veto any initiative by a simple majority or propose an alternative.

Increased salary for state officers

Permitting the legislature to establish a circulating system of circuit judges

Giving women taxpayers the right to vote on questions related to the direct expenditure of money and the issue of bonds

One delegate described the 1908 Constitution by writing that it “[did] not accomplish any radical revolution” and “occupie[d] a middle position between the constitutions of the older eastern States, and those of the newer States with their experiments in novel ideas.” Despite the difficulties involved in calling a convention under the terms of the 1850 Constitution, the 1908 Constitution readopted the same requirement that a call for a constitutional convention receive approval from a majority of voters participating in the election, not limited to those voting on the convention question. Voters ratified the proposed constitution in November by a vote of 244,705 to 130,783, and it went into effect the following year. 

For more on the effort to call constitutional conventions, see 1960.

Rejected 1874 Constitution

Voters rejected another proposed constitution in 1874. Instead of being written by a convention, this constitution was written by an 18-member commission authorized by the legislature and appointed by the governor. The commission was charged with devising “such amendments, or such revision to the Constitution, as in their judgment may be necessary for the best interests of the State and the people.” One notable proposed alteration, also present in the failed 1868 proposed constitution, was to reinstate a unified Bill of Rights in the Michigan Constitution. The 1850 Constitution had dispensed with the separate Bill of Rights included in the 1835 Constitution, which critics argued “relegat[ed] important liberties to the status of miscellany.” The 1874 proposal met the same fate as its 1868 predecessor: The proposed constitution was rejected by a three-to-one margin in the November election. 

Women’s Suffrage

The same year, voters rejected a separate amendment that would have granted women suffrage. Proponents had attempted to have the provision included in the constitution drafted by the 1874 commission. While the provision failed to gain the support of the commission, the Michigan State Woman Suffrage Association managed to obtain enough legislative support to have the proposal placed on the ballot as a separate measure. Despite the best efforts of both local and state level volunteers, the proposed amendment failed with only 40,077 votes in favor and 135,957 votes in opposition. Although women’s suffrage appeared on the ballot again in 1912 and 1913, Michigan voters would not approve a women’s suffrage amendment until 1918, just one year before the state ratified the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Rejected 1868 Constitutions

The 1850 Constitution contained a provision that puts the question of whether to revise the constitution to voters every 16 years. Michigan voters elected to revise the constitution at the first opportunity to do so in 1866. Delegates were selected and the convention met in 1867 and crafted a new constitution. However, the next year, voters rejected the proposed constitution. Among the unpopular provisions of the proposed constitution were a number of salary increases for state officers and the extension of the franchise to African American men. Black men in Michigan would have to wait three more years, until the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to receive the right to vote. 

Removal of State Officers by the Governor

In 1862, voters approved an amendment giving the governor the power to remove any public officer, including state executive officers such as the Attorney General, State Treasurer, Commissioner of the Land Office, Secretary of State, Auditor General, Superintendent of Public Instruction, or members of the State Board of Education, when the legislature is not in session. These officers could be removed for “gross neglect of duty,” “corrupt conduct in office, or any other misfeasance or malfeasance therein.” Upon exercising the power of removal, the governor was to report the cause of removal to the legislature and appoint a successor to serve the remainder of the unexpired term.

This amendment was first introduced as a substitute for the impeachment power, providing recourse in the case of official misconduct or neglect of duty even when the legislature was not in session. The amendment grew out of then-Governor Austin Blair’s contention that “he did not have authority to remove the state treasurer for failure to perform his duties while the legislature was not in session.”

This provision was carried over to the 1908 Constitution and later to the 1963 Constitution. As adopted in the 1963 Constitution, the power is no longer restricted to times when the legislature is not in session. The power has seldom been invoked and has rarely resulted in the removal of a public officer.

Michigan’s Second Constitution

Only fifteen years after enacting the 1835 Constitution, Michigan voters approved their second constitution. The financial crisis that had pushed Michigan to accept the compromise over the Toledo Strip continued to plague the state, eventually leading to a new constitution that included provisions to govern spending and regulate banks. This constitution also reflected tenets of Jacksonian democracy, which aimed to increase popular control of government, including by expanding the number of elected offices. However, this commitment to government by the people failed to extend across racial lines. Michigan voters had the opportunity in 1850 to extend suffrage to non-white citizens through a separate ballot measure, but they rejected the provision.