2026 Ballot Proposals: November 3 General Election

Clare County Republican Party: voter information, last checked October 11, 2026

Every Clare County voter will see two statewide proposals this November. Depending on where you live, you may also see local millage proposals. This page explains what is on the ballot in plain English and links to the official wording. Check your own sample ballot to see exactly what you will vote on: Clare County Clerk sample ballots.

---

Statewide Proposals

Proposal 2026-1: Constitutional Convention

How it got on the ballot: Michigan's Constitution (Article XII, Sec. 3) automatically puts this question on the ballot every 16 years. The last time was 2010. No petition or vote of the Legislature was involved.

Official ballot wording:

A proposal to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of drafting a general revision of the state constitution

Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened in 2027 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the state's voters for their approval or rejection?

• A YES vote calls a convention in 2027. Voters would first elect delegates, who would draft a revised state constitution. Any revised constitution would only take effect if voters approved it at a later election.
• A NO vote keeps the current 1963 Constitution as it is. It could still be changed one amendment at a time.

Supporters: No registered "yes" committee.
Opponents: Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests (registered "no" committee). Groups publicly opposed include the Michigan AFL-CIO, the Michigan Education Association, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Business Leaders for Michigan, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

Official text and analysis: SOS ballot wording (PDF) · Senate Fiscal Agency analysis (PDF)

Arguments supporters make (there's no registered "yes" committee, so these come from the Senate Fiscal Agency's summary of supporters' views)

• The 1963 Constitution's structure contributes to corruption and a lack of transparency, and a convention could fix that. (SFA)
• A convention could reform areas some consider broken, such as the education system or the state budget process. (SFA)
• Decades of amendments have made the Constitution complicated, and delegates could streamline it into a clearer document. (SFA)
• A convention could revisit recent constitutional amendments or initiated laws that some voters disagree with. (SFA)

Arguments opponents make (from the Senate Fiscal Agency and the "no" campaign)

• The 1963 Constitution has lasted because citizens can already amend it one issue at a time, so a full rewrite isn't needed. (SFA)
• A convention could be shaped by special interests, lobbyists or out-of-state money, and past amendments could be reversed. (SFA; Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests, via Ballotpedia)
• Uncertainty over taxes and the structure of government could discourage business investment. (SFA; Michigan Chamber, via Ballotpedia)
• A convention would cost taxpayers money, an estimated $10.2 million or more in 2027 dollars, even if voters later rejected its result. (SFA)

---

Proposal 2026-2: Campaign Contributions from Utilities and Government Contractors

How it got on the ballot: Citizen petition (initiated law) by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics. The Board of State Canvassers certified it on July 24, 2026. The Legislature didn't adopt it, so it goes to voters. If approved, it would change the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. It would not change the Constitution.

Official ballot wording:

A proposed initiated law to prohibit campaign contributions from certain regulated utilities and government contractors and apply campaign finance laws and regulations to additional types of political communications

The proposal would:

• Prohibit regulated electric and gas utilities, contractors with over $250,000 annually in government contracts, and people and organizations with substantial connections to these utilities/contractors from making direct or indirect campaign contributions to those who run for or hold offices that impact them.
• Expand laws regulating spending on political communications, including those requiring disclosing donor information, to apply to communications clearly identifying candidates or ballot questions, even if they do not expressly advocate voting for/against them.
• Expressly apply the law requiring disclosure of who paid for political communications to internet political communications.

Should this proposal be adopted?

• A YES vote would bar state-regulated electric and gas utilities (such as DTE and Consumers Energy), companies with more than $250,000 a year in government contracts, and people and groups closely tied to them from giving to campaigns for offices that affect them. It would also require donor disclosure for ads that name a candidate or ballot question, even if the ad doesn't say "vote for" or "vote against." "Paid for by" rules would clearly cover online ads too.
• A NO vote leaves current campaign finance law as it is.

What it would do: the details (from the full initiated-law text filed with the Board of State Canvassers. Section numbers are sections of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, MCL 169.2xx. The Senate Fiscal Agency analysis was used as a cross-check.)

Who is barred from giving

• Utilities (Sec. 30a(1), (5)(a)): Electric and gas utilities regulated by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), such as Consumers Energy and DTE.
• Utility "principals" (Sec. 30a(5)(d)):
  • board members
  • majority owners (more than 50%) and substantial owners (5% or more)
  • the president, CEO, treasurer or officers with similar duties
  • the utility's agents, including its lobbyists
  • immediate family members of the board members, owners and officers listed above
• Utility-affiliated entities (Sec. 30a(2)): Any entity, such as a company PAC, that the utility or a principal directly or indirectly sets up, funds, maintains or controls.
• State contractors (Sec. 30b(9)(i)): Anyone who has, or is seeking, state executive- or legislative-branch contracts that exceed $250,000 in total in a calendar year. This also covers subcontractors whose subcontracts on a state contract exceed $250,000 in a calendar year.
• Local contractors (Sec. 30b(9)(d)): The same $250,000-per-calendar-year test for contracts with a local unit of government, such as a county, township, city, village or school district.
• Contractor "principals" (Sec. 30b(9)(e), (f), (j)): Board members, majority owners (more than 50%), substantial owners (5% or more), the president, CEO, treasurer or similar officers, agents and lobbyists, and immediate family members of the board members, owners and officers. The same 5% threshold applies to utilities.
• What counts as a "contract" (Sec. 30b(9)(a)): Services, goods, construction or repair of public works, and land or building deals, whether bid or not. It doesn't include loans, budget grants or subsidies, union contracts, or agreements between governments.

Who they couldn't give to

• Utilities and their principals and affiliates (Sec. 30a(1)) couldn't give to:
  • the Governor, Attorney General, state senators and state representatives, and candidates for those offices
  • MPSC members and nominees
  • any state or local party committee (named expressly in Sec. 30a(1)(b))
  • any other committee that contributes to those candidates
  • an entity tied to one of those officials, if it spends more than $500 in a cycle supporting them or pays their travel, meals or conference fees
• State contractors and their principals and affiliates (Sec. 30b(1)) couldn't give to:
  • candidates for any state elective office
  • any committee that contributes to state candidates (Sec. 30b(1)(b))
  • affiliated entities that support those candidates (same $500 test)
• Local contractors and their principals and affiliates (Sec. 30b(2)) couldn't give to:
  • candidates for office in the local government they contract with
  • any committee that contributes to those candidates (Sec. 30b(2)(b))
  • affiliated entities that support those candidates
• Party committees and contractors: Unlike the utility section, Sec. 30b doesn't name party committees. But it covers "a committee … that makes contributions to one or more candidates" for the relevant office, and party committees often contribute to candidates. A party committee that gives to state candidates would appear to be covered for state contractors. A county party that gives to candidates in a jurisdiction where a contractor holds local contracts would appear to be covered for that local contractor. This is a reading of the text. The law doesn't name party committees for contractors, and the Secretary of State or courts would settle it.
• Exemptions (Sec. 30a(1)(c), 30b(1)(b), 30b(2)(b)): Independent expenditure committees (super PACs) and ballot question committees are expressly excluded.

Time window

• Contractors (Sec. 30b(4)): The ban starts when negotiations for the contract begin or when the request for proposals or qualifications is released, whichever comes first. It ends 18 months after the contract ends.
• 18-month delay (Sec. 30b(3)): The contractor bans can't be enforced until 18 months after the law takes effect. This delay is only in Sec. 30b, so it applies only to contractors. The utility ban in Sec. 30a has no delay, so it would apply once the law takes effect. Under Mich. Const. Art. II, Sec. 9, an initiated law takes effect 10 days after the official declaration of the vote. The utility ban also has no end date, because it's tied to being a regulated utility, not to a contract.

New "issue ad" (electioneering communication) rule

• What counts (Sec. 5(4)): A public communication (TV, radio, print, mail, billboards, live or recorded calls, paid internet ads and so on) that:
  • references a clearly identifiable candidate, whether or not it says "vote for" or "vote against"
  • runs within 100 days before a general election, or within 30 days before a primary or special election, in which that candidate is on the ballot
  • is targeted to that candidate's voters. The Secretary of State will define "targeted" by rule.
• "Clearly identifiable" (Sec. 3): A name, photo, nickname, drawing or image, or a phrase like "the incumbent" or "your representative."
• Ballot questions (Sec. 6): A separate change to the definition of "expenditure" covers communications that promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate or ballot question, even without express advocacy. The 100-day and 30-day window is in the electioneering definition only.
• Reporting (Sec. 51(3)): Anyone other than a registered committee who spends $5,000 or more on electioneering communications in a calendar year must file a report within 10 days, and again after each additional $5,000. The report must include:
  • dates and amounts spent, and who was paid
  • every candidate identified in the communications
  • the filer's name and address
  • the name, address, occupation, employer and principal place of business of each person who contributed $100.01 or more for making the communications
• Independent expenditures (Sec. 51(1)): Follow-up reports are required within 10 days of each additional $500.01 spent.

Internet and ad "paid for by" rules (Sec. 9(5) and Sec. 47)

• Paid internet communications would have to show who paid for them, the same as printed materials. "Internet communication" means content placed or promoted for a fee on another person's website, app or ad platform. Unpaid posts are not covered.
• Independent internet ads about a candidate must say "Not authorized by any candidate committee," and audio or video ads must say "Not authorized by any candidate."
• Audio and video ads must name the payer and, where it applies, say "paid for with regulated funds."
• Small-format ads may show just the payer's name plus a way to get the rest of the notice immediately. The Secretary of State can require proof that space was too limited.

Enforcement and penalties

• Utilities (Sec. 30a(4)): A civil fine of up to 10 times the contribution. The Secretary of State investigates, and the Attorney General can sue to collect.
• Contractors (Sec. 30b(7)): For a knowing and willful violation, the agency may cancel the contract, and no state or local agency may award the contractor a contract for 12 months after that election.
• Recipients (Sec. 30b(8)): It's not a violation if the gift is returned within 30 days of when the recipient knew or should have known the source was prohibited. The Secretary of State may also weigh whether the donor asked for a refund.
• Reporting (Sec. 51(2)): Late filing fees run up to $1,000 or $5,000. Failing to file for more than 30 days is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

Effect on political parties, including county parties

• Utilities: County parties could not accept contributions from regulated utilities, their PACs, their board members, officers, 5%+ owners or lobbyists, or those people's immediate family members (Sec. 30a(1)(b), (5)(d)).
• Contractors: A county party that contributes to candidates would appear to be barred from accepting gifts from contractors, and their principals and families, whose contracts cover the same offices (Sec. 30b(1)(b), (2)(b)). The state ban starts 18 months after the law takes effect.
• Everyone else: Ordinary employees and donors who aren't principals, owners, officers or their families could still give.
• Party ads: Registered committees, including parties, are exempt from the Sec. 51(3) electioneering report but must follow the new "paid for by" rules.
• Returning gifts: A party that unknowingly accepts a banned contractor gift can avoid a violation by returning it within 30 days (Sec. 30b(8)). The utility section has no matching return provision.

Supporters: Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, a coalition that includes Voters Not Politicians, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action, Michigan United Action and others.
Opponents: Protect MI Free Speech, backed by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Consumers Energy, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Comcast, the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association and others.

Official text and analysis: SOS ballot wording (PDF) · Senate Fiscal Agency analysis (PDF)

Arguments supporters make (from Michiganders for Money Out of Politics and the Senate Fiscal Agency)

• Companies that get state contracts or rely on state-set utility rates shouldn't fund the campaigns of the officials who decide those matters. (SFA)
• Studies show most state legislators have accepted money from energy utilities, which supporters say may tilt votes toward company interests. (SFA)
• Requiring donor disclosure for "issue ads" that name candidates closes a loophole that lets large donors spend anonymously. (SFA; Michiganders for Money Out of Politics)
• Voters deserve to know who is paying for political ads, including online ads. (Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, via Mackinac Center)

Arguments opponents make (from Protect MI Free Speech and the Senate Fiscal Agency)

• Barring specific industries from political giving singles out certain groups and sets a bad free-speech precedent. (SFA; Protect MI Free Speech)
• It expands government regulation of political speech, and the burden falls mostly on business owners and their employees. (SFA)
• Broad disclosure rules could blur the line between campaign activity and issue advocacy and chill grassroots civic engagement. (Protect MI Free Speech and Michigan Chamber, via Mackinac Center)
• It could invite costly court challenges under the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. (SFA)

---

Local Proposals in Clare County

These appear only on ballots in the areas listed. "Mill" means $1 of tax for every $1,000 of taxable value. Taxable value is usually about half of market value or less.

* The official list prints the figure as "$5,731,00," which looks like a typo for about $5,731,000. ** The proposal title says "Renewal," but the ballot question asks voters to approve an "increase" of up to 0.35 mill. In Michigan millage language, a renewal is often worded this way. Contact the Lincoln Township clerk if you have questions.

The full official wording is in the Clare County Official Proposal List (PDF).

What each side says (local proposals): Dollar figures are the tax per $100,000 of taxable value (mills × $100) and are approximate. For renewals, the cost shown continues an existing tax; it isn't a new increase.

• Mid Michigan College: Supporters say it restores the college's voter-approved operating funding. Opponents may cite the added tax cost of ~$29.29 per $100,000 taxable value, with no end date.
• Harrison Community Schools: Supporters say it maintains school operating funds the district already receives. Opponents may cite the continued tax cost of ~$1,743.62 per $100,000 taxable value on non-homestead property (businesses, rentals, second homes).
  • Some opponents point to below-state-average test scores. In 2024–25 state testing, Harrison students in grades 3–7 scored below the state average in every grade in both reading and math. For example, 6th-grade math proficiency was 5.5% vs. 31.5% statewide, and 7th-grade reading was 7.7% vs. 39.2%. Eighth graders were close to the state in PSAT reading (64.3% vs. 65.3%) but below it in PSAT math (15.3% vs. 30.4%). For context, Harrison's 2024–25 four-year graduation rate was 92.0%, above the state's 84.0% (MI School Data). The district says the millage is about 24% of its budget and is needed to receive full state per-pupil funding.
  • Voters rejected the same renewal in the August 4, 2026 primary, about 55% to 45% (unofficial count), and the district put it back on the November ballot.
• Grant Township roads: Supporters say it maintains township road improvements. Opponents may cite the continued tax cost of ~$118.02 per $100,000 taxable value.
• Lincoln Township fire and rescue: Supporters say it maintains fire department operations, equipment and training. Opponents may cite the tax cost of up to ~$35.00 per $100,000 taxable value.
• Redding Township library: Supporters say it provides library services through Marion Area District Library. Opponents may cite the added tax cost of up to ~$30.00 per $100,000 taxable value.
• Surrey Township roads: Supporters say it funds road improvements, construction and brining. Opponents may cite the added tax cost of ~$100.00 per $100,000 taxable value for 10 years.
• Winterfield Township roads: Supporters say it maintains township road improvements. Opponents may cite the continued tax cost of ~$200.00 per $100,000 taxable value.

---

Before You Vote

• See your exact ballot: Clare County sample ballots or Michigan Voter Information Center
• Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

This page is provided for voter information. Proposal wording is taken from official state and county sources.

---

Sources

1. Michigan SOS / Bureau of Elections, "2026 November ballot questions": https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/Elections/Home/Documents/2026-November-ballot-questions.pdf
2. Board of State Canvassers, July 24, 2026 signed minutes: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/BSC-Meeting-Minutes/2026/July-24-2026-BSC-Signed-Minutes.pdf
3. Board of State Canvassers, Aug 24, 2026 draft minutes (Americans for Citizen Voting petition not found sufficient, 2–2 tie): https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/BSC-Meeting-Minutes/2026/August-24-2026-BSC-draft-minutes.pdf
4. Senate Fiscal Agency, Proposal 26-1: https://sfa.senate.michigan.gov/Publications/BallotProps/Proposal26-1.pdf
5. Senate Fiscal Agency, Proposal 26-2: https://sfa.senate.michigan.gov/Publications/BallotProps/Proposal26-2.pdf
6. Clare County Clerk, Official Proposal List (Sept 9, 2026) and 30 precinct sample ballots: https://www.clareclerkrod.com/election
7. Ballotpedia, Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 (2026), for the supporting and opposing committees: https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_2026_ballot_measures
8. Mackinac Center, Proposal 2 analysis, for the coalition members: https://www.mackinac.org/S2026-10
9. Detroit News via AOL (July 2026), MIGOP Chair Runestad's personal comments on Prop 2: https://www.aol.com/articles/michigan-gop-chair-says-might-184710000.html
10. Senate Fiscal Agency, Proposal 26-2 analysis (detailed provisions): https://sfa.senate.michigan.gov/Publications/BallotProps/Proposal26-2.pdf (Michigan Campaign Finance Act, MCL 169.201 et seq., Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 44, 47, 51, new 30a and 30b)
11. Full initiated-law text, Michiganders for Money Out of Politics petition, filed with the Board of State Canvassers (scanned PDF): https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/BSC-Announcements/Michiganders-for-Money-out-of-Politics.pdf
12. Michigan Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 9 (effective date of initiated laws): https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-II-9
13. MI School Data, Grades 3-8 State Testing proficiency: https://www.mischooldata.org/grades-3-8-state-testing-includes-psat-data-proficiency/
14. MI School Data, Graduation/Dropout Rate: https://www.mischooldata.org/graddropout-rate
15. UpNorthLive: https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/harrison-community-schools-voters-reject-operating-millage-renewal
16. Wilcox Newspapers: https://wilcoxnewspapers.com/harrison-school-operating-millage-rejected-by-voters-only-issue-in-clare-county-to-be-voted-down/