By Eric Lupher/President, Citizens Research Council of Michigan
Over the next few months, you are likely to hear increasing discussion of a question that will appear at the 2026 general election. A provision in the Michigan Constitution establishes that the question of convening a convention to draft and propose a constitution to replace the current document shall appear on the ballot every 16 years.
The current Constitution was adopted in 1963 with a narrow majority. The question of convening a convention to draft a new one was rejected in 1978 (77 percent said no), 1994 (72 percent), and 2010 (67 percent).
If the voters vote “no” at the November 2026 election, we will continue operating under the 1963 Constitution. If they choose to convene a convention, it will begin a process of electing delegates, those delegates convening to draft a new document, and then the submittal of the drafted fundamental document to the voters for their approval.
First, aspiring delegates will begin campaigning for election. Every voter will be represented by two delegates. One delegate will be elected in each district of the state House of Representatives (110) and each state Senate (38) district.
A special primary would be held in February 2027, ahead of a special election in May 2027.
The convention would convene on October 5, 2027, to organize and begin work. There is no time limit within which they must complete their work. As a short-term endeavor, we can expect that the delegates will want to complete their work somewhat efficiently to return to their full-time employment.
There is a one-time opportunity sell the voters on the new constitution that they draft. The Constitution dictates that the document will be submitted to the voters “… in the manner and at the time provided by such convention not less than 90 days after final adjournment of the convention.”
Convening a constitutional convention affords the opportunity to make fundamental changes to the structure and operations of Michigan’s state and local governments. Incremental changes have been, and will be, made through the amendment process, but some issues are not addressed for lack of a champion to push for change or because the potential changes are too big to be dealt with through amendments.
That is not to say the 1963 Constitution has not been amended. The voters have adopted 45 (55 percent) of the 82 proposals submitted to them. The articles related to finance and taxation (Article IX) and the legislative branch (IV) were the subject of most proposed amendments.
The themes of the amendments have come in three eras.
From the mid-1960s through the early 1970s, amendments addressed the powers and structure of government with proposals such as those addressing judicial selection and tenure and creation of the State Officer Compensation Commission.
From the 1970s until the mid-1990s, several proposed constitutional amendments were focused on tax limitations, including the 1978 Headlee Amendment and the taxable value system created by Proposal A in 1994.
Recent proposals have related to social agendas, with topics such as same sex marriage, affirmative action, and reproductive rights.
If a constitutional convention is convened, nothing currently in or not in the Constitution is sacred. A subset of the voters may wish to open the document to revisit certain issues ― reproductive rights, tax limitations, the state board of education, the full-time legislature, etc. A different subset of voters may vote against convening a constitutional convention to protect against one or more issues being changed.
As it relates to county governments, a convention may change the constitutional status of county officers, the balance of power with townships, and the ability to fund county operations by altering tax limitations or authorizing local-option sales taxes.