#FactsMatter, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan podcast

In this episode of the #FactsMatter Podcast, host Guy Gordon and Research Council analyst Karley Abramson break down the three major changes that would take effect if Michigan voters approve Proposal 2: expanded disclosure rules for modern digital ads, new contribution bans for large state contractors, and the more widely known prohibition on political donations from regulated utility companies.

Abramson explains where Proposal 2 addresses real concerns, but only within narrow constitutional limits, and why some impacts may be smaller—or legally more vulnerable—than voters expect.

They discuss how Proposal 2’s effects may be modest and that some parts may face legal challenges. Voters will ultimately weigh transparency and anti-corruption goals against free-speech concerns.

For some, the vote may serve more as a protest statement than as a policy solution.

Article XII of the Michigan Constitution governs how the Constitution can be amended or revised. In this episode of the #FactsMatter podcast, Eric Lupher and Guy Gordon focus on Article XII, examining whether Michigan’s current system makes constitutional change too easy or too hard and what issues might arise if voters approve a constitutional convention.

Eric emphasizes that the constitution is “the people’s document,” but the process must strike a balance—accessible enough to enable meaningful change yet difficult enough to prevent outside interests from easily reshaping Michigan’s foundational rules. As he notes, Michigan has adopted 44 amendments since 1963.

They discuss Michigan’s unusually accessible citizen-initiative process, which is among the easiest in the nation (only Oregon and California are easier), the narrow gap between statutory and constitutional signature thresholds, and the outsized role this plays in pushing groups to amend the constitution rather than pursue legislation.

The conversation underscores why Michigan’s 16-year constitutional convention question exists and why the Citizens Research Council’s analyses remain essential, providing Michigan’s policymakers and citizens with the rigorous research needed to protect the integrity of the state constitution and to make informed decisions.

In this 13th episode of the #FactsMatter podcast on the Michigan Constitution—ahead of a statewide ballot question asking whether Michigan should hold a constitutional convention (con-con)—Guy Gordon and Eric Lupher explore how Article 11 governs public service, employee rights, compensation, impeachment, and ethics—and what could change if voters call a constitutional convention.

What stays—and what is at stake

Basic safeguards, such as oaths, terms of office, and limits on additional compensation, would likely remain. The real debate centers on civil service, bargaining rights, accountability, and ethics.

Civil service and bargaining

Michigan’s independent Civil Service Commission protects a merit-based workforce from patronage. A convention could preserve those constitutional safeguards, strengthen public employees’ bargaining rights, or grant lawmakers greater budgetary flexibility—the outcome would depend on who voters elect as delegates.

Accountability gaps

Outdated timing rules create conflicts between legislative budgeting and civil service pay decisions. Article 11 also leaves “civil officer” undefined and allows removed officials to seek office again. A convention could close both gaps.

The strongest case for reform: ethics

Michigan ranks near the bottom nationally in ethics and transparency. Stronger constitutional standards could tighten disclosure rules, curb the revolving door between lawmakers and lobbyists, and break the pattern of legislative gridlock—transforming public demand for reform into enforceable guardrails.

The Citizens Research Council hopes this podcast series and the accompanying constitutional series of papers will help inform voters before November 3 on Proposal 1: whether to call a constitutional convention.

The Research Council takes no position on whether to call a constitutional convention.

In this 13th episode of the #FactsMatter podcast on the Michigan Constitution—ahead of a statewide ballot question asking whether Michigan should hold a constitutional convention (con-con)—Guy Gordon and Eric Lupher explore how Article 11 governs public service, employee rights, compensation, impeachment, and ethics—and what could change if voters call a constitutional convention.

What stays—and what is at stake

Basic safeguards, such as oaths, terms of office, and limits on additional compensation, would likely remain. The real debate centers on civil service, bargaining rights, accountability, and ethics.

Civil service and bargaining

Michigan’s independent Civil Service Commission protects a merit-based workforce from patronage. A convention could preserve those constitutional safeguards, strengthen public employees’ bargaining rights, or grant lawmakers greater budgetary flexibility—the outcome would depend on who voters elect as delegates.

Accountability gaps

Outdated timing rules create conflicts between legislative budgeting and civil service pay decisions. Article 11 also leaves “civil officer” undefined and allows removed officials to seek office again. A convention could close both gaps.

The strongest case for reform: ethics

Michigan ranks near the bottom nationally in ethics and transparency. Stronger constitutional standards could tighten disclosure rules, curb the revolving door between lawmakers and lobbyists, and break the pattern of legislative gridlock—transforming public demand for reform into enforceable guardrails.

The Citizens Research Council hopes this podcast series and the accompanying constitutional series of papers will help inform voters before November 3 on Proposal 1: whether to call a constitutional convention.

The Research Council takes no position on whether to call a constitutional convention.

In this episode, Guy Gordon talks with Doug Ortiz, Director of the Citizen Research Council’s Detroit, about Detroit’s property crime trends, specifically about larceny, motor‑vehicle theft, and why Detroit’s rates remain elevated. Ortiz’s analysis used FBI data and the Research Council's peer‑city benchmarking.

Detroit’s property crime is down from the 1990s — but still higher than peer cities. They dig into FBI data, compare Detroit to six similar cities, and explore how poverty, unemployment, and income inequality drive crime trends. Ortiz explains why community‑based policing works, why tech tools like Project Green Light help but aren’t enough, and why benchmarking matters more than raw numbers.

Detroit’s property crime has improved dramatically over decades, but peer cities have outpaced its progress. Benchmarking reveals gaps that absolute numbers alone obscure — especially in motor‑vehicle theft, which continues to shape quality of life, insurance costs, and regional perceptions.

A clear, fact‑driven look at where Detroit stands — and where it needs to go.

Michigan voters will soon face a major decision: whether to reopen the state constitution for revision. In this episode of the #FactsMatter Podcast, Guy Gordon and Research Council President Eric Lupher continue their article‑by‑article exploration of what’s inside the Michigan Constitution — and what might change if a constitutional convention/con-con moves forward.

This episode explores Article X - Property of the Michigan Constitution. They explore how Michigan reshaped eminent domain in 2006, why the constitution still references the historic “disability of coverture,” and how property rights for non‑citizens fit into today’s political climate.

As Michigan voters prepare to decide this November whether to convene a constitutional convention, this conversation offers clear, nonpartisan context on what Article X protects — and what future reformers might revisit.

Also on September 22, at noon, the Research Council will hold a webinar to review the Con-Con series highlights, with the goal of helping voters make informed, fact‑based decisions: https://crcmich.org/webinars/proposal-26-1-understanding-a-constitutional-revision

Recent federal changes to SNAP eligibility have already led to an 8% decline in Michigan participation, leaving roughly 100,000 residents without access to food assistance.

In this episode of the #FactsMatter podcast, Karley Abramson, Research Council Associate for Health Policy, outlines how the new federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) changed SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) eligibility, including the expansion of work requirements, the exclusion of refugees and asylum seekers, and the narrowing of geographic exemptions -- only counties experiencing extremely high unemployment now qualify. The episode also examines how these changes ripple through schools, health systems, and local economies, and what Michigan can do to mitigate the impact.

From universal school meals to navigation support and stronger food bank partnerships, the loss of roughly 100,000 participants represents an estimated $300 million reduction in federal food dollars flowing into Michigan’s economy, with ripple effects for families, grocers, and healthcare systems.

The conversation also highlights what Michigan can do to soften the blow, including universal school meals, navigation support, stronger food bank partnerships, and broader tools such as the earned income tax credit.

Karley underscores that while some losses are unavoidable, Michigan can still act to ensure that every eligible resident receives benefits and that those who fall through the cracks have access to alternative supports.

#FactsMatter podcast host Guy Gordon and Eric Lupher, president of the Citizens Research Council, take a deep dive into Article IX of the Michigan Constitution, which governs finance and taxation. They explore why Article IX has become a magnet for constitutional amendments over the past 60 years, noting that Michigan voters often turn to constitutional changes because of deep mistrust in the legislature’s ability to manage taxation and spending.

The conversation examines several major issues that could resurface if Michigan voters approve a constitutional convention:

Flat vs. graduated income tax: Michigan’s constitution mandates a flat rate, but exemptions and credits create de facto progressivity. Lupher explains that other states adjust their tax structures legislatively, whereas Michigan locks its structure into constitutional text.

Sales tax limitations: Michigan’s 6% sales tax is constitutionally capped and heavily earmarked, leaving no room for local sales taxes—something many local governments may seek to revisit.

State revenue limit: A Headlee-era cap tying state revenues to personal income has become “irrelevant,” Lupher notes, as personal income has stagnated and state revenues have fallen. “We are now $11, close to $12, billion dollars below that revenue limit…”

Earmarking: The constitution’s extensive revenue earmarking restricts legislative flexibility, especially during recessions. Lupher recalls that earmarking was a major reason voters approved the 1961–63 constitutional rewrite.

Borrowing restrictions: Michigan requires voter approval for certain types of state borrowing, an important safeguard, but one that can limit responsiveness during emergencies or major infrastructure needs.

Local government finance constraints: Headlee, Proposal A, and taxable value limits have severely restricted local governments’ ability to raise revenue. Lupher suggests that local governments may be the most motivated constituency for a constitutional convention.

Pensions: The constitution’s strong protections for public pensions were intended to ensure that governments kept their promises to workers. Although defined-benefit plans are less common today, these protections remain significant.

Throughout the conversation, Lupher emphasizes that Article IX is cluttered with statutory-level detail, often copied directly from older laws. This makes the constitution inflexible and difficult to modernize. “If you're going to start in one place to clean this up… that's it.”

The episode closes with a sober reminder: while Article IX may be the strongest argument for a constitutional convention, Michigan’s polarized political climate makes such an undertaking risky and contentious.

Michigan’s new school budget quietly introduced one of the most consequential changes in years: a built-in mechanism to soften the financial blow to schools from a 25% decline in K–12 enrollment since 2003, with an additional 8% decline projected over the next five years.

In this #FactsMatter episode, Guy Gordon and senior Research Director Craig Thiel unpack the drivers of Michigan’s 25% enrollment drop, explain why districts can’t simply “right-size” overnight, and explain how the new three-year averaging formula works.

Because Michigan funds schools on a per‑pupil basis, declining enrollment means declining revenue. But districts can’t immediately cut costs—students who leave are spread across grades and buildings, and fixed costs like transportation and facilities don’t shrink proportionally. As Thiel explains, “It’s not that those 50 kids are all in the fifth grade and you can lose two fifth‑grade teachers.”

Thiel explains that while the change will cost the state roughly $186 million next year, it represents less than 1% of total K–12 funding — yet it dramatically affects district stability. The catch? These dollars are one-time funds, creating a looming funding cliff unless lawmakers make the policy permanent. With Michigan projected to lose another 8% of students by 2031, this is not a temporary challenge but a structural one.

Thiel argues that if declining-enrollment stabilization is to be part of the core funding formula, it needs a dedicated, ongoing funding source—not temporary dollars that disappear and destabilize district budgets.

Michigan is stuck in the bottom tier for income, job growth, and population — but researcher Madhu Anderson says the turnaround won’t come from another statewide task force. It’ll come from the ground up.

In this episode of #FactsMatter, Guy Gordon and Anderson dig into why and what might finally move the needle.

It’s a hopeful, data-driven conversation about how local strategies, strong social networks, and targeted investment can lift entire regions. The message: Michigan has the tools to change its trajectory. Now it needs to use them.

Anderson’s new research brief, Accelerating Michigan’s Path to Prosperity, argues that statewide “grand plans” haven’t delivered results. Instead, the real action is local. Using Harvard’s Opportunity Atlas and Social Capital Atlas, communities can now see — down to the neighborhood level — how children grow up, what their long‑term earnings are, and how social networks help or hinder them.

The surprise? Grand Rapids quietly became one of the country’s fastest-growing cities for personal income, thanks in part to community‑driven strategies such as its Neighborhoods of Focus initiative.

The takeaway: Michigan doesn’t need another blue‑ribbon commission. It needs to empower local leaders with better data, proven models, and the ability to tailor solutions to their own residents. The tools are free. The urgency is real. The path forward is local.