WORDING STALLS DRUG LAW BALLOT

Amendments' Foes Say Lack of Preapproval Invalidates
Petitions

LANSING -- Opponents are challenging the wording of statewide ballot
proposals to change Michigan's drug laws and the way the state spends
its money from a national tobacco settlement.

The Board of State Canvassers ruled Monday that enough signatures were
collected to put those proposals, plus a drive to give state employees
binding arbitration rights, on the Nov. 5 ballot.

But the board won't decide until Sept. 3 whether the drug and tobacco
proposals will actually go on the ballot. In what may have been a
critical strategic error, supporters didn't ask the canvassers to
approve their wording before they circulated the petitions, as the
state employee group did. As a result, opponents are now attacking the
petition wording in an effort to keep them from the ballot.

The board approved the binding arbitration question for a public vote
Nov. 5.

Debate over the proposed drug amendment, called the Michigan Drug
Reform Initiative, generated the most sparks at Monday's meeting.
Among other things, it would call for a rewriting of Michigan's tough
sentencing provisions for drug crimes.

Lansing attorney and Engler ally Richard McLellan, representing the
opposition, argued the drug proposal "fundamentally changes the
structure of our government" by forcing the state to appropriate money
for drug treatment and to support a drug sentencing commission.

Craig Yaldoo, head of drug control for the state health department,
charged that the proposal also would result in "legalization of crack
cocaine, heroin and PCP."

Dave Fratello, representing the California-based national organization
backing the Michigan drug proposal, called the arguments against his
group's petitions legalistic and political.

"It's like arguing politics in court," said Fratello of the Campaign
for New Drug Policy, which advocates treatment for first-time and
second-time drug offenders.

Chief organizers of the national effort, which Fratello said already
has succeeded in revising laws in 17 states, are New York financier
George Soros, Cleveland insurance executive Peter Lewis and University
of Phoenix President John Sperling. The three, who put at least $3
million into passage of a proposal that changed California's drug laws
in 2000, say the United States is misspending billions on tough drug
policies that haven't worked.

The drug and tobacco proposals probably are headed for court -- no
matter what the Board of State Canvassers decides next week.

The tobacco proposal, called the Healthy Michigan Amendment, would
change the constitution to require spending 90 percent of Michigan's
revenue from a national tobacco settlement, or about $300 million a
year, on health care and anti-smoking efforts.

It's being pushed by hospitals, doctors and heart, cancer and
lung-disease organizations.

Currently, the state spends about $114 million of its tobacco
settlement money annually on college scholarships, and $100 million to
cover other state budget needs. Opponents of the ballot proposal
include the Michigan Education Association, university officials and
public school principals.

The third proposal, the Michigan Employee Rights Initiative, is likely
to face opposition from business groups. Only Michigan's State Police
now have binding-arbitration rights. Unions and Michigan Democrats are
backing it.

[sidebar]

AT ISSUE

Among statewide ballot proposals:

* Earmark 90 percent of an $8 billion settlement of a lawsuit with big
tobacco companies for health care programs. The money now goes mostly
for $2,500 college scholarships to students who pass state
examinations, the state's Life Sciences Corridor and other programs
supported by the state general fund.

Supporters include: American cancer, heart and lung associations;
Health and Hospital Association; Greater Detroit Area Health Council;
Michigan osteopathic and medical societies. Opponents include Michigan
associations of secondary school principals, independent colleges and
universities, school administrators and nonpublic schools, and the
Presidents Council (of) Michigan State Universities.

* Let judges require substance-abuse treatment, rather than jail or
prison, for some drug offenders. Require stiff penalties for drug
kingpins but eliminate existing mandatory minimum sentences for drug
crimes and create a commission to rewrite Michigan's tough drug
sentencing laws. Appropriate $120 million over six years for the drug
sentencing commission and treatment programs. Require minimum funding
for drug treatment of no less than 2000-01 levels -- about $18 million
a year.

Supporters include: Campaign for New Drug Policies and groups seeking
reform of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Opponents include police,
prosecutors and some judges.

* Allow binding arbitration in bargaining with state employees. The
administration estimates this proposal could cost more than a
half-billion dollars over three years if passed; employee unions say
the tab probably wouldn't exceed $60 million a year.

Supporters include: seven state employee unions and Michigan
Democrats. Likely opponents will be business groups and allies of Engler.