OFF THE BALLOT

Canvassers Find A Mistake And Maybe Make One

Whatever their motives, members of the obscure Board of State Canvassers did
one right thing and one questionable thing in blocking two controversial
proposals from Michigan's Nov. 5 ballot. One would drastically revamp
Michigan drug laws. The other specifies how Michigan's share of the national
tobacco settlement money must be spent.

Both were the objects of petition drives to be placed before the voters. But
the four-member board said the two proposals were improperly worded, sending
the backers of both to the state Court of Appeals, which could reverse the
canvassers.

While courts should generally lean toward making allowances for good-faith
efforts to put a proposal on the ballot, there's a plain mistake in the
drug-law petition that can't be overlooked. Rather than just adding a new
section to the state Constitution, its passage would also abolish the
section added in 1988 to spell out the rights of crime victims. While that
was not the authors' intent, nor was it likely known to the thousands of
people who signed petitions, it is the net effect, and it's a fatal flaw.

The question of the tobacco money is not nearly as clear-cut, and it is here
that the canvassers' motives are suspect. The two Republicans on the
bipartisan four-member board voted against it, creating a deadlock that
keeps it off the ballot. Republican Gov. John Engler has railed against this
and other ballot proposals as "budget busters" for the state and strongly
discouraged support for them. His outspokenness taints the canvassers'
ruling.

To be sure, the tobacco money proposal is itself questionable, adding yet
another spending mandate to the state Constitution and rendering the
Legislature less flexible to meet Michigan's ever-changing needs.

But the technical flaws cited by the Republican canvassers do not appear to
distort the effect of the proposal. In reviewing this decision, the Court of
Appeals should give considerable weight to the right of the people to
petition for constitutional change, and the ultimate power of the voters in
a democracy.