Elections in Michigan
Federal government U.S. President 1836 1840 1844 1848 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 Dem 2008 Dem GOP 2012 Dem GOP 2016 Dem 2020 Dem GOP 2024 Dem GOP U.S. Senate 1835 1840 (sp) 1841 1847 1849 (sp) 1853 1857 1858 1862 (sp) 1863 1865 1869 1871 1874 1877 1879 (sp) 1881 1881 (sp) 1887 1889 1893 1895 1895 (sp) 1899 1901 1903 (sp) 1905 1907 1907 (sp) 1911 1913 1916 1918 1922 1924 1924 (sp) 1928 1928 (sp) 1930 1934 1936 1940 1942 1946 1948 1952 1952 (sp) 1954 1958 1960 1964 1966 1970 1972 1976 1978 1982 1984 1988 1990 1994 1996 2000 2002 2006 2008 2012 2014 2018 2020 2024 2026 U.S. House 1835 1837 1838 1840 1843 1844 1846 1847 1st sp 1848 1850 1852 1854 1856 1858 1860 1862 1864 1866 1868 1870 1871 4th sp 1872 1873 5th sp 1874 1876 1878 1880 1881 7th sp 1882 1884 1886 1888 11th sp 1890 1891 5th sp 1892 1893 1st sp 1894 1895 3rd sp 1896 1898 1900 1901 10th sp 1902 1904 1906 1907 5th sp 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1917 2nd sp 1918 1920 13th sp 1921 3rd sp 1922 1923 3rd sp 1924 1925 3rd sp 1926 1928 1930 1931 8th sp 1932 1934 1935 3rd sp 1936 1938 1940 5th sp 1942 1944 1946 1947 11th sp 1948 1950 1952 1954 1955 15th sp 1956 1958 1960 1961 1st sp 1962 14th sp 1964 1968 1970 1972 1974 5th sp 8th sp 1976 1978 1980 13th sp 1981 4th sp 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1993 3rd sp 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 11th 11th sp 2014 2016 2018 13th sp 2020 2022 2024
State government State elections 2010 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 2022 2024 Gubernatorial elections 1835 1837 1839 1841 1843 1845 1847 1849 1851 1852 1854 1856 1858 1860 1862 1864 1866 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Attorney General elections 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Secretary of State elections 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Auditor General elections 1962 State Senate elections 2002 2006 2010 2014 2016 4th sp 2018 2021 (sp) 2022 State House elections 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
Ballot proposals 1996 Proposal E 2004 Proposal 04-2 2006 Proposal 06-2 2008 Proposal 1 2012 Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4 Proposal 5 Proposal 6 2015 Proposal 1 2018 Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 2020 Proposal 1 Proposal 2 2022 Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3
Detroit Mayoral elections 1969 1973 1997 2001 2005 2009 (sp) 2009 2013 2017 2021 2025
Flint Mayoral elections 2015 2017 (recall) 2019 2022
Grand Rapids Mayoral elections 2015 2019
Lansing Mayoral elections 2017 2021
Warren Mayoral elections 2017 2021
Sterling Heights Mayoral elections 2017 2021

The Michigan ballot proposals in 2012 included a referendum on a law passed by the Michigan Legislature and five proposed amendments to the Michigan Constitution. All six proposals were defeated.^[1]

Proposal 1

Proposal 1 was a referendum on Public Act 4 of 2011, the emergency manager law, and it resulted in the law's repeal.

P.A. 4 of 2011 was passed by the Michigan Legislature in March 2011 and was signed by Governor Rick Snyder on March 16.^[2] It established criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts, authorized the Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials, required the EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved, or, alternatively, authorized a state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree. ^{[3] [4] [5] [6]}

Proposal 1

A referendum on Public Act 4 of 2011 – the emergency manager law.
Results
Choice Votes  % Yes 2,130,354 47.33% No 2,370,601 52.67% Valid votes 4,500,955 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 4,500,955 100.00%
County Results Yes   60–70%   50–60% No   70–80%   60–70%   50–60%

Proposal 2

Proposal 2 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have granted public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions, invalidated existing or future state or local laws that limited the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions, overridden state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements, and defined "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees. Laws may still have been enacted to prohibit public employees from striking. The proposal failed 57%-43%.^[7][8][9]

Proposal 2

A proposal to amend the state constitution regarding collective bargaining.
Results
Choice Votes  % Yes 1,949,513 42.60% No 2,626,731 57.40% Valid votes 4,576,244 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 4,576,244 100.00%
County Results Yes   60–70%   50–60% No   70–80%   60–70%   50–60%

Proposal 3

Proposal 3 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have required electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025, limited to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard, allowed annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit, and required the Legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.^[10][11][12]

Proposal 3

A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish a standard for renewable energy.
Results
Choice Votes  % Yes 1,721,279 37.72% No 2,842,000 62.28% Valid votes 4,563,279 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 4,563,279 100.00%
County Results Yes   50–60% No   70–80%   60–70%   50–60%

Proposal 4

Proposal 4 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have allowed in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC), continued the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws, require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care, preserved patients' rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members, and authorized the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.^[13][14][15]

Proposal 4

A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish the Michigan Quality Home Care Council and provide collective bargaining for in-home care workers.
Results
Choice Votes  % Yes 1,985,595 43.77% No 2,550,420 56.23% Valid votes 4,536,015 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 4,536,015 100.00%
County Results Yes   60–70%   50–60% No   70–80%   60–70%   50–60%

Proposal 5

Proposal 5 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have required a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation. This section was in no way to be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in the Constitution.^[16][17][18]

Proposal 5

A proposal to amend the state constitution to limit the enactment of new taxes by state government.
Results
Choice Votes  % Yes 1,410,944 31.24% No 3,105,649 68.76% Valid votes 4,516,593 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 4,516,593 100.00%
County Results Yes   50–60% No   70–80%   60–70%   50–60%

Proposal 6

Proposal 6 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have required the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels, and created a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."^[19][20][21]

Proposal 6

A proposal to amend the state constitution regarding construction of international bridges and tunnels.
Results
Choice Votes  % Yes 1,853,127 40.70% No 2,699,558 59.30% Valid votes 4,552,685 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 4,552,685 100.00%
County Results Yes   50–60% No   60–70%   50–60%

References