#FactsMatter, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan podcast

Article VI: The 1963 Michigan Constitution Got the Judiciary Mostly Right

In episode 8 of a series previewing what a constitutional convention (con-con) - a question on the November 2026 ballot - might address, hosts Guy Gordon and Eric Lupher of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan discuss Article VI - Judicial Branch. Michigan voters are asked every 16 years whether to hold a con-con. The overall takeaway: Article VI works reasonably well structurally, but judicial selection, the partisan/nonpartisan fiction, and especially court funding are issues a convention would almost certainly need to address. The 1963 Constitution Did Well Here The framers get high marks for creating a unified "one court of justice" — a clear hierarchy from district courts up through the Court of Appeals (which didn't exist before 1963) to the Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court given real administrative authority over lower courts. It was a major improvement over the previous patchwork with no clear appeals process. Key Reform Opportunities Judicial selection is broken. Supreme Court justices are nominated by party caucuses but run on a "nonpartisan" ballot — something both hosts call transparently hypocritical. Other states use bipartisan vetting committees before gubernatorial appointment, which could reduce political gamesmanship, including governors rushing to fill vacancies before leaving office. The nonpartisan/partisan contradiction also bleeds into how vacancies get filled strategically, mirroring federal Supreme Court dynamics. Age limits (currently 70) may be worth revisiting given longer lifespans, though cognitive fitness concerns remain valid. Judicial pay is underfunded and uneven — tied to a politicized compensation commission, with some Supreme Court justices earning less than circuit judges in wealthier counties. County clerks serve two masters — local government and the courts — creating administrative confusion. Courts may be better served hiring their own staff. Court funding is the most contentious issue. The state was always intended to be the primary funder of the unified court system but currently covers only 2–4% of costs, leaving local governments to fill the gap. This creates stark inequities between wealthy and poor counties, and pushes courts to raise revenue through fees and fines, which can be barriers to justice and have been ruled unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment explicitly assigning funding responsibility to the state may be necessary to force change.

It’s About More Than Just the Governor: Article 5 - Executive Branch

In this 7th podcast on the Michigan Constitution, host Guy Gordon and Research Council President Eric continue their deep dive into the constitution’s articles and issues as voters prepare to decide in November whether to call a constitutional convention. This installment focuses on Article V, which outlines the structure and powers of the executive branch—and, as the conversation makes clear, it covers far more than the governor. Eric explains that the 1963 Constitution dramatically simplified state government compared with the sprawling, confusing structure under the 1908 Constitution. Article V establishes not only the governor’s authority but also the independently elected Secretary of State and Attorney General, and it sets the framework for the State Board of Education and the superintendent of schools. A major theme is checks and balances. While the governor has broad powers—including reorganizing departments, filling legislative vacancies, and making appointments—Lupher notes that a constitutional convention might focus on strengthening legislative oversight rather than on weakening the executive. Examples include: - Executive reorganization power: Governors have repeatedly reshaped departments (e.g., splitting the DNR, creating EGLE, and forming new education structures). A con-con may consider whether the legislature should play a more formal role in approving such changes. - Filling legislative vacancies: Recent delays in calling special elections underscored how political incentives can leave voters without representation. A convention could set firmer timelines or remove the governor from the process entirely. - Appointment and removal authority: While governors need flexibility to select their leadership teams, Lupher suggests that improved confirmation or oversight processes could strengthen accountability, especially in departments that have faced public controversy. The conversation also touches on a quirky gap in Article V: there is no process for filling a vacancy in the lieutenant governor’s office, even though the role carries constitutional responsibilities. Lupher calls this a clear example of “cleanup” work a convention could address. Overall, they conclude that Article 5 is unlikely to be a driving force behind a push for a con-con. But if a convention were to occur for other reasons, delegates would have meaningful opportunities to modernize and clarify the executive branch’s structure. Find the podcast series, and more, here: https://crcmich.org/podcast

Items of Note from the House, Senate and Governor's School Aid Budget Proposals

This episode of the #FactsMatter focuses on Michigan’s 2026 budget season, with Guy Gordon interviewing the Research Council's Craig Thiel and Bob Schneider. All three major budget proposals—the Governor’s, House’s, and Senate’s—are now public, making this year’s process smoother than last year’s. Schools and local governments benefit from early budget clarity. All three FY2027 School Aid budget proposals align on a 2.5% increase in the foundation allowance, bringing per‑pupil funding to roughly $10,300. At‑risk funding continues to grow, though the chambers differ sharply: the Governor proposes a 6% increase, the House 5%, and the Senate a dramatic 25% bump, which Craig describes as “a major revenue stream” for districts with high poverty rates. The Legislature has rejected the Governor’s plan to shift $400 million from the School Aid Fund to higher education, though this could re‑emerge in negotiations. On the General Fund side of the budget proposals, Bob reports modest revenue growth—“better up than down”—but not enough to ease structural pressures. The House proposes deep cuts to university operations, including a $421 million reduction to U‑M and MSU, while the Governor’s proposed new revenues have been dismissed by both chambers. All three budgets create shortfalls heading into FY28, meaning more cuts or revenue changes will be required next year. Despite tensions, there is agreement among the three proposals on several items: funding for universal school meals, continued mental health and school safety grants, and the foundation allowance. The biggest risks ahead include unresolved General Fund gaps, higher‑ed funding battles, and the possibility that K–12 dollars could again be eyed to plug holes elsewhere.

Most targeted Article in MI Constitution: Legislative Branch; Redistricting is one high-stakes issue

The podcast once again delves into the Citizens Research Council’s Constitution series, examining each article of the Michigan Constitution as voters face the decision in November on whether to hold a constitutional convention (con-con). This week, #FactsMatter host Guy Gordon and Research Council President Eric Lupher discuss the 8th paper in the series, breaking down Article IV – Legislative Branch, which, Lupher explains, has been the most frequently targeted article for amendment because voters often want to limit legislative power. Yet most attempts fail at the ballot box. “They have targeted this article more than any other… [but] have a hard time convincing a majority of voters.” With redistricting and gerrymandering across the country currently dominating the news because 2026 is a major election year and a recent massive SCOTUS decision, Guy and Eric touch on Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC), created in 2018 to reduce gerrymandering. With the federal Voting Rights Act weakened, other states are aggressively gerrymandering, while Michigan’s hands are tied. A con-con could revisit the MICRC. Michigan’s Constitution fixes the legislature at 110 House members and 38 Senators, unlike states that tie size to population. The 1963 Constitution implied it assumed a part-time legislature, but by the early 1970s, lawmakers stopped going home in June and had evolved into a full-time body. Lupher explains that the shift complicates the rules governing special sessions, referenda, and lame-duck activity. A con-con might try to tweak term limits and strengthen Michigan’s financial disclosure laws. They take on all of that and more, concluding that Article 4 contains both routine structural rules and several high-stakes issues ripe for reform. A constitutional convention could finally address long-standing dysfunction—but it’s an all-or-nothing gamble.

SCOTUS Decision Likely to Impact Michigan Tax Foreclosure Process

This episode of the #FactsMatter podcast spotlights a Michigan property tax case before the U.S. Supreme Court – Pung v. Isabella County – that could reshape how states handle tax foreclosures and protect homeowners' equity. Guy Gordon and Madhu Anderson, Senior Research Associate for Local Affairs, discuss the story of the Pung family from Isabella County. After inheriting a home, the family lost their longstanding homestead exemption due to an administrative error. Believing the exemption still applied, they didn’t pay the resulting $2,000 tax bill. The county eventually foreclosed on the home, sold it at auction for far below its true value, and the buyer later resold it for nearly $200,000. The Pungs received only about $73,000 after taxes, penalties, and interest were deducted — far below the home’s true value. Anderson’s recent brief, More Changes on the Horizon for Michigan’s Property Tax Foreclosure Process, focuses on changes to Michigan’s tax foreclosure process that should be made to address the issues raised by the case, including expanding homeowner education, easing the claims process for surplus proceeds, improving the transparency and competitiveness of tax auctions, and reviewing the impact of the current interest rate and penalty structure for delinquent taxes on property owners and local governments. The Pung case raises a fundamental question: When a home is taken for unpaid taxes, how much of the homeowner’s equity should be protected? Michigan law currently returns only the auction proceeds, minus taxes owed. The Pungs argue that homeowners deserve the full fair market value of their property — not a deeply discounted auction price. Anderson notes that the Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether current practices constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. The ruling may also prompt states to reconsider how they balance tax collection with the protection of homeowners’ equity and generational wealth. Anderson and Gordon also discuss broader human impacts, including the profound tragedy of losing a home over a small tax debt. Counties need revenue, but the system should not wipe out a family’s generational wealth. The case underscores a simple yet powerful point: No family should lose the full value of their home to a small tax debt — especially when the system itself contributed to the problem. A decision is expected in late June or early July.