The amendment is intended to protect the funds and accounts that currently exist in Public Act 451 of 1994, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, from future diversions for purposes other than those intended. The language of the proposed amendment is nearly identical to current statute. The proposal would extend the length of the Michigan Constitution by 1,834 words, a full six percent. A lengthy and complex state Constitution limits the ability of lawmakers to exercise the judgment they were elected to provide.

If this amendment is adopted, it will not outlaw all affirmative action programs in the state. Michigan statutes contain numerous references to affirmative action and minority status or gender. Only those that grant preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of minority status or gender would be invalidated by this amendment. However, determining what constitutes preferential treatment will be left to the Michigan court system.

At the state's 15 public universities, the impact would be felt most strongly at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and in the graduate and professional programs across the state. The response to similar restrictions in other states has been to create plans that admit the top percentage of students from each high school to the states' university systems. Michigan's system of independent universities does not readily lend itself to such a percent plan.

With respect to state and local government, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have already barred the use of quotas and set-asides, and have made it illegal to have an affirmative action preference program without a compelling governmental interest (i.e., remedying the effects of past discrimination). Even when a compelling governmental interest can be proved, the government must use means that are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

The State of Michigan has a strong civil service system and competitive bidding for government contracts. It does not provide preferences in hiring or contracting through a statewide affirmative action program.

Act 160 set a season for Mourning Dove hunting, imposed possession limits for the hunting season, and created guidelines for the Department of Natural Resources to follow in overseeing the Mourning Dove hunting season.

The Citizens Research Council has released its analysis of the proposed constitutional amendment regarding the use of eminent domain. At the November 7, 2006, general election Michigan voters will be presented with a proposal to amend Article X, Section 2 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution.

1. "public necessity of the extreme sort" requires collective action;
2. the property remains subject to public oversight after the transfer to the private entity; or
3. the property is selected because of "facts of independent public significance," rather than the interests of the private entity receiving the property.

In addition to the state funding guarantees, Proposal 2006-05 would cap the amount of retirement contributions to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) made by K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities, and require the State of Michigan to make up the difference between the capped employer's contribution and the actual retirement contribution required by the system.

The proposal also contains a declining enrollment provision for K-12 school districts that are experiencing falling student membership. The provision allows the use of a three-year average to determine current-year membership. Finally, the proposed law would require the gap between the basic per pupil foundation allowance and the maximum state-guaranteed per pupil foundation allowance to be reduced from $1,300 to $1,000 by fiscal year 2012.

The Citizens Research Council estimates that the additional costs of the proposed law to the enacted FY07 state budget will be between $565 million and $707 million. Under the proposal, these costs will have to be financed by the State's General Fund. At the minimum level, Proposal 2006-05 would increase the amount of the General Fund budget currently dedicated to education spending from 21 percent to 27 percent. After FY07, assuming moderate state revenue growth, the Research Council estimates that the proposal's required inflationary increases in education funding (excluding retirement costs) can be financed by existing resources without having to reduce the amount of money allocated to other state programs.

Over two-thirds of the initial additional costs to the State from Proposal 2006-05 arise from the provision to cap employer retirement contributions. This cost component represents a new financial obligation to the state budget and will steadily increase each fiscal year. The State's projected annual costs associated with the required retirement contributions will rise faster than inflation, thereby requiring policymakers to reconfigure state finances to meet the education funding guarantees within existing resources or to raise general revenues.