Michigan Proposal 26-1: Hold a constitutional convention to revise the state constitution
What it does. Michigan’s Constitution requires the question of a general revision to go to voters every 16 years. It was last on the ballot in 2010. If a majority votes yes, a convention of 148 elected delegates (one for each Senate and House district) would meet in 2027 to draft a revised constitution. Voters would then decide whether to adopt it, within 90 days after the convention adjourns. A yes vote does not change the Constitution by itself. [1]
Official ballot question. A proposal to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of drafting a general revision of the State Constitution. Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened in 2027 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the State’s voters for their approval or rejection? [1]
If you vote yes
A “yes” vote means a convention of elected delegates would be convened in 2027 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the State’s voters for their approval or rejection. [1]
If you vote no
A “no” vote means no convention would be held, and the current Constitution of 1963 would remain in place, subject to the usual amendment process. [1]
What it would cost
The Senate Fiscal Agency says a convention’s cost is hard to estimate because the last one was held in 1961. It offers three approaches: about $10.2 million, based on inflating the 1961 convention’s costs (about $0.85 million per month); about $22.0 million per year, scaling spending by Michigan’s redistricting commission; and an operating budget of $47.3 million per year, using Oklahoma’s Legislature as a stand-in. Delegate elections held on regular dates would add no election costs, but three separate statewide elections could exceed $60.9 million. The budget would be set by the Legislature through appropriations. The campaign opposing the proposal, Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests, says the convention “would cost nearly $45 million in taxpayer dollars”; that is the campaign’s own claim, not an official estimate. [1] [2]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The Senate Fiscal Agency reports that supporters believe the current Constitution does not work: some say its structure promotes corruption and lacks transparency, and that a convention could reform education, the budget process or other areas they consider inoperative. Others say the 1963 document has become too complicated and that delegates could streamline it. [1]
State Rep. Matt Hall (R) says, “They stuff so many things in this Constitution, all kinds of things, every time.” State Sen. Aric Nesbitt (R) says, “I think there’s a lot of things that should be discussed,” and that “the constitution could be a lot simpler than what it is right now.” [3]
Columnist Dennis Lennox writes in the Holland Sentinel that “Nothing would take effect without voter ratification,” and that a convention “could establish meaningful safeguards against dark money and influence peddling” and subject the governor and Legislature to the Freedom of Information Act. [3]
Strongest case against
The Senate Fiscal Agency reports that opponents believe the Constitution of 1963’s longevity stems from its flexibility, since citizens can initiate amendments, so there is no need for a new one. Some say the convention process lacks transparency and accountability, and that uncertainty could harm the economy and discourage businesses from relocating to Michigan. [1]
The Michigan Catholic Conference says that if voters approve a convention, “it would undoubtedly attract the influence of national political actors and organizations, each with millions of dollars to spend promoting a particular issue or partisan interest.” It notes the Constitution “already allows for amendments or changes on a narrower, issue-by-issue basis.” [3]
Ron Bieber, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, says opening the whole constitution “would allow it to be hijacked.” Wendy Block of the Michigan Chamber says “there’s no guarantee a convention would deliver better outcomes.” The Fiscal Agency adds that if voters reject the result, the State would have spent funds without any change. [3] [1]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- Voters have said no before, and why that happens. Voters defeated the convention question on the 1978, 1994 and 2010 ballots. The Senate Fiscal Agency notes that the 1948 and 1958 votes showed a majority of those voting on the question favored a convention, but the rules then required a majority of all those voting at the election, so the question still failed. The 1960 amendment changed that to a majority of those voting on the question. [1]
- A convention could revisit recent ballot-initiated laws. The Senate Fiscal Agency says some supporters see a convention as a chance to overturn controversial amendments or recent initiated laws, and that voters have recently adopted a law governing recreational marijuana and a constitutional codification of reproductive rights. It says some have suggested a convention could be an avenue for opponents of those measures to restrict or reverse them, and that opponents worry about reversal of previously enacted constitutional amendments. [1]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Proposal 26-1. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $0
Committee
- Yes on Proposal 1 $0
Major donors
No major donors reported.
Opposing (No)
Total raised $4,629,974
Committees
- Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests $4,389,861
- Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee $240,113
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Michigan Proposal 26-2, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| The Fairness Project | $3,000,000 |
| American Opportunity Action | $825,000 |
| Global Impact Social Welfare Fd | $175,000 |
| The Beckwith Fund | $100,000 |
Reported contributions through Oct. 18, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Michigan Bureau of Elections, committee search.
Sources
- Ballot Proposal 26-1: An Overview (background, views, fiscal impact) — Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency (Official nonpartisan legislative analysis, 2026)
- Vote NO on Proposal 1 (campaign website) — Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests (Campaign website (opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
- Michigan Proposal 1, Constitutional Convention Question (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.