MI Proposal 10-2

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FELONS FROM HOLDING ELECTIVE OFFICE AND SPECIFIED TYPES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS

The proposed constitutional amendment would:
Make a person ineligible for election or appointment to any state or local elective office or to hold a position in public employment in this state that is policy-making or has discretionary authority over public assets, if:

1. Within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust; AND

2. The conviction was related to the person’s official capacity while holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state or federal government.

Require the State Legislature to enact laws to implement the prohibition.

-------------------------------------------------

After looking over the proposal, I am in favor of this amendment. I see it not as over-reaching, vague or excessive. The language is very specific as to what types of felonies would be exclusionary for candidates running for an elected position: "IF within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust; AND the conviction was related to the person’s official capacity while holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state or federal government." It has nothing to do with drugs or other types of felonies outside of breaking the ethical codes of holding a position of public office.

I would point to the current situation in Detroit Public Schools as an exemplary case of how this amendment could apply. Four employees of the state - a former principal, the accountant for her school, a police officer and the accountant's son - defrauded the school district out of nearly $150,000. They used their positions as public servants to commit a felony. The amendment, if enacted, would prevent these people from serving in a public position for the next 20 years. I think any judge who believes in the balance between protecting the rights of (former) criminals and upholding those in public office to high standards - or at least a standard higher than deceit, fraud, dishonesty or a breach of public trust - would find this amendment within Constitutional parameters and widely beneficial.