With votes still being counted Tuesday night, they were running 78 percent opposed — the worst rejection of a constitutional amendment in almost 40 years.
The expected turndown comes amid voter skepticism that the Legislature, unable to craft its own road funding solution, was pulling one over on voters with a complicated scheme that went beyond fixing roads and bridges.
Despite the support of Snyder, legislative leaders, numerous elected officials and some 50 business, labor, local government and public safety groups, the "yes" side failed to convince voters that the proposed funding shift was worth the cost.
If successful, Proposal 1 would have tipped over a domino chain that would have raised the sales tax from 6 to 7 percent, created a higher gas tax and froze most car registration fees in order to generate $1.288 million in annual road funding, as much as $390 million for schools and $115 million for local governments.
The state´s Earned Income Tax Credit would have more than tripled to 20 percent of the federal rate.
It would have given the working poor — a two-car household making $30,000 — a tax cut of $427 a year, according to Mitch Bean of Great Lakes Economic Consulting. For those households making $50,000, however, taxes would have gone up $268 a year. For those making $75,000, it was a $312 annual tax hike.
Voters had no trouble understanding their taxes would go up through a "yes" vote. It was wrapping their head around the benefit they´d see that proved problematic.
"This was about potholes, and they wandered off the main topic," said Mark Grebner of Practical Political Consultants. "The voters have limited cognitive abilities. If you can think of one idea you can explain, you may be able to sell it. Two ideas is always a bad idea. Nine ideas? You really should start over."
The road industry took solace in the general sentiment that voters wanted Michigan´s roads fixed but simply didn´t like this particular plan. An EPIC-MRA poll released shortly after the capital news service MIRS called the election at 8:20 p.m., 20 minutes after polls closed, showed that 85 percent of Michigan voters want lawmakers to come back for a special summer session to fix the roads.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Al Pscholka is all for it.
"No adjourning for the summer. No road trips to assess the crumbling streets and bridges," Pscholka said. "No ads to tell us what we already know. No lamenting the sacrifices. Most of all, no excuses. Let´s get it done."
What will a final product look like? Neither Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof nor House Speaker Kevin Cotter ruled out revenue increases or General Fund cuts. Meekhof did say, "What can we afford and what it will take to solve the problem could be different numbers."
The two ranking Democrats in the House and Senate called for any future solution to include that corporations "pay their fair share." Both expressed willingness to cancel their summer plans to make a road plan happen.
So what happened to Prop 1?
A January change of the professional firms cleared by the Governor´s Office to run the coordinated "yes" campaign cost the effort about a critical month of planning. However, what was eventually called "Safe Roads Yes" ended up outraising three opposition groups a combined 50 to 1, thanks in large part to the road industry, which accounted for close to $6 million of the $9.6 million raised.
The "yes" campaign struggled to find a simple message or a messenger that stuck with voters until their use of former U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., near the campaign´s end generated some traction. The initial attempt of scaring voters with horror stories of falling bridges, gaping potholes and flying pieces of concrete did more to insult voters´ intelligence about road conditions than attract support.
"The strategy to scare voters into raising their own taxes had about as much chance in being successful as winning the lottery; and even less that the Legislature would spend the money as advertised," said Strategic National CEO John Yob, who headed the anti-Prop 1 campaign committee, Citizens Against A Middle Class Tax Increase.
Snyder and Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, when given more than 20 minutes to discuss the proposal with voters, appeared to be effective in explaining Proposal 1. But Snyder blew his Achilles in January and then suffered a serious blood clot weeks later, limiting his availability for town halls and televised appearances.
Instead, voters cobbled together what limited mass media information they could on Prop 1. The initial selling points of the plan — eliminating the sales tax on gasoline, all state taxes collected at the pump going to roads, and more money for schools — became a confusing web that wasn´t cleared up with the initial "the-roads-are-dangerous" explanation from the "yes" campaign.
"The governor had no credibility on this, and he got no support from the party," said Ed Sarpolus of Target Insyght. "There was no single voice and nobody believed the messaging."
Meanwhile, the "No" campaign, led by former congressional candidate Paul Mitchell, relied on a low-dollar campaign that centered around urging to the polls targeted diehard conservative and Tea Party voters most likely to show up during a May election.
Their message of all the "special interests" getting their hands on this new windfall of money generated by Proposal 1 captured the imagination of voters, who than began thinking of the different ways the Legislature could have fixed the roads.
Polling showed Proposal 1´s unpopularity spread far beyond the conservative base. In fact, a Target Insyght poll commissioned by MIRS found the initiative ended up doing the worst among independents, who were particularly incensed that the Legislature dumped the problem in voters’ laps.
Snyder never wanted the ballot proposal in the first place. In the closing days of lame duck 2014, Snyder wanted then- House Speaker Jase Bolger to push for a House vote to a Senate-passed plan that would have gradually raised the gas tax and frozen registration fees to raise the desired road funding money.
But Bolger claimed he didn´t have the Republican votes for a plan creating the state´s highest state tax on gasoline and pushed the ballot proposal instead. The basic concept of letting the voters decide had appeal among some in the GOP Senate, and so Snyder begrudgingly signed off.
In order to get Democratic votes for the proposal, however, Greimel and then-Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, managed to add several sweeteners to the mix — like the expanded EITC credit and another $40 million for at-risk schools, among others.
Left holding Proposal 1 as the answer to his long-sought quest for additional road funding dollars, a team began assembling around Snyder and his political staffer, Terri Reid, that looked like the one used to pass the August 2014 Personal Property Tax measure with longtime Democratic political operative Howard Edelson running point.
But when Reid wanted a more Republican flavor to the campaign, Edelson, public relations firm Truscott Rossman, advertising firm Joe Slade White & Co. and polling firm Glengariff Group were out and public relations firm Martin Waymire, political strategy firm WWP and Combat Data were in.
Meanwhile, three "no" groups emerged, with the lead one being Mitchell´s crew. He had considerable money to spend. He didn´t end up needing to spend much.
Support City Pulse - Donate Today!
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here