Canvassers approve summary for Invest in MI Kids 'fair share' surcharge amendment; close vote on wording

The Michigan Board of State Canvassers approved a 100‑word summary for a proposed constitutional amendment from Invest in MI Kids that would add an additional 5% tax on annual taxable income above specified thresholds and dedicate the revenue to K‑12 classroom spending.

The proposed amendment would add a surcharge of 5% on annual taxable income over $500,000 for single filers and over $1,000,000 for joint filers beginning in the 2027 tax year; revenue would be deposited into the state school aid fund and required to be used for classroom purposes in local school districts, with annual audits and implementing legislation allowed. The board discussed whether the word "surcharge" or "graduated" better described the proposal; proponents argued "surcharge" is the correct plain‑English term for an additional tax, while opponents and some board members argued the measure effectively creates a graduated income tax and the summary should make that clear.

Board members also debated whether to print the current statutory income tax rate or a date to prevent the summary from going stale if the Legislature changes rates during circulation. After edits and back‑and‑forth involving attorney counsel for both sides, the board approved the deputy director’s draft with the board’s clarifications; the final vote on the summary carried by a 3‑1 roll call (one member recorded a no vote).

The board did not complete form approval for the petition text, deferring that step to the bureau’s next meeting on July 10 so staff can circulate a corrected copy for review. The board’s action allows the sponsor to circulate petition forms using the approved summary while staff finalizes form‑review details.

The debate exposed a substantive legal issue: Michigan’s constitution bars a graduated income tax imposed by the Legislature, and opponents argued this measure is an equivalent graduated tax despite being placed in the constitution by voter initiative. Proponents said the measure is a surcharge — an additional tax — and does not contravene the constitutional language because it is added by constitutional amendment. That legal distinction is likely to be a focus of future litigation if the measure advances to the ballot and voters approve it.

What happens next: Petitioners may circulate the board‑approved summary while staff completes form review and posts updated petition materials before the July 10 meeting; opponents and proponents can expect further legal and public debate as signatures are collected.