Michigan canvassers deadlock on revised summary for "Invest in My Kids"; approve petition form

Lansing — The Michigan Board of State Canvassers on July 18 failed to approve a proposed revision to the 100‑word summary for the Invest in My Kids ballot initiative after hours of public comment and legal briefing, but the board approved the petition’s form and the procedural manuals the Bureau of Elections uses for circulating petitions.

The deadlocked vote came after more than two hours of public testimony from education advocates, chambers of commerce and business groups, and attorneys on both sides. Vice Chair Gerwitz moved to adopt a revised summary that would have added a reference to business income that is taxed at the individual level and clarified how revenue must be used; Member Cummings seconded. The motion failed on a 2‑2 roll call: Gerwitz and Cummings voted yes; Member Cordes and Chair Hauskamp voted no.

Board members and attorneys had argued at length about three recurring topics: whether the 5% surcharge described in the petition ought to be characterized in the summary as creating a combined top rate of 9.25% (4.25% plus a 5% surcharge), whether the summary should call the measure a "graduated income tax," and whether the summary should list the specific school spending items that appear in the proposed constitutional text. Supporters of the change urged the board to add wording making clear that the additional tax would apply to individual taxable income including business income reported on individual returns; opponents and board members cautioned against adding language they said could be speculative or legally imprecise.

Why it matters: The 100‑word summary appears on petition sheets signers use to decide whether to sign. The board’s role is to determine only whether the Director of Elections’ proposed summary is a true and impartial statement in 100 words or fewer under state law. If the Director’s summary complies, the board must approve it; if not, the board may require changes. The dispute in this meeting centered on how much detail the summary must include to fairly “apprise” petition signers of the proposal without inserting argumentative or speculative language.

Public comment featured more than two dozen speakers on both sides. Business groups including the Small Business Association of Michigan, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and regional chambers urged that the summary make clearer the measure’s effect on business owners who report business income on individual returns. Supporters of the initiative, including education advocates and Rep. Regina Weiss, urged the board to adopt the Director of Elections’ summary as drafted, arguing it correctly reflected the constitutional text and complied with Michigan law. Attorneys for both sides presented competing case law and statutory interpretations.

After the summary vote failed, the board approved the petition as to form — a separate, ministerial review that checks typeface, required elements, and overall formatting for the petition documents. Staff had told the board that form review is a recommended pre‑circulation check to reduce later problems; counsel for the petition sponsor urged the board to allow the director’s summary process to proceed as the statute describes. The board also approved two procedural manuals for staff handling nominating petitions and statewide initiative, referendum and constitutional amendment petitions.

Key actions and votes - Motion to adopt a revised 100‑word summary (read into the record by a board member): FAILED, roll call 2–2 (yeas: Vice Chair Gerwitz, Member Cummings; nays: Member Cordes, Chair Hauskamp). The proposed language would have added wording that the tax “also applies to any business that chooses to be taxed at the individual level” and clarified that the legislature must expend revenue to support local school districts in a way that “includes” several specified items and that funds are subject to audits. - Motion to approve the petition as to form: APPROVED by voice vote (staff reported compliance with form requirements). - Motions to adopt updated staff manuals (nominating petitions and statewide initiatives/ref/constitutional amendments): APPROVED.

What the proposal says: The Invest in My Kids text would add a surcharge of 5% on taxable income above $500,000 for single filers and $1,000,000 for joint filers; the sponsor and analysts have estimated the surcharge could raise roughly $1.5 billion per year and direct revenue to the state school aid fund. Debate at the meeting focused on whether signers should be told the surcharge effectively results in a top combined rate of 9.25% for affected taxpayers, and whether the summary should name that many payers are business owners who report income on individual returns.

What’s next: Because board approval of a petition summary for circulation is optional and the Director of Elections may still provide language, the sponsor can circulate the form of the petition and gather signatures. If a petition circulates and qualifies, the final ballot wording will later be subject to the board’s statutory role when a question appears on the ballot. The board signaled it may pursue informal talks among counsel and the director to attempt narrowly drafted edits intended to bridge remaining differences, but no replacement summary was adopted at the meeting.

Speakers quoted at the meeting included small business and chamber representatives, education advocates and the initiative’s counsel. Representative Regina Weiss, who chaired the K‑12 appropriations subcommittee in the House and spoke in favor of the petition, told the board the amendment’s language would bind revenue to the school aid fund and limit Legislature spending of those surcharge revenues to the purposes spelled out in the amendment’s text. Opponents, including spokespeople from statewide business groups, urged clearer language that the surcharge would affect many pass‑through business owners who report business income on individual returns.

Ending note: The board’s split vote reflected a deeper policy and legal debate over how much factual context should appear in a short petition summary versus how much the Director of Elections, and ultimately courts, should decide. The board did approve the petition’s form and updated circulation manuals, allowing the sponsor to proceed with gathering signatures while legal and political arguments continue.