No, I think you’re missing the point. As a matter of Michigan constitutional law, the legislature has nothing to say about it. It would take a state constitutional amendment to privatize the university, and that doesn’t need to start with the legislature, nor does it require legislative approval. But it’s not going to happen anytime soon because there’s no one willing to push it given uncertain prospects of winning voter approval, and uncertain benefits of doing so even if the voters gave their assent.
So you are saying “state constitutional amendment” is NOT a “legislature process”. That is the difference between our opinions. To my understanding, it IS considered a legislature process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment
As to amendments, this may be of interest…note that I’m taking no position in the discussion…
Amending the constitution
See also: Article XII, Michigan Constitution and Amending state constitutions
The Michigan Constitution can be amended in these three ways:
Through a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment as established in Section 2 of Article XII. These can be proposed in either chamber of the Michigan State Legislature. Proposed amendments must be agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in each house.
Through an initiated constitutional amendment as established in Section 2 of Article XII.
Through a constitutional convention as established in Section 3 of Article XII. A question about whether to hold a constitutional convention is to automatically appear on the state’s ballot every 16 years.
Yes, thank you, blue85. The Michigan legislature can refer a constitutional amendment to the voters, but only by a supermajority (2/3) vote of both chambers; this is called a referendum. Or citizens can bypass the legislature and get a constitutional amendment on the ballot simply by collecting enough signatures; this is called a voter initiative. Unlike the federal constitution which is rarely amended, Michigan’s state constitution is amended frequently, almost always by voter initiative. Anyone with a million bucks can hire people to go out and collect signatures, and you can almost always find enough people to sign to put something on the ballot; some people will sign even if they’re not sure they agree with the proposed amendment, figuring it’s best to let the people decide. On the other side of the coin, it’s extremely difficult to get 2/3 of each legislative chamber to agree to anything, especially in a highly polarized state like Michigan. So the legislature doesn’t stand in the way of amending the Michigan constitution. The state constitution makes the legislature pretty much irrelevant to the constitutional amendment process by setting such a high bar for a legislative referendum and a much lower bar for a voter initiative.
Does not match the state information.
Since the adoption of the State Constitution of 1963, 74 proposed amendments to the Constitution have been presented on the ballot for a vote of the people. Thirty-two of the amendments were approved and 42 were rejected.
Of the 74 proposed amendments, 43 were placed on the ballot by the State Legislature (22 were approved and 21 were rejected) and 31 were placed on the ballot by initiative petition (10 were approved and 21 were rejected).
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Initia_Ref_Under_Consti_12-08_339399_7.pdf
OK, I stand corrected on how often the legislature has been involved in amending the state constitution, But I stand by the point that the legislature doesn’t need to be involved to amend the constitution.
Note the approval rate difference between the 2 path.
I think it’s all pretty much moot. I don’t see the Regents, as elected officials of the State of Michigan, ever deciding they want to see the Michigan constitution amended to convert the University of Michigan to a fully private institution–and in so doing, abolishing their own offices as elected officials. Not going to happen anytime soon, and I doubt it’s going to happen later. Not much precedent for it, either, though I suppose you could say Harvard began as a public institution because it was established with a 400 pound appropriation from the Massachusetts General Court (legislature). Also Penn, which began as a private institution, was briefly taken over by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the Revolutionary War because it was suspected of being a nest of Tories, but it was re-privatized in 1791. Neither of those historical developments bears much relevance to Michigan’s situation.
I suspect the Regents would prefer to see the University continue to build up its endowment and other funding sources so as to remain able to give a substantial tuition discount to Michigan residents, coupled with meets-full-need financial aid for state residents first, and eventually for everyone when finances permit. That certainly would be my view if I were elected by the people of the State of Michigan to serve as Regent–and isn’t it interesting that the University’s current policies and priorities reflect those goals. Ultimately, though, it’s not a question of what the legislature wants, it’s a question of what the Regents want, because under the Michigan constitution they’re the ultimate public governing body over the University.
Yes, but many of the constitutional amendments proposed by the Michigan legislature are fairly minor housekeeping matters–taxation questions, new boards to supervise dedicated funds, etc.–that at the federal level and in many other states could be accomplished through ordinary legislation. In my view, a constitution shouldn’t be cluttered up with such things, but some state constitutions, apparently including Michigan’s, are so detailed and so prescriptive that the legislature has no choice but to seek a constitutional amendment anytime it wants to do something new. It’s a big waste of everyone’s time and money.