N

ext Tuesday, Michigan 
will 
vote 
on 
a 
proposal to legalize 
recreational 
marijuana. 
Between 
increased 
tax 
revenue, the birth of a new 
industry in the private sector 
and 
falling 
arrest 
rates, 
legalization of marijuana in 
Michigan would be extremely 
lucrative to the statewide 
economy. 
Michigan 
is 
currently one of 30 states 
that allows marijuana use 
for medical purposes, but a 
“yes” vote on Proposal 1 this 
November 
would 
legalize 
recreational use, while a 
“no” vote would continue to 
only allow medical access 
to 
marijuana. 
Michigan 
joins four other states who 
have the hot-button issue of 
marijuana legalization on the 
ballot this year, while nine 
states across the country 
have already taken initiative 
in legalizing. Despite a long 
historical 
taboo 
against 
marijuana, obvious economic 
benefits have spurred a wave 
of 
nationwide 
acceptance 
and 
encouragement 
of 
legalization. 
We, 
the 
Michigan 
Daily 
Editorial 
Board, 
encourage 
our 
readership to vote “yes” on 
Proposal 1 for legalization of 
recreational marijuana use.
To be clear, Proposal 1 
would legalize recreational 
marijuana 
use 
for 
those 
21 and older and personal 
possession 
would 
be 
limited to 2.5 ounces, while 
households are allowed to 
store up to 10 ounces and 12 
plants. The measure would 
create an excise sales tax of 
10 percent on all marijuana 
sales at retailers, and that tax 
revenue would be allocated 
to local government, K-12 
education 
and 
statewide 
repairs to roads and bridges. 
The proposal also legalizes 
the cultivation, processing, 
distribution 
and 
sale 
of 
industrial hemp. However, 

if passed, local communities 
would be able to ban or limit 
marijuana retailers within 
their municipal boundaries, 
thereby 
protecting 
the 
autonomy 
of 
local 
communities.
With a 10 percent sales 
tax, legalization would bring 
a much needed new stream 
of revenue into Michigan 
schools, 
roads, 
bridges 
and 
local 
governments. 
States like Washington and 
Colorado bring in millions 
of dollars per year off of tax 
revenue and it is estimated 
that 
marijuana 
taxation 
alone in Michigan will rake 
in $100 to $200 million per 
year to be allocated across 
the state. In a state with 
crumbling 
infrastructure 
and an infamous public K-12 
education system, it’s evident 
that Michigan should use 
every potential extra funding 
source. In a statewide poll in 
June, 70 percent of Michigan 
citizens agreed that public 
schools are not sufficiently 
funded, a fact that is reflected 
in poor testing performance. 
Michigan is one of only five 
states that showed a decline 
in 
reading 
performance 
scores since 2003. Without 
intervention, it is clear that 
this trend cannot change.
Meanwhile, between 2014 
and 2017, the Transportation 
Asset Management Council 
reported that road conditions 
statewide were declining at 
a faster rate than they could 
be improved, leading to a 
slow deterioration of roads 
statewide. 
Roads, 
bridges 
and water sources are all 
seeing 
similar 
declines 
statewide. 
The 
water 
problems in Flint could have 
been 
solved 
much 
more 
rapidly, or even prevented 
altogether had there been 
more infrastructure funding 
and 
there 
are 
currently 
multiple other water sources 
across the state that need 

attention as well. Though the 
projected tax revenue may 
not be much in comparison 
to 
the 
entire 
statewide 
budget, every dollar counts 
in investment for the future.
The creation of an entirely 
new private sector due to 
marijuana retail will give rise 
to new jobs and businesses. 
In 2015, the legal marijuana 
industry in Colorado created 
roughly 
18,000 
jobs 
and 
Michigan could see similar, 
or even greater, job creation 
given 
Michigan’s 
larger 
population in comparison to 
Colorado.
Though 
this 
initiative 
in Michigan could lead to 
similar 
economic 
benefits 
as other states who have 
legalized 
recreational 
marijuana, 
Proposal 
1 
does not fully address the 
past 
criminalization 
of 
marijuana. 
Though 
many 
may benefit in the future, 
legalization does not address 
decriminalization. 
Those 
who have been arrested for 
marijuana use in the past 
would still be incarcerated or 
have illegal marijuana usage 
on their records. Though 
Proposal 1 is a step in the right 
direction toward restorative 
justice, those affected by 
the past criminalization of 
marijuana will still live with 
the consequences even if 
marijuana use is voted into 
legality. Hopefully, Proposal 
1 is just the tip of the iceberg 
in 
helping 
thousands 
to 
expunge 
past 
infractions 
from 
their 
records, 
and 
allow them the capability of 
bettering their own lives and 
thus, the economy. Proposal 
1 is a real, tangible way to 
invest 
in 
the 
education, 
infrastructure 
and 
safety 
of the next generation of 
Michigan citizens, and we at 
the Michigan Daily Editorial 
Board encourage you all to 
get out and vote “yes” on 
Proposal 1.

L

ook at a map of the 
political 
districts 
in 
Michigan 
and 
you’ll find some irregular 
shapes, such as the skinny, 
corkscrew-shaped 
Fourth 
state Senate District or the 
76th state House District, 
which wraps around Grand 
Rapids. Gerrymandering in 
Michigan has been cited as 
being be among the nation’s 
worst, but this year voters 
have a chance to voice 
their opinions on the issue. 
Proposal 2, an initiative 
from the group “Voters not 
Politicians,” would amend 
the Michigan Constitution 
to establish an independent 
commission 
of 
citizens 
responsible for redrawing 
district lines, if adopted.
The 
proposed 
redistricting 
commission 
would consist of 13 citizens 
— 
four 
Republican-
affiliated, four Democratic-
affiliated 
and 
five 
Independent — chosen by 
the Secretary of State from 
completed applications. To 
apply, citizens must meet 
a few guidelines, including 
the stipulation that they 
not have run for nor held 
a local, state or national 
office in the last six years or 
have family that have done 
so. The commission, with 
oversight by the Secretary 
of State, will meet every 10 
years to decide how political 
districts should be drawn. 
While the Secretary of State 
is partisan, the politically-
balanced commission can 
only 
improve 
Michigan’s 
severe 
gerrymandering 
problem. 
Currently, 
the 
party in power has the right 
to redistrict the state and 
often does so in a way that 
benefits its own party — a 

clear conflict of interest 
given 
that 
the 
district 
lines 
could 
determine 
a politician’s success at 
reelection. Proposal 2 is a 
step in the right direction 
to win the value of the vote 
back to the citizens from 
the politicians.
A handful of other states 
have adopted a version of the 
redistricting 
commission 
outlined in Proposal 2, the 
closest being California’s 
independent, non-partisan 
commission 
that 
has 
had variable success. In 
addition, 
Arizona 
also 
employs 
an 
independent 
redistricting 
committee 
that has been successful 
in drawing fairer political 
state maps. Whether the 
redistricting 
commission 
works 
in 
Michigan 
or 
not, it cannot cause much 
harm to the dismal state 
of 
Michigan’s 
political 
districts. Something needs 
to change in order to solve 
the 
extreme 
problem 
of 
gerrymandering 
in 
Michigan, and we hope that 
Proposal 2 is the change 
that we need. Therefore, 
The 
Michigan 
Daily 
Editorial Board endorses 
voting “yes” on Proposal 2 
to bring the vote back to the 
voters.
As 
Nov. 
6 
quickly 
approaches, readers should 
also 
be 
cognizant 
of 
Proposal 3 on the Michigan 
ballot, an initiative from 
“Promote 
the 
Vote.” 
If 
adopted, citizens qualified 
to vote in Michigan would 
automatically 
become 
registered to vote “when 
applying for, updating or 
renewing a driver’s license 
or 
state-issued 
personal 
identification card, unless 

the 
person 
declines.” 
They’d 
also 
be 
able 
to 
“simultaneously register to 
vote with proof of residency 
and obtain a ballot during 
the 2-week period prior 
to an election, up to and 
including 
Election 
Day.” 
Furthermore, 
one 
would 
be newly able to obtain an 
absentee 
ballot 
without 
providing 
a 
reason 
and 
to cast a straight-ticket 
vote for all candidates of a 
particular political party 
when voting in a partisan 
general election.
As of 2016, Michigan 
is ranked 41st out of 50 
in 
terms 
of 
electoral 
integrity 
(that 
is, 
“adherence to standards 
of 
appropriate 
conduct 
during 
the 
pre-election 
period, 
the 
campaign, 
polling day and election 
aftermath.”) 
Proposal 
3 
wouldn’t 
implement 
changes radically different 
from those found in other 
states, but it would bring 
Michigan up to par with 
states performing at the 
higher end of the scale. As 
with any ballot initiative, 
there’s 
a 
question 
of 
whether legislation should 
be done through the state 
House of Representatives 
and 
state 
Senate 
or 
immediately enshrined in 
the State Constitution — 
in the case of Proposal 3, 
however, the changes are 
uncontroversial, have been 
successful in other states 
and have the best chance 
of implementation through 
the 
initiative 
process. 
Therefore, The Michigan 
Daily 
Editorial 
Board 
supports Proposal 3 this 
Tuesday.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, November 2, 2018

ELECTION

I

CYMTOOEFS 
(In 
case 
you missed the onslaught 
of emails from Schlissel): 
Next Tuesday, Nov. 6, is 
Election Day! There 
will be federal, state 
and local elections 
with state and local 
propositions on the 
ballot. While you’re 
most likely aware 
of the contentious 
Michigan 
gubernatorial 
race, 
and hopefully who 
is running for U.S. 
Representative 
in 
your district (Debbie 
Dingell if you’re voting in Ann 
Arbor!), ballot propositions will be 
incredibly important this year in 
Michigan.
Marijuana 
legalization, 
gerrymandering and automatic 
voter registration are all on the 
statewide ballot, so make sure to 
do your research and make a plan 
to vote. For voters in Ann Arbor, 
there will also be three citywide 
ballot 
proposals 
regarding 
a 
parking lot, filling vacancies on 
Ann Arbor City Council and park 
maintenance taxes. While these 
seem incredibly dull in comparison 
to weed and gerrymandering, they 
will have an effect on our local 
community and we should pay 
attention.
For now, let’s pay attention 
to Proposal A, or its long-form 
name: “Charter Amendment for 
the City-Owned Public Land 
Bounded by Fifth Avenue, and 
William, Division, and Liberty 
Streets to be Designated, in 
Perpetuity, as an Urban Park and 
Civic Center Commons to be 
Known as the “Center of the City,” 
by Amending the Ann Arbor City 
Charter Adding a New Section 
1.4 to Chapter 1 of the Charter.” 
We’ll just call it Prop A. The 
result of Prop A will be incredibly 
important to affordable housing in 
Ann Arbor.
Prop A is the culmination 

of longstanding contention over 
the fate of the “Library Lot.” The 
Library Lot is the area above the 
underground 
parking 
lot near the Ann 
Arbor Public Library. 
If you can’t visualize 
this block of unused 
space, go get the best 
Mexican food in Ann 
Arbor at Chela’s and 
then walk to your left 
as you’re leaving and 
you’ll see.
According 
to 
the 
Ann 
Arbor 
Central Park Ballot 
Committee, this is the 
last free public space available for 
a public city center. The Central 
Park Ballot Committee is the 
group responsible for getting 
Prop A on the ballot this year. 
Mayor Christopher Taylor and 
the majority of City Council 
disapprove of the idea to make 
the space into a public urban park 
and have already authorized the 
sale of the space to Chicago-based 
developer Core Spaces for $10 
million to build a high-rise. Then 
two councilmembers sued the 
mayor and city clerk for this 
decision. Ultimately, the Central 
Park Ballot Committee was able to 
come up with enough signatures 
to let voters decide. Thus, Prop A 
was born.
Personally, I am sick of high-
rise construction in Ann Arbor. 
I can’t keep track of 411 vs. Six11 
vs. Hub Ann Arbor vs. The Yard, 
and so on. Why can’t their names 
be more distinct? Why would 
anyone pay more than $1,000 
per month to live on South Main 
Street? I don’t know! Anyway — 
when I first heard of Prop A, I 
was all for a park if it meant one 
fewer of these buildings. And in 
my opinion, I think that’s how 
the committee wants the issue to 
look — as if it is a choice between 
an enhanced community center or 
selling out our city to a corporation. 
That is so far from the whole story, 

though.
The park would cost taxpayers 
millions of dollars, and it would 
mean losing out on the initial 
$10 million from Core Spaces 
and up to $2 million in taxes 
from them each year. This is 
money that has been pledged 
toward worthy causes — money 
that would enhance the Ann 
Arbor community in much more 
substantial ways than another 
urban park. An estimated $5 
million of the revenue from the 
development would go toward 
affordable housing projects in Ann 
Arbor.
Ann Arbor is a city of 
students, 
academics 
and 
families. 
Ann 
Arbor 
is 
an 
incredibly expensive city to live 
in — especially considering the 
proportion of residents who are 
students without a significant 
income. Public parks may or may 
not create community, but there 
is no community of Ann Arbor 
without its people. Continuing 
to force students to commute to 
school from further away than 
their richer peers or to be stuck 
in 
overpriced 
housing 
with 
failing appliances and negligent 
landlords is the true deterioration 
of the Ann Arbor community. 
To invest millions of dollars into 
affordable housing would make 
a dent in the overwhelming 
problem that is affordability in 
this city.
Vote “NO” on Proposal A 
Tuesday. Public parks are nice — 
that’s why the Chicago developer 
has pledged to build a public park 
at no cost to the city on the land 
that it will hopefully purchase, 
in addition to a multi-use high-
rise. By voting no, we get that 
park, millions of dollars toward 
affordable housing, education and 
infrastructure, and the only price 
to pay is coping with a little more 
construction.

MARGOT 
LIBERTINI

MARGOT LIBERTINI | COLUMN

FROM THE DAILY

EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT EMILY AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU

Margot Libertini can be reached at 

mlibertini@umich.edu.

Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Hank Minor
Dana Pierangeli
Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
 ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND 
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Vote NO on Proposal A

Vote yes on Proposal 1

Vote yes on Proposal 2 and 3

FROM THE DAILY