Proposal 1 makes important changes to Michigan’s term limits and adds personal financial disclosure requirements for elected officials.
The most practical effect of the term limits change would be to allow House members to serve longer. Fewer than one in 10 legislators have met the maximum service time allowed under the current term limits established in 1992. The majority of legislators, 52%, leave office due to the three-term House limit. Changing to a 12-year maximum would double the allowable length of service for most members. This point is bolstered by California’s experience with the same changes to term limits a decade ago.
It would also likely lead to a rise in the average level of experience in the Legislature. Leadership positions would likely be held for longer periods, too.
Michigan is one of two states that do not require officeholders to report on their personal finances. Academics have not done much work to analyze the effects of these disclosures. One study failed to find an effect of state disclosures on corruption. However, the author did find that prosecutors prefer to have them available when investigating legislator impropriety.
Financial disclosure can help identify the personal interests of office holders. This can theoretically be useful to identify a kind of corruption where legislators vote or encourage executive action for their own personal financial gain.
These disclosures may also discourage some people from running for office. Not many are likely to be scared away, however. All but one other state requires some level of personal finance disclosure, but very few state offices are left without candidates seeking to win them.