Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T02:30:47.350Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Michigan Amendment to Reorganize County Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Arthur W. Bromage
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes on Local Government
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The county home rule amendment was defeated. Incomplete but representative returns were as follows: yes, 333,000; no, 422,000. The amendment appeared on the ballot with five other amendments. Four of these clearly deserved defeat. A fifth, calling for the non-partisan election of judges, was a matter of opinion. Toward the close of the campaign, fourteen state-wide organizations, in an effort to defeat four of the amendments, urged the voters to say “no” to all. Some of these groups had previously supported county home rule, but abandoned it in the closing weeks to prevent confusion. The voters responded by defeating every amendment on the ballot. In number of affirmative votes, county home rule ran second to the nonpartisan election of judges, but the other amendments were overwhelmed two, three, and four to one. Wayne (Detroit) and Oakland (Pontiac) counties gave county home rule a majority. The amendment ran well in Kent (Grand Rapids), Genesee (Flint), and Jackson (Jackson) counties. Majorities against the amendment piled up in the rural counties.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.