Michigan may see ballot petition to allow direct vehicle sales

Best of luck to him.

I hope it includes the right to open service centers, so customers can have their cars serviced without shipping them out of the state.

GSP

If it is voted on and passes would it bypass the state legislators then? Wish them luck.

So ... where is the petition?

GSP said:

I hope it includes the right to open service centers, so customers can have their cars serviced without shipping them out of the state.

Click to expand...

Yes, in my view this is even more important than sales and too often forgotten.

- - - Updated - - -

dsm363 said:

If it is voted on and passes would it bypass the state legislators then? Wish them luck.

Click to expand...

Yes it would, although the Michigan Legislature has a long and ugly history of overriding referenda. The Michigan constitution doesn't allow a referendum to strike down a law with an attached appropriation, so the common trick used by the Legislature is to override the referendum, including some token appropriation (which typically doesn't even get spent). Pretty much a straight-up FU to the electorate, but we're so severely gerrymandered they can get away with it.

That said however, I don't see this as an issue the Legislature would go to that extreme for, especially since a good number of Republicans (and their voters) probably resonate with the "less regulation, free market" side of the issue.

GreenT said:

So ... where is the petition?

Click to expand...

There are many hurdles to the voter initiative process, one of which is that the signatures are on paper, another is that they're collected by "qualified" people, another that the signatory is verified as an elgible voter, etc... There won't be an online signup.

The deck is always stacked against these. Politicians don't seem to like ordinary people taking away their power...

Anyone know how to get in touch with him to help him collect the signatures. I'm sure I'm good for 1000 signatures (OK mostly my wife):smile:

I found him on facebook and sent him a message.

MichFin said:

Anyone know how to get in touch with him to help him collect the signatures. I'm sure I'm good for 1000 signatures (OK mostly my wife):smile:

Click to expand...

I spent a few minutes googling for information and came up blank. I just sent him a Facebook IM, however it's entirely likely it will get caught in Facebook's spam trap, so he might never see it. If he gets back to me, I'll post here.

Not to be the bearer of bad news, but Michigan Voters do not have the political appetite to vote in favor of ballot initiatives regardless of political affiliation (Michigan Voters rejected all 6 proposals in 2012). More importantly, if Yuille successfully puts this issue on the ballot, NADA will spend countless dollars advertising to vote No on the initiative. Tesla or some advocacy group with deep pockets would need to advertise in favor of the issue. If Michigan voters follow the recent trend, it is more fodder for NADA, which does not reflect Michigan's sentiment on the issue rather on the process: Michigan voters (regardless of political affiliation) vote no on ballot proposals because they'd prefer public policy work through the state legislature rather than some end around.

I believe this would result in a very bad outcome for Tesla.

2012 Michigan election results: Proposals 1-6 | MLive.com

Michigan 2012 ballot measures - Ballotpedia

MichFin said:

Anyone know how to get in touch with him to help him collect the signatures. I'm sure I'm good for 1000 signatures (OK mostly my wife):smile:

I found him on facebook and sent him a message.

Click to expand...

There's a form you can fill out on his website to request a petition.

http://eliminatei.com/

There are two major problems I see with this proposal. First, it only eliminates section (i). The restriction on service centers is in a different subsection. Second, it is seeking to remove the restriction not only for Tesla but for all automakers that already have established franchises. The auto dealers would absolutely never allow this to happen. Thus this proposal is asking for too little and too much at the same time.

If you read through the website, you'll see his motivations are not simply to benefit Tesla but rather to draw attention to how frequently in government that big business is allowed to buy legislation that benefits them. While I do support his efforts and would sign the petition, I do not see this bringing about real change that benefits Tesla. Their best approach is to continue to lobby for exemptions like they have received in other states, or to await action on a federal level.

RobStark said:

TADA, the Texas Auto Dealers Association, spent millions in Texas and while Tesla spent nothing.

After the Media blitz 97% of Texans favored allowing auto companies to sell direct.

Maybe the voters feel differently in Michigan because its voters feel protective of the Big Three, but Americans in general are overwhelmingly in favor of Tesla on the issue. Not that it matters to State legislators.

Click to expand...

How issues poll and why people vote are two separate stories.

Michigan voters are skeptical of ballot initiatives (regardless of the issue). In 2012, Michigan had 6 proposals on varying issues with favorable polling, and all failed.

You raise a very valid issue: Tesla is not a household name (yet), and an "uninformed voter" may view this as potentially hurting the Big Three, rather than helping consumers.

My main point is: unlike other states, Michigan recently strongly votes "No" on ballot proposals (regardless of issue).

Joel said:

Not to be the bearer of bad news, but Michigan Voters do not have the political appetite to vote in favor of ballot initiatives regardless of political affiliation (Michigan Voters rejected all 6 proposals in 2012). More importantly, if Yuille successfully puts this issue on the ballot, NADA will spend countless dollars advertising to vote No on the initiative. Tesla or some advocacy group with deep pockets would need to advertise in favor of the issue. If Michigan voters follow the recent trend, it is more fodder for NADA, which does not reflect Michigan's sentiment on the issue rather on the process: Michigan voters (regardless of political affiliation) vote no on ballot proposals because they'd prefer public policy work through the state legislature rather than some end around.

I believe this would result in a very bad outcome for Tesla.

2012 Michigan election results: Proposals 1-6 | MLive.com

Michigan 2012 ballot measures - Ballotpedia

Click to expand...

Is it really cultural, or is it that Michigan has stable politics so it ends up with a bunch of contentious stuff on the ballot?

ItsNotAboutTheMoney said:

Is it really cultural, or is it that Michigan has stable politics so it ends up with a bunch of contentious stuff on the ballot?

Click to expand...

"Stable Politics" is relative :wink: If you clicked through the link above, there are issues that were partisan: 1) Overturning the previously-repealed Emergency manager law (which Rick Snyder eventually re-wrote and passed through the state legislature), 2) Proposal three - mandating 25% of Michigan Energy be renewable energy, and 3) requiring a 2/3 legislative majority (or a super majority) to raise taxes. All struck down.

I wouldn't go so far to say that all issues are contentious (some are), but these issues were partisan.

This ballot proposal would be interesting because it is bipartisan. No one outside of State Senator Joe Hune (Senator Joe Hune) (husband of Marcia Hune, auto-dealer lobbyist http://www.gcsionline.com/about-us/lobbyists-profiles/148-marcia-hune.html) truly supported it. I spoke to many State Reps and State Senators, all of whom do not support it. The conservatives really do not like it. Why did they vote for it? They did not know the Bill was amended last minute. I know this sounds inexcusable, but that is how the sausage is made. No politician will publicly say "I did not know what was in the bill I voted on." But, there are many amendments and changes - both substantive in this case and immaterial in others - to virtually all legislation. This is exactly why NADA snuck it into a completely unrelated bill without out public comment or debate (this happened six weeks after NADA lost in Massachusetts).

Back to ballot initiatives - TimF pointed out one of the many reasons ballot initiatives lead to undesirable public policy: by in large they do not address the necessary detail to handle comprehensive public policy issues. I'm in favor of Tesla, and will vote yes, but ballot initiatives are something that are less than desirable.

Joel said:

My main point is: unlike other states, Michigan recently strongly votes "No" on ballot proposals (regardless of issue).

Click to expand...

Just phrase the actual initiative on the ballot as "Should Michigan laws continue to force you to purchase/service new vehicles from an independent auto dealer?" People vote No, yielding the desired result.

timf said:

There are two major problems I see with this proposal. First, it only eliminates section (i). The restriction on service centers is in a different subsection.

Click to expand...

That was my recollection too, but I no longer remember what subsection that was. Do you happen to have a citation handy? I think it would be worth raising this point with Yuille. I also wonder if he's tried to engage the U-M law prof who's been active on these issues.

Edit: I've been chatting with Mick Yuille and was reminded of what the problem subsections are: (1)(p) and (1)(q). These may have always been problems, it's not completely clear to me that the 2014 change enabled them. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billconcurred/House/pdf/2014-HCB-5606.pdf

Second, it is seeking to remove the restriction not only for Tesla but for all automakers that already have established franchises. The auto dealers would absolutely never allow this to happen. Thus this proposal is asking for too little and too much at the same time.

Click to expand...

That part is actually kind of interesting, because one of the objections one sees even from alleged EV proponents is that it's unfair to exempt Tesla from dealership laws as long as other companies are still bound by them. Also, it seems unlikely that GM would – at least quietly, in private – object to being untied from the dealers. You may remember that GM put their thumb on the scales when the last legislation was passed. For obvious reasons they can't afford to be seen attacking the dealers, but if they can be convinced to remain neutral, it would probably help.

As regards the question of whether voters are opposed to all ballot initiatives, always, I don't see that as a fundamental problem. Keep in mind that auto dealers generally score right near the bottom on polls measuring public trust in different professions. Probably if the campaign isn't sufficiently resourced, it has little chance of success – something the dealers throw at it will stick, likely a procedural roadblock. On the other hand, if it's run is a serious campaign, I think it has a real chance.