Michigan Proposal 2, Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michigan Proposal 2
Flag of Michigan.png
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Law enforcement
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment
Origin
State legislature


Michigan Proposal 2, the Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment, was on the ballot in Michigan as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposal 2 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to require a search warrant to access a person's electronic data and electronic communications.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to require a search warrant to access a person's electronic data and electronic communications.


Election results

Michigan Proposal 2

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

4,472,671 88.75%
No 567,130 11.25%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

What did this ballot measure add to the Michigan Constitution?

See also: Changes to the Michigan Constitution

Proposal 2 added language to the Michigan State Constitution that requires a search warrant to access electronic data or electronic communications. The ballot measure also stated that electronic data and electronic communications are secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.[1]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[2]

A proposed constitutional amendment to require a search warrant in order to access a person’s electronic data or electronic communications[3]

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[2]

This proposed constitutional amendment would:
  • Prohibit unreasonable searches or seizures of a person’s electronic data and electronic communications.
  • Require a search warrant to access a person’s electronic data or electronic communications, under the same conditions currently required for the government to obtain a search warrant to search a person’s house or seize a person’s things.[3]

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Michigan Constitution

The measure amended Section 11 of Article I of the Michigan Constitution. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:[1]

Searches and Seizures

The person, houses, papers, and possessions, and electronic data and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things or to access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state.[3]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state board wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 18, and the FRE is 0. The word count for the ballot title is 20, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 15, and the FRE is 19. The word count for the ballot summary is 55, and the estimated reading time is 14 seconds.


Support

Supporters

Officials

Political Parties

Organizations

  • Americans for Tax Reform

Arguments

  • Sen. Jim Runestad (R-15): "The failure of our laws to address this new reality is not only a threat to our liberties today. It is a threat to the future liberties of generations to come. The Fourth Amendment still matters. We don’t know what technological advances will come next, but one thing is for sure, after 246 years of us Americans, our right to privacy still matters."
  • Shelli Weisberg, political director for the ACLU of Michigan: "The courts are coming along on that but enshrining it in our constitution is a very important step."


Opposition

Ballotpedia has not identified individuals and entities opposing the ballot measure. If you are aware of published opposition to the ballot measure, you may send a reference link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Media editorials

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

  • The Detroit News Editorial Board: "Information stored in your cellphone or personal computer is no different than the paper document stashed in your home file cabinets and desk drawers. It's private, and it belongs to you. Government should have a very sound reason to peek at that information, and should have to explain the reason to a judge."
  • The Toledo Blade Editorial Board: "Michigan voters can strike a blow for liberty by approving an amendment to the state constitution that will protect personal data stored in electronic and digital form. ... It’s a rare opportunity to extend state constitutional protections for citizens. Voters shouldn’t miss an opportunity to decide Michigan’s law directly. ... While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is needed to search cell phone data, the reality is that courts change their opinions, and police departments change their practices, so the most effective way to protect electronic data is to make it clear by passing a law, in this case an amendment to the state constitution."


Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Background

Riley v. California (2014)

In Riley v. California (2014), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is necessary to search a suspect's cellphone during an arrest. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that while a police officer can inspect the "physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon," a police officer cannot search a phone's data without a warren. Chief Justice Roberts stated, "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life'… The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant."[4]

Constitutional amendments on Michigan ballots

In Michigan, both the state legislature and ballot initiatives can propose amendments to the state constitution. Between 1995 and 2018, the Michigan State Legislature referred nine constitutional amendments to the ballot, while voters decided 15 citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. The legislature's proposed amendments were approved at a higher rate (88.9 percent) than citizen-initiated amendments (40.0 percent). The following chart illustrates trends in constitutional amendments on the ballot in Michigan:

Constitutional amendments on the ballot in Michigan, 1995-2018
Type Total number Approved Percent approved Defeated Percent defeated Even-year average Even-year median Even-year minimum Even-year maximum
Legislative 9 8 88.9% 1 11.1% 0.7 0.0 0 2
Citizen 15 6 40.0% 9 60.0% 1.3 1.0 0 5
Total 24 14 58.3% 10 41.7% 1.9 2.0 0 5

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Michigan Constitution

In Michigan, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the Michigan State Legislature during one legislative session.

Sen. Jim Runestad (R-15) introduced the amendment into the legislature as Senate Joint Resolution G (SJR G) on June 12, 2019. The Michigan State Senate voted 38 to 0 to pass SJR G on June 11, 2020. At least 26 votes were needed in the Senate. The Michigan House of Representatives voted 106 to 0 to pass SJR G on June 24, 2020. At least 73 votes were needed in the House. With approval in the Senate and House, SJR G was placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.[5]

Vote in the Michigan State Senate
June 11, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 26  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total3800
Total percent100.00%0.00%0.00%
Democrat1600
Republican2200

Vote in the Michigan House of Representatives
June 24, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 73  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total10603
Total percent97.25%0.00%2.75%

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Michigan

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Michigan.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 Michigan legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution G," accessed June 12, 2020
  2. 2.0 2.1 Michigan Board of State Canvassers, "Proposal 2," accessed September 8, 2020
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  4. Supreme Court of the United States, "Riley v. California," accessed May 17, 2017
  5. Michigan Legislature, "SJR G Overview," accessed June 11, 2020
  6. Michigan Secretary of State, "Frequently Asked Questions: Elections and Voting," accessed April 16, 2023
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Michigan Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed October 7, 2024
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 NCSL, "State Profiles: Elections," accessed August 26, 2024
  9. Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  10. 10.0 10.1 10.2 Michigan.gov, "Notice to Voters: Voter Identification Requirement in Effect," accessed October 7, 2024