“I don’t think the ads are connecting at all and I don’t know if there’s anything they can do to change that,” said Bernie PORN of EPIC-MRA. “They’re starting to change up some of the messaging. I got a robo-call the other day that talked about the economy, job creation and education in addition to the roads.”I think they’re trying to spread it out, but I don’t think the safety and danger approach is connecting with voter. And if it’s not believable, that’s a problem.”EPIC-MRA asked the question as part of their regular survey for clients, but no particular client purchased this question, Porn said.

Of those who said they were going to vote “yes,” 48 percent they were doing so because “road repair is needed.” Another 14 percent said “funding is needed.” Ten percent liked that more education funding was being raised and five percent said it was because it’s the “only plan available; no Plan B.”

For those who said they were going to vote no, 32 percent said they were against a tax increase, that taxes were already too high. Eighteen percent said there was too much in the proposal and 13 percent feared “wasteful government spending.” Another 9 percent said they didn’t trust Michigan government or Gov. Rick SNYDER.

Seven percent said the funding was not needed and that there were other ways to fund the roads. Five percent said they didn’t think the roads would get fixed.

As for the crosstabs, Porn said, there’s a little less opposition among Republicans, but he said he’s seeing 60 to 70 percent opposition across the board.

“There’s not a lot of optimism for people who are supportive to find in the crosstabs,” Porn said.

Despite the public polling, John WALSH, Snyder’s director of strategy, said this morning at Michigan Association of Counties conference that the administration remains optimistic about Proposal 1 and thinks it’s going to pass.

“. . . (Y)ou never know. It will be close. It will be very, very close,” Walsh said. “Something about raising a $1 billion in taxes makes people nervous.”

Walsh said the proposal was important to both improving roads and economic development.

“If we can get it passed,” Walsh said, “I think we can look at a much brighter future for roads and perhaps our state.”

Paul MITCHELL, of the group Coalition Against Higher Taxes and Special Interest Deals, said that while he’d rather be on his side of the poll numbers than on the other side, he and his group are not going to stop what it’s doing to educate voters and listening to their frustrations.

He said he continues to hear from residents that they don’t like “all this other extra stuff” in the ballot proposal when it’s all supposed to go to roads.

“We’re going to continue to put time, energy and money into this,” Mitchell said. “We need to make sure Proposal 1 is defeated and we’re insisting the Legislature fix the roads in a responsible manner.”

However, Roger MARTIN, of Safe Roads Yes!, said polling ballot questions is “very difficult” to do accurately. He noted that Michigan history is “filled with ballot proposals” that polls predicted would perform one way, but the opposite occurred.

For example, Proposal 1 of August 2014 (the personal property tax repeal) was polling as low as the low 30 percent range, but passed with 69 percent support, Martin said. Proposal 5 of 2012 (the two-thirds supermajority proposal) was passing in the low 70s about five weeks out from Election Day, but failed with about 66 percent voting no.

Proposal 1 of 2004 (the additional public votes for new gaming ventures) was in the upper 30 percent range about a month out from Election Day. It passed with 55 percent of the vote.

“We have a full month to go,” Martin said. “The first phase of the campaign is about to end, and we will be shifting to phase two. Ultimately, what this will come down to is turnout. If the people and organizations who support Proposal 1 turnout and vote, we will win.”

On Thursday, MIRS and Target Insyght released a poll showing the initiative losing 36 to 55 percent on the question. Once the ballot language was read to them, support dropped to 28 to 63 (See “Prop 1 Opposition At 55% In New MIRS Poll,” 3/26/15).

The next day, John YOB‘s Strategic National released numbers showing Proposal 1 losing 28 to 61 percent (See “Prop 1’s Road Safety Message Having ‘No Impact’ With Half Of Voters,” 3/27/15).

The live poll has a margin of error of 4 percent. Twenty percent of those who participated in the survey were called on their cell phones.

Snyder’s favorable number is at 46 percent in this poll while his unfavorable is at 39 percent. On his job performance, 47 percent gave Snyder a positive rating. Another 49 percent gave him a negative rating. The MIRS team talks about the future of Proposal 1 in this week’s MIRS Monday podcast.

Progress Michigan Survey Shows Voters Feel They’re ‘Paying Their Fair Share’ 

A Proposal 1 survey Progress Michigan conducted through a Google Consumer Survey found only 23 percent support the initiative, while 43.7 percent of the 2,876 Michigan residents surveyed between Mar 16-19 said they would vote no. Another 33.3 percent were undecided.

However, Progress Michigan spotlighted that among those who said they were going to vote no, 39.4 percent said it was because the “middle class already paying their fair share in taxes.” Another 19.4 percent said corporations should pay more to fix the roads and 14.1 percent said they didn’t have enough information.”Unfortunately, in December the legislature opted to kick the can down the crumbling road rather than making the tough choices their constituents put them in office to make,” said Lonnie SCOTT, executive director of Progress Michigan. “We hope the Legislature understands their constituents expect a comprehensive solution that involves asking wealthy special interests to pay their fair share.”

The opposition number mirrors findings of an April 2014 Target Insyght survey conducted for MIRS that found 55 percent opposed to dedicating a one percent increase in the state’s sales tax for a permanent road funding fix.

“Nothing has changed, we still have about 55 percent of voters that are leaning no on this ballot proposal,” said Ed SARPOLUS, of Target Insyght. “So after a year, the priority for voters of solving the road funding problem is not there.”

Sarpolus contends the door isn’t closed on the possible passage of Proposal 1 with five and a half weeks remaining, but the campaign may need to sound different messages through different messengers to achieve success on May 5.

“It comes down to who the messenger is and solving their credibility problem,” Sarpolus said. “It’s also not just about TV, it’s about grass roots. They have to get the coalition activated at the grass roots level. Right now the Governor is the only messenger. He’s like a quarterback that shows up for the game, but there’s no team. He needs a team around him to get the message out.”

The number of those opposed rises to 65 percent after poll participants were read the actual ballot language. Those supporting the proposal after the ballot language was heard dropped from 36 percent to 29 percent.

The survey of 700 registered voters was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday and included voters who indicated they’re likely to vote on the May 5 proposal. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.64 percent.

The first question the survey posed was “based on what you know, read, seen, discussed or heard about the statewide ballot proposal to provide additional money for roads and if the election were held today” how would you vote? In response, 36 percent say they’d vote yes, 55 percent no with nine percent undecided.

After being asked their initial reaction and then read the ballot language, participants were then provided a longer explanation of what the proposed constitutional amendment would do including restrictions on school aid fund usage, changes in sales tax application to fuel purchases and alterations to how the state taxes diesel fuel and gasoline.

Following the longer explanation, 28 percent said they supported the proposal, 63 percent said they were opposed with nine percent undecided.

The MIRS/Target Insyght survey also questioned voters whether they’d seen commercials supporting or opposing the May 5 road funding proposal.

A total of 72 percent said they’d seen television or heard radio ads supporting the proposal. Some 21 percent said they’d seen television or heard radio ads opposing the proposal. Interestingly, the cross tabs show that 51 percent of those that indicated they had not been exposed to any messages about the proposal — for or against — would vote yes.

Among independents, 66 percent are opposed to the plan. Democrats appear to be the most receptive, with 45 percent saying they plan to vote yes and 44 percent planning to vote no.

Women are more likely to support the plan (38 percent) than men (33 percent). On a regional basis, the Traverse City region appears to be the most inclined toward the plan. A total of 49 percent of Traverse City media market registered voters indicated they were a yes vote, while 43 percent were no when first asked about the plan.

On the first question, the Detroit and Flint media markets had 58 percent of voters opposed while the Lansing media market had 47 percent opposed and Grand Rapids had 53 percent opposed.

Question wording and results can be downloaded here.

Cross tabs can be downloaded here.

Could All Four Michigan Living Governors Sell Prop 1?
In reviewing the findings of this week’s survey for MIRS, Sarpolus argued that a new messenger or messengers might be needed to close the deal. His argument that Gov. Rick SNYDER will only go so far with voters and that a trusted Democrat, in particular, would be helpful in generating more support.

“In Southeast Michigan, you could have (Detroit Mayor) Mike DUGGAN or Macomb County Executive Mark HACKEL because they’re very credible in their communities. (Executive) Brooks PATTERSON in Oakland County.”

MIRS asked, could former Gov. James BLANCHARD be convincing?

“I think there are people in the UP that still love Governor Blanchard,” Sarpolus said. “He’s not as active as he used to be around the state.”

MIRS then asked, what about all four living Michigan governors coming out in support — would that move the needle?

“That would be great, that would be helpful,” he said. “Let me explain how important that is. If you look back to ’94 [Proposal A] there was a message, ‘We must do this.’ Having four governors, bipartisan from many decades, then you’re going to have a unified message that, ‘We have to do this.'”

Benishek can’t make the argument his words were taken out of context. First, there’s his own press release where he clearly states, “I am happy to tell voters I strongly favor term limits. Three terms and you’re retired seems about right to me.”

But second of all, term limits was “part of his stump speech,” remembers “Trucker Randy” BISHOP, who ran for the 37th Senate District seat in northern Michigan in 2010 at the same time Benishek was running for his first term in Congress.

“I was on stage with him at numerous events where this came up as an issue,” Bishop said. “And these weren’t gotcha questions or anything like that. He brought it up.”

Benishek hasn’t publicly tipped his hand one way or the other. His campaign team’s standard response has been that’s it’s focused on the current term as opposed to the future, a sign that the issue (at the very least) is not settled in his mind.

Early signs seem to point toward “Dr. Dan” running for a fourth term. The American Action Network (AAN), a self-proclaimed center-right organization is spending $30,000 on Traverse City broadcast buy to run an ad 175 times thanking Benishek for fighting for a “conservative agenda” in Congress.

MIRS has learned national Republicans would prefer a re-election bid considering 2016 is a presidential year and the prospects of a female Democratic nominee would make the swing 1st District significantly more competitive if it were open. Michigan Republican Party Chair Ronna RomneyMcDANIEL was asked today on Off the Record today whether Benishek should run for a fourth term, but she said it was a decision the member of Congress must make.

What little history Michigan has seen with self-imposed congressional term limits has not shown political repercussions.

Former U.S. Rep. Pete HOEKSTRA said initially he would only serve six terms, but broke that pledge, running and winning in 2004, 2006 and 2008 without a primary challenge (See “Hoekstra Will Seek Re-Election,” 12/19/02).

The only other recent self-imposed term limit pledge came from former U.S. Rep. Nick SMITH, who served only the six terms he pledged to serve from 1993-2004.

Northern Michigan political consultant Dennis LENNOX, however, said the blue-collar residents of the Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula may not be as forgiving.

“This is a conservative, God-fearing, gun-loving, family-centered district,” Lennox said. “Even the Democrats, many of whom are Catholic, are socially conservative. This would be a very bad part of Michigan to break a term-limits pledge.”

Lennox said he supported Benishek in 2010 and didn’t offer a position on whether Benishek should run for a fourth term or not. However, he did predict that if he does, the question would not be if he has a primary, but how credible the primary is.

Sen. Tom CASPERSON (R-Escanaba) would likely run for the 1st if Benishek were not to run again, but it’s very unlikely he would challenge his personal friend in a primary.

It’s not clear about the other top-tier Republican rumored to be considering the seat — former state Sen. Jason ALLEN, who lost to Benishek by a mere 15 voters in 2010, although Up North political observers doubt he’d primary Benishek.

If neither of them run, several current House members would bring instant credibility to a run, such as Rep. Lee CHATFIELD (R-Levering), term-limited Rep. Ed MCBROOM (R-Vulcan) and term-limited Rep. Pete PETTALIA (R-Presque Isle), being three of them.

Benishek is in the politically tricky position of not being particularly loved by either the district’s Tea Party leaders or the “establishment,” but is generally acceptable to both. His campaign staffer, JesseOSMER, was recently re-elected as the chair of the Republican Party’s 1st Congressional District amid a competitive race, which shows some political strength.

This is despite Benishek not being known for hitting a large number of Lincoln Day dinners or engaging in the chicken dinner circuit.

His tolerable center-right voting record likely won’t shake loose any high-dollar donors in either Michigan or Washington D.C. to fund a primary challenger, noted one observer.

The filing deadline is still more than a year away, as another observer noted, so Benishek’s perception in the district could significantly change for the better or the worse in the meantime.

Either way, expect the Democrats to make a play for Benishek. If the incumbent runs, expect the breaking of the term limit pledge to play a central theme in a campaign, MIRS is told.

“We think Dan Benishek is one of most vulnerable members in the country,” said Michigan Democratic Party (MDP) Lon JOHNSON. “He’s gone to Washington and been part of the partisan gridlock that has done nothing for the people of his district. He said he’d serve three terms. We’ll see if he’s a man of his word or not.”

The Hill reported this week 2014 nominee Jerry CANNON, who lost 52 to 45 percent in a good Republican year, is taking a serious look at another run. Rep. Scott DIANDA (D-Calumet) is also a possibility, but it’s unlikely there would be a competitive primary, MIRS has learned.

Cannon’s military and law enforcement background had appeal with voters. Meanwhile, Dianda in 2014 had the most conservative record of any Democrat in the state Legislature since MIRS started tracking annual voting records in 2003.

Dianda’s 63 percent conservative ranking was higher than that of 24 Republicans and only two percentage points off the 65 percent posted by Casperson in the Senate.

“Well, some of those explanations are fairly long and complicated,” said Snyder, adding that he will remain focused on a simpler message of public safety, which he think will eventually trump the no-tax increase message from the other side.

“Isn’t a life more important than a dollar?” said Snyder, adding the internal polling data is “more positive” than the EPIC-MRA finding.

The EPIC-MRA survey asked 600 voters between Jan. 24-27 about the May 5 ballot proposal designed to improve Michigan’s road through a penny hike in the sales tax.

When initially presented to “certain” voters — as opposed to “likely” voters — 46 percent said they would support Proposal 1 while 44 percent say they would not.

However, once more detail about the plan is presented to them, support dropped to 37 percent and opposition grew to 49 percent. The margin of error was +/- 4.0 percent.

EPIC-MRA’s Bernie PORN said it may be because the Legislature and Governor loaded the ballot proposal with so many moving parts that a confused voting public is defaulting to voting no.

Porn said the ballot proposal has its strongest support in central Michigan (52 to 35 percent), followed by the Outer Metro Detroit region (50 to 40). It does the worst in Northern Michigan (58 to 37 percent).

Younger voters (aged 18-34) were more supportive (59 to 28 percent) than those aged 49-6, who opposed it 49 to 38 percent.

College educated voters liked it 49 to 39 percent while those with a high school diploma or less opposed it 47 to 38 percent. Women are voting “yes” 48 to 36 percent while all mean slightly opposed 46 to 44 percent.

The following information was read to survey respondents:

“Now I would like to read a more detailed statement about Proposal 1. Increasing the state sales tax from 6 to 7cents would raise about 1.6 billion dollars per year, with 1.3 billion dollars going to state road, street and bridge improvements; 300 million dollars per year in new increased funding going to local public schools, equal to about $200 per pupil; 112 million dollars going to mass transit services; and 95 million dollars in increased revenue sharing going to local governments. The sales tax increase would replace the 752 million dollars in revenue that currently goes to schools and local governments that has been generated by the existing 6 percent sales tax charged on gasoline at the pump, which would be eliminated. Also, the existing gas tax and diesel fuel tax would be replaced with a tax charged at the wholesale level, resulting in an estimated 3 cent per gallon gas tax increase above 2013 levels. Vehicle registration fees would increase by eliminating a 10 percent per year discount new car buyers receive for the first three years they own their cars, as well as increasing registration fees for hybrid and electric vehicles, which will raise an additional 45 million dollars. It will also increase annual fees for heavy commercial trucks by 50 million dollars. The Earned Income Tax Credit, which was reduced in 2011, would be fully restored; which will provide about $300 per year in tax relief for low-income families. Universities would no longer be funded from the state School Aid Fund, meaning funding from that source could only be used for local public schools and community colleges.”

If Proposal 1 were to pass, all current gasoline taxes would be scrapped for a new wholesale gasoline tax that would shift roughly $1.2 billion in new revenue to the roads. While drivers likely wouldn’t see a price difference with the new tax, they would see a one-cent higher sales tax (6 to 7 percent).

The proceeds of that additional penny would go to what the current sales tax on gasoline pays for — schools and local governments, in particular. The proposal also freezes annual driver registration fees, which is expected to raise $45 million and raises truck fees $50 million.

The proposal raises about an addition $300 million for schools, restores the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor and steers $40 million to “at-risk” schools, among other reforms.

Other Polling Data
– Other data from the EPIC-MRA poll shows 60 percent of respondents believe Michigan is headed in the right direction, which is up from 52 percent in December.

– 71 percent said Michigan’s economy has bottomed out and is now improving.

– Snyder has a 54 percent favorable ranking with 50 percent giving him a positive job ranking.

Jason GILLMAN, of the conservative blog RightMi.com, said he understands an elected official has the legal authority to endorse or oppose a ballot question, but Gillman argues Snyder stepped into expressed advocacy by bringing up what will become Proposal 1 during the televised annual address.

“I would just like them to pay attention to the law,” Gillman said. “If, as a business owner, I screw up my paperwork, I’m going to get crushed with the full force and authority of the government. You can’t have it both ways. If I’m going to go by the law, he’s got to go by the law.”

Gillman filed a successful campaign finance complaint with the Bureau of Elections in 2012 against the Traverse City Area Public Schools (TCAPS) system for sending out a mailer that asked recipients to “support the continuation of the TCAPS long-term infrastructure improvement plan.”

However, the case Gillman is bringing to the Bureau of Elections may closer resemble a case in Saline that state officials addressed last year, in which the Saline City Council passed a resolution in support of the Personal Property Tax revenue replacement measure, according to one state official.

The City of Saline held a community forum to talk about the proposal and the Mayor spoke in favor of it, but the city didn’t go out of its way to spend any city dollars to directly advocate for the proposal outside of its normal governmental operations.

The same could be argued in the case of Snyder, who spoke the words during a statewide address he was going to make anyway.

According to the Secretary of State, the Governor isn’t allowed to hand out “Vote Yes” placards out of the Capitol, tape a lawn sign to his office window or use his phone or e-mails for campaign purposes.

“We don’t think there’s a violation there,” said Fred WOODHAMS of the Secretary of State’s office.

Gillman said he would still push the matter.

“There are things that are problems and he doesn’t care. Someone has to slap his hand. You can’t do things like say ‘vote for’ something six times in a public forum,” he argues. “This was a campaign ad. Frankly, if this isn’t a violation, than the whole provision of public officials speaking out in favor a ballot proposal is moot. It shouldn’t be in the law.”

Snyder Press Secretary Sara WURFEL said the Gillman’s claim has “zero merit.”

“As the chief executive of the state, the Governor clearly has a role and responsibility on public policy matters. We have reviewed all laws carefully and closely and the Governor is fully within his right to discuss his position,” she said.

###