Supporters of Michigan’s voter-approved Proposal 2 are asking a federal court to let them defend the measure in two First Amendment lawsuits. The motion, filed this week by groups behind the “Money Out of Politics” initiative and state Representative-elect Joanna Whaley, adds a new procedural turn to a fight that began days after the November 3 election.
The measure is not yet fully in force. Michigan’s Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet November 23 to finalize statewide election results, and the proposal’s effective date depends on certification. The court has not ruled on the intervention request, and no judge has yet decided whether Proposal 2 violates the Constitution.
Facts: What the intervention motion says
The proposed intervenors include representatives of the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics ballot committee, Clean Water Action, Voters Not Politicians and Whaley, according to Michigan Advance’s report. They argue that the state officials already named as defendants may have different interests from the initiative’s sponsors and supporters.
The motion says Attorney General Dana Nessel, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and, in the utility case, Elections Director Jonathan Brater represent the public at large. The initiative supporters argue that state officials could decide to narrow how the law is applied, concede that some applications are invalid or settle the cases. The proposed intervenors say they have a direct interest in defending every provision approved by voters.
Whaley’s position is more specific. The motion says outside spending during her 2026 campaign used advertisements that did not include direct instructions such as “vote for” or “vote against.” The supporters argue that similar communications could trigger disclosure requirements under Proposal 2 in a future campaign.
The intervention request is a request to participate in the defense. It is not a ruling on the merits, and it does not itself pause or enforce the measure.
Facts: What Proposal 2 would change
Michigan’s official Ballot Proposal 2 text amends the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. The measure would restrict political contributions by certain regulated electric and gas utilities and by entities with major state government contracts. Reporting and disclosure provisions also address communications about candidates and ballot initiatives.
The proposal passed with more than 80% support in unofficial returns, according to Michigan Public. Those results remain unofficial until state canvassers certify them. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers lists November 23 among its 2026 meeting dates and says the board is responsible for canvassing and certifying statewide elections and statewide ballot proposals.
Michigan Public reported that the measure is written to take effect 10 days after certification. If certification occurs on the currently scheduled date and no court order delays implementation, portions could begin taking effect in early December. That timing is an estimate based on the statutory schedule and remains subject to certification and litigation.
Facts: Two federal lawsuits challenge the measure
The intervention motion responds to two separate federal cases. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed its complaint on November 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. On its case page, the organization says it is challenging provisions covering “electioneering communications” and campaign expenditures.
The Mackinac Center says communications costing more than $5,000 that mention a candidate within specified pre-election periods could trigger reporting and disclosure requirements. It also says communications that promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate or ballot initiative could trigger political-committee obligations at a $500 annual threshold. Those descriptions reflect the plaintiff’s account of the law and its constitutional objections; the court has not adopted them as findings.
Consumers Energy and DTE Energy filed a second lawsuit on November 5, Michigan Public reported. The utilities seek a preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement of provisions they say violate the First Amendment. Their complaint names state officials as defendants and argues that the restrictions are not sufficiently connected to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
The utilities say the measure unfairly targets companies, employees and relatives while leaving other political spenders subject to different rules. Supporters of Proposal 2 dispute that characterization and say the measure responds to the political influence of regulated utilities and large government contractors.
Analysis: Why intervention matters
Ballot initiatives create a recurring legal question: who should defend a law when state officials are sued over it? The state may defend the statute, but initiative sponsors can argue that they bring a distinct interest because they wrote the language, gathered signatures and campaigned for passage. The proposed intervenors are using that argument to seek a seat at the defense table rather than leaving the response entirely to state lawyers.
That could affect how the cases are litigated, but it does not guarantee a faster or stronger defense. The judge must decide whether the proposed parties meet the legal standard for intervention. Even if they are admitted, the lawsuits will still turn on constitutional questions about political speech, disclosure, contribution limits and the government’s anti-corruption interests.
The case also creates a timing problem for election administration. Michigan has a defined certification process, while the federal lawsuits may seek emergency relief before the law takes effect. A preliminary injunction could delay enforcement even if the proposal is certified. Conversely, a denial of emergency relief would not necessarily resolve the final constitutional challenge.
For voters, the immediate takeaway is that Proposal 2 has passed at the ballot box but is not yet settled as a matter of law. The certification date, any decision on intervention and any order addressing enforcement will determine what happens next. Statements by the initiative campaign, utilities and the Mackinac Center describe their positions; they are not judicial conclusions.
As of November 11, 2026.
The intervention motion is pending, the two federal challenges remain unresolved, and Proposal 2’s statewide certification is scheduled for November 23.
Sources
- Michigan Legislature, Ballot Proposal 2 of 2026
- Michigan Board of State Canvassers
- Michigan Advance, organizers seek to intervene in Proposal 2 lawsuits
- Michigan Public, campaign wants in on lawsuit defense
- Michigan Public, utilities sue to block Proposal 2
- Mackinac Center, Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Benson