# Michigan Ballot Measure Backers Seek Role in Proposal 2 Lawsuits

- Link: https://thebrieflens.com/michigan-proposal-2-intervention-lawsuits/
- Published: 2026-11-11T17:05:24+00:00
- Author: The Brief Lens Editorial Team

![Michigan courthouse and ballot box representing litigation over the voter-approved
Proposal 2 campaign-finance measure](https://thebrieflens.com/wp-content/uploads/
2026/11/01-michigan-proposal2-lawsuit.jpg)

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](https://michiganadvance.com/2026/11/10/michiganders-for-money-out-of-politics-organizers-seek-to-intervene-in-lawsuits-challenging-measure/).
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](https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/initiative/Ballot_Proposal_2_of_2026.pdf)
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](https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-11-05/consumers-and-dte-sue-to-block-money-out-of-politics-proposal).
Those results remain unofficial until state canvassers certify them. The [Michigan Board of State Canvassers](https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/bsc)
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](https://www.mackinac.org/litigation/cases/mcpp-v-benson),
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](https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-11-05/consumers-and-dte-sue-to-block-money-out-of-politics-proposal).
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](https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/initiative/Ballot_Proposal_2_of_2026.pdf)
 * [Michigan Board of State Canvassers](https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/bsc)
 * [Michigan Advance, organizers seek to intervene in Proposal 2 lawsuits](https://michiganadvance.com/2026/11/10/michiganders-for-money-out-of-politics-organizers-seek-to-intervene-in-lawsuits-challenging-measure/)
 * [Michigan Public, campaign wants in on lawsuit defense](https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-11-10/money-out-of-politics-campaign-wants-in-on-lawsuit-defense)
 * [Michigan Public, utilities sue to block Proposal 2](https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-11-05/consumers-and-dte-sue-to-block-money-out-of-politics-proposal)
 * [Mackinac Center, Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Benson](https://www.mackinac.org/litigation/cases/mcpp-v-benson)