What is my circumstantial evidence in this case? Simply this: If the real purpose of this proposal was, as represented to the union, to put the party in a position to avoid judicial tampering with gerrymandering in 2011, then this purpose was clearly served by removing the recourse of appeal to the Supreme Court. Since one provision the proposal already removed any possibility of redistricting appeals, then why expand the proposal with a second, seemingly redundant provision to "gut the GOP" court. The reason, I suggest, is clear. This is not about public policy, or even an elephant versus a donkey; the real fight between is between insurers and plaintiff's lawyers.

All involved are made to look like prostitutes - from the plaintiff's bar, the Democratic party, the union, the insurance industry, former Governor Engler, and especially the jurists who have effected such dramatic and devastating judicial tort reforms of their own, and who are now forced to lay bare their naked self interest to prevent this measure from making the ballot by means of a dangerous new legal theory that will no doubt cost the court significant credibility (a result already calculated by the Brewer cabal).

Governor Granholm looks bad too. In order to block a Republican block of the RMGN petition certification, she refused to make a Republican appointment to Board of State Canvassers, as specifically mandated by the constitution, which is necessary to fill the vacancy caused on that board last week when the Republican member of that solemn body, which is responsible for certifying all elections and maintaining the integrity of the electoral system, had to resign due to his ownership interest of Sterling Corp., a major political PR firm heavily vested in the anti-RMGN cause, and many other election campaigns in Michigan. How did he get put on the board in the first place?

Finally, consider the two track strategy by Michigan legislators, who are suing RMGN on the novel concept that there is an implied single subject restriction for proposed Amendments to the Michigan Constitution, while simultaneously hatching a Trojan horse plan to use an attractive legislative pay cut as a loss leader for a Ballot Question to repeal or gut term limits. The ambitious Mark Meadows, an officeholder with long experience, should read his own rulebook first. Joint Rules for the Michigan Legislature (Rule 13) states, "The same joint resolution shall not propose an amendment to the Constitution on more than one subject matter." Legislative salary Term Limits repeal are two different subjects. So the 148 guys who make the rules in Lansing would have to break their own rules to log roll this question past the voters, after over 400,000 petition signers put it on the ballot, and 60% of the voters approved it, when Term Limits was enacted in 1993. That won't pass the smell test. This rule is a self-limiting rule, but a legal rule nonetheless. There is no actual single subject restriction in the constitution itself.

The litigation against RMGN will be undermined by this inconsistent plotting, which is, by the way, actually an attempt to take advantage of a clear point of Michigan constitutional law. On the one hard this is a log rolling technique to try to offer a popular pay decrease in return for a yes vote to gut term term limits in a Hobson's Choice election, but of course the main urgent concern right now is a contingency to make sure that if  RMGN gets on the ballot, a Joint Resolution is put on the ballot that has a provision that conflicts with RMGN petition, and the pay decrease provides that conflict. In Michigan, even if both questions passed by a majority, if two ballot questions have even one minor conflicting provision between them, then the one with the least votes would lose even if both get a majority yes vote. This is where the Meadows strategy breaks down - even it a pay cut ballot question could win a majority vote log rolled with a term limits anchor holding it down, a dubious proposition, there is no way that rational politicians who want to beat RMGN by just one vote (so as to kill it) would ever hang an anchor like term limits on the pay cut proposal precisely because they know they need more than a Majority vote to win - they actually need to get one more vote than RMGN on the assumption that RMGN wins a majority vote too. So if term limits is the main objective, they risk loss to RMGN by including the conflicting provision of the pay cut. Even the now-notorious power point, which laid bare the naked partisan purpose of RMGN to get control of gerrymandering and remove GOP justices from the Supreme Court, explained why the measure did not go after term limits, at panel 26 it says,  "Including a term limits repeal or revision could tank the reform proposal.".

If killing RMGN is their main objective, they risk loss to RMGN by including the repeal or extension of term limits on themselves, since over 66% of voters still lover term limits. If they want to beat RMGN, then they cannot afford to lose any support, and should tactically  use a silver bullet of  pay cut alone, without the term limits complication. Done that way, it is a perfect technical kill. Either way, the strategy is flawed because it undermines the claims that RMGN is illegally comprehensive, and demonstrates the scheming bad character of our elected officials.

Will they get away with it? That depends on your of definition of "they". One or another "they" will get away with something, but all I really know for sure is that, as usual, "we" probably won't be the winners. We will see millions of tax dollars poured into this heavy handed bitter partisan infighting. I, for one, want my money back!