LANSING – Supporters of the Reform Michigan Government Now petition drive expect to turn in on Monday well in excess of the 380,126 of signatures from registered voters needed to put this proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot – an amendment that would reduce the size of the Legislature and cut salaries.

A key motivating factor behind the Reform Michigan Government Now petition drive is worker rage. Even though top Democratic officials were instrumental in drafting and developing the wide-sweeping proposal, outrage at both parties for what blue-collar workers see has been an abandonment of their jobs and incomes is helping fuel the effort to put the proposal on the ballot and win its passage.

That drive to get back at elected officials has led many top Democrats in the Legislature and the judiciary as well to respond furiously back at the party and the backers of the proposal.

Among the many highlights of the proposal is the Legislature would be significantly reduced in size – from 110 members of the House down to 82, and from 38 members of the Senate down to 28 – and legislative salaries would be cut. Judicial salaries would also be cut. Legislative Democrats are outraged both that they would lose money, but House Democrats are especially upset they would lose opportunities to run for the Senate.

But labor apparently doesn’t care that the Democratic establishment is angry with it. Charging that Democrats have done little to protect workers, especially public workers from, wage and benefit cuts, labor sources said it was time the higher ups took some pain.

“All of them, Dillon, Granholm and all of them and the Republicans said the workers were getting paid too much and their benefits cost too much, so f. ’em,” one source said referring to Governor Jennifer Granholm and House Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.). “All our people have done is take cut after cut after cut, so it’s time they took a cut.”

Unions don’t represent the judges and lawmakers, the source said, they represent workers and the workers are hurting and they are angry.

Meanwhile, state Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer met Wednesday with House Democrats who are livid over the proposal. Senate Democrats have also been trying to get a meeting with Brewer to discuss the proposal.

Before the group gets to put its proposal before the voting public however, it can expect a massive effort to scrutinize all the petition signatures and a major court case to challenge the constitutionality of the constitutional amendment.

Which speaks to another key element of the story behind the amendment: supporters think if it survives a court challenge (and some supporters have apparently told others that the measure was written to be court-proof) and the 100-word ballot description that will appear before the voters is written to their approval it is a lock to win at the polls.

Along with reducing the Legislature, the proposal cuts two members of the Supreme Court, cuts six members of the Court of Appeals, cuts all judicial salaries in the state, reduces the number of state departments by two, completely redrafts the state’s redistricting provisions expanding the now four-member board of canvassers to nine and outlaws any attempt by anyone in any way to alter a redistricting plan between decennial census (it also cuts the now 10 percent population differential allowed in districts to 2.5 percent), cuts salaries for the Legislature and statewide elected officials, allows for no-reason absentee voting and bars state officials from becoming lobbyists for two years after they leave office.

Numerous sources interviewed for this story (all of whom would talk only on background) said in many respects what top Democrats wanted in the proposal more than anything were changes to the state’s redistricting provisions. “That has been a top priority of the party for at least a decade,” said one source close to Democratic officials.

But the appeal of the proposal to the general public, officials and sources said, will be the reduction in the Legislature and the cut in official salaries. “We’ve hit on things both Republicans and Democrats have proposed,” a supporter said.

Dianne Byrum, spokesperson for the petition effort, said gerrymandering has caused partisan rancor and the petition drive would not favor one party or the other, but ensure that there are competitive races every election cycle.

She also said the redistricting process under the ballot proposal would be more transparent than now, with the commission required to hold public meetings and solicit advice from the public.

Sources said that Brewer approached the Michigan AFL-CIO with the germ of the idea for the proposal at least nine months ago. The sources also said Brewer along with labor lawyers Andrew Nickelhoff and Mary Ellen Gurewitz did the bulk of the work in drafting the proposal.

Brewer and Nickelhoff did not return several calls for comment. A spokesperson for Brewer also did not return a call. Gurewitz was reached, but refused to comment. Byrum refused to answer any questions about the “process or strategy” of the drive.

But she said the birth of the proposal was out of frustration that while politicians talk about government reforms, nothing ever gets enacted. She argued the petition drive wasn’t the result of worker rage, but that families are struggling and they don’t see their government taking hits like they are.

In late 2007, a nearly final draft of the proposal was put to the AFL-CIO’s executive council, and “they loved it,” a source said.

Who is paying the estimated $750,000 to $1 million or more to gather the signatures has also been a mystery, but sources said much of the money is coming from a number of union locals. Those financial supporters do not include the heavyweight unions like the UAW, sources said. While they refused to say which locals have helped – should the proposal make the ballot, public disclosure will be required – they said it demonstrates once more how angry unions and their members are.

Byrum said the petition committee will comply with state law and disclose who is funding the campaign when the state requires it. The Michigan AFL-CIO has publicly endorsed the proposal.

“It’s a pretty good piece of work. Those are smart guys,” said one source, a Republican, of the petition.

Generally, petition circulators have their petitions reviewed by the State Board of Canvassers to guard against form issues that could nullify the petition. That step is not required, and according to sources was not sought by supporters in an effort to maintain as low-key a proposal in the signature gathering phase as possible.

While the petition drive only became generally public less than a month ago, petition signatures have actually been collected for several months. Because two other petition proposals calling for part-time legislatures were also being distributed the public’s attention to the issue may have been obscured by the bulk of proposals on the street. “There were enough wacky groups out there that if something came up on this it was just assumed it was some variation of the other proposals,” a source said.

But sources also said that part of the strategy in collecting signatures was to avoid collecting signatures in the Lansing area for the first few months in an effort to defer attention from the signature gathering effort.

Byrum refuted that the petition drive has been stealth, saying, “You can’t be across Michigan and not have it be out in the public.”

California-based Progressive Campaigns has collected signatures for the ballot proposal. In several newspaper articles and letters to the editors, individuals have complained that the petition gatherers have used deceptive techniques, talking about cutting legislative pay but not all the other asp