WHO’S FUNDING IT: With around $1.6 million raised at the last campaign finance reporting deadline, its largest funders now include the Obama-backed National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Texas-based Action Now Initiative, East Lansing’s Beckwith Constitutional Liberties Fund and the Michigan United Auto Workers. More than half of its funding came from donors giving less than $16,000. VNP reported 16,212 individual contributions.

BENEFITS: Both documents and statistics indicate that Michigan Republicans have successfully gerrymandered districts to their advantage since 2000. The architects of Prop 2 say it is intended to end this practice (and stop Democrats from doing the same if they come to power.) Experts can’t say for certain whether it will have its intended effect, but other states with independent commissions have seen more competitive races after switching their system.

An analysis by the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan found there are two big benefits to adopting the proposal: It would increase transparency about how state and congressional lines are drawn and reduce partisan influence in the redistricting process.

There are several defenses against partisanship built into the proposal. To name a few, those with a lot to gain from political influence (such as candidates for office and lobbyists) are excluded from serving; legislative leaders will have a handful of vetos to dole out when commissioners are chosen, and final maps have to be approved by a majority with at least two commissioners from each political bucket. This is a departure from the current process, run by legislators aligned with a political party.

Related: Michigan redistricting group brings in whopping $13.9 million

Related: Maps show how gerrymandering benefitted Michigan Republicans

Related: Emails: Michigan Republicans brag that redistricting ‘protects incumbents’

The proposal also guarantees a significantly more transparent map-making process. The current system allows for maps to be drawn in private and passed fairly quickly with little public input. “Because much of the discussion of redistricting happens behind closed doors, it is difficult to know who is influencing the process,” the Citizens Research Council report said.

Prop 2 would reverse that: All commission meetings, drafts, data and conversations would be public record. Several public hearings would be required before and after maps are drawn and before commissioners vote. The commission’s finances would be subject to a state audit annually.

CONCERNS: The Citizens Research Council report identified three major downsides to the proposal: Voters could not remove commissioners from their position and the revamped redistricting process would likely be both slower and more expensive than the current system.

Commissioners would not be elected by the public. The only way an eligible commissioner could be removed from office is by a vote of 10 of their 12 peers (so, all but two of their fellow commissioners). “As a result, there is a question of what constitutes accountability for commissioners,” the report concluded.

Using an independent commission to draw maps would also probably cost more. The state appropriated $878,000 for redistricting in 2011, not including legal costs to defend the maps. In comparison, Prop 2 would result in an estimated $4.6 million appropriation annually.

The Citizens Research Council’s analysis of Arizona’s and California’s commissions costs indicate it might take more than that depending on how frequently the maps are challenged in court. The state would be required to reimburse the commission for any funds used beyond what was appropriated.

Another big concern of opponents to Prop 2 is the ambiguity of political self-identification. Those applying to become commissioners have to swear to their political affiliation under threat of perjury, but even independent voters tend to lean one way or another. Several safeguards in the proposal are intended to protect against heavily partisan maps, such as requiring a majority vote that includes at least two Democrats, two Republicans and two independents to approve a map. However, there is no way to guarantee the commission remains free completely free of partisan politics.

DEM. GOVERNOR CANDIDATE GRETCHEN WHITMER’S TAKE: “I’m a yes vote. I support the Voters Not Politicians ballot proposal to create an independent citizens redistricting commission. Michiganders deserve to choose who their elected officials are, not the other way around. In 2005, I co-sponsored legislation to create an independent redistricting commission. Michigan has some of the worst gerrymandered elections maps in the nation, and I knew it back then, and I still believe now that we need an independent redistricting commission to oversee the process – so every vote counts and we have a government that represents the people of our state,” Whitmer told Bridge via email.

GOP GOVERNOR CANDIDATE BILL SCHUETTE’S TAKE: Schuette told Bridge in a recent interview he will be voting no. “We have standards in place that Republicans and Democrats and courts have ruled on in the past, I think that’s a far better approach.”

FUN FACT: Four other states — Colorado, Ohio, Missouri and Utah — will also consider initiatives this fall that would change their redistricting system.

Related: 2018 Bridge Michigan Voter Guide: Links to our relevant election coverage

FOR MORE INFO: