Question 1): The 102nd Michigan Legislature will adjourn sine die for the year tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 14). This is the first time the Legislature has disbanded before Thanksgiving since 1968, a year when the GOP did it with a Republican governor (George Romney) and a Republican-controlled Legislature. Why did majority Democrats decide to leave early this year when things have been going so well for them?
Answer 1): There are three main reasons — 1) Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and legislative Democrats want Michigan’s presidential primary to be held on Feb. 27, 2024, and minority Republicans wouldn’t allow them to do that unless the Legislature adjourned early; 2) Democrats will lose control of the House tomorrow because two of their members — Lori Stone of Warren and Kevin Coleman of Westland — were just elected mayors of their respective communities and must resign their House seats, throwing the body into a 54-54 deadlock, meaning the Republicans can block anything the Democrats try to do until the seats can be filled in special elections, maybe as late as next May; and 3) Whitmer and Democrats would like some of their important legislation — like a tax credit for working families, gun violence prevention measures, fewer abortion restrictions, equal rights for the LGBTQ community, and tax relief for seniors — to go into effect earlier than would be the case if sine die was postponed until Dec. 31, in which case the bills wouldn’t become law until the end of March, 2024.
Anyway you cut it, 2023 been an amazing year — with great party discipline, Democrats parlayed their skimpy majorities in both chambers into historic achievements., at least as far as they’re concerned. For the rest of the electorate, maybe not so much. In the past, Democrats have paid a price for pursuing their agendas too aggressively when they’ve had power — in 1966, when they lost control of both chambers of the Legislature; in 1983, when they lost the Senate for what turned out to be 40 years; and in 201o, when national Democrats scared the country with Obamacare, leading to a national Red Wave that cost the Democrats everything in Michigan. But that was then, this is now. In bygone days, the Michigan Republican Party was functional, even a FORCE. Not so today. Accordingly, Democrats are banking on the Michigan GOP’s being so discombobulated that Republicans won’t be able to take advantage of a backlash against what Lansing Democrats have wrought on a whole host of issues. We may be in a period when one of the major parties is so disorganized, weak, and riddled with dissension (the Republicans) that the other one (the Democrats) can do just about anything it wants to without suffering any dire consequences.
********************************************************
Question 2): Is it accurate for Republicans to claim the Democratic-controlled legislature has gutted local control with its ‘green energy’ projects? What, if any, political impact could this issue have in 2024?
Answer 2): Legislative Republicans are spittin’ mad about what Whitmer and legislative Democrats have done to accomplish their ‘green energy’ agenda, which in and of itself is controversial. Here’s the way Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt put it: “State energy policy is supposed to allow for affordable, reliable energy to be provided to Michigan families. It is supposed to protect against blackouts and brownouts so grocery stores, hospitals, and dwellings can always provide for our communities. Instead, Democrats chose to go full speed the other way right into the arms of the environmental extremists, corporate left-coast donors, and an ambitious executive looking to build her far-left presidential resume — all at the expense of working Michigan families.”
As a general theme, there may not seem to be much political impact in the state vs. local control issue because Republicans and Democrats take turns vilifying each other depending on the subject matter. However, forget all that for the time being — if there is a specific ‘green energy’ project in a particular community that has elicited strong local opposition, and that project can be tied directly to a Democratic legislator’s vote, there could be Trouble in River City for the incumbent. Democrats are at risk here.
******************************************
Question 3): What is the impact of former U.S. Rep. Peter MEIJER (R-Kent Co.) entering the U.S. Senate Race?
Answer 3): He’ll have a big impact, but can he win the Republican nomination? He and Mike Rogers occupy somewhat the same ‘lane,” and they’re likely to hurt each other. Then the question is whether the MAGA wing of the party — which loathes Meijer and is suspicious of Rogers — can unite behind one of the other 6-8 candidates in the race, particularly former Detroit Police Chief James Craig. If that happens, Craig could squeeze out a plurality win, and the GOP would be stuck with a weak nominee who would go on to lose to a Democrat in November once again.
********************************************
It’s fair for people to criticize the Democrats’ taking away local control for the sake of clean energy, but not for Republicans to do the criticizing. The Republicans have repeatedly taken away local control in recent years on issues ranging from guns to plastic bags.
Nice article, Bill.
QUESTION 1: I seem to recall some political pundit talking about sine die some time ago. Hmm, seems some folks in Lansing do read TBR. Though some won’t admit it.
You’re right on the departure of two legislators to mayoral offices. The alternative to sine die was to actually work with the GOP to get something done. They have no desire to do that, and in fairness, the GOP reaction is pretty much the same. But whether there are consequences remains to be seen. Not just locally, but in Kalamazoo, but more on that later.
You’re also right about the status of the Michigan GOP. The rift between the populists/Trumpian/social conservatives wing and the business/traditional/establishment wing is quite wide. But it most likely has always been there, just covered over by sending a few carrots each way to keep them happy. That’s gone now. The so-called establishment/traditional GOP could not get their preferred candidate (Perry Johnson), or an acceptable alternative candidate (James Craig) the gubernatorial nomination because – despite all their money – they could not get enough valid signatures that they tried to purchase with an establishment approved firm. The five more or less Trumpian folks, who had no significant money, did. Yikes! How does that happen? The establishment forgot how to organize, forgot that politics requires effort and they openly treated the other side as a mix between serfs at-will employees. And the serfs rebelled. Organizing helps. A lot. The lack of organization meant they lost the convention as well. Now this is not new. John Engler and Rick Snyder also had issues with their conventions. The convention nominated the populist/Trumpian candidates and the establishment did not like that. So they sat on their money not spending on the top of the ticket in 2022 and “invested” in the legislature. And we all know how that turned out for them. Organizing costs time, energy, money and most importantly, a willingness to listen and persuade, investments the establishment did not think worth their while. From the press coverage, I’m not sure they want to make that investment now.
In their defense, the district and senate lines drawn by the MiCRC take – in my opinion – indecent liberties with the Voting Rights Act, made it hard for them. But they are not blame free. ProPublica reported back in 2011 how the California Democrats essentially took over their state’s redistricting commission. Again, the establishment did not feel it was worth their effort. And now they complain. Eventually, one way or the other, they will pay.
QUESTION 2: This is a case of whether sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Clearly for both parties it is not. Local control is a punching bag, not a principle for either party.
When the GOP was in power, they gutted local control on issues like a higher minimum wage lest it offend business interests. They removed residency requirements for municipal employees, which not only incurred then Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer’s wrath, but clobbered Catholic schools in Detroit and the immediate suburbs who saw their students flee to public districts in the suburbs.
Now, the Democrats are doing it in return on “green energy”. What will be interesting here is how the Democrats handle democracy in Green Charter Township. The folks there recalled the entire township board over the Chinese battery plant and gave the “green energy” agenda a double fisted middle finger salute. Will they crush the populist uprising?
You’re right on how the local reaction will be to some of these legislative initiatives. And not just individual legislators. With a narrow majority, there might be some reluctance to pull the trigger on a lot of the “green energy” agenda, especially if polling data shows Trump carrying Michigan.
One more potential wild card is the trial over redistricting in Kalamazoo. If the judges throw out the districts and they are redrawn, there will be two urges in the Democratic legislature. The first will be we can’t win in the new districts so let’s run with agenda anyway as the GOP will find it hard to get rid of. The second is job preservation. Go slow and get re-elected. Things will be interesting.
QUESTION 3: The answer is neither Meijer nor Rogers nor Craig, but the top of the ticket. It is not clear to me that James Craig has figured out that the politics of staying police chief are radically different than the politics needed for elective office. Some chiefs do relatively well in politics – Frank Rizzo anyone? Some only succeed in getting elected sheriff – John Nichols anyone? Rogers and Meijer have held elective office, Rogers more than Meijer. Their appeal to the Trumpian/populist/social conservatives will have to be “You’ll like Elissa Slotkin a whole lot less than me”. That is a doable argument, it will require work. And time.
But election 2024 will hinge a lot on the top of the ticket. How that turns out will most likely determine the down ballot election results. Remember, the GOP did surprisingly well down ballot statewide in 2016 with Trump at the head of the ticket. If the GOP presidential candidate does well, the US Senate election will get interesting. Though I do remember that in 2012 that Stabenow outpolled Obama in Michigan. Slotkin will certainly outspend whoever the GOP nominates, though her past complements of Mike Rogers will make an interesting discussion should there be any debates. It should be entertaining, and that just might make politics more interesting. Film at 11.
The Republic is done, stick a fork in it.
Hi Bill, another great TBR.
I usually like what Mr. Sullivan has to say, and today’s feedback is no exception. The only thoughts that come to mind to add to his super insight is,
wrt Q #1: I guess if it takes giving one party, or the other, full control of the state in order to get them to send the legislature home, using sine die, or any other latin adverb you’d like to use, I take to be a good thing. Now we can all hope in this holiday season that they miraculously forget the process it takes to reconvene.
Having suffered most of my life observing the establishment “golf club” republicans twitter away the “common man’s” ignorant bliss . . . [How you say? Mostly by sitting on their hands while the socialists strip bare the treasure house then taking their cut when the deed was complete] . . . please pardon that I’m finding it slightly gratifying that the lord-lings have had their little game exposed. Now they have no real direction but to either scurry to the socialists or promise/do things that they know will be scrutinized/criticized/rejected.
wrt Q #2: While I feel bad for local communities like Green Charter Township that tries to do the right thing, I suppose consolidating power to the higher levels at least gets the decisions made at a level of scrutiny that people can see and galvanize around. And yes Mr Sullivan, then “they [will] crush the populist uprising”.
wrt Q #3: Thanks Monty [Hall] . . . I’ll take door number 3, and hope for a tough[er] nerd than Mr. Snyder was. I watched “Off The Record” tv the other night and heard Mr. Meijer bemoan going/groveling to Mr. Trump. Personally I would advise him to grovel and kiss his Mar-A-Lago ring. But he won’t, and I still won’t vote for him . . . or Mr. Rogers . . . nor Mr. Craig [unless he miraculously finds the motor to actually run for office]. Yes Mr Sullivan, so far I’ll take Ms Slotkin. At least she won’t turn her garden hose on my car and tell me its raining.
Mr Ballenger;
As always a great Ballenger Report but what concerns me is such political discourse in the Republicans & Democrats.
I worry greatly about our Children and Grandchildren so much. They’re being taxed (one way or another) and can’t afford to pay for quality education, basic housing, fuel nor food. How incredibly sad. 🙁
Q1. The Governor always finds a way to do a “round-about” to get her Agenda accomplished. I am of the opinion she has aspirations of Washington next.
Q2. Why do ppl “compromise” the very values and foundation of this beautiful State of Michigan and the United States of America? I would never and it’s sad.
Q3. I am sad that we don’t have a Republican Candidate we can all support that’s running. Too much controversy especially Meijer. As a Republican woman who ran for the MI House in 2010, I would never vote for Slotkin just because she can outspend everyone, absolutely NO!
Answers/Solutions I don’t even venture a guess as it’s really difficult to get ppl to run for office.
Keep up the great reporting Bill!
Best, Cheryl
On this end, I see “Consent of the governed” eliminated from discussion. But, what do I know? I’m not college educated.
Worth noting that that conservative Tax Foundation says Michiganders have the 5th lowest state and local tax burden combined in the nation. Why don’t we have nice things (like good roads, better schools, competent cops, more college grads, etc.)? Because we can’t pay for them.
Can’t, or won’t?
Much of the surplus that has been spent could have been used to fix roads, separate storm and sanitation sewers so Metro Beach has a better chance of staying open all summer, or fixing what passes for our mental health system. Remember, Justice Bernstein, whose health insurance is at least as good as my state of Michigan retiree Medicare Advantage plan, chose to go outside Michigan for treatment. Something he could do because he has money. Now all the readers of this issue of TBR know how I would have spent the money.