Supreme Court rejects GOP-backed lawsuit aiming to overturn expanded voting rights measure

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a lawsuit filed by nearly a dozen Michigan Republican lawmakers seeking to roll back voting rights measures passed by voters in 2018 and 2022.

The suit, filed in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, argued that because the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, found in Article I, Section 4, provides for state legislatures to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding federal elections, measures passed by citizen-led petition initiatives are unconstitutional as they infringed on the state Legislature’s role within state election law.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case was the third, and now final, rejection after the lawsuit was initially dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Jane Beckering, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, in April 2024 for a lack of standing, a decision which was then affirmed by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2024.

The lawsuit was sponsored by Michigan Fair Elections and the Great Lakes Justice Center and named Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Michigan Director of Elections Jonathan Brater as defendants.

Benson hailed the decision not to take up the case as a “victory for the people of Michigan,” saying the U.S. Supreme Court had correctly upheld the right of Michigan voters to amend the state constitution.

“In recent years, voters in Michigan have overwhelmingly supported ballot initiatives to create a citizen-led independent redistricting process, to guarantee at least nine days of early voting for every statewide election, and to make voting more accessible for every eligible citizen. Today’s action ensures that the will of the voters will stand on these and other issues important to the people of our state,” Benson said.

Proposal 3 of 2018 and Proposal 2 of 2022 both passed with at least 60% of the vote and guaranteed the rights to same-day voter registration, nine days of early voting, absentee voting, among other rights. After voters approved the constitutional amendments, the Legislature passed legislation implementing the measures.

The suit sought not only to halt the changes brought on by the voter-passed initiatives, but also prohibit the future use altogether of citizen-led petition initiatives when they pertain to state election law.

“We also have procedures in place at the state level to amend election law,” state Sen. Jonathan Lindsey (R-Coldwater), one of the 11 lawmakers who filed the suit, said at the time. “However, these processes were violated in 2018 and 2022 when an alternative amendment process was used without regard to federal constitutional requirements. This lawsuit challenges recent attempts to subvert our constitutional process and will protect against such actions in the future.”

The legal argument behind the lawsuit, known as the independent state legislature theory, was mostly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2023 when it ruled in Moore v Harper.

In that case’s 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that there were limits to state legislative power in such matters, effectively repudiating the claim that only state legislatures had the power to make election rules, thus providing state and federal courts, and by extension, state constitutions, a role in that process.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.

'Nothing but hurt': Swing state braces as Trump tariffs target 3 top trading partners

Michigan officials are responding to tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump over the weekend that a recent report said will disproportionately impact Michigan’s economy, whose automotive industry makes it “particularly vulnerable.”

On Saturday, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on Chinese imports, set to become effective Tuesday, initiating a full-blown trade war.

An analysis by Fitch Ratings, which looked at U.S. Census Bureau trade data, highlights which states have the highest level of economic exposure to a “broad-based trade war” which it determined would “likely be disruptive” to U.S. states’ economies.

Of those states, Michigan would potentially be hardest hit, as it tops all other states with 19% of its imports, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) coming from Canada, Mexico and China. Illinois is next at 12%, while no other U.S. state tops 10%.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in Brighton, Nov. 2, 2024 |Jon King.

Following the tariff announcement, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer issued a statement saying the decision will raise costs on goods and services critical to Michiganders, while placing more than a million Michigan jobs at risk.

“Michiganders are already struggling with high costs — the last thing they need is for those costs to increase even more. A 25 percent tariff will hurt American auto workers and consumers, raise prices on cars, groceries, and energy for working families and put countless jobs at risk. Trump’s middle-class tax hike will cripple our economy and hit working-class, blue-collar families especially hard,” said Whitmer.

In response, all three nations targeted by the Trump tariffs have said they will respond in kind, with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announcing a similar 25% tariff to be phased in on more than $100 billion worth of American products and calling on Canadians to “buy less American products [and to] choose Canadian products and services rather than American ones.”

Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum has also ordered the implementation of retaliatory tariffs, while China said it would “safeguard its own rights and interests,” although it did not detail what those would be. However, China did say it plans to challenge the American tariffs through the World Trade Organization (WTO).

According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Michigan’s largest export market in 2023 was Canada, with the state shipping $27.5 billion in goods there, representing 42% of the state’s total goods exports. Mexico was second with $14.9 billion, followed by China at $2.4 billion.

In addition to the Trump tariffs targeting Michigan’s top three export markets, the Fitch analysis noted that the state’s place at the center of domestic automotive manufacturing also placed an outsize target on its economy.

“The U.S. automotive industry relies heavily on the movement of parts and finished vehicles across the U.S., Canada and Mexico,” states the analysis, which notes that Michigan is home to nearly one-fifth of all U.S. auto production, the most of any other state.

U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Twp.) said Sunday that Trump’s tariffs will hurt workers and the manufacturing industry.

“Parts for a car built in Michigan can be shipped back and forth across the Northern Border upwards of 8 times before final assembly,” he said on social media. “Trump’s tariffs on Canada will do nothing but hurt American workers and auto manufacturers. He’s giving our overseas competitors a leg up.”

Despite calling the tariffs “Trump’s middle-class tax hike,” Whitmer said she would “be glad to work with him, and anyone, to protect Michigan’s auto manufacturing, lower costs, and fight for Michigan’s working families.”

Fitch Ratings report on tariffs, December 2024

That part of her message was more along the lines of Whitmer’s more conciliatory approach to Trump since he retook office, which included a congratulatory statement following his inauguration and an executive directive for state departments and agencies to review programs and services for compliance to Trump executive orders on DEI, “EV mandates” and gender issues.

But manufacturing is not Michigan’s only vulnerable sector to the tariffs, particularly to the effects of the retaliation against its exports.

According to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Development (MDARD), Michigan’s total agriculture exports in 2023 were $2.7 billion, which had an economic impact equivalent to $5.22 billion across the state.

With Canada the top importer of Michigan’s agricultural and food products, and Mexico in second place, MDARD Director Tim Boring also expressed concern about the impact the tariffs will have.

“While there are still a lot of unknowns, it’s important to remember two things: Canada and Mexico are our biggest export destinations, and the last time this happened retaliatory tariffs specifically targeted agriculture,” said Boring. “We have to expect tariffs will immediately threaten agriculture jobs, our rural economies and ultimately what it costs to put food on the table.”

That point was echoed by Michigan Agri-Business Association (MABA) President Chuck Lippstreu.

“As a border state, leading agricultural exporter, and major North American trade and transit hub, Michigan deeply values our strong, long-term commercial relationships with Canada and Mexico,” said Lippstreu. “We are deeply concerned that across-the-board tariffs risk substantial negative economic consequences for Michigan agriculture and rural communities in our state.”

Fitch Ratings report on tariffs, December 2024

According to MABA, in addition to Canada being the state’s top export market, Michigan also imports key agricultural products, including crop nutrients and feed ingredients from Canada, while key agricultural industries in Michigan have forged lasting, long-term commercial ties in Mexico.

“MABA is concerned retaliation could disrupt current and future market opportunities and open the door to international competitors,” said the association.

There’s another effect the tariffs may produce, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

According to a report published Friday, the institute says because Mexico ships one-sixth of its annual economic output to the United States, and because many of those exports originate in duty-free factories located within 30 miles of the border, the livelihoods of those workers would be heavily impacted and “could compel some of them to migrate to the United States, undercutting U.S. efforts to stop border crossings.”

DOJ to send election monitors to polls in a half-dozen Michigan cities

Six Michigan cities will be monitored by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) for compliance with federal voting rights laws during Tuesday’s general election.

On Friday, the DOJ announced that personnel from the Civil Rights Division will be among those present at a total of 86 jurisdictions in 27 states across the country including the cities of Ann Arbor, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Hamtramck and Warren.

More information about voting and elections, including guidance documents and other resources, is available at www.justice.gov/voting.

According to a press release, the department regularly deploys staff to polling sites to monitor for compliance with federal civil rights laws and maintain contact with state and local election officials throughout the day.

“DOJ is aware of what’s happening nationally, that this is a very close election,” Bruce Adelson, an attorney and former DOJ official who led monitoring teams in the early 2000s, told the Michigan Advance.

“There’s been a lot of incidents that are of concern to [the Department of] Justice, whether they’re voter intimidation or allegations of vote manipulation. As a swing state, they wanted to be in Michigan to gather information about incidents that may occur and also potentially take action as needed,” he said.

Also participating will be personnel from various U.S. Attorney’s Offices and federal observers from the Office of Personnel Management, all of whom will help enforce the civil provisions of federal statutes that protect the right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and Civil Rights Acts.

Adelson, who now works as an elections consultant and also serves as an adjunct professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said that typically jurisdictions are chosen with an eye toward trying to diffuse potential areas of contention.

“I know there’s been a lot of attention paid to former President [Donald] Trump’s visit to Hamtramck recently, and the endorsement by the mayor. There’s been a lot of attention paid to the Arab community’s reaction to the conflicts in the Middle East as well as the Jewish community,” Adelson said. “In my opinion, that would be why DOJ will have folks in Hamtramck to observe the election, monitor developments, and if something serious happens, potentially take action.”

The rights of voters with disabilities are another potential area of concern, with the division’s Disability Rights Section working to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), while the Criminal Section enforces federal criminal statutes that prohibit voter intimidation and voter suppression based on race, color, national origin or religion.

On Election Day, DOJ personnel will be available throughout the day to receive questions and complaints from the public related to possible violations. Reports can be made through the department’s website www.civilrights.justice.gov or by calling toll-free at 800-253-3931.

Officials say complaints related to polling place disruptions should always be reported to local election officials, while complaints related to violence, threats of violence or intimidation at a polling place should be reported immediately to law enforcement by calling 911, and then reported to the department after local authorities have been contacted.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

GOP former U.S. Rep. Fred Upton endorses Harris

Former U.S. Rep. Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph) — who represented his Southwest Michigan district for 36 years in Congress — on Thursday publicly endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in her race against former President Donald Trump for the White House.

“I don’t believe l’ve missed a vote in Michigan in the 52 years I’ve been eligible to vote. And I’ve not been afraid to split my ballot from time to time but have never voted for a Democrat for president, until now,” said Upton. “It is often said that, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ And, let’s face it-the whole world seems on fire today.”

Upton, a former GOP vice chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, noted that he now joins more than 30 former GOP members of Congress who have publicly stated that they will vote for Harris.

Republican former US Rep. Joe Schwarz throws support behind Kamala Harris

“I am proud to add my name to that list, as I have already cast my ballot for Vice President Kamala Harris to be our next president of the United States,” he said.

Last year, Upton was leading the effort to get the No Labels party on the Michigan ballot. As a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, No Labels promotes centrist policies and was founded in 2009 by Democratic operative Nancy Jacobson. It was also instrumental in creating the Problem Solvers Caucus in 2017.

“Seventy percent or so of the American public doesn’t want a rematch of [President Joe] Biden and Trump,” Upton told the Michigan Advance in a June 2023 interview. “We’ve done some pretty extensive polling, tens of thousands of people, and we actually think that there is a pathway to get 270 electoral votes to not be a spoiler like Ross Perot in 1992, but our polling actually shows that we take equally from both sides who are really not happy with the likelihood of a Biden/Trump rematch.”

The No Labels effort folded after failing to recruit a presidential candidate. Biden dropped out of the race in July and endorsed Harris, shaking up the election.

Upton’s endorsement of Harris follows that of other high-profile former Republican members of Congress, including Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, as well as Dave Trott and Joe Schwarz of Michigan.

Upton is the only person in American history to vote to impeach two presidents, voting for the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 and then in 2021 for the second impeachment of Trump, one of just 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump following the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt and attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“I was present in the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and witnessed first-hand the violence trying to co-opt the legitimate counting of each state’s electoral votes. I spent time with the brave Capitol Police doing their very best to protect and defend the Constitution that awful day. That day was a tragedy for our democracy and Donald Trump is wrong to claim that everything he did was ‘totally appropriate’ when he directly jeopardized the peaceful transition from one administration to the next. He is unfit to serve as commander in chief again,” said Upton.

In addition to former Republican members of Congress who have endorsed Harris, over 100 GOP former national security officials have spoken out against another Trump term in the White House.

“Time and time again respected senior national Republicans have urged our former president to focus on governing rather than personal attacks, mistruths, and continued false 2020 election claims,” said Upton. “Instead of heeding that advice, we see unhinged behavior not acceptable in most forums almost daily.”

Most recently, retired four star U.S. Marine General John Kelly, who was Trump’s longest serving chief of staff, told the New York Times that if reelected, the former president would rule as an authoritarian and met the definition of a fascist.

Protesters clash with police during demonstration on anniversary of Oct. 7 Hamas attack

Pro-Palestinian protesters clashed with University of Michigan campus police Monday and at least one arrest was made during a demonstration march that marked the one year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.

“I don’t understand how there can be a celebration like this on the one year anniversary of [the attack],” Sean Peleg, a senior who is also Jewish told Michigan Advance. “Because one year ago today, Hamas invaded Israel. One year ago tomorrow, Israel responded. So for them to be saying this is a resistance celebration, no. This is a celebration of the terrorist attack that happened a year ago today, in my opinion.”

The protesters, members of the TAHRIR Coalition of student groups demanding the university divest itself from all financial and academic connections with Israel, began the protest in front of Rackham Auditorium before marching toward The Diag, where campus Jewish groups had set up a memorial to honor the more than 1,200 mostly civilian Israelis murdered by Hamas and those still being held hostage out of the approximately 250 taken captive that day.

The ensuing Israeli military response has killed nearly 42,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry.

As police kept the protesters at a distance from the memorial, a scuffle broke out and officers were seen escorting a handcuffed individual to a police vehicle while other protesters followed, and then surrounded the vehicle, while yelling, “Let him go! Let him go!” It is not clear what the protector was taken into custody for. A message was left with U of M officials for details.

As officers tried to escort the vehicle off the The Diag, they had to form a cordon to keep protesters at bay, while the vehicle inched along toward the street. At one point pepper spray was deployed, although it is not clear by who, with protesters seen coughing and using water to irrigate their eyes. They also crowded the driver side window, yelling obscenities at the officers inside.

“The struggle is connected everywhere we are,” said student protester Eaman Ali before the march began. “The fight for self-governance, for the people of this university to not just be listened to, but to have a say is not disconnected from the Palestinian fight for freedom, liberation, and self determination. When power is struggling to maintain its choke hold on our collective consciousness, on our ignorance, across the world, its tactics are the same. It turns to police and military violence, to the carceral state, to the weaponization of laws and regulations. We currently see this desperation from the Zionist entity itself as it is now bombing four countries all at once in a flailing attempt to save itself.”

The protests and police confrontation marked a day of discord, anger and recriminations across Michigan. Earlier in the day, vandals spray-painted graffiti at the Jewish Federation of Detroit building in Bloomfield Township, while the West Bloomfield home of University President Santa Ono and the home of Erik Lundberg, U of M’s chief investment officer, were also vandalized with spray paint.

“Antisemitic flyers in West Bloomfield on Saturday; antisemitic vandalism at the Jewish Federation on Monday. How many who have called for a ceasefire in Gaza have also called for a ceasefire against Jewish students on campus, our synagogues and institutions?,” asked state Rep. Noah Arbit (D-West Bloomfield), who is Jewish.

Meanwhile, state Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield), who is also Jewish, expressed his exhaustion on the anniversary.

“Today does not feel like a solemn annual remembrance of the horrific events on October 7, 2023 — the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust — but rather the 366th day of fresh and ongoing pain,” said Moss.

Another Jewish lawmaker, U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly), called it a bitter anniversary that highlights a cycle of violence.

“It is hard to overstate how this crisis has roiled the state of Michigan for 365 days. And one of the saddest things about what’s happened is that, in talking to both Jewish Americans and Arab and Muslim Americans nearly each day since, both communities experienced mirror-image pain this year,” she said. “Both are pained by the sharp rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia. Both sides fear for their kids, and their experience at college. And both sides are struggling to find a path forward to feel hopeful about.”

Also speaking out was U.S. Tim Walberg (R-Tipton).

“On the anniversary of the barbaric terror attack carried out by Hamas, our hearts go out to the victims and the 97 hostages still held, including American citizens. The United States continues to stand firmly with Israel as they defend themselves and deter future aggression,” he posted.

Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt also issued a statement via social media.

“Today, we remember the innocent men, women, and children who were victims of the barbaric attack launched by cowardly, terrorist thugs (Hamas) on the people of Israel. Let’s honor the victims by standing against terrorism and striving for justice. #BringThemHome,” he posted.

Prior to the confrontation with protesters, Jack Landstein, vice president of engagement at University of Michigan Hillel, told the Advance that the memorial, which included pictures of those killed in the Oct. 7 attack, milk carton silhouettes of those still missing, and small Israeli flags arranged in a Star of David pattern, was something they had been planning for months and while it was open to all, it had a specific purpose.

“The focus is on the Jewish community, and because the community is predominantly students, we want to make sure this event, while open to the entire community, resonates with Jewish students,” he said. “The Jewish community is about love, hope, peace, and our goal with this event, in addition to just commemorating everybody who was murdered, is also to highlight humanity and recognize everybody as a life, and there’s value in every person. And it is important as a Jewish community. We’re working to better everybody.”

But for Ali, the day marked a recognition that there was not just a single narrative. It also made plain that the divide was as deep as ever.

“We see the courage and bravery of the people of Gaza, of Lebanon, and of the people around the world as they resist the colonial violence that attempts to swallow them. So how can we be afraid? We are so many. We are the people. A global movement of masses moved and called upon by the spirit and steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance,” she said.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

Vance draws ire for not backing federal funds for Lansing GM EV plant

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says comments made in Michigan Wednesday by vice presidential candidate U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) are a “middle finger to Michigan auto workers.”

Whitmer was responding to comments reported by The Detroit News when Vance was asked while stumping in Michigan whether a second former President Donald Trump administration would commit to upholding a $500 million federal grant from the Biden administration that would convert the General Motors Lansing Grand River Plant, which currently makes Cadillac sedans, into a future electric vehicle plant.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer speaks at a Lansing event announcing that a future expeditionary fast transport ship will be named “USS Lansing,” July 22, 2024 | Lucy Valeski

Officials say the conversion would save an estimated 650 jobs while creating up to 50 new positions.

Despite that, Vance twice declined to say whether a commitment would be forthcoming, instead claiming the grant came with “ridiculous strings and no protections for American jobs,” which he claimed could get shipped overseas as the minerals needed to produce electric batteries are produced in China.

“[S]o, when we write massive checks on American taxpayer expense to these companies, a lot of times what we’re doing is selling American middle class jobs to the Communist Chinese, and we ought to be doing exactly the opposite,” Vance said, as reported by the Detroit News.

The News, however, reported that GM says the assembled battery packs for the Lansing plant would be produced at the new battery plant currently under construction in Delta Township, just west of Lansing.

Whitmer and other Democrats criticized the remarks. She said they were akin to the Trump campaign turning its back on Michigan workers, noting that in 2016, Trump promised auto workers in Warren that if elected, they would “not lose one plant,” although during his administration GM ended up closing the 78-year-old plant in 2019.

“When you have a chance to save hundreds of good-paying Michigan auto jobs and create more, you take it,” said Whitmer. “Instead, the Trump-Vance ticket is giving the middle finger to Michigan auto workers by refusing to support their jobs at GM. The Biden-Harris administration acted to save this plant. But all Donald Trump cares about is billionaires like Elon Musk, not Michigan auto workers.”

Whitmer, a co-chair of the Harris campaign, said that the Biden administration had worked to secure thousands of good-paying jobs, including in Michigan, to manufacture cars, batteries and semiconductor chips.

“On Donald Trump’s watch, Michigan lost 280,000 jobs and the companies that sent those jobs overseas got huge tax breaks. Donald Trump turned his back on Michigan the last time he was in the White House, and he’s telling us loud and clear that he will do it again if he wins this November,” said Whitmer.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

A Christian Nationalist attempt at undermining public education as we know it?

This is the second part of a discussion with Josh Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University about his new book “The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers.” Part one of the interview was published on Thursday.

The effort to get school vouchers approved nationwide has a long and varied history, but Cowen’s book posits that it is essentially a Christian Nationalist attempt at undermining public education as we know it.

Cowen, whose career as an education researcher in the early 2000s began with the expectation that vouchers, which allow public tax dollars for education to be spent for private school tuition, would ultimately benefit students. However, the reality that Cowen documents in the book turned out to be almost the exact opposite.

Starting in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision which ordered an end to segregated public education, and ending with the rise of the conservative Moms for Liberty – a vocal opponent of LGBTQ+ rights – and Project 2025, an authoritarian blueprint offering detailed plans to broadly enhance executive authority during a second Trump term, Cowen describes the arc of the voucher movement as never being far removed from bigotry and intolerance, whether it be against Blacks or the LGBTQ+ community.

More importantly, however, Cowen describes in detail the academic framework, whether through universities or conservative-funded think tanks, that provides intellectual cover for the movement.

What follows is the second part of the conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity. Advance questions are in bold, and Cowen’s responses are in regular type.

——————————

Obviously, what happens in November will say a lot about the future of this movement. In your book, you talk about how, in a certain sense, the Trump presidency saved this movement. It came along and revived it when it needed it most. The scores (from school voucher programs) were in. They were down. The statistics were not adding up, and now it’s given it this political boost. Where does it go from here?

Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation throughout Project 2025 was asked “What happens if you guys lose?” and he sort of said, “Well, there’s going to be a Project 2028 then. We’re going to keep going.” I’m not a political strategist. I don’t know that I can tie the future of this thing entirely to the election, but I both agree and acknowledge in the book that what Trump did and the reason it does depend in the short run on what happens in November is it takes something incredibly distracting, and I would argue controversial and sensational or sensationalized, to distract from the magnitude of the voucher-induced (testing) declines over the last decade. How many articles have you seen or maybe written yourself on COVID learning loss? We’re talking about something that is severe for reasons that I think researchers understand, but when you have vouchers in a state, it’s not as talked about. I just can’t imagine in a world of George W. Bush, for example, who signed the first federal voucher system into law. If that thing had just consistently rolled out the negative results that happened a decade after Bush left office, it’s really hard to imagine a world that would be found acceptable, until you walk into the world Trump made where these voucher results are coming out at the same time as Charlottesville, as George Floyd, all of these incredibly sensational moments in American politics. And then you have election denial.

You have kind of 30% or 40% of the American public just refusing to acknowledge what happened on January 6th and that Trump even lost in 2020. And so then when you put it in terms of J6 or election denial, and the reason I do it in the book is because they share some of the same organizations. But if you just think about it culturally, you compare negative school voucher results to something like that. I think negative school voucher results, however dreadful, begin to look a little technical and a little…

As if data doesn’t matter anymore?

Exactly. I say this not to be flippant or snarky, but what’s the point of debating data and evidence with folks who just say, “Trump won in 2020, Trump won.” It did not happen. And so you really are in a world where we’re even debating what reality is and it sounds a little farfetched, but this is really the world we’re in.

And it took that to offset and to give fuel and energy to the voucher push. In a real practical sense too, it’s important to remember that the Supreme Court plays a very big role in this, and Trump did appoint three Supreme Court justices who really have paved the way in the judiciary for vouchers in just the same way they they paved the way for for a rollback to Roe vs. Wade, the same week actually. So, there’s the kind of the cultural political moment Trump made, and then there’s just a very hard cold reality that three Supreme Court justices were added to the judiciary under Trump. And in a 6-3 vote, they crossed a bridge that the original court, 5-4 in 2002, was unwilling to cross, which is that now vouchers can pay for religious education per se and not just be used as payment to providers of a type of service.

Michigan doesn’t have vouchers, but I don’t know how many different private organizations the state partners with to deliver a service as a vendor. And what the court said in 2002 was that private schools are not necessarily exempt from that type of relationship just because they’re schools. You just can’t use it for indoctrination or proselytizing. But that’s basically exactly what today’s version of the court in 2002 said could happen. So there’s the cultural political stuff Trump made, and then there’s just the very cold hard reality that the justices also have really paved the way over the last 4 years.

But even with this disdain toward data, it can’t be denied that learning losses from voucher systems are far greater than COVID learning loss, correct? Groups like Moms for Liberty, in a sense, were born out of the idea of student learning loss due to COVID restrictions.

Exactly, and when Betsy DeVos was an elected official, she had to comment on this. It’s a lot different when you’re back in Ada, Michigan, and you can just tweet out something. But she’s on record. They couldn’t just ignore it. At the national level, they all understand these things existed, which is why the strategy pivoted to more culture war stuff while blaming kind of the old bugaboo of government regulation. While charter schools are really a different thing, if the charter transparency push in Michigan ever gets back off the ground, you’re going to hear this from the charter groups themselves about overregulation. “It’s going to have a chilling effect on our schools to have the state asking us how the dollars are being spent.” This is just the theory of action that the DeVos folks came up with to explain away the negative results. But what’s important for our conversation is that they didn’t deny the results existed. They couldn’t. Some of them were too stark and too well publicized.

(Note: A request for comment was made to Betsy Devos through the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation, but was not returned.)

You mentioned charter schools, which are public schools, although as you said, they’re a different animal than a voucher system. But they do represent another option for parents to make in terms of traditional public schools. So, where does parent choice fit in? Where should it fit in, in your mind?

Well, if you talk to Heritage or one of these guys, they’ll call me a school choice critic, which I emphatically reject. There are many of us that support certain types of charter schools. In Michigan one in four Michigan kids goes to school in a school of choice either through schools of choice, our inter-district choice system or charter schools themselves. There are 150,000 Michigan kids in charter schools today. I have some real reservations or problems with the way our charter school sector is structured, which is mostly run by for-profit managers. It concerns the teacher protections that are in those environments, teacher pay, and things. But the evidence in favor of some charter schools in other states is undeniable, and nothing like that positive evidence for charter schools really exists in the voucher research literature. And conversely, nothing like the negative voucher results exists in the charter school literature. They’re not only structurally different. The evidence based behind them is different too, but sometimes you do get these things lumped together because, in my view, the voucher folks are just trying to piggyback off of successful charter schools.

Even in our state here today, you’ll see (charter and voucher advocates say) “Michigan kids deserve more school choice.” I wrote a piece on this a couple of years ago in the Detroit News where I said we have choice, there’s a lot of choice. All they want is private school tuition covered. And you see some of the ancillary debates right now. Our universal school meals program in the state; there have been a couple of different reports on private schools in our state wanting to cash in on that too. And so I think it’s important that the nuance behind some types of choices is really important to this conversation because as you point out, charter schools are public schools. And not only that, but there’s just a substantially far greater sort of research base behind them. However, what there isn’t is a restriction in choice.

The book brings it full circle, starting with Brown v Board, ending with Moms for Liberty and Project 2025, and seeing this cycle. What do you hope to see happen from here?

I mean, at the end of the day, what I hope to see happen is an understanding that this is not really about fundamentally improving education outcomes for the vast majority of people. This is a separatist movement in American education, trying to take dollars to separate, isolate out into cordoned off spaces based on what they call religious values. I would say it’s Christian nationalism. I think others would would say so too.

I think at some point when this moment has passed in American politics, I would hope that there is a renewed effort to make improvements in public schools. There needs to be reinvestment. There needs to be a rethinking of some of the structure, some of the design, some of the curriculum. You know, there’s debates in our state about literacy. I strongly support new efforts to improve dyslexia education in our state, which does set me apart from some of the public school groups.

We have to have honest conversations about where public schools need to improve, but where those conversations can’t go, in my view, is toward a direction where the solution is taxpayer funding for this religious separatist movement in American education, where we’re just going to give people who are giving up on public schools community investment money to go learn in church schools. That’s not the answer. Folks can go learn in church schools if they want to, but if we’re at a point where we’re sending taxpayer dollars for that, I think it’s a fundamentally different vision of what American education is.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

Inside the ‘religious separatist movement in American education’

The effort to get school vouchers approved nationwide has a long and varied history, but a book released this month posits that it is essentially a Christian Nationalist attempt at undermining public education as we know it.

That’s the conclusion of “The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers,” by Josh Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University.

Cowen, whose career as an education researcher in the early 2000s began with the expectation that vouchers, which allow public tax dollars for education to be spent for private school tuition, would ultimately benefit students. However, the reality that Cowen documents in the book turned out to be almost the exact opposite.

Starting in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision which ordered an end to segregated public education, and ending with the rise of the conservative Moms for Liberty – a vocal opponent of LGBTQ+ rights. Cowen describes the arc of the voucher movement as never being far removed from bigotry and intolerance, whether it be against Blacks or the LGBTQ+ community.

More importantly, however, Cowen describes in detail the academic framework, whether through universities or conservative-funded think tanks, that provides intellectual cover for the movement.

Chief among them was Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, considered by many to have “launched the modern school choice movement,” with his 1955 essay, “The Role of Government in Education.”

Friedman, who extolled the virtues of a free market system with minimal government intervention, especially in social areas such as education, wrote that while government financing of education was justified, “the administration of schools is neither required by the financing of education, nor justifiable in its own right in a predominantly free enterprise society.”

Cowen writes that in the aftermath of the Brown decision, Friedman “spoke at Southern conferences paid for by conservative donors, where his lecture notes affirmed his published work by arguing that the ‘appropriate solution’ to tensions rising from integration mandates was a ‘privately operated school system with parent choice of schools.’”

From that setting, Cowen details the decades-long battle about the role of public education, a battle that is no less fierce now than it was in 1954.

Michigan Advance had an opportunity to speak with Cowen at length about the book and its conclusions and is presenting that discussion in two parts. What follows is a conversation that has been edited for length and clarity. Advance questions are in bold, and Cowen’s responses are in regular type.

——————————

Why is understanding who Milton Friedman was so essential to understanding the modern day voucher movement?

There’s this intellectual political history debate about whether Friedman himself was a segregationist, and I sort of alluded to it in the book. It’s not really all that important. What is important is that segregation very quickly latched on to the Friedman idea. And the editors (of Friedman’s essay) understood it to be from the beginning a potential race-neutral way to avoid Brown.

He would go on to win a Nobel Prize 20 years later, worked for (President Ronald) Reagan, advised (Dictator Augusto) Pinochet in the Chilean regime. I mean, this guy was everywhere. He’s still something of a hero among the libertarians. But he’s someone whose ideas did kind of give intellectual heft to conservative public policy.

There were some Southern states in particular that jumped on this idea. Some successfully proposed small voucher systems in the ‘50s, and some didn’t quite have the votes. But you fast forward to when the first real modern voucher system gets off the ground (Milwaukee in 1990), and in a way, none of the sort of Friedman stuff was nearly as relevant at that time as it really is today, again just because of how much (voucher advocates) believe parents really should have the right to separate their kids out from what they think is going on in public schools.

In the ‘50s, it was race. And now it’s sort of race. I mean, the CRT business and the DEI business and gender ideology is in Trump 47 (the Trump campaign’s official policy proposals) and in Project 2025. So, the underlying act of vouchers is separating kids out from the public school because parents don’t like what’s going on in public school.

Starting with Milwaukee in 1990, those original voucher projects were set up so that they were going to be highly analyzed, that there would be strong data, and the expectation was that it would show student improvement, and yet, ultimately, they did not.

Exactly. The original 1990 evaluation that (Wisconsin) sort of obligated itself to when it passed the program, it just didn’t show the overwhelmingly positive results people expected, which is I think why in some sense, the conservative voucher advocates got involved in this so heavily and aggressively. What it was about was whether or not this long-time conservative pipe dream actually works or not. And then the fight sort of sustained itself for 10 years and we’re kind of back in it again.

There were some sort of gently positive results. I kind of concede that there were a handful of positive studies from that era, although at this point, they’re now almost two decades old. But what else was going on in the ‘90s and in the early 2000s was the era of more public school accountability, transparency, standards-based reform in both from the Clinton years and the George W. Bush years. No Child Left Behind was signed by George W. Bush in 2002.

They really believed in these three- to five-year long, open independent evaluations. They just have never really shown what these guys wanted. The argument of the book is not only did vouchers kind of fail to deliver in their own right, but they’ve actually had some unprecedented declines in student achievement.

That’s where you start to see these things kind of return back to. I mean, the reason I opened the book with the ‘50s stuff is this is where you really have to go back to the ‘50s to get that the language that’s used again in today’s debate, because it was not part of the ‘90s, and it was not part of the early 2000s. People like Ken Starr would sort of trump parents’ rights out there from time to time, but they still believed these things would move the needle on academics and test scores. It really wasn’t until recently where they stopped making that argument. For the most part, it’s much more about woke ideology and CRT and where people go to the bathroom and all that business.

In the book you say that as the data really turns negative, it almost cannot be dismissed any longer. It can’t be explained away. That’s where the shift in this approach comes in. Trump’s secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, who is featured prominently in your book, was involved in this long before she became the secretary of education.

Most of us, I think, are fairly well aware of Betsy DeVos and the DeVos family influence in Michigan, but it’s really hard to overstate how influential the DeVos’ have been in national conservative Republican politics for decades. It’s not just here (in Michigan). It’s the Heritage Foundation. It’s focused on the Family Research Council. There’s a DeVos Center For Religion and Family Life at Heritage. A number of the Project 2025 authors have their roots back in some of these big DeVos groups that date back to not just Betsy, but the first generation of Richard and Helen (DeVos). So, their larger goal as a family is much more sort of recentering this vision of Christianity into American life and American public policy, and I don’t think that’s a statement any of that side would disagree with.

When Betsy DeVos became the nominee for education secretary, these old comments that she’d made (reemerged) about seeing school choices advancing God’s kingdom and lamenting the fact that public schools are kind of the community centers. She wants churches to be back in the community center. The phrase Christians would would use, and I count myself among Christians, is as a mission field. I mean, the (DeVos) family has always seen public policy as a mission field for their faith. And vouchers is one area where they’ve been very, very focused of late out of Michigan, but from time to time here as well.

(Note: A request for comment was made to Betsy Devos through the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation, but was not returned.)

But this Christian-based view of public education, it’s really Christian nationalism is it not?

Yes. That is driving this.

Is the voucher movement’s ultimate goal, as personified by people like Betsy DeVos and the Koch brothers, really just an undercover way to destroy public education?

I think that’s right. I think in the short term, and certainly in the years that I was active working as an evaluator of the space and some of the early programs I write about in the book, they were just trying to get some of the stuff off the ground. I do think there’s been much more of a scorched earth take now where they’re going much harder with this sort of Christopher Rufo era, the JD Vance era, Trump himself era. It’s much more aggressive in terms of just going right at public schools. It’s not something you saw earlier in the ‘90s and in the early 2000s when it was sort of a much more mainstream conservative policy.

But that kind of describes the entire trend right now in American politics, right? This is not the party of George W. Bush anymore. It’s not the party of Mitt Romney anymore. It’s the party of Vance and Trump, and we’re having debates about Haitian immigrants and cats in Springfield, Ohio right now. (Note: The racist, discredited lie that Haitian residents in Springfield have eaten pets has been spread by the Trump campaign despite being repeatedly debunked.) It’s just a different time. And I think the voucher movement has really just sort of hooked itself to that energy and that aggression. I mean, vouchers are two of the first three paragraphs in the education chapter of Project 2025. They need to package that with everything else that’s in that 900 pages. It’s pretty fringe and extreme stuff. And I think the quiet part out loud piece of it is, they’re much more willing to go at public schools in general now as opposed to “not representing parents’ values” or “captured by the teachers’ unions.” You’d hear this from time to time, especially the union piece 20 years ago, but it’s nothing like today. And so I think when Betsy DeVos left office, and I quote this this column of hers in the book, but in that last few months of her in office, she wrote a piece for USA Today where she basically said “What we want to do next as we leave, and that’s long term, we want a Supreme Court case that’s going to throw out all the remaining Blaine Amendments and get mandatory vouchers in every state.”

I think those of us who understand school finances, those of us who understand how public school pay budgets work, understand that would imply a substantial deconstruction of public schools. But they don’t say it that way. All they say is religious families should get funding for religious education.

You have to leave it to experts on budgets and experts on public education to say, “Wait a minute. States can’t afford to stand up two sectors of education.” So if we’re going to have mandatory vouchers in every state as a fundamental religious freedom exercise, then you are really talking about a complete redesign of what schooling in America is.

Isn’t the recent legislation in Ohio, as related in a ProPublica story, that gives taxpayer money directly to private religious schools for new buildings, the realization of that column that Betsy DeVos was writing? I mean, it’s just a direct transfer of dollars.

Yes. They (Ohio) had $16 million in grants, so they kind of just steered it over during the budget process, and it wasn’t until after the fact, it figured out what it was for. I mean, you see that kind of stuff all the time in our budget process, but not for private school construction.

For those of us who’ve been working in this space for a while, the butts in seats problem for private providers has always been an issue for them. It’s actually the reason why the voucher academic results are so dreadful when these things came to scale at a statewide level, because in the early days when all of us who are working on these research teams evaluating them for states and cities, you’d get six or seven private schools of a decent quality to participate. It’s a very normal part of the social science, including an education to get participant schools. They’ll say, okay. We’ll admit some students. We’ll study it. We’ll be partners with you with this work. But just necessarily, the schools that agree to do that kind of thing are just not necessarily representative of what a typical private school might be when you scale this thing out. You’re talking about hundreds of schools and thousands of children using these vouchers, that’s where you start to get these subprime schools, but they’re financially distressed. They’re not very good. They’re often run out of church basements or double wides on church grounds in certain areas of the community. It’s just a very different kind of environment than I think the stereotype of a private school is. And so what’s going on is the other side on this understands that at some point, there’s a capacity problem. If the goal here is really to divert lots and lots of money to Christian schools, you can put as much money in a general fund budget as you want for vouchers. But if you’re kid doesn’t have anywhere to spend it, they’ve understood this to be a design problem for a while. And so the answer is, let’s try to fund private schools directly. That’s where they run into, even now, some thorny constitutional issues. That’s why the ProPublica story is kind of a big deal. They just haven’t tried this before, and now they are.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

Emotional abortion discussion centers Oprah Winfrey’s Harris interview in Michigan

Updated at 12:02 p.m.

Vice President Kamala Harris joined Oprah Winfrey Thursday night in Michigan for a live-streamed “Unite for America” event aiming to maintain enthusiasm and support for the Democratic nominee in her race against former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee.

Harris laid out early on her case for what was at stake in the election.

“Ultimately, the question before us is, what kind of country do we want to live in? And the beauty of a democracy, as long as we can hold on to it, the beauty of a democracy is each of us has the power,” she said. “We’re all here and you all are taking time out of your busy lives, everyone here, everyone on the screen, because there really is so much at stake.”

The event was held at Studio Center in Farmington Hills which boasts “one of the largest sound stages in the Midwest,” with several hundred invited guests in the audience, including U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Lansing) and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Several hundred thousand guests also joined online, along with a bevy of stars including comedian Chris Rock, and actors Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lopez, Tracee Ellis Ross, Bryan Cranston, Julia Roberts and Ben Stiller.

Winfrey hosted the 90 minutes of political theater, much like her immensely popular TV show, introducing various pre-produced segments and talking to a variety of Harris supporters from groups, like Black Women for Harris and White Dudes for Harris, as well Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

“This is going to be a big, close race,” said Whitmer. “Michigan is always tight. We know we’re feeling good, but we’ve got to translate that feeling into action. We deserve a leader who is strong and kind. It’s not mutually exclusive. And that’s why I think this moment is so important for all of us today, but for our kids and future generations, too.”

Harris, who arrived at Detroit Metro Airport, just after 5 p.m., was met on the tarmac by kids from the Boys and Girls Club of America dressed in football and cheerleading uniforms.

Also greeting the Vice President was Michigan Teamsters President Kevin Moore – Joint Council 43, which endorsed the Harris-Walz ticket on Wednesday almost immediately after the decision by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters’ executive board not to make an endorsement in the presidential race.

Harris wasn’t brought out until nearly a half-hour into the event and soon after started answering questions from the audience, beginning with what her plans were to secure the southern border.

Harris pointed to the bipartisan border security bill that was proposed earlier this year, but then scuttled after Trump told his allies in Congress to abandon it.

“It would have put 1,500 more border agents at the border. Let me tell you, those border agents are working around the clock,” she said. “It would have just been about giving them some support and relief, which is probably why the border agents actually endorsed the bill.”

When Winfrey asked Harris if she planned to reintroduce it if elected, she didn’t hesitate to say she would.

“Absolutely. And when I am elected president of the United States, I will make sure that bill gets to my desk and I will sign it into law,” she said.

Perhaps the most emotional point of the program revolved around the issues of abortion and gun violence.

In the audience were the mother and sisters of Amber Nicole Thurman of Georgia, a single mother of a 6-year-old boy who a ProPublica report this week revealed died in 2022 after doctors delayed providing her care due to concerns over that state’s restrictive abortion law.

“Initially, I did not want the public to know my pain,” said Thurman’s mother, Shanette. “I wanted to go through in silence, but I realized that it was selfish. I want y’all to know Amber was not a statistic. She was loved by a family, a strong family, and we would have done whatever to get my baby, our baby, the help that she needed. You’re looking at a mother that is broken.”

Harris paused before responding.

“I’m just so sorry, and the courage that you all have shown is extraordinary because also you just learned about how it is that she died,” she said and then explicitly connected the context of Thurman’s death to Trump’s presidency

“The former president chose three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would overdo the protections of Roe v. Wade. And they did as he intended, and in state after state, including yours, these abortion bans have been passed that criminalize health care providers, in a couple of states, prison for life, Oprah.”

Harris further detailed how allowing states like Georgia to criminalize reproductive rights has completely disrupted the doctor patient relationship.

“Literally a doctor or a nurse has to say, ‘She might die any minute, better give her now care, because otherwise I might go to prison for life,’ she said. “Think about what we’re doing in terms of saying that certain people who are in these state houses and then starting with the former president of the United States think they’re in a better position than a doctor or a nurse to determine when their patient needs medical care. This literally, in Amber’s story, highlights the fact that among everything that is wrong with these bans and what has happened in terms of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it’s a health care crisis that affects the patient and the profession.”

Winfrey jumped in and expressed incredulousness at the intrusion into such personal matters.

“I just don’t believe that those legislators, that the government has a right to be in your womb. They have no right to be in your womb, with decisions about your womb,” she said.

Harris responded by noting that respecting personal health choices did not mean one had to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs.

“If she chooses, she will talk with her priest, her pastor, her rabbi, her imam, but not the government telling her what’s in her best interest,” said Harris.

Also in the audience was Hadley Duvall, a 22-year-old from Kentucky who spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last month about her story of being sexually abused by her stepfather and becoming pregnant at age 12. She said she had the option of abortion, which many others like her no longer have.

“You can’t wait until it’s too late to care about reproductive health care, because then it’s too late,” she said. “And when it affects you, it hits. And you can’t deny it. You can’t look at someone with a story like mine and say it didn’t happen. And there are more people like me out there, and there are going to be so many more who deserve their options. They deserve their choices. Let’s get involved.”

The topic of gun violence was focused on the epidemic of school shootings, with the most recent one taking place at Apalachee High School in Georgia earlier this month, killing four and injuring nine others.

One of those who survived was 15-year-old Natalie Griffith, who was shot twice. Despite that, she and her parents, Doug and Marilda, were in the audience.

Marilda Griffith, acknowledging how fortunate she was that her daughter survived, made a tearful plea that something be done.

“No parent should go through this. You know, what are we doing about this? What are we doing? Let’s make sure that everybody listens. Let’s make sure that everybody hears it. The whole world needs to hear that we women that have our children, we have a job. That job is to protect our children,” she said. “I’m ready to make a noise about this.”

Harris said that the issue remains unresolved because of what she called a “false choice” that has been pushed by Republicans suggesting you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.

“I’m in favor of the Second Amendment, and I’m in favor of assault weapons bans; universal background checks; red flag laws. And these are just common sense. These are just common sense,” she said.

Winfrey also expressed surprise when Harris reiterated that she’s a gun owner and then said, “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.” She laughed then said her staff will have to deal with the fallout of her off-the-cuff-remark.

At one point, Streep joined in virtually and unapologetically called Harris “Madam President,” to which Harris responded, “47 days” to laughter and applause from the audience. Streep, however, got serious and asked Harris what would happen if she wins and Trump doesn’t accept the results, an outcome that played out in 2020 and ultimately resulted in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection attempt.

Harris said that one of the things she’s discovered in the course of her campaign is that many more of Trump’s supporters than people may realize decided Jan. 6 was where their support ended.

“When we reflect and think about what Jan. 6 was, where the president of the United States sitting in the Oval Office incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol, such that a 140 law enforcement officers were injured, some were killed, to try and upend a free and fair election where the American people voted; that was a bridge too far for a lot of people,” she said.

While Harris didn’t deal in any specifics of Trump not accepting the results of this election, she did say “the lawyers are working,” and encouraged people to talk to family members and others in their community to stop misinformation from spreading and standing up for election workers.

As she has done before in speeches, Harris ended the program on an upbeat note, talking about the privilege of being an American.

“We are an optimistic people. Americans, by character, are people who have dreams and ambitions and aspirations. We believe in what is possible. We believe in what can be, and we believe in fighting for that,” she said. “One of the greatest expressions of patriotism is to fight for the ideals of who we are, which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body, freedom to be safe from gun violence, freedom to have access to the ballot box, freedom to be who you are and to love who you love openly and with pride, freedom to just be. And that’s who we are. We believe in all that. And so this is a moment where we stand knowing what we are fighting for. We’re not fighting against. It’s what we’re fighting for.”

This story was updated to correctly list the groups supporting the Harris campaign.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

Threats against MI officials and election workers spike amid a ‘climate of hostility'

Threats targeting election officials have been seeing an alarming rise in recent years, with indications that it might be getting worse heading into the November election.

According to the latest monthly update from the Bridging Divides Initiative’s (BDI) Threats and Harassment Dataset, reported events involving threats and harassment targeting local public officials in the U.S. more than doubled in July.

BDI, a non-partisan research initiative based at Princeton University, reports that at least 70 events were recorded for the month, up from just over 30 in June. More than a third of those (36%) were death threats.

As noted in a press release, the spike came amid the heightened political tensions that followed the deadly July 13 shooting at former President Trump’s campaign rally in Pennsylvania, which resulted in threats against local officials there, as well as harassment of local officials by neo-Nazis in Tennessee.

“The rise in threats and harassment is unacceptable,” says BDI Executive Director Shannon Hiller. “While the vast majority of Americans have joined to reject calls for political violence, the data demonstrates that more needs to be done to protect civic space.”

One of the groups assisting the Bridging Divides Initiative is the Brennan Center for Justice, which noted last month that the intimidation of election workers and voters increasingly involved the use of firearms, typically displayed as an intimidation tactic, such as when armed protestors appeared at the home of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, accusing her of election fraud.

When asked earlier this week by the Michigan Advance about the report, Benson said there was no doubt that threats were on the rise and it was clear what the ultimate goal of those threats was.

“The noise is designed to create a sense of chaos and confusion and fear and disengagement,” she said after an event in Dearborn Heights. “It’s, I believe, intentionally designed to cause … all of us to check out and throw up our hands and say, ‘I don’t know what to believe, so I’m just walking away from all of it.’ Our job as election administrators, as leaders in the state, is to try to change that, to come through the noise and help people see the truth, which is that they have enormous power not just to decide the future of our country and our state, uh, but their own community, as well.”

The Brennan Center notes that as threats and intimidation directed at election officials have risen “meteorically” in recent years, and the risk of voter intimidation remains high, more states have recognized the urgency of keeping guns away from elections.

In Michigan, a pair of bills are awaiting final House passage that would make it illegal to possess a firearm within 100 feet of polling places, drop boxes, early voting sites and absentee ballot counting boards.

State Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou (D-East Lansing) sponsored the main bill in the package, House Bill 4127, which already won preliminary approval in both the House and Senate. Tsernoglou is confident both bills will get final approval before the Legislature adjourns in December.

“Being that we don’t want firearms at polls or counting boards is very reasonable and very much needed in the spirit of promoting democracy — allowing people to cast their votes without fear of intimidation,” she told the Michigan Advance’s partner, Stateline.

Nonetheless, the threat level remains high heading into November, according to BDI.

There have been over 320 threat and harassment events reported across more than 40 states and the District of Columbia so far this year. In fact, compared to the first seven months of 2023, threat events are up 30%, and an astounding 87% compared to the same time period in 2022.

Officials say the data indicates that threats and harassment are becoming increasingly normalized at the “hyperlocal level,” described as being specific local government votes, policies, and regulations that are beyond national politics.

Analysis of the updated data reveals that threats and harassment motivated by hyperlocal issues are on the rise, targeting local elected or appointed government officials in particular. Hyperlocal incidents accounted for the majority of events recorded in July.

“When a candidate for president of one of the two major parties spends every waking moment claiming that election workers are out to get him, it is no wonder that some of his supporters make threats like these,” said Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

Complaints pile up over Trump visit to Michigan sheriff’s office

The fallout continues from former President Trump’s visit to Howell last month, as the number of formal complaints has quadrupled.

The Aug. 20 event at the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office, billed as a press conference and discussion by Trump on “crime and safety” instead became by all appearances a campaign event, replete with pro-Trump banners, staged police vehicles, and a nearly hour-long speech by Trump mainly targeting his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.

In the immediate aftermath, the Michigan Board of Elections (BOE) reported two complaints had been filed against both Livingston County Sheriff Mike Murphy, who agreed to and participated in the visit, as well as the sheriff’s office itself. Both complaints alleged the event violated Michigan Campaign Finance law by utilizing taxpayer resources for a partisan political purpose.

Michigan Secretary of State spokesperson Angela Benander told the Michigan Advance on Wednesday that the BOE has since received “at least six additional complaints on top of the two from a couple of weeks ago.”

Benander says all eight complaints — five of which are against Murphy, two against both Murphy and the sheriff’s office and another against just the sheriff’s office — are now in the investigation process.

At issue is MCL 169.257, a section of Michigan Campaign Law which expressly prohibits the use of any public resources for political campaign purposes including “funds, personnel, office space, computer hardware or software, property, stationery, postage, vehicles, equipment, supplies, or other public resources.”

That same statute is also at play involving similar complaints about a visit last month by GOP Vice Presidential nominee, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) to Macomb County, where he spoke outside the Shelby Township Police station, also on the topic of crime. At least one complaint was filed with the Board of Elections about that visit.

A knowing violation of the statute is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for an individual held liable of up to a year in jail and/or a fine up to $1,000. If the violator is not an individual, the fine could go as high as $20,000 or equal to the amount of the improper contribution or expenditure.

Murphy told the Advance prior to the Howell event that it was not political, but instead “simply a press conference” and opportunity to have someone vying for the highest office in the land speak on the topic of law enforcement.

On Tuesday, Murphy resigned from the board of LACASA, a local domestic violence prevention agency, with which he had served for 25 years. Officials with the nonprofit cited the “distraction” that resulted from Trump’s Aug. 20 visit in accepting Murphy’s resignation.

A day after his resignation, Murphy was featured in a campaign ad for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), attacking both Harris and U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly), who is running against former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-White Lake) for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat.

Rogers also spoke at the Aug. 20 event in Howell. Ironically, Rogers himself had at least a small part in creating the issues surrounding Trump’s visit that day. As a state Senator in 1999, he voted for legislation that specifically added federal elections to fall under MCL 169.257.

Cornel West relies on right-wing lawyers to advance his left-wing presidential campaign

The independent presidential campaign of Cornel West, a self-described socialist who was a surrogate for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and has fought for progressive causes like Occupy Wall Street, has ties to well-known conservative figures in Michigan and beyond.

“He’s just lost his way,” election lawyer Melvin “Butch” Hollowell told the Michigan Advance.

Hollowell, a former co-chair of the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP) also served as corporation counsel of the city of Detroit under Mayor Mike Duggan.

“It’s sad to see him fall so far from where he was to the caricature that we see today,” he said.

Michigan panel OKs Cornel West for November ballot, while legal maneuvering continues

West most recently won a preliminary victory to appear on Michigan’s ballot this November when the Michigan Board of State Canvassers voted 3-1 Monday to certify his petitions, although litigation alleging forgery and petition fraud remains outstanding.

In addition to claiming that West’s petition sheets showed no evidence of the normal wear that accompanies circulation, and that there were sets of sheets in which two or three distinct handwriting styles appeared on multiple sheets, the complaint claimed nearly “50 of the West campaign’s circulators forged or permitted the forgery of at least 18,775 signatures through ‘round-robining’ and other means.”

“It’s to try to steal votes from the [Vice President Kamala] Harris campaign,” said Hollowell.

West also has been represented by a slew of attorneys with connections to Republican politics. In Michigan, West has received representation from John Bursch, a former state solicitor general under GOP former Attorney General Bill Schuette.

Bursch, a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA), appeared on West’s behalf Aug. 22 before the Michigan Court of Claims where the campaign successfully contested being disqualified from the ballot due to deficiencies in the candidate’s affidavit of identity.

Bursch has a track record of representing right-wing causes, including anti-LGBTQ+ rights when he argued in 2022 to the Michigan Supreme Court that the state’s anti-discrimination act should not be interpreted to include protections for sexual orientation and helping to lead an anti-abortion coalition that was opposed to Proposal 3, which enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution.

Bursch also received $25,000 for legal consulting on recount issues from former President Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign.

“It’s just hugely disturbing to me as a former general counsel of the NAACP, and I still advise the NAACP on election law matters. He’s just a willing pawn of far right-wing sources. Just look at his lawyer, John Bursch,” said Hollowell. “He was the one that filed the case to invalidate affirmative action in Michigan. He was the one that when I was representing Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald and Gov. [Gretchen] Whitmer in the abortion trial in Oakland (County) Circuit (Court), Bursch was on the other side trying to deny Michigan women the right of control over their bodies. This is West’s lawyer.”

Bursch told the Advance that he routinely represents and defends individuals and organizations who get “pushed around by government officials and powerbrokers,” noting his representation of Black voters in a lawsuit filed in March 2022 alleging the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) had violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by predominantly drawing several voting districts on the basis of race. A federal judicial panel agreed and ordered new maps be drawn.

“As we proved at trial, Secretary of State Benson influenced the Commission to hire one of her own campaign contributors as VRA counsel, and he then directed the commissioners to use race in drawing district lines in violation of federal law,” said Bursch, who said his representation of West’s campaign was no different.

“I am assisting Black presidential and vice presidential candidates after the Michigan Democratic Party and the secretary of state tried to keep them off the ballot even though they collected well more than the necessary number of signatures. The primary reason for the exclusion? That an individual who notarized Dr. West’s affidavit of identity put her notary stamp on a separate page than his signature so as not to cover up any of the text,” said Bursch.

“It’s frightening that a Michigan official and one of its two major political parties would try to keep an all-Black slate off the ballot for such an absurd reason. And it’s embarrassing that anyone would call a respected scholar and advocate like Dr. West a ‘willing pawn’ simply to advance the Michigan Democratic Party’s agenda. That’s precisely why Dr. West and Dr. [Melina] Abdullah [West’s running mate] are running for office: to speak for those suppressed by major political machines.”

Hollowell said that “what’s frightening is the depths to which Republicans will stoop to try to illegally suppress the votes of African Americans, here in Michigan and across the country, which is what their spoiler candidate West — who lost his way long ago — is all about.”

Edwin DeJesus, a West campaign spokesman also sent a statement to the Advance.

“It’s truly fascinating to hear an election attorney suggest that the best way to preserve democracy is to discourage voting,” said DeJesus. “That’s like saying the best way to save a drowning person is to let them sink. And to imply that Cornel West, who has been a morally consistent voice on critical issues like Gaza, is somehow a GOP pawn? It’s almost as if the idea of real change scares them more than the thought of another status quo election.”

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported earlier this month that other attorneys with “deep ties” to the Republican Party worked to get West onto the ballot in Arizona, an effort that ultimately failed.

Among those attorneys was Brett Johnson, also a member of the RNLA, who the AP reported was involved in communicating with Arizona electors for the West campaign.

Johnson is also a partner at Snell & Wilmer, which according to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) records, has done work this election cycle for the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Charlie Kirk-run Turning Point USA political action committee (PAC), and American Values 2024, a super PAC supporting the presidential campaign of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who recently dropped out of the race and endorsed former Trump’s campaign to regain the White House.

Another Snell & Wilmer attorney is Amanda Reeve, a former Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives, who said her firm represented “the Cornel West campaign,” in Arizona.

The AP asked West about the right-wing connections.

“So much of American politics is highly gangster-like activity,” West told the AP. “I have no knowledge of who they are or anything — none whatsoever. We just want to get on that ballot. And that’s the difficult thing.”

More recently, West leaned into pandemic denialism when he posted a video to social media calling for a COVID-19 Truth Commission and joined with Kennedy in sowing anti-vaccine rhetoric.

“So grateful to you Cornell, for (sic) commitment to ending the corruption,” responded Kennedy Jr., who is now a member of Trump’s transition team.

Also applauding West was Roger Stone, a longtime Trump operative convicted of obstructing Congress in the first of two impeachments of the former president, and also implicated in helping to organize the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“Something significant is happening in American politics when I wholeheartedly agree with @CornelWest,” said Stone on social media.

Something significant is happening in American politics when I wholeheartedly agree with @CornelWest
— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) August 26, 2024

Other attorneys for West with GOP connections include Bryan Tyson, also a member of the RNLA, who has represented West’s interests in Georgia. Tyson is a partner with the Atlanta-based Election Law Group, which has received $60,000 this year for services to the Republican National Committee.

In North Carolina, RNLA member Phil Strach filed litigation last month seeking to force West onto the ballot there after the elections board refused to certify his petitions. Strach is a partner at the Nelson Mullins law firm in Raleigh, which has been paid for services this election cycle by the RNC, and the North Carolina Republican Party.

North Carolina is also where individuals associated with the Trump campaign worked to get petition signatures for West to get on the ballot.

As The Washington Post reported in April, pro-Trump activist Scott Presler was gathering signatures for West outside a Trump rally in North Carolina.


“This helps take away votes from Joe Biden,” The Post reported Presler told a rallygoer.

“We’re helping the Trump team who’s trying to get him on there,” a woman assisting Presler added.

In Pennsylvania, Matthew Haverstick, a managing partner at Kleinbard LLC, argued that the secretary of state’s office under Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro was wrong to reject West’s paperwork. Haverstick declined to tell the AP who hired him or why. However, Kleinbard has been paid for services by several Republican entities, including the RNC and NRSC.

West also received a maximum individual contribution of $3,300 in 2023 from billionaire Harland Crow, whose gifts of travel and other items of value to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas have come under scrutiny.

When asked when or why he thought West, an honorary chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America, had embraced right-wing political figures, Hollowell said he couldn’t point to any particular date, but said there was no doubt he had turned a corner.

“Back in the day, I think he articulated some philosophies that people felt were worthy of consideration for race relations in this country,” said Hollowell. “But I think people get too enamored with themselves. Others might even say it’s a form of narcissism. You began to believe that you are the be-all, end-all of what’s going on in this world. I think he’s been in a spiral for many, many years, a downward spiral.”

This story was updated to add a statement from the West campaign.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

Trump-endorsed Mike Rogers triumphs in Michigan GOP Senate primary

Updated at 10:50 p.m. 8/6/24

To no one’s surprise, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-White Lake) has won the Republican nomination to run in November for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat, where he will face U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly), who won the Democratic primary.

According to the Associated Press, which called the race just after 9 p.m., the 61-year-old Rogers, beat out his two rivals for the position, former U.S Rep. Justin Amash (I-Cascade Twp.) and physician and former congressional candidate Dr. Sherry O’Donnell. According to unofficial results, with 26% of the votes counted, Rogers polled just over 64% , while Amash and O’Donnell picked up 15.3% and 12.2% respectively.

The victory was seen as preordained thanks to former President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Rogers in March. It was further helped along after Grosse Pointe Park businessman Sandy Pensler also endorsed Rogers last month during a rally with Trump in Grand Rapids. Pensler’s name still appeared on the ballot and picked up 8.3% of the vote.

Speaking at his primary election night party at a Lake Orion bar, to which the Michigan Advance was denied entry, Rogers reiterated the themes he and the GOP as a whole have been hitting on throughout his campaign, centered on the assertion that the decisions made during the Biden administration have made life tougher for Americans.

“I want you to listen to the things that I have to say. We have to stand up and let people understand that there are people behind these decisions,” he told the crowd of supporters. “I know a deputy sheriff [who] lost his daughter to the fentanyl crisis facing Michigan. Started in China, went to the cartels in Mexico, came to Michigan, and took a young life. We know how to stop this. And I’ll tell you what, when we work hard and I get to the United States Senate, we better put China on notice. There is going to be a price to pay.”

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lavora Barnes issued a statement following news that Rogers had advanced to the general election.

“Mike Rogers has shown that he is only out for himself – he walked through the revolving door to enrich himself at Michiganders’ expense and then abandoned Michigan for a million-dollar mansion in Florida the first chance he got,” said Barnes. “Rogers wants to enact a dangerous agenda: banning abortion, supporting tax giveaways for big corporations, and jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare – and that’s exactly why Michiganders will reject him and his self-serving politics in November.”

Rogers retired from Congress in 2015 following seven terms representing his mid-Michigan district, serving as chair of the powerful House Intelligence Committee. He also represented Livingston County in the Michigan Senate from 1995 to 2001.

He later became a cyber security adviser and businessman and moved to Florida.

The Howell native, whose purchase of a home in White Lake created questions earlier this year about where he actually was living, came out of the gate last September with a strong bid to attract Trump voters and essentially never looked back.

His victory in the GOP primary comes despite his former service as an FBI agent and CNN commentator, neither of which are popular with MAGA voters, many of whom view the federal law enforcement agency as complicit in targeting Trump as well as the cable news outlet that is often a target of his ire.

Former Rep. Justin Amash (L) and Dr. Sherry O’Donnell (R) | Nick Manes and Kyle Davidson photos

It also follows a political conversion for Rogers, who was initially not a vocal supporter of Trump. In 2018, Rogers said Trump was “fundamentally wrong” in his assessment of Russian President Vladimir Putin, while also calling Trump’s political tactics “destructive” and saying he would not commit to supporting Trump for president in 2024 if he is the GOP nominee.

But Rogers’ political instincts to move beyond those stances and adapt to the political reality of a Trump-dominated Republican Party paid off on Tuesday night and set him up to try and break a three-decade GOP drought.

The last time a Republican won a Senate seat in Michigan was 1994 when Spencer Abraham handily defeated U.S. Rep. Bob Carr (D-East Lansing). However, Abraham only held the seat for one term, losing in 2000 to current U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Lansing), whose announcement in January 2023 that she would not run for reelection opened up an opportunity for Republicans to flip the seat.

“Congratulations to all our candidates tonight on a well fought victory. The Michigan Republican Party is excited to work alongside all our nominees this cycle to flip a Senate seat, expand our majority in the House of Representatives, and take back our majority in the Michigan State House. Together, we’ll show Michiganders that conservative policies will stabilize our economy, lower the cost of living, secure our borders, and bring peace to the world stage again,” Michigan Republican Party Chairman Pete Hoekstra said in a statement.

While the Cook Political Report has rated the open race as a “tossup,” the Senate race is still considered an uphill battle for the GOP. Rogers was the best situated among Republicans to climb that hill with the latest fundraising filings with the Federal Elections Commission showing that as of June 30, he had more than $2.5 million in cash on hand, an amount sure to grow dramatically with his primary victory. In fact, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) announced in June it was injecting seven figures into a “Michigan field program” for Rogers.

However, he’ll be facing a prodigious fundraiser in November when he takes on Slotkin, who already has more than $8.7 million in cash on hand as of July 17. Slotkin has also spent the last six years building name recognition and a political operation in Michigan, something Rogers has had to work at resurrecting since leaving office and moving out of Michigan prior to deciding to jump back into the political fray.

This story has been updated to include statements from Mike Rogers and Lavora Barnes, as well as updated vote totals and percentages.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.

‘We love Hitler! We love Trump!’ Residents fight back after fascist rally in Michigan

A week after white supremacists marched through downtown Howell chanting “Heil Hitler” and holding signs saying “White Lives Matter,” several dozen counter protesters gathered Sunday to symbolically wash away the racism they say they no longer want to be normalized in their community.

Holding signs with phrases like “Make Racism Wrong Again” and “Kancel Klan Kulture,” the gathering was organized by Stand Against Extremism LivCo (SAGE), whose co-founder is Julie Ohashi.

“I was born and raised here, and it wasn’t any different, I’ll tell you,” she told the gathering. “They were just more in the shadows, because it wasn’t as accepted. But in the culture and the climate that we’re dealing with right now, they’re becoming emboldened. And with that, it’s going to take a big resistance to stand up to it. And that’s going to require allies, because we can’t expect our brown and our Black and our queer community to be coming out here and putting their bodies on the front lines. That is not a fair lift.”

Howell, which lies between Lansing and Detroit, has long had a reputation for extremist activity. It became known as a Ku Klux Klan hotspot in the 1970s and 80s when infamous Michigan KKK Grand Dragon Robert Miles held hate rallies and cross burnings at his Cohoctah Township property north of Howell until his death in 1992.

The group of parents, grandparents, teachers, and other community members, later grabbed brooms and mops, as they washed down the sidewalk in front of the historic Livingston County Courthouse, the same place where the approximately dozen white supremacist supporters gathered July 20, before marching through the downtown area.

Julie Ohashi speaking at anti-white supremacist counterprotest in downtown Howell. July 28, 2024. Photo by Jon King.

“Howell is basically a welcoming community, and we were shocked to see these outsiders come and try to stir up hate. So, today is a symbolic cleansing of the area similar to what was done many years ago after a KKK rally,” Howell Mayor Bob Ellis told the Michigan Advance.

Ellis was referring to a scrubbing of the steps of the historic Livingston County Courthouse in 1995 following a KKK rally.

While a joint statement issued last week by the city of Howell, the Livingston Diversity Council and the Howell Chamber of Commerce indicated the white supremacist demonstrators came from “as far away as Saginaw and Macomb counties,” one participant was believed to have come from nearby Fowlerville.

But Ellis said the description of outsiders having orchestrated the march was still an accurate one.

“We were able to find some internet posts that said that (July 20) was actually a day of action for a hate group incorporating members from Michigan as well as Pennsylvania, and some of the witnesses did see a Pennsylvania license plate in the group,” said Ellis. “So, I think the fact that they were only able to recruit 12 people from two states, and one of them may have been from our county? They were casting a wide net and got a very poor turnout.”

In fact, a post on the X social media platform by a group identifying itself as “White Lives Matter Michigan,” does indicate interstate coordination, as it contained a video of the July 20 march and stated, “White Lives Matter Michigan and Pennsylvania collaborated together and held a demonstration in downtown Howell, Michigan for this month’s day of action.”

July 20 as a “day of action” is reportedly among 12 planned for 2024 by White Lives Matter (WLM), which the website globalextremism.org, identifies as an “international white supremacist movement,” whose supporters “have organized protests across the United States, and in other countries in Europe.”

Jennifer Stolen speaking at anti-white supremacist counterprotest in downtown Howell. July 28, 2024. Photo by Jon King.

The website, which is operated by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), says that WLM, along with other extremist groups like the Proud Boys, are using the phrase “White Boy Summer” to “spread propaganda, recruit new members, and facilitate targeted hate campaigns including acts of vandalism and hate incidents.”

On April 20 — Nazi leader Adolf Hitler’s birthday — a previous “day of action,” White Lives Matter Michigan was able to “permeate censorship” and briefly display “images of Hitler and a racist message on roadside displays,” according to The Detroit News.

The antisemitic nature of the group was on full display on the July 20 “day of action,” when the group who marched through Howell also made their way to the Latson Road/I-96 overpass in nearby Genoa Township, where they hung Nazi and KKK flags over the side, while a video uploaded by the Livingston Post shows one of the protestors yelling “We love Hitler. We love Trump,” through a loudspeaker.

At Sunday’s counterprotest, Jennifer Stolen related a conversation she had with a young man as she was placing signs for the event, who asked what she thought would be accomplished by the gathering.

“He didn’t think anything was going to change here,” she said. “I am not originally from Livingston County, but I’ve lived here for 20 years now, and I can tell you that things already have changed. And one of the ways that they change is that people show up and they’re visible for events like this so that we know, those of us who know this is wrong, who know that having white supremacist demonstrators on the steps of our courthouse is wrong, know that we’re not alone. Because when I first moved to this county, I felt very alone. I didn’t know that there were any other people, honestly, other than myself and my family who felt the way that we did.”

Ohashi said it’s important to fight back against hate.

“We need everybody in this fight to stand up and say, ‘This isn’t how it’s going to work around here anymore. You can try, but you’re just going to get pushback,’” she said. “We’re going to be putting our bodies out in public spaces and having conversations, and we’re not going to go anywhere.”

Michigan raises alarms about how elections will be run

They are the administrators of democracy, making sure that elections are free, fair and efficient. They maintain the records of local government and are responsible for public access to those records, including births, deaths and the marriages in between.

And yet, nearly 10% of the 1,240 township clerk positions that are up for election this year in Michigan have no candidates willing to step up and fill them.

That’s according to Canton Township Clerk Michael Siegrist, who also serves as second vice president of the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks (MAMC). In a social media post this month, Siegrist pointed to the situation as one that’s not been experienced before.

“What if I told you that 118 townships have nobody running for Clerk this year. We’ve never seen anything like this in history. 9.5% of all clerk races this year will have NOBODY elected,” he said, before posing a series of questions. “Why doesn’t anyone want to do this job? How does a state deal with such a massive labor shortage? Who will run elections in these communities?”

Siegrist went on to say that clerks in Michigan were increasingly being caught in the middle of what he referred to as the “voting wars,” in which partisans and activists “work the refs” by either overburdening the system with increasing demands to do more with less, or just outright attack them, both rhetorically and through intimidation and threats of violence.

“Anyone in MI who isn’t worried about the brain drain and loss of talent and experience is either dishonest or not serious,” Siegrist posted. “I hope this trend doesn’t continue. I hope the ‘voting wars’ stop. Future elections depend on serious legislators, serious activists, serious administrators, and serious elected officials understanding that the center must hold.”

A request for comment was made to the Michigan Department of State, but was not returned.

While various election reforms in the last six years have received approval from voters, they have also added to the duties and responsibilities of election administrators, which Siegrist says are almost always township clerks, making up more than 80% of all local election officials in the state.

According to the Michigan Townships Association, in addition to conducting elections and keeping voter registration files, township clerks are responsible for a myriad of other duties including maintaining custody of township records, recording, maintaining, and publishing board meeting minutes, preparing financial statements, and delivering tax certificates to the township supervisor and county clerk by Sept. 30.

However, there have been big changes to voting in the last few years that have impacted clerks’ job duties. Proposal 3 of 2018 and Proposal 2 of 2022 both passed with at least 60% of the vote and guaranteed the rights to same-day voter registration, nine days of early voting, and absentee voting, among other rights.

Siegrist told Michigan Advance that many jurisdictions simply are not able to accommodate the extra work load those changes require.

“There’s never been a high turnover in these positions historically,” he said. “In a lot of these smaller jurisdictions that are more rural, especially in northern Michigan, you get retirees who run for these jobs, and they’re not full-time jobs. There’s probably 900 jurisdictions in Michigan that don’t even have a full-time employee in the clerk’s office. It’s a part-time job. There’s a stipend. Maybe they make $10,000 a year. But that’s because that system was designed over the clerk really running really simple elections with simple equipment.”

Siegrist said that in addition to an increasing level of technological knowledge that’s required, there are usually longer hours, resulting in unintended costs such as additional child care that make the position difficult to recruit people into. And that’s not to mention the rising suspicion by many members of the public that massive fraud is taking place, regardless of whether there’s any actual evidence that’s true.

“And now it’s like, people want to talk about photo ID or they want to talk about the voter rolls or they want to talk about Dominion voting machines, which services 80% of the voters in Michigan,” he said. “They want to talk about all those things, and you’re like, ‘I really can’t talk about that. I’m so busy doing three people’s jobs for the single amount of money I made last year. And the MAMC warned everybody this was going to happen, that we were going to have a hard time retaining and recruiting individuals to do this job because of it. And we warned that it could potentially impact the quality of election administration.”

That warning came in the form of an advisory the association issued in December 2023, which urged municipalities to acknowledge that providing fair compensation for clerks and election officials was a critical need.

“In a functioning democracy, the role of election officials cannot be understated. We are the unsung heroes who work tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Paying election officials appropriately is not just a matter of financial compensation; it’s about upholding the very foundations of our democratic society,” states the advisory, which said inadequate compensation threatened to deter qualified professionals from holding those positions. That means increased turnover and a hit to public confidence in the efficient administration of elections.

To address the issue, the MAMC called upon municipalities to conduct a wage assessment to ensure election officials were compensated in-line with their counterparts in other departments, make an adjustment plan to provide for additional duties and responsibilities, and then ensure that appropriate support, resources, and benefits to were available to assist clerks and election staff in effectively managing the challenges of an extended election period.

“In summary, the pay and benefits for election officials are not expenditures but investments in the health of our democracy. It safeguards the integrity of elections, encourages dedicated professionals to serve, and upholds public trust. It is imperative that election officials are compensated appropriately and equitably, given the demands and responsibilities they shoulder,” said the advisory.

In response to the MAMC advisory, the Michigan Townships Association (MTA) posted a bulletin to its members saying that while they shared the concern that election officials should receive adequate compensation, the proposals being put forth were not in line with the legal requirements for what township clerks, who are paid by their municipalities, could be paid.

“It is our opinion that this would not be a lawful resolution or approach for a township to use regarding a township clerk’s salary of the office,” said the association. “In a township, the salary of the office of clerk as stated in the salary resolution for the office of clerk, is the ONLY compensation that a township clerk can receive for performing the statutory duties of the office of clerk.”

For this reason, the MTA said it encouraged townships to consider increasing the salary of the office of clerk, as opposed to additional compensation for increased election duties. Among the methods it suggested to do that were by a simple vote of the township board, or through the creation of a salary compensation commission.

Siegrist called the Michigan Townships Association’s response disappointing.

“What they don’t realize is by doing that, it sucked all the oxygen and momentum out of clerks advocating to their local township boards and to their township supervisors to actually get funding and to potentially get additional compensation to do the task that they’ve got,” he said. “I was really discouraged when they sent that notification out as a response to all the member communities. I thought it was irresponsible.”

Jenn Fiedler, the association’s communications director, told the Advance that the information they provided was accurate as what the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks was advocating was not in line with the law.

“We have remained steadfast in our support, advocacy and resources for clerks in their ever-expanding duties, particularly for elections, and have encouraged township boards to review the salaries for this important elected office,” she said, and pointed to a cover story that ran in this year’s April/May edition of their monthly magazine, which was based on a resource toolkit that MTA prepared and shared with members via email, as well as a part of clerk/election curriculum at MTA workshops.

As to the vacancies on this year’s ballot, Michael Selden, director of the MTA’s Member Information Services, told the Advance that while that number may be higher than normal this year, that doesn’t mean the positions will go unfilled.

“There’s still a deadline coming up later this month to run as an independent on the ballot in November. You can also still run as a write-in for the August [primary],” he said.

But, Selden says ultimately if nobody is on the ballot, once the position is officially vacant on Jan. 2, a township board would then have 45 days to make an appointment and fill the vacancy. If no one steps forward for an appointment, he says the county clerk could then call for a special election. In his experience, Selden says they’ve never reached that point and he’s optimistic that won’t be the case this time either.

However, Selden does agree that the increasing duties which have been placed on clerks, as well as the more intense scrutiny of their work, are the main factors driving any lack of people stepping forward to do the job.

“Clerks take a lot of pride in their elections and how they run them and that they are safe and that they’re secure, and when they come under attack, it wears on you too,” he said. “Then there’s the extra things as far as absentee ballot voting, the nine days of early voting. I think you probably are getting a lot of clerks that are kind of burned out and aren’t running again.”

Selden says the MTA has advised townships that one thing they can to help alleviate the issue is to make the deputy clerk position full-time.

“Every township clerk is required to have a deputy and in many cases they’re only there in case the clerk is not available and they need somebody to come and sign a check or something. In many cases, that’s what the deputy is doing,” he said. “But, certainly, the township can encourage the clerk to find a deputy who’s more trained in the role or can look at it as more of a job instead of just, ‘I’m there just in case of emergency’, but bring in a deputy for working more hours and bring somebody in that can help take on some of those roles, even potentially outsourcing certain things like payroll.”

However, Selden acknowledged that hiring a full-time deputy will be difficult from a financial standpoint for many townships.

“There’s 1,240 townships, but roughly half of them have populations of under 2,000 people,” he said. “I mean, we have townships that have less than 200 people and some less than 100 people, and when you get into some of those smaller townships and maybe don’t have a lot of revenue, you don’t have a lot of people to choose from.”

But Siegrist says this is a systemic issue as even the largest municipalities aren’t looking to provide full-time deputy clerks.

Like democracy, election workers are under assault with many fearing for the future

“Look at Sterling Heights,” he said. “The president of the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks, Melanie Ryska, doesn’t have a deputy clerk. Sterling Heights is the fourth-largest jurisdiction in Michigan. It is abundantly clear that everybody wants the system to just function. They want to see the big reforms. They want to see the increased voting rights, and expansion of access. But for some reason, they want us to do it with magic, and they want one person to administer it, and they want us to sacrifice our personal lives to do it.”

Siegrist believes that the lack of urgency toward resolving this issue makes it become a self-fulling prophecy.

“They’ll find some poor unsuspecting soul to do the job for four years, but guess what they’re probably not going to do? Run for reelection,” he said. “Do you really want every four years to hit the reset button…and then when individuals attack the election system we get surprised when they give up equipment to these conspiracy theorists illegally? It’s all brand new clerks. They’re low information clerks. They’re people who get put in those positions, who don’t know how to do the job, and don’t treat it professionally.”

That reference was to several instances arising out of the 2020 election in which local clerks illegally turned over voting tabulators to supporters of former President Donald Trump trying to validate his disproven claims of massive voter fraud.

“If you keep doing this refresh every four years with partisan hacks, they’re going to behave like this. That’s not a secure system,” said Siegrist. “They’ll find a warm body to fog a mirror and sit in that position. But what’s the quality of service? That’s my concern. Township clerk; it’s not the same job it was 20 years ago. So that 20-year-ago solution ain’t gonna cut it.”

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and X.