The Road Before Us

2011 Book Awards

2012-01-01T16:14:00.000-06:00

What a better way to start off the New Year by remembering all the books I read in 2011? As I sit and enjoy beautiful Texas weather (meaning sunny and seventy degrees on January 2), I looked again through my day planner, and noted that I read 91 books this past year. Of these, twenty three were fiction. The bulk of my fiction reading involved Colleen McCullough’s Masters of Rome series, which consisted of seven different books that amounted to over 6,500 pages of enjoyable historical fiction. This series certainly deserves the title of my favorite work of fiction in 2011. Incidentally, the worst book that I read this year was Dow Mossman’s Stones of Summer. This book was so bad I made myself finish it; although I should have known that it was a stinker as it was published by my old employer Barnes and Noble.

As far as my favorite work of non-fiction, five works stand out. Honorable mentions include Matt Dillinger’s Interstate 69 (which provides an excellent look at on unfinished section of the interstate system) and Isabel Wilkerson’s Warmth of Other Suns that examines the tale of three participants in America’s Great Migration. My third place award goes to Harry Jaffe and Tom Sherwood’s Dream City: Race, Power, and Decline of Washington DC. Jaffe and Sherwood provide an extremely readable story of Washington DC’s decline between 1974 and 1994 under the leadership of Marion Barry, a fall that has been reversed in recent years by strong municipal leadership and a growing federal government workforce. Peter Goodwin claims second place with The Fear: Robert Mugabe and the Martyrdom of Zimbabwe. I read this book on the plane and was hooked on this personal and detailed narrative decline of Africa’s most successful country in the past thirty years. The other 64 works of non-fiction were great, but Don Peck’s Pinched: How the Great Recession Has Narrowed Our Futures and What We Can Do About It claims the title of my favorite book from 2011. Some readers of this blog might have come across Peck’s essay in Atlantic from this summer, but do yourself a service and read his book. While a shorter work, Pinched does a masterful job comparing the current recession with similar periods of economic malaise. Peck argues that broader transformation of America from a manufacturing to service based economy has created a elite class Americans who are largely located in distinct neighborhoods in a few metropolitan neighborhoods. At the same time, the social stability of many middle class households is declining and exhibits many of the same woes that plague inner-city neighborhoods. While Peck’s solutions at the end of Pinched could use some more details, I couldn’t recommend a better book for people to read to better understand our current economic predicament.

Dominic Pacyga, Chicago: A Biography
Alan Mallach, A Decent Home
Latimore et al, The Bogleheads’ Guide to Retirement Planning
Witold Rybczynski, Makeshift Metropolis: Ideas about Cities
Robert Caro: The Means of Ascent: LBJ from 1941-1948
Matt Dillinger, Interstate 69: The Unfinished History of the Last Great American Highway
Tom Wolfe, Bonfires of the Vanities
Randy Kennedy, Subwayland: Adventures in the World Beneath New York
WPA Guide to Dallas, Texas
Clyde Prestonwitz, The Betrayal of American Prosperity
Robert Harris, The Ghostwriter
Peter Hessler, Oracle Bones
Peter Hessler, Country Driving
Dallas AIA, Dallas AIA Guide
David Halberstam, The Coldest Winter
Ben Barnes, Barn Building, Barn Burning
Ruth Morgan, Governance By Decree
Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin
Michael Hazel (ed), Dallas Reconsidered: Essays in Local History
Dow Mossman, Stones of Summer
Terri Jentz, Strange Piece of Paradise
Cyril Paumler, Creating a Vibrant Center City
Peter Harnik, Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities
Vincent Bugolosi, Helter Skelter
Douglas Egerton, Years of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War
David Simon, Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets
David Potter, The Impending Crisis: America Between 1846 and 1861
Colleen McCullough, First Man in Rome
D Magazine, 30 Years of Great Stories
Al Greene, Big D: A History
Allan Jacobs, Looking at Cities
Colleen McCullough, The Grass Crown
Robert Fairbanks, For the City as a Whole: Planning in Dallas, 1840-1965
Colleen McCullough, Fortunes Favorites
Daniel Sharfstein, The Invisible Line: Three American Families and the Secret Journey from Black to White
Colleen McCullough, Caesar’s Women
Eric Pooley, The Climate War: True Belivers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth
Peter Goodwin, The Fear: Robert Mugabe and the Martyrdom of Zimbabwe
Bill Minutaglio, The Hidden City: Oak Cliff, Dallas, Texas
Colleen McCullough, Caesar
Peter Carr, A Month in the Country
Peter Goodwin, When a Crocodile Eats the Sun: A Memoir of Africa
Steve Luxenberg, Annie’s Ghost: A Journey into a Family Secret
Colleen McCullough, October Horse
Sebastian Junger, The Perfect Storm
Jeff Greenfield, Then Everything Changed: Stunning Alternate Histories of American Politics
David Grann, The Devil and Sherlock Holmes
Colleen McCullough, October Horse
Edward Glaeser, Triumph of the City
John Grisham, The Summons
John Grisham, The Associate
Sulieman Osman, The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the Search for Authenticity in Postwar New York
Isabel Wilkerson, The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration
Kevin Harney and Bob Brouwer, The U Turn Church
Henry Boonstra, Our School: Calvin College 1875-2001
Richard Rubin, A Confederacy of Silence: A True Tale of the New Old South
Sherwood Anderson, Winesburg, Ohio
Michael Lewis, Moneyball
Harry Jaffe and Tom Sherwood, Dream City: Race, Power, and Decline of Washington DC
John Grisham, The Confession
Ian Pears, Stone’s Fall
Luther Snow, Congregational Based Asset Mapping
Tony Judt, Reappraisals: Reflection on the Forgotten Twentieth Century
Peter Lovenheim, In the Neighborhood: The Search for Community on an American Street
Wendy Kopp, A Chance to Make History
Keith Meldahl, Hard Road West: History and Geology Along the Gold Rush Trail
Gil Rendle and Alice Munn, Holy Conversations: Strategic Planning as a Spiritual Practice for Congregations
Don Peck, Pinched: How the Great Recession Has Narrowed Our Futures and What We Can Do About It
Ben Cramer, What It Takes
Rick Perlstein, The Stock Ticker and the Super Jumbo: How the Democrats Can Again Become America’s Dominant Political Party
Ken Folett, Pillars of the Earth
Jack Rovoke, Original Meanings: Politics and the Ideas in the Making of the Constitution
Ken Folett, World Without End
James O’Shea, The Deal from Hell: How Moguls and Wall Street Plunder Great American Newspapers
Winfried Gallagher, House Thinking: A Room by Room Look at How We Live
Tea Obreht, The Tiger’s Wife
Donald Stroker, The Grand Design: Strategy and the American Civil War
Erik Larson, In the Garden of Beats: Love, Terror, and an American Family In Hitler’s Berlin
Ian Frazier, Roads to Siberia
Buzz Bizzinger, Three Nights in August
Ken Folett, Fall of Giants
Jeffrey Eugindes, The Marriage Plot
Colin Woodward, American Nations
Ray Jacobs, Home Buying for Dummies
Jennifer Gantz, Gotham in the Shadows of Moses and Jacobs
Heather Richardson, West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War
Herman Wouk, War and Remembrance
Larry McMurtry, Lonesome Dove
Andrew Meier, Black Earth: A Journey Through Russia After the Fall
John Mosier, The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One
Thomas Stanley, The Millionaire Next Door

Michigan: A Demographic and Political Analysis in Three Parts

2011-12-01T15:36:00.001-06:00

Part I: Introduction and General Population Trends, 1960-2010

Easily lost in all the hand wringing following last February’s announcement that Michigan was the only state in the Union to lose population over the past decade was the broader implications of the 2010 decennial census data. Michigan has experienced significant population transition within its borders over the past decades, and to better understand the impact of this shift I spent some time over the past few months reviewing census data for units of governments on the county subdivision level between 1960 and 2010.

I chose to analyze county subdivision level data for a number of reasons. First, county subdivisions, which are defined in Michigan as municipalities or townships, have largely had stable boundaries since 1960, thanks to the 1963 state constitution which limited physical growth by municipalities by placing high barriers against annexation by granting townships the ability to become charter townships. A township must have a population 2,000 to become a charter township, and under state statue charter townships that have a population density of greater than 150 people per square mile (along with a few other conditions) are protected from annexation by other municipalities. With the exception of Oakland County, there have been relatively few border changes and mergers of county subdivisions in the past 50 years. Secondly, census demographic and economic data is readily available starting with the 1970 census, and there is some racial data available from the 1960 census. This makes a longitudinal study of demographic changes in Michigan’s communities possible, and sheds light on changes that occurred following 1960. Finally, partisan electoral data that is available for county subdivisions shows the impact of these population and demographic changes.

Just a small note: some of the population numbers and demographic data to not add up to 100 percent, particularly for the 1980 census data. For example, in Burton City, the 1980 total population was 29,976, while the population total for the racial identification question was 29,929, a sum larger by 47 people. In this sort of instance I used the racial data to provide a demographic percentage for analysis, but kept the total population number given the 1980 census. All total population data from the 1960 to 1990 censuses were obtained from the Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget, while racial data for this time period were obtained from the National Historical Geographic Information System. Total population and racial data from the 2000 and 2010 census were obtained from the US Census website. Some municipalities are split between two counties, and tabulated as separate entities

General Population Trends, 1960-2010

Michigan’s population increased rapidly between 1960 and 1970, but grew at a much slower rate in the forty years that followed as shown in Figure 1. 7,823,194 residents lived in Michigan in 1960, a figure that climbed by more than a million ten years later to 8,875,083, a 13.4% increase. By 1980 the population increased to 9,262,078, a gain of 386,995 more residents. A modest growth in population followed in 1990 giving Michigan a population of 9,295,297 residents, and the economic growth during the following decade resulted in a total population of 9,938,444 and gain of 643,147 people. The economic malaise over the most recent decade dropped Michigan’s population by 54,804 residents.

As Figure 1 shows, Michigan’s population has become more diverse over the past fifty years. Racial and ethnic data gathered in 1960 asked respondents whether they were White or non-White, the later numbered 737,329, constituting 9.4% of the total population. By 2010 Michigan’s non-White population had more than doubled, reaching 21.1%. Michigan’s 2010 White population of 7,803,120 is smaller than its 1970 population (7,833,473), while the state’s Black population increased from 991,067 to 1,400,362 during the same time period. While the state’s Black and White population stagnated over the past decade, the number of Hispanic residents increased significantly, rising from 323,877 to 436,358. Asians also account for a growing share of Michigan’s population, growing from 175,311 to 238,199 over the past decade.

While Michigan’s was becoming more diverse, it was also becoming more dispersed. In 1960, Michigan’s 20 largest communities were home to more than 3,309,313 people, or 42% of the state’s total population, but 2010 these same 20 communities only were residences to 22.3% or 2,208,322. Figure 2 shows just how drastic the population decline was. Detroit accounts for 86.8% of the total population loss, but only six of the 20 subdivisions gained residents and of these only Ann Arbor and Warren added more than 40,000 residents. With the exception of Detroit and Flint, communities that lost residents overwhelmingly did so between 1960 and 1980, and stabilized somewhat in the thirty years that followed.

Communities that gained the most residents between 1960 and 2010 tended to be communities in metropolitan southeast Michigan that captured Detroit’s fleeing residents. Only two communities outside of metropolitan Detroit were among the top twenty (Georgetown Township in Ottawa County and Kentwood in Kent County).

Michigan’s population dispersal has reduced the state’s population density. While Michigan’s overall population density increased slightly from 138 persons per square mile in 1960 to 174 by 2010, the addition of 2,115,250 new residents during the same time period meant that much of the population growth went into new development on the outskirts of the urban fringe. The table below shows communities with the highest population density back in 1960. When viewed next to the 2010 population density figures, you can see what a beating the urban core of Michigan took in the past fifty years. While the Detroit metropolitan region could arguably supported a dense commuter rail network in 1960, as numerous communities had population densities greater than 4,000 people per square mile that is thought as the minimal density needed for effective mass transit, the de-densification of communities such as Detroit and Highland Park makes the implementation of mass transit much less cost-effective.

Of course the movement of people from central cities to suburbs is nothing new in Michigan, let alone the United States. However, the dispersal of Michigan’s White population from urban areas was matched by two smaller-sized migrations of Black residents. The first relatively minuscule migration was from historic rural Black areas of western Michigan (such as Lake, Van Buren, and Cass Counties) into other urban centers in Michigan, especially Benton Harbor, Flint, and Detroit. The second and larger migration was the movement away from core urban centers, especially in Detroit and Flint, to the surrounding suburbs. Most of the Black population movement has flown to working class suburbs on the periphery of established urban centers. Suburbs such as Harper Woods and Eastpointe literally changed overnight, while other communities such as Oak Park and Lathrup Village have steadily attracted new Black residents over decades.

In contrast to the movement of Black Michiganders, Hispanics have concentrated outside of Southeast Michigan and are spread throughout Michigan. Only 10% of the total Hispanic population resides Detroit and only make up 6.8% of the city’s total population. While county subdivisions with the greatest increase in the Hispanic share of the total population are listed below. Interestingly, rural communities in western Michigan are home to large sizable Hispanic populations, largely due to the reliance farming communities have on migrant workers who have historically been Hispanic. However, large Hispanic communities have moved to urban centers and suburbs in western Michigan, including Grand Rapids and Holland. Kent County in particular has a large Hispanic population that is just under 10% of the total population.

First Presbyterian Church Dallas Report

2011-10-17T14:12:00.001-05:00

First PresbyterIan Church of Dallas ReportAnother busy few weeks, that resulted in no postings. However, my Presbyterian friends might be interested in this report I did for a congregation in Dallas over the past few months.

Dallas's Demographic Transformation: 1990-2010

2011-10-04T11:47:00.000-05:00

So, as my absence from this blog shows, I've been busy. But until I get a decent chance to blog more fully, here is a report I did for my job that details Dallas's demographic transformation from 1990 to 2010. Enjoy.Dallas Demographics Report

Kent County redistricting plan violates long-standing principles- GR Press Editorial

2011-08-20T10:41:00.003-05:00

(Published in the Grand Rapids Press Saturday August 20, 2011-pb)

In Michigan, the seasons inevitably follow one another, although sometimes winter seems to last forever. In the same manner, partisan battles over redistricting assuredly follow the decennial census.

The redistricting rancor following the 2010 census, particularly in Michigan, has a special flavor; as congressional districts resembling a cross (State House District 32), the letter E (Senate District 1), and an indescribable district that snakes from the Del Ray neighborhood in Detroit to Pontiac in Oakland County (Congressional District 14) are now part of the state’s political geography for the next 10 years, should court challenges fail.

Unfortunately, cartographic oddities to create partisan gain clutter the new map approved for the Kent County Board of Commissioners. The Republican-drawn map violates long-standing principles of compactness and preserving communities of interest that had guided redistricting at the county level in the past three cycles.

The population deviation between the largest and smallest districts is 10.87 percent, a deviation that remains acceptable under state law based on dated case law (Abate v. Mundt) that could be open to a federal court challenge since the courts ruled in Larios v. Cox that population deviations larger than 10 percent are susceptible and not considered a “safe harbor.”

Similarly, the map violates the portions of Michigan law guiding county level redistricting and the “Apol Standards” which guide state and congressional redistricting by unnecessarily breaking municipal lines in the creation of districts. Finally, the map seeks to punish a number of supporters of the PDR movement in Kent County, forcing incumbents Stan Ponstein and Jack Boelema into a Republican primary, incumbents Jim Talen and Candace Chivis into a Democratic primary, and incumbent Republican Michael Wawee and Democrat Carol Hennessy into a general election matchup. Any map which sees to eliminate six incumbents who have long-standing ties with their districts deserves strict scrutiny.

A map which avoids the mistakes listed above is achievable and shown in the included maps and tables. This “rational” plan reduces the population deviation, creates two compact minority majority total population districts, reduces the number of municipal breaks, and preserves existing incumbent-district relationships.

Population Equality

I kept the population deviation percentage below 10 percent, with a total range of 9.1 percent that is smaller than the 10.87 percent population deviation in the accepted map. The largest district is District 9 (Grandville and southern Wyoming) with 33,181 people, while District 5 (Ada and Cascade) has the smallest population of 30,276 residents for a total deviation in population of 2,905, a figure which is smaller than the approved map and the Democratic plan.

Compact Minority-Majority Districts

This plan creates two minority majority districts in total population. The 14th District is a compact district consisting of the Black Hills and Roosevelt Park neighborhoods of Grand Rapids and the northeast portion of Wyoming that has served as the core Hispanic neighborhoods in the region for the past thirty years.

Similarly, the 16th District includes the core African American neighborhoods bounded by Wealthy Street, Fuller Avenue, Burton Street, and Jefferson Avenue, and also includes the growing African American presence south of 28th Street and west of Kalamazoo Avenue.

The 14th District has a Hispanic percentage of 53 percent and a voting age population percentage of 46 percent, while the 16th District has a African American population of 53 percent and a Voting Age Population of 52%.

Preserving Communities of Interest

The plan also minimizes the number of municipality breaks. The adopted plan has six municipalities broken into different districts, and 10 districts include split municipalities. This plan splits only four municipalities (Grand Rapids, Wyoming, Kentwood, and Gaines Township), and follows the requests of Plainfield Township and East Grand Rapids to each be kept in one county commission district. Similarly, in this plan there are seven districts that contain a split municipality (Districts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14), which is largely due to the fact that Grand Rapids, Wyoming, and Kentwood are too large to contain in a single commission seat.

The Board of Commissioners map adopted by the Kent County Redistricting Commission is one that will not serve the metropolitan Grand Rapids region well for the next 10 years. Representative democracy works best when ties between legislators and their constituents are visible both in common sense and on a map.

As James Madison once noted in Federalist 10, “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” This statement has not historically applied to those who have led Kent County since 1831, although the adopted map certainly does.

A former resident of Grand Rapids, Peter Bratt is redistricting coordinator for the City of Dallas, Texas, and writes frequently on Michigan history and politics at peterabratt.blogspot.com. E-mail: peterbratt@gmail.com

The Other Part of the Story

2011-06-29T08:47:00.003-05:00

(photo credit Tyler Wright)

For those not familiar with recent American historical scholarship on urban history over the past two decades, the book that defined the field was Thomas Sugrue’s The Origins of the Urban Crsis: Race and Inequity in Postwar Detroit. Sugrue’s Origins launched a reconsideration of the standard narrative of America’s post-war urban decline. In this influential work, Sugrue documents the spatial and racial tensions within Detroit after 1945 that created fierce battles over housing, employment, and space, which led to a white conservative city leadership that drew support from white neighborhood groups and downtown business interests. However, the city’s leadership was unable to stem the massive deindustrialization that occurred within Detroit over the next twenty years, as manufacturing firms moved to modern facilities in the suburbs smaller cities, laying off numerous workers whom were predominately African American. As city residents adjusted to rising economic insecurity, residents struggled to define spatial boundaries of race, leading to ferocious grassroots activism from white neighborhood associations against African American residents seeking residential and social mobility.

By pushing the start date of “discontent” with growth liberalism back to 1945, Origins allows for a broad understanding of growth liberalism’s tensions, especially between African Americans seeking economic security and whites seeking property security within the confines of the New Deal coalition.

The ideologies of grassroots racial and individual liberalism formulated in Origins remains somewhat incomplete. Were members of these coalitions motivated by economic and property interests alone? Such a limited definition reduces the powerful role that religious conservatism played in developing the rise of individual liberalism in Michigan, especially amongst white ethnics whose sense of place was dominated by spatial religious boundaries. At the same time, racial liberalism was also strongly influenced by a rising religious ideology of liberation and social justice theology that replaced the cautious religious conservatism that marked much of the African American leadership.

If Origins focused on the dismantling of “growth liberalism” (ie New Deal liberalism) through the forces of spatial segregation, deindustrialization, and political fracturing in places like Detroit, Suleiman Osman’s The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the Search for Authenticity in Postwar New York looks at another story that began in the midst of the old order shattering. Osman’s work, which came out in March, provides a stunning addition to the literature on post-war urban America and fully deserves the status acclaimed to Sugrue’s work. Both Origins of the Urban Crisis and Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn are books well worth adding to your summer reading list.

As its title suggests, The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn looks at the gentrification of the brownstone neighborhoods in Brooklyn that were largely built between 1830 and 1910. These neighborhoods are now familiar to a generation of hipsters, as places such as Brooklyn Heights, Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Park Slope, Fort Greene seem to provide a level of urban authenticity that may children of a suburban nation seek to reshape their identity. Yet this present day understanding of Brooklyn as a patchwork of distinct neighborhoods is largely a creation of the new residents who arrived in the post-industrialization of Brooklyn, residents who were overwhelmingly whiter, wealthier, better educated, and closely identified with the grassroots urban rebellion best exemplified by Jane Jacobs. In order to create a sense of place, both to establish their communities and identify their neighborhoods as marketable places for other potential likeminded homebuyers, these residents researched their neighborhoods, using history to create an identity in the urban wilderness, often using geographic identifications that predated the industrial metropolis.

A resurgent localism is a hallmark of The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn. The local neighborhood, having been freed from being part of the working class urban wilderness, was reclaimed as an organic and authentic neighborhood that rested in historical value. The new residents rejected the growth liberalism of Robert Moses that stressed new highways, new buildings, and the Corbusian model for the city in the garden, and instead pushed for “the ballet of the street” that Jane Jacobs spoke elegantly about in The Death and Life of American Cities. This localism was also expressed in political identity, as the new residents rejected the ethnic Democratic “machine” politics and instead joined reform Democratic organizations that eventually gained political prominence.

If Origins of the Urban Crisis focused on the conflict between ethnic white and African Americans, The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn finds that a three-way battle occurred between the white-collar whites, the ethnic whites, and African Americans. Much as in Anthony Lucas’ Common Ground, the bitterest conflict was often between the ethnic and white collar whites, the latter who tried to identify and work with African Americans, but at the same time helped bring an economic revitalization of neighborhoods that pushed out these residents with high real estate prices.

Does Osman’s case study of Brooklyn fit in the larger context of urban America? In certain other northeast metropolitan regions like Philadelphia, Baltimore, and even Chicago, what happened in Brooklyn is similar. On a much smaller scale, this is what happened in Grand Rapids’ Heritage Hill and Wealthy Street neighborhoods. However, the post-industrial centers such as metropolitan Detroit and many other declining Midwestern regions, it would be hard to a similar situation unfolding. While the Midwest as a whole has struggled economically, I would think that the twin factors of economic decentralization and the resulting job sprawl limits the possibility the feasibility a Brooklyn-like revitalization occurring.

That is not to say that such an urban reinvention could not occur in the Midwest. Given the incredibly low cost of housing, one would think that regional or state-wide policies would be helpfully ingredients to add to the revitalization toolkit, including college tuition support, consolidation of duplicative governmental services, and increasing the costs of greenfield development while encouraging urban redevelopment to reduce job sprawl. Given the important of regional economic and housing strategies today, policymakers would be well advised to consider creating additional tools to ensure that both the local neighborhoods and regional employment base can thrive in a world ironically closer to the brownstone than to the assembly line.

First thoughts on the new 3rd District

2011-06-19T10:26:00.004-05:00

(Photo Credit T.J. Hamilton)

Lost in the middle of the extended Memorial Day weekend was the leaking of a draft Congressional District map drawn by the Redistricting Committee Republicans in the State House and Senate. Since the Detroit News and Grand Rapids Press have covered this story within their pages, I won’t go into greater detail about how the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was deeply involved with drawing the map. This map was confirmed when the Republican members of the Redistricting Committees in the State House and Senate released their maps last week Friday morning.

However, the newly drawn 3rd District deserves a closer look. While Terri Land thought otherwise in the Grand Rapids Press article (stating “we really have dodged a bullet for a long time here by not having Kent County split”), Kent County is split under the existing map, with the 3rd District encompassing the whole of Ionia and Barry Counties, and includes all of Kent County with the exception of Alpine, Solon, Sparta, and Tyrone Townships (which are in the 2nd District). Under the proposed map, the new 3rd District would include the entirety of Barry, Calhoun, and Ionia Counties, and portions of Kent and Montcalm Counties. Only a small part of Montcalm County containing portion Greenville City and Eureka Township would be in the 3rd, while all of Kent County with the exception of part of Byron Township, Walker, Grandville, Wyoming, and Kentwood would be in the new district.

The breaking up of metropolitan Grand Rapids into two Congressional Districts is a first-time occurrence since Michigan gained statehood in 1837. I consider metropolitan Grand Rapids to consist of Grand Rapids, Wyoming, Kentwood, Grand Rapids Township, East Grand Rapids, Grandville, and Walker. While moving the suburbs of Walker, Grandville, Wyoming, and Kentwood into the 2nd District might have been due to Republican leaders in Kent County wanting a member of Congress who actually represented his constituents, the new map also removes some portions of the metropolitan region that became increasingly Democratic over the past decade. In particular, Kentwood moved from being a Republican stronghold to a competitive (if Republican leaning) municipality. With the new 3rd District population at 714, 539 residents, this proposed district is 8,565 over the 705,974 congressional district size, meaning that a portion of Kentwood or Wyoming is likely to be assigned to District 3.

From a review of election data between 1998 and 2010 (as well as the 2010 census data), it doesn’t appear that the new map helps current Republican Congressman Justin Amash with reelection in 2012. The new 3rd District was made more Democratic to help preserve the seats of Republicans Tim Walberg (District 7) and Thad McCotter (District 11). 25% of the new 3rd District will have not been previously represented by Amash in Congress, while 24% Amash’s current district will move to the 2nd District. An overwhelming percentage of these new residents in the 3rd District will hail from Calhoun County, which has historically been a Democratic stronghold. Calhoun County had a population of 136,146 in 2010, with half of its population living in Democratic strongholds of Battle Creek (52,347), Springfield (5,189), and Albion (8,616), where the Democratic baseline has not fallen below 60% in the past five election cycles.

Looking at the new 3rd District from the past six election cycles, the data shows that it will take the right Democratic candidate to win this seat. Only two Democratic candidates have won the new 3rd District: Barack Obama with 50.4%, and Carl Levin with 54.2% in 2008. Granholm came close to winning the district in 2006 with 49.4%, and Stabenow received 48.9%. Democrats further down the ticket tended to under-perform, although the Democratic baseline for the district was 46.7% in 2008 and 44.3% in 2006. Democrats throughout the 3rd District did far poorer in 2010, and the Democratic baseline dropped to 42.3%

The Democratic strategy for within the new 3rd District would be as follows: Have at least a 25,000 vote edge from the city of Grand Rapids, win a majority in Kent County, win Battle Creek, Springfield, and Albion with a 7,000 vote margin, carry Calhoun County with at least 55% of the vote, and get at least 45% of the vote in Barry and Ionia Counties. A tall order, but certainly doable.

The great challenge for a Democratic candidate would be to find money to advertise in the two media markets of Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids. Will the impact of television advertising is, at best, minimal on getting voters to the voting booth, it is still a required part of any effective campaign. A Democratic would also benefit from having a number of urban areas in the district (Grand Rapids, Battle Creek, Albion, and Greenville) that are strong Democratic centers and also eminently walkable by canvassers. In order to have a candidate make a strong effort at cutting the GOP margin in rural Kent, Ionia, and Barry Counties, there needs to be a revitalization of the Democratic County parties to build a presence in these areas.

Given that Amash underperformed the Republican baseline by 3% in 2010, this district should be a potential opportunity for the Democrats to challenge again in 2012. Having a candidate like Mark Schauer would be a big coup for the Democrats, given that Schauer has consistently overperformed the Democratic baseline in every race he's been in since winning election to the State House in 1996. I've averaged the last six races Schauer ran, and it averages to about 4%. While this wasn't enough to save Schauer in the 2010 GOP wave, I wouldn't under estimate his ability to win in a new district. In many respects, the new GOP congressional map had to make the decision whether to through Schauer's home county of Calhoun in Walberg or Amash's district. It shows the State Republicans' dislike for the 3rd District Representative when they deliver him the unwanted gift of a potential Schauer challenge.

Where Things Went Wrong 50 Years Ago

2011-06-14T09:24:00.006-05:00

(Photo Credit: PhotoLab507)

Since I have been very busy with work over the past few months, I have neglect writing on the blog. However, I had a GR Press reporter ask me a few months ago about my article about planning in Grand Rapids between 1949 and 1959. In particular, he asked what I thought would have worked better than the reformers' strategy to work with the business coalition and pursue downtown urban renewal.

As far as specific decisions go, the rejection of the 1959 consolidation measure by the voters was a blow, but I don't think it would have changed the underlying development of the GR region. If I were among the powers that be back in 1961 (and I'm not among them even in 2011), I certainly would have focused more on neighborhood revitalization strategies earlier than working on downtown renewal. The city lost almost 20,000 people between 1970 and 1980, although some of the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown were already losing people by 1960. However, the two biggest blunders that occurred this time period was 1) the siting of Grand Valley State University (GVSU) in Allendale, and 2) the locating of GR Airport southeast of Grand Rapids.

(Photo Credit: Tyler Vogt)

GVSU was located in the farmland of west Michigan largely because the land was available and it was the policy of the state of Michigan to locate new campuses in greenfield developments. GR could have done something similar to what was done in Chicago with the University of Illinois-Chicago campus-put a new large institution on the edge of downtown to shore of the business district. I think locating the school somewhere on the existing GRCC campus, or to the west of Downtown where the Pew campus is now located, would have done a lot of creating a commercial base so needed in downtown. A thoughtful acknowledgment of the role a community college has in the region would move GRCC from its downtown campus to Calvin's old campus at Franklin and Fuller, and the creating of a new branch campus in Wyoming near the city's commercial core. Putting four different GRCC campuses in the larger metropolitan region (one in the urban core, one in "downtown" Wyoming, one on the west side of Grand Rapids, and a final campus in Kentwood) could have tied the metropolitan core closer together along educational and institutional lines.

The other single pressing mistake was the location of the airport in its current placement on the far edge of southeast Kentwood. The metropolitan region of west Michigan is the Holland/Muskegon/Grand Rapids triangle, and by all accounts the airport should have been located at some point on the west side of the Grand, most likely in Walker near the intersection of 96, Kinney, and Richmond. the later addition of Interstate 196 could have been easily moved Wilson Road to M-45, and then cut to downtown. This relocation would have made the west Michigan much more of a unified economic region and the west side of Grand Rapids would have been easily available for zoning as industrial, thus preserving the city's industrial fabric.

Finally, while highways are necessary but often done in a poorly designed fashion, I am a big fan of parks. The city had a master plan drawn up in 1917 that has some beautiful sketches of parkways along Plaster and Silver Creeks, as well as the Grand and Thornapple River. If we had developed a parkway system, as well as creating a greenbelt park system around the metro region as proposed by Fred Meijer in 2004 (before it was voted down). The broader Grand Rapids needs to have a land use policy that makes it stand out among other Midwestern communities. Right now it does not.

In his new book The Triumph of the City, Edward Glaeser argues that the American city, long the whipping child for ever failing in American social policy since the Revolution, is much more environmentally sustainable and the hotbed of American economic innovation in the revitalizing economy. To continue pushing federal policies that subsidize sprawl, underwrites mortgages for large homes built in greenfield developments, and enforce euclidean zoning as opposed to form-based zoning is a recipe for doom.

RAPID Sprawl

2011-05-02T19:53:00.002-05:00

No pun intended, but there is an election in various communities across Michigan tomorrow that deserves your attention. Unlike last year, I won’t go into detail on what the end result will be, but I do expect the Rapid millage to pass by a more comfortable margin than the Grand Rapids property tax millage did a year ago. The supporters of the Rapid millage are much better organized, willing to contest the ITP Watch folks aggressively online, and have effectively mobilized the GOTV efforts. I’d put the margin at 54% in favor, give or take 2% (A full and frank disclosure notice: I have advised the Friends of Transit for this millage issue-PB).

The bigger question that needs to be answered on Wednesday morning after the election results come in. Three stories from today’s Grand Rapids Press tell the tale of continued sprawl; the relocation of the regional Social Security office from downtown Grand Rapids to Celebration Village, the continued attempts to develop an urban lifestyle center at East Beltline and Knapp Avenue, and the continued rise in gasoline prices in the region and the United States. The United States in many ways is like a gambler who placed all his bets on one chip, and in this case the gambler placed the chips on the automobile at the expense of other transportation options, whether it be rail transit, buses, biking, or walking. The American way of life that became a natural birthright after 1945 has tied this nation to the path of continued sprawl, whether in terms of employment or housing that is largely inaccessible without an automobile. While gas prices might go down slightly in the next few years, it only buys this nation some more time to put some long-needed land use and transit policies into place. Americans love to mock Europeans for their high gas taxes and mass transit, but the bet European nations made to rebuilt their mass transit systems in the aftermath of World War Two is a bet that surely looks better than the one the United States made.

The successful passage of the Rapid measure will help metropolitan Grand Rapids better address the needs of serving a largely metropolitan region. However, the answer to limiting regional employment and housing sprawl lies with all the communities within Kent County, especially those on the outlying fringe of the urban core. There is a role for government in reforming our current land use policies, and that is to diminish the incentives for sprawl that redirect development to the existing core and to reduce the strain of providing infrastructure to new green field developments. The City of Grand Rapids recently adopted a form-based zoning code that restores traditional land use planning that existed before the 1920s, and I encourage all communities within metropolitan Grand Rapids to consider following this path. The Rapid millage in not a silver bullet for long-standing problems facing metropolitan Grand Rapids, but it is certainly a start.

Mark your calendars

2011-04-09T21:21:00.004-05:00

Photo credit Brian Kelly

Folks in Texas have a saying about the summer. Summer lasts from Memorial Day to October, and it is best enjoyed in Colorado. Now, since this year will be my first summer in Texas, Susan and I have decided to avoid it for a bit longer by heading to Michigan for Memorial Day week. Colorado will have to wait another year.

Every time we visit west Michigan is wonderful, but we often are so caught up meeting with family that we miss our friends. Or, getting together with friends is a last minute event that is very hard to fit in everyone's schedule. So, this time I'm going to do things a bit differently. If you are interested in hanging out for dinner, or drinks, or just catching up, level a comment on this post, or give me an email at peterbratt at gmail.com. It would be great to see you all again, and I hope that you feel the same way.

2010 Recap Part III: A Polarized Electorate

2011-04-05T10:09:00.004-05:00

While Michigan was among the last states to have its 2010 Census data released, the wait was well worth it. The story that the media covered was Detroit’s 26% population loss since the 2000 Census. As I mentioned in an earlier post, in 1950 Detroit was home to 29% of the state’s population, a figure that has since dropped to 7% by the 2010 Census. The story of Michigan since then end of the era of “Grand Expectations” between 1945 and 1974 is one of painful economic restructuring from a industrial to a service-based economy, population dispersal (whether from core cities to suburbs or to other states), and growing income/economic inequity within the state.

Michigan’s story since 1974 also must be understood as one with continued voter polarization by race and location. As always, this story is best told with a mixture of data and narrative, and this post try to provide both. Tables One and Two, shows the Michigan’s population by current state house and state senate districts in both 2000 and 2010. As you can see, in 2000 Michigan had 9,938,444 residents, with 80% of the state’s population White, 14% African American, 3% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 2% Other. By 2010 the state’s population declined to 9,883,640, and the White share of the population dropped to 77%, the African American share remained around 14%, the Hispanic percentage increased to 4%, while the Asian share of the population remained at 2%. To put the story in numbers, the state lost 54,804 residents over the past decade. The White population dropped by almost 400,000 (396,114 residents to be precise), 28,986 African Americans were lost, while the Hispanic and Asian population increased by 112,481 and 59,980 respectively.

Table Three shows that this population decline was not evenly dispersed between amongst the state’s legislative districts. Among both the State House and Senate seats, districts experiencing the greatest population loss were concentrated within the city of Detroit, as well as urban core districts throughout the state. In contrast, districts representing outlying portions of metropolitan Detroit and western Michigan experienced growth. At the same time, the racial composition of these districts changed over the decade. For example, the Hispanic population grew by more than 7,000 in the 77th State House seat (Wyoming and Byron Township), so that now it is has the third largest Hispanic population percentage in the state (training districts 76 (Grand Rapids) and 12 (southeast Detroit). At the same time, the dispersal of African Americans from the City of Detroit shows in its growing population share in various suburban districts. District 1 (Grosse Points, Harper Woods, Far East Detroit) had its African American share of the population increase from 21% to 35% in a decade, which somewhat explains the seat’s trending to the Democratic column. Likewise, in District 12 (southeast Detroit), the White share of the population dropped from 44% in 2000 to 20% in 2010, while the Hispanic share jumped from 42% to 55%.

Table Four is perhaps the table of most immediate interest for mapmakers and strategists within the state. This table shows the Voting Age Population (VAP), which consists of residents over the age of 18, for the current state house and senate districts. A careful review of the data shows that the VAP tends to be slightly more White than the total population, largely because the Hispanic population is younger than White and African Americans.

Back in November I did a bit of regression analysis to see what impact race had the 2010 elections. I looked at 55 state house seats, and found that the Democratic baseline average from 2004-2008 largely predicted the 2010 result. Since I have the average Democratic baseline for the past four election cycles by Senate and House district, I decided to run another regression test to if a district’s Democratic baseline could be a predictor for the same district’s racial breakdown, and expanded it to the state senate seats as well.

The result is shown in Tables Five and Tables Six(all in the same Google Spreadsheet linked above) shows that racial voting polarization is alive and well in Michigan. In state house seats, the White VAP% and the Democratic baseline explained 77% of the variation, and is significant well beyond the .05 level, while the African American VAP% had a r-squared score of .751, and was likewise significant beyond the .05 level. Both tests also had significant T-scores. In looking at the data, with just one exception, every state house or senate district with an African American population share of greater than 10% received a Democratic baseline percentage above 50%. Similarly, one a district’s White VAP dropped below 74% of the total population, the Democratic baseline never fell below 53%. In contrast, Table Seven shows that the Hispanic VAP% does not have significance on the Democratic baseline percentage.

The state senate results were similar to the state house data. Table Eight shows the White VAP% and the Democratic baseline with a r-squared score of .79 and is significant well beyond the .05 level. The African VAP% in Table Nine has a r-square score of .81 and was likewise significant beyond the .05 level. The Hispanic VAP% in Table Ten did not have significance in the state senate. Like the state house, any district with a White VAP% below 72% or an African American VAP% above 19% gave a Democratic baseline score above 51%.

What does this all mean as 2012 nears? While elections are about candidates, political parties, and voter mobilization, the way the 38 State Senate and 110 State House seats are drawn to protect the current GOP majorities in each chamber will need to also take into consideration the continual dispersal of African Americans into suburban communities. Likewise, the growth of Hispanic communities in various districts (Senate Senate District 29 and State House Districts 77 and 90) might cause future problems for the GOP if the Democratic Party can ever get around to mobilizing these voters. However, perhaps the most interesting story is whether another GOP drawn map can withstand long-term demographic trends in Michigan. The 2001 map, which was perhaps the best drawn GOP plan outside of Texas, collapsed in 2006 on the state level, and fell on the national level in 2008. While the GOP gained back all these losses and some in 2010, the sheer number of GOP legislatures might force the map makers in each chamber to draw aggressive maps to protect their enlarged ranks. That could spell trouble in a bad election year.

Michigan in 2010

2011-03-22T16:42:00.003-05:00

I'll be posting a lot on the 2010 data for Michigan, but let's start with a depressing post on Michigan's ten largest cities. These cities tell a depressing tell a depressing tale in 2010. Check out this Google document for the ten largest cities in the State of Michigan as of 2010:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdHBkLXVaaUZxcXA3cUN1X2xCcXZIbHc&hl=en&authkey=COKg_OcC

You can see a slow but steady drop in population among all of Michigan's core cities (Detroit, GR, Flint and Lansing), while the core suburbs (Warren, Sterling Heights, Dearborn, and Livonia pretty much peaked in 1980, and have seen their population remain static or decline. Only Ann Arbor has seen its population increase, although it too has remained static since 1990.

I could pull the records back further, but I think that the last two rows tell the larger story of Michigan's decline. The population of its large cities/suburbs, have dropped from being 39% of the population in 1950 to 17% today. Detroit in follows this decline, falling from containing 29% of Michigan's total population in 1950 to 7% in 2010. Until Michigan's core cities, including Detroit, start growing again, I can't see an easy way to improve the state.

Excellent Post from Rustwire

2011-03-21T08:23:00.003-05:00

I read an excellent post from Rustwire.com by Andrew Basile, Jr., a CEO of a company based in Troy, Michigan. I've posted the post in full-below, in part because I think it is important for people to realize that a good business environment is more than just low taxes. Enjoy and discuss.

From: Andrew Basile, Jr
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 12:16 PM
Subject: Why our growing firm may have to leave Michigan.

All,

I hope you find this essay of interest/value. It’s probably something you’ve heard a million times but I thought I ought to at least try to vocalize it rather than silently surrender.

We have a patent law firm in Troy. In 2006, our firm’s legacy domestic automotive business collapsed. We rebuilt our practice with out-of-state clients in a range of industries, including clients like Google, Nissan and Abbott Labs, located in the US, Japan, Europe and China.

Today, we have 40 highly-paid employees and much of our work now comes from out of state. This makes us a service exporter. We are very proud of the contribution our firm makes to the local economy. We also created a not-for-profit incubator using excess space in our office. The incubator is home to 4 start-ups, all of which are generating revenue and two of which have started employing people. This is something we do without charge as a charity to help the state.

We’d like to stay in Michigan, but we have a problem. It’s not taxes or regulations. There’s lots of talk about these issues but they have no impact on our business. We spend more on copiers and toner than we do on state taxes.

Our problem is access to talent. We have high-paying positions open for patent attorneys in the software and semiconductor space. Even though it is one of the best hiring environments for IP firms in 40 years, we cannot fill these positions. Most qualified candidates live out of state and simply will not move here, even though they are willing to relocate to other cities. Our recruiters are very blunt. They say it is almost impossible to recruit to Michigan without paying big premiums above competitive salaries on the coasts.

It’s nearly a certainty that we will have to relocate (or at a minimum expand) our business out of Michigan if we want to grow. People – particularly affluent and educated people – just don’t want to live here. For example, below are charts of migration patterns based on IRS data Black is inbound, red is outbound. Even though the CA economy is in very bad shape, there is still a mass migration to San Francisco vs. mass outbound migration from Oakland County (most notably to cities like SF, LA, Dallas, Atlanta, NY, DC, Boston, and Philly) San Fran only seems to be losing people to Portland, a place with even more open space and higher quality urban environments.

Recession or no, isn’t it screamingly obvious that people with choices in life – i.e. people with money and education – choose not to live here? We are becoming a place where people without resources are grudgingly forced to live. A place without youth, prospects, respect, money or influence.

There’s a simple reason why many people don’t want to live here: it’s an unpleasant place because most of it is visually unattractive and because it is lacking in quality living options other than tract suburbia. Some might call this poor “quality of life.” A better term might be poor “quality of place.” In Metro Detroit, we have built a very bad physical place. We don’t have charming, vibrant cities and we don’t have open space.

Having moved here from California five years ago, I will testify that Metro Detroit is a very hard place to live. Ask any former Detroiter in California, and you will hear a consistent recital of the flaws that make Metro Detroit so unattractive. Things are spread too far apart. You have to drive everywhere. There’s no mass transit. There are no viable cities. Lots of it is really ugly, especially the mile after mile of sterile and often dingy suburban strip shopping and utility wires that line our dilapidated roads (note above). There’s no nearby open space for most people (living in Birmingham, it’s 45 minutes in traffic to places like Proud Lake or Kensington). It’s impossible to get around by bike without taking your life in your hands. Most people lead sedentary lifestyles. There’s a grating “car culture” that is really off-putting to many people from outside of Michigan. I heard these same complaints when I left 25 years ago. In a quarter century, things have only gotten considerably worse.

Ironically, California is supposed to be a sprawling place. In my experience they are pikers compared to us. Did you know that Metro Detroit is one half the density of Los Angeles County? The fundamental problem it seems to me is that our region as gone berserk on suburbia to the expense of having any type of nearby open space or viable urban communities, which are the two primary spatial assets that attract and retain the best human capital. For example, I noted sadly the other day that the entire Oakland Country government complex was built in a field 5 miles outside of downtown Pontiac. I find that decision shocking. What a wasted opportunity for maintaining a viable downtown Pontiac, not to mention the open space now consumed by the existing complex. What possibly could have been going through their minds? Happily, most of the men who made those foolish decisions 30 or 40 years ago are no longer in policy-making roles. A younger generation needs to recognize the immense folly that they perpetrated and begin the costly, decades long task of cleaning up the wreckage.

These are problems, sure, but they could be easily overcome, especially in Oakland County which is widely recognized as one of the best-run large counties in the country. But despite our talents and resources, the region’s problem of place may be intractable for one simple, sorry reason: our political and business leadership does not view poor quality of place as a problem and certainly lacks motivation to address the issue.

Indeed, Brooks Patterson — an otherwise extraordinary leader — claims to love sprawl and says Oakland Country can’t get enough of it. These leaders presume that the region has “great” quality of life (apparently defined as big yards, cull de sacs and a nearby Home Depot). In their minds, we just need to reopen a few more factories and all will be well. The cherished corollary to this is that Michigan and Metro Detroit have an “image” problem and that if only people knew great things were
they would consider living or investing here. The attitude of many in our region is that our problems are confined to Detroit city while the suburbs are thought to be lovely.

We don’t have a perception problem, we have a reality problem. Most young, highly talented knowledge workers from places like Seattle or San Francisco or Chicago find the even the upper end suburbs of Metro Detroit to be unappealing. I think long term residents including many leaders are simply so used to the dreary physical environment of Southeast Michigan that it has come to seem normal, comfortable and maybe even attractive. Which is fine so long as we have no aspiration to attract talent and capital from outside our region.

My fears were confirmed when I began trying to gather local economic development literature to use as a recruiting tool. The deficits which so dog our region are sometimes heralded by this literature as assets. For example, some boosters trumpet our “unrivaled” freeway system as if freeways and sprawl they engender are “quality of life” assets. In San Francisco, the place sucking up all the talent and money, they have removed — literally torn out of the ground — two freeways because people prefer not to have them. I noted one “Quality of Life” page of a Detroit area economic development website featured a prominent picture of an enclosed regional shopping mall! Yuck. It’s theater of the absurd.

The people who put together that website must live in a different cultural universe from the high income/high education people streaming out of Michigan for New York, Chicago, and California. Not only is there no plan to address these issues, I fear that the public and their elected leaders in Michigan don’t even recognize the problem or want change. We have at least one bright spot in the nascent urban corridor between Pontiac, and Ferndale, which is slowly building a critical mass of
walkable urban assets. At the same time, there’s no coordinated effort to develop this. Indeed, MDOT officials lie awake at night thinking of ways to thwart the efforts of local communities along Woodward to become more walkable. Another symptom the region’s peculiar and self-destructive adoration of the automobile. Even though the Big Three are a tiny shadow of their former selves, Michigan is still locked
in the iron grip of their toxic cultural legacy.

I’d like to hang on another five years. I feel like we’re making a difference. But by the same token, I don’t see any forward progress or even an meaningful attempt at forward progress. It’s almost like the people running things are profoundly disconnected from the reality that many if not most talented knowledge workers find our region’s paradigm of extreme suburbanization to be highly unattractive. It seems
to me that we are halfway through a 100 year death spiral in which the forces in support of the status quo become relatively stronger as people with vision and ambition just give up and leave. As we descend this death spiral, we must in my mind be approaching the point of no return, where the constituency for reform dwindles below a critical threshold and the region’s path of self destruction becomes unalterable.

Thank you for considering my views. I welcome any opportunity to be of help to any efforts you may have to fix this.
Andrew Basile, Jr.

2010 Recap Part III: Recalling the Past

2011-03-13T19:08:00.002-05:00

I have put off writing the two remaining sections of analysis of the 2010 election in Michigan in part because I am still waiting on voter file data to arrive from the Secretary of State, as well as receiving corrected voter tallies from November. When that does arrive I will do a final write up on results.

However, the political events of the past few weeks in Wisconsin, as well as the forthcoming school district elections in early May in Michigan (along with the municipal general election for blog readers in Texas), have motivated me to write a third post on a rather timely topic: field operations. With labor confident of recalling a number of Republican state senators in Wisconsin, and local campaigns making promises to bring an unprecedented number of voters to the polls in many states, any realistic campaigner needs to throw the old campaign playbook out the window.

In 2004 Donald Green and Alan Gerber came out with a great little book entitled Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. The book was significantly updated in 2008 with additional case studies, but the basic message remained the same: traditional campaign methods that have developed over the past thirty years are rather worthless. Green and Gerber scientifically analyzed turnout measures used by over 75 campaigns between 1998 and 2007, and determined the cost effectiveness of various turnout methods. Think sending a robocall with Bill Clinton reminding your base voters to vote will increase turnout? Green and Gerber find that robocalls have no effect on increasing turnout. Does doing three hits of direct mail to flood voters’ mailboxes in the last weekend of the campaign send people flying to vote? Once again, there is no evidence of any effect. In the same way, television ads, direct mail, and commercial phone banking has a minimal impact on increasing voter turnout. Give that the television market is very fragmented among basic and cable channels, the impact of advertisement on the airwaves is lost in a world of information overload. Similarly, Facebook and other social media is an excellent way to repeat your campaign message ad nauseam, but this is not going to do anything to increase turnout.

What does seem to work, and is rather cost effective at that, is extensive door-to-door canvassing. The authors calculate that door-to-door canvassing results in one vote per 14 contacts, which averages a voter contact cost of $29. Many campaigns use direct mail to bring the election bell, and this was certainly the case in 2010. For example, in the 2010 general election, State Senate candidate David Hildenbrand spent almost $23,000 on a mass mailing (which included paying for literature, mailing costs, and developing a voter list). If Hidlenbrand had spent this money on door-to-door canvassing, he would have likely would have gained about 650 more votes on Election Day. Given that Hildenbrand narrowly won on November 2, this decision did not adversely impact his efforts. However, for the five Democratic State House candidates who lost by less than 500 votes on the same day, the redirecting of $25,000 to a more effective ground game would have carried them over the top, resulting in a much smaller GOP edge in the State House of 58-52 (as opposed to the current 63 to 49 edge).

If there was any one candidate in particular who took the lessons outlined in the first edition of Get Out the Vote, it was Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry. This article in the Texas Observer is an excellent piece on his campaign’s efforts to develop an extremely effective turnout machine over the past four years, and I recommend that you read it in full. As much as one might disagree with Perry’s priorities and secessionist tendencies, his reelection after thumping his opponents in the Republican primary in June and besting Democrat Bill White in November 2010 is nothing short of amazing after being declared dead by most observers in late 2009. While Perry spent heavily on the airwaves and direct mail, his campaign also invested handsomely in developing a very strong door-to-door campaign game.

The lessons from Get Out the Vote are even more important for races with low turnout that require careful voter targeting. A school board election in Michigan, for example, will, at best, get 20% turnout, with turnout around 15% much more likely. When you run television ads and other paid media, only 20% of the voting population will really be interested. Likewise, direct mail has a horrible record of increasing voter turnout for small turnout campaigns. In the end, through careful use of voter files, a campaign should stick to door-to-door contacting, volunteer phone banking, and run a vigorous absentee voter contact operation. In the potential recall elections in Wisconsin, it is especially important to reach out to voters who typically do not show up at special elections. While I’m not certain that the Democrats will be able to get the needed number signatures to recall the eight Wisconsin State Senators, but if the recall elections do occur, I seriously hope that the state Democratic Party will read Get Out the Vote before wasting much needed funds on television advertising and direct mail and instead resort to old fashion door-to-door campaign. Also, you might want to call someone who does political number crunching and mapping. Just a thought.

The American Mind, 150 Years Later

2011-03-01T15:11:00.004-06:00

With the 150th anniversary of the shelling of Fort Sumter is fast approaching, I’m reminded how the 150 years since the American Civil war is not really all that long ago. Only five generations stand between this current age and the fire-eaters, although some might say particular figures from 1861 have mistakenly been seen in 2011 (such as Texas Governor Rick Perry). There are a number of media sources, particularly the New York Times, that are doing an excellent job covering the Civil War and its impact on American life and memory, and we should be thankful for this.

For those of you who do not know, my childhood love was the American Civil War. My parents did not believe that the summer months of vacation were a respite from school; far from it. We had math problems to do, summer sports camps and tennis lessons to attend, and chores to perform at the collective farm at 2321 Everest SE. However, I was lucky that my Dad was (and still is) a college professor and he often brought back books from the school library for me to read and write essays to improve my writing. While I first enjoyed the pictures from the books most of all (especially those of Braxton Bragg, a real piece of work), the twisted trail of the conflict was fascinating. Who can forget reading for the first time some of the speeches from the 1850s such as Steward’s “Irrepressible Conflict” or slogging through Bruce Catton’s trilogy at the age of ten?

Perhaps one of my favorite books on the American Civil War is George Fredrickson’s The Inner Civil War: Northern Intellectuals and the Crisis of the Union. If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, I’d recommend taking a look. I came across this book in college after reading one of my all time favorite books The Education of Henry Adams, an autobiography that really provides an insightful look at the evolving intellectual ethos of the American ruling class between 1868 and 1914. Fredrickson work, published in 1965, looks at the intellectual struggles among the elites during the conflict. Fredrickson wrote his work in response to Stanley Elkins’ assertion in Slavery that intellectual life in the North centered on Concord, Massachusetts, meaning Emerson and others in his circle. Fredrickson uses an array of intellectual sources, including William James, George Templeton Strong, and Josephine Shaw Lovell, to convey the war’s impact on that was felt far beyond the battlefield. Indeed, The Inner Civil War persuasively argues that the war led many northern thinkers to turn away from questions on egalitarianism and individualism run amok towards a developing ideology promoting voluntary social organizations, the rise of the institutional state, and the role of citizens in a rapidly industrializing republic. While sometimes dry, The Inner Civil War is worth your time. In fact, I’d recommend that next time you take a vacation, take The Education of Henry Adams, The Inner Civil War, and Louis Menand’s The Metaphysical Club, and you will come back with a much better understanding of American intellectual thought from 1850 to 1914.

Perhaps one of the tragedies of modern American intellectual life is the lack of time for thought and introspection in our public discourse. While we have a feast of information, we have very little time to digest the bounty before us. Responses on detailed political questions are given the twitter treatment within a 24 hour news cycle, and I can’t help but think that our minds and our public institutions have not yet adapted to such a breathtaking speed. Can you imagine John Calhoun theorizing about states’ rights on twitter? I can hardly think that he’d be able to explain defense of slavery as a positive good in 144 characters or less, although he might be able to better defend his changing political views from 1809 to 1850. However, Calhoun’s evolution reflects the second great failing in modern American politics, which is vies any change in thinking or belief as hypocrisy. We have talented people in every generation of American political life, but we don’t have the time and working out the complexities of dealing with the American democracy that earlier generations did. The enormous change in American life between 1815 and 1860 was perhaps the undoing of the American political process that led to the Civil War finally coming 150 years ago; the technologies that gave folks like Alexander Stephens and Benjamin Wade the telegraph, the penny newspaper and instant public contact to the institutions of government led to the political process becoming rather inflexible during the 1850s (along with a host of other problems). While the issues of the mind that battered the Northern intellectuals 150 years ago might have been as demanding as those facing our thinkers today, hopefully we can learn to use the new social media to carefully think and process challenges to the same degree in this present age.

Looking Backwards: Grand Rapids in 2026

2011-01-24T11:57:00.004-06:00

(I found this remarkable document while walking in downtown Grand Rapids near the statue of Lucius Lyon at the intersection of Lyon Street and Monroe Avenue. I have posted here the document unaltered.-PB)

As we celebrate the past two centuries since Grand Rapids’ founding in 1826, it is helpful that we take a moment to reflect on the enormous changes that occurred in Grand Rapids in the past twenty five years. Indeed, some might say that the changes from 2011 to 2026 were as monumental as all the changes that occurred in the 175 years prior. But, then as editors of the Grand Rapids Press, we should let our readers decide.

We all remember the dire situation that Michigan found itself twenty five years ago. A decade of economic decline between 2001 and 2011 which was brought about by the changing of state’s economy from one of manufacturing to one of services, education, and health care, made Michigan the laughing stock of the United States. Indeed, the Wolverine state was the only one in the union which lost population between 2000 and 2010, a truly humbling statistic. While Governor Granholm tried to promote the necessary changes that would improve the state’s tax structure, the constant battling between the Republicans and Democrats limited the state’s ability to respond to a dreadful economic climate. Indeed, efforts by Republicans in the Michigan legislature to repeal the Single Business Tax without developing a mechanism to replace revenues led to a poorly designed replacement tax (the Michigan Business Tax) that caused a great deal of uncertainty in the business community of the state.

With the election of Rick Snyder as Governor in 2010 and large Republican majorities in the State House and Senate, the Republicans were poised to govern. Since the readers know what happened next, we will not go into detail. However, the overhauling of Michigan between 2011 and 2017 was truly a bipartisan achievement. Snyder forged a governing majority with Democrats on some issues (increasing funding for the MTF to improve Michigan’s long-depleted infrastructure and to developing a ten-year plan to reduce the costs of local public sector pensions) and with Republicans on others (repealing Public Act 312 which mandated binding arbitration for Michigan’s public sector workers, ruthlessly promoting governmental consolidating, and developing a new business tax system), causing anger among the Republican base. Republican activists were happy with the new 6% corporate income tax, but were angered by the sales tax being expanded to cover all services (despite being lowered to 5%) as well as the state income tax being stabilized at 4%. At the same time many Democrats base voters were angered at the taxation of retired citizens’ income, and with strong Democratic turnout in 2012, the Democrats retook control of the State House, and held a 5 to 2 majority on the Supreme Court. This resulted in Snyder working closely with Democrats in the State House, which confirmed the worst fears among Republican Tea Party activists. Activists were successful in getting a recall of Snyder put on the ballot in 2013, but failed to boot him from office in November 2013. Snyder quickly announced that he was running as a Democrat in 2014, and his coattails led to the Democrats taking over the State Senate in November 2014. Snyder’s partnership with the Democrats, while never warm, resulted in a productive second term. Democrat Dan Kildee succeeded Snyder in 2018, and is in the last year of his second term. We will soon see whether US Senator Buzz Thomas or Representative Justin Amash will test the waters on a gubernatorial bid.

Lucius Lyon

The structural changes in Michigan’s government aided Grand Rapids’ spectacular recovery during the same time period. With the removal of PA 312, city officials from Grand Rapids City, East Grand Rapids, Wyoming, Kentwood, Grandville, Walker, and Grand Rapids Township decided to consolidate their fire, police, planning, regulatory, and sanitation services, as these services would thus be delivered much more cost-effectively. While they grumbled at first, the public sector workers forged a union contract that changed their pension system by participating in social security and gradually transforming to defined contributions (such as 401(k)) that were met with a generous employer match of 3 to 1. The communities agreed to consolidate their essential public services in 2012, and following the success of this decision, they moved to consolidate into one unit of government after three years of discussion. This decision was motivated in part by the incentives provided by the state, which had promised to return statutory revenue sharing funding to 1998 levels for the next ten years after a consolidation. The six communities, each which had lost more than 40% of their statutory revenue between 1998 and 2010, saw the promise of an additional $40 million in funding from the state each year for next decade as one too good to pass up. The consolidation vote was put on the ballot in November 2015, and was passed in all six communities, although narrowly in Grandville and Grand Rapids Township. What enabled the passage of the measure was the assurance that school district boundaries would remain untouched for ten years, and that Grand Rapids and Walker’s income tax would be eliminated. The combined communities had a population of 376,000 at the time of consolidation, which rose to 391,000 by the 2020 Census.

While opponents of the consolidation had warned about how citizens in the smaller suburbs would lose their autonomy after the annexation, these fears were unrealized. In fact, localism flourished, as the new city charter called for the establishment of community governing boards, which were created for each of the city’s 13 police precincts and council districts. Citizens were nominated by their fellow residents to serve on these advisory committees, which worked closely with city government and staff. Likewise, a reformed city government had an active council of 13 commissioners, each which served 29,000 residents and provided greater representation than had previously existed. David LaGrand was elected as the first full-time Mayor in 2017, and worked well with the non-partisan council, which had a nominal Republican-lean. At the same time, the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce (headed by Richard DeVos III) and The Right Place were more effectively able to promote Grand Rapids as an attractive place to do business following the consolidation, and the city’s delegation of 4 State Representatives and State Senator Brandon Dillon were crucial in securing additional state leverage and infrastructure spending after years of deferred maintenance.

Residents’ fears of consolidation were also soothed by the key role that the region’s business community played in promoting the consolidation. An anonymous group of donors (although many believe that the DeVos, Frey, Meijier, and Van Andel Families were the leading funders) offered to pay for the equivalent cost of in-state tuition at the University of Michigan for any student who attended a public or private school in Grand Rapids if consolidation was approved. Apparently, this was done to ensure the elimination of the income tax, as well as the replacement of a use-based zoning code with a form-based zoning code that allowed for more business flexibility in the new city. At the same time, wealthy donors Peter Secchia and Hank Meijer promised to provide $75 million in matching funds to create a new park system for the city provided that the consolidation vote passed. The new park system was similar to the one proposed by Harlow Bartholomew in 1909, and also enabled the Millennium Park system to expanded to a new greenbelt that preserved natural corridors along the Grand and Thornapple Rivers, and also created a new park system that was connected by parkways and bike trails. With this vast infusion of funds a new zoo was created in Johnson Park, while the existing John Ball Park Zoo was converted into a migratory bird center and popular arboretum.

Emboldened by the success of Grand Rapids’ consolidation, Kent County officials also reorganized their government. In a successful charter commission measure passed in November 2019, voters elected Stan Ponstein as their first County Executive, approved the consolidation of Grand Rapids’ library system into the Kent Intermediate Library System, adopted a countywide master planning process, and created a countywide sales tax of 1%. The reorganized county government soon enacted strict transparency standards for future road building projects, and increased building permit costs to reflect the true cost of greenfield developments. The county also used half of the sales tax increase to build a countywide park system that also helped revitalize the stalled Purchase Development Right program. Ponstein was crucial in getting a County Land Bank Program created that sought to combat property abandonment within portions of Grand Rapids and other communities throughout the county. The county government also worked to expand the Grand Rapids Community College system, creating a branch campus in the former Studio 28 complex in Wyoming that opened in 2021, and is currently examining whether to open additional campuses.

So as we celebrate Grand Rapids’ past two hundred years, we argue that the decisions made in the past twenty five years will help position the city for the next two hundred years. This transformation was a close collaboration between business leaders, public officials, and citizens that allowed for a greater Grand Rapids to truly emerge. And, after all, isn’t this what Lucius Lyon and Louis Campau would have thought back in 1826?

2010 Book List and Awards

2011-01-03T14:21:00.004-06:00

A happy 2011 to all the readers of this blog! I promise that 2011 will be a year of continued blogging with a slight change in direction. As many of you know, I began my new position as Redistricting Coordinator at the City of Dallas earlier this past year, where I will be guiding the redistricting of the city’s fourteen city council districts. Per the conditions of my employment with the City of Dallas (as with all city employees), I will have limited involvement in Texas politics beyond voting. After some thought I have decided that it is probably best that I refrain from blogging about anything related to redistricting and politics in Dallas and Texas until the 2011 redistricting cycle is complete in early 2012. Don’t worry Michigan political junkies; I will continue to write about politics in Michigan, and on larger urban politics and planning issues facing the Midwest.

Before I close the door on 2010, I went through my day planner and created a list of books I read over the past year (the entire list is below). I read 88 books, and 22 of these were fiction. I have no idea how many pages this amounted to, but the three Caro books alone amounted to 3,000 pages. I don’t think it is any surprise to anyone that the bulk of my reading is in history and US politics, but I also did a fair bit of fiction reading this year, which is a jump compared to 2008 and 2009. I doubt that this reading list surpasses the amount I read while in graduate school in 2002 and 2006-2008, but I must say taking public transportation to work does help.

In terms of the best work of fiction and nonfiction I read in 2010, I would say that Updike’s Rabbit pentalogy (Rabbit Run, Rabbit Redux, Rabbit is Rich, Rabbit at Rest, and Rabbit Remembered) was excellent not only as a work of fiction, but as a social history of the United States. Harold "Rabbit" Angstrom’s world of 1960 is so different from the United States of 1999, and yet the character largely lives in a fictionalized version of Reading Pennsylvania experiencing the enormous transformation of American life over forty years. As far as nonfiction, I would select Diane Ravitch’s, Death and Life of the Great American School System. Ravitch has been involved in national education policy over the past forty years, and this book is both a helpful introduction to some of the drastic changes in policy that have occurred, as well as Ravitch’s admission that testing is not solving this nation’s educational woes. Ravitch rightfully comes back to need for raising curriculum standards, a direction that the Obama Administration is taking with the Promise Neighborhood program. Incidentally, my second favorite work of nonfiction was Paul Tough’s Whatever It Takes, which looks at Geoffrey Canada’s work with the Harlem Children’s Zone. The Harlem Children’s Zone is a systematic approach to addressing poverty that seeks to change an entire neighborhood. Conservatives love Canada for his innovative use of charter schools and the Harlem Children’s Zone’s rigorous academic standards, while liberals love the program because of the cradle to college approach and the large amounts of additional funding per student. I’m sure that Rabbit Angstrom’s great grandchildren would benefit from having a Promise Neighborhood program, whether in Harlem or in Reading, Pennsylvania.

Andrews, Busted
Ballard, Michigan’s Economic Future
Ballard, Vicksburg
Bartlett, The New American Economy
Bauman, Public Housing, Race and Renewal
Bickerstaff, Lines in the Sand
Billick, More Than a Game
Birnbaum, Showdown at Gucci Gulch
Black, Waterloo
Browne & VerBurg, Michigan Politics and Government: Facing Change in a Complex State
Brownsworth, Lost to the West
Burns & Kotlikoff, The Coming Generational Storm
Campbell, Gone to Texas
Caro, Master of the Senate (Volume III of LBJ Series)
Caro, The Path to Power (Volume I of LBJ Series)
Caro, The Power Broker
Carr, Hollowing Out the Middle
Christie, Murder on the Orient Express
Coddington, The Gettysburg Campaign
Davis, When March Went Mad
Didion, Slouching to Bethlehem
Doctorow, The March
Fairbanks, For the City as a Whole
Fine, Fire in the Model City
Frazen, The Corrections
Frazen, Freedom
Freman, There Goes the Hood
Gallagher, Reimagining Detroit
Gerber, Get Out the Vote (2nd Edition)
Graff, The Dallas Myth
Grann, The Lost City of Z
Gregorrio, A Visible Darkness
Gregorrio, Critique of Criminal Reason
Gregorrio, Days of Atonement
Halberstam, The Best and Brightest
Hanlon, Once the American Dream
Hanson, Civil Culture and Urban Change: Governing Dallas
Harris, Conspirata
Harris, Imperium
Hastings, Winston’s War
Herwig, The Marne
Holt, By One Vote
Howe, What Hath God Wrought?
Iwogwski, Remains of the Day
Jackson, Moses Revisited
Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically
Jamison, Mint Condition
Karr, Cherry
Karr, The Lairs Club
Knowles, Imagining Philadelphia
Kotkin, Next Hundred Million
Lemann, The Promised Land
Luckas, Common Ground
Mahler, The Bronx is Burning
Mak, Brief History of Amsterdam
Mak, In Europe
Mantel, Wolf Hall
McDermott, Charming Billy
Owen, Green Metropolis
Pears, Instance of the Fingerpost
Pears, Stone’s Fall
Phillips, White Metropolis
Plokhy, The Price of Peace
Practicing Texas Politics
Ravitch, Death and Life of the American School System
Roach, Stiff
Rybczynski, City Living
Schrager, The Blueprint
Schutze, The Accommodation
Seabold, The Lovely Bones
Shea, Back to the Front
Shea, Fields of Blood
Shea, The Campaign Craft
Silbey, Party Over Section
Stabler, The Politics of Change in Michigan
Steinbeck, East of Eden
Taylor, Waiting on a Train
Tough, Whatever it Takes
Tuchmann, Guns of August
Updike, Rabbit at Rest
Updike, Rabbit is Rich
Updike, Rabbit Redux
Updike, Rabbit Remembered
Updike, Rabbit Run
Vidal, Julian
Weiser, The Great Tax Wars
Wilson, In Our Times
Winder, Germania
Yarbough, Race & Redistricting

The Politics of Planning in Grand Rapids: 1949-1959

2010-12-24T16:56:00.003-06:00

Dorothy Judd

As 2010 draws to a close, I am pleased to announce the completion of a project that I began back in 2007. This month the Michigan Historical Review published my article which covered the intersection of politics and urban planning in Grand Rapids, Michigan between 1949 and 1959. The thought about researching this era began when I started digging around in the Bentley Historical Library while at the University of Michigan for another class project back in late 2006. One of the archivists noted that I was from Grand Rapids and asked if I had ever looked at the Judd Papers. I mentioned that I had not, and she led me to the twelve boxes of materials that Ms. Judd had left behind to the University of Michigan upon her death in 1989. These twelve boxes led me across the state of Michigan in search of other sources, whether in Grand Rapids, Lansing, or Detroit. I met a number of people, mostly notably Keith Honey, who were willing to talk about their part in the era and helpfully shared their stories. There was a great amount of material in dusty corners of the State Library and in the Grand Rapids archives that had never been examined previously, and this information illuminating.

Ms. Judd, who is pictured above and also on the cover of the Michigan Historical Review this year, was a remarkable woman. She was especially remarkable for leading the formation of a political coalition in Grand Rapids which ended one political machine that had lasted since 1916, transformed the city over a ten year period, and continues to impact Grand Rapids and Kent County politics in the present day.

The coalition that Ms. Judd led was in name non-partisan, but was at its heart a progressive Republican movement that propelled a west Michigan brand of Republicanism seen in politicians such as Gerald Ford, Paul Henry, and to some extent, Vern Ehlers. The end of the Ehlers era this year in some ways returns Kent County Republicans a pre-1949 ideology. The Republican who was bested by Judd in 1949 was Grand Rapids Mayor George Welsh, heeded a political ideology very similar to Justin Amash: minimal governmental spending, the labeling of any governmental role in the economy as unhealthy, and that the best thing for the United States was an unfettered role for private enterprise. In contrast to Welsh, Judd, her close ally Paul Goebel (also a close friend of Gerald Ford), the role of the state was essential to creating a better vision of Grand Rapids that improved the downtown, redeveloped neighborhoods, and connecting the metropolitan region. While Judd and Goebel succeed with many of these challenges, they significantly failed to improve residential neighborhoods or win support among the growing suburbs of Wyoming and Paris Township.

Of course, you could learn about this in greater detail if you read the article. There are plenty of good maps, and if you want political data from Kent County between 1930 and 1960, just let me know (I have truckloads). I consider this article to be the second of my three pieces of Grand Rapids; the first, which was published in 2005, covered the Civil War era in Grand Rapids and other Michigan communities. The third article, for which I will begin researching on next year, will examine the political evolution of Kent and Washtenaw Counties into two distinct political communities between 1964 and 2010. Stay tuned.

Is there Hope for Wyoming?

2010-11-30T16:52:00.002-06:00

28th Street, 1959. Photo courtesy of the City of Wyoming

One of the trends I expect to see further confirmed in the 2010 census data is the decline of many first-ring (or inner-ring) suburbs. Inner ring suburbs are communities that grew rapidly during the post-war economic boom that ran roughly from 1945 to 1974. As noted by Myron Orfield and other scholars, these communities were largely developed with features that distinguished them from existing urban communities, including the incorporation separate zoning uses into the predevelopment of the built environment, the relatively low levels of population density compared to the urban core, the predominance of the automobile as a means of transportation, and general exclusion of racial minorities during its formational period.

In metropolitan Grand Rapids, the cities of Wyoming and Kentwood clearly fall into the first-ring suburb category, as do portions of the city of Grand Rapids. Walker, Grand Rapids Township, Cascade, Ada, Alpine, and Plainfield Townships all experienced the bulk of their development after 1970, putting them in the exurban suburbs category, which developed differently than their inner-ring suburb brethren. Grandville, although incorporated in 1933, was a small town much like Rockford or Lowell until the 1970s, and thus should also be considered an exurban suburb. East Grand Rapids was developed as a Streetcar Suburb between 1880 and 1930, and has remained a wealthy enclave. While the city of Grand Rapids is considered the urban core, areas that the city annexed between 1956 and 1963 are similar in many ways to Wyoming and Kentwood.

Will Wyoming and Kentwood share the fate of many declining first-ring suburbs? While I do not see the population dropping yet for either community (Wyoming’s will probably be around 71,000, while Kentwood will rise to 47,000), the evidence of Wyoming’s decline as a commercial center has been well documented by the Grand Rapids Press and other local media. This decline is especially evident on 28th Street, which was long the heart of the city. In the past decade, destination businesses such as Rogers Department store, Studio 28, and Classic Chevrolet closed, as did a large GM stamping plant located at 36th and Burlingame, and vacancy rates in the Rogers Plaza Shopping Mall increased significantly. Recent attempts to resurrect the commercial strip (which included the relocation of Klingmans) have failed, leaving the city scrambling to find ways to restore its fortunes.

The decline of Wyoming’s commercial heart on 28th Street is compounded by the city’s demographic changes. Over the past two decades, the city has become significantly less white, with a large growth in its Hispanic population, especially north of 28th Street. With the Hispanic core neighborhoods in Grand Rapids along Grandville Avenue continuing to grow, many are finding more areas of affordable housing and better schools in Wyoming. By the middle of the next decade Wyoming might find itself with two distinct communities-a wealthy white portion south of 36th Street that I like to refer to as “Voorheestan.” Folks in Voorheestan are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans who like their taxes low, their God glorified, and dislike regional cooperation. The growing Hispanic neighborhoods north of 36th Street are generally much poorer, desire strong schools for their children, and have yet to find their political voice in local and state politics. Thus, while Wyoming’s political elite might remain white and conservative over the next decade, the demographics underneath them will continue to shift.

The efforts over the past year by city officials, planners, and consultants to remake Wyoming’s “Town Center” are interesting. A suburb that rejected everything about traditional urban form and density is seeking to redevelop its commercial core into smaller urban blocks. In Matt Van Bunte’s article from November 27, 2010 Grand Rapids Press, Van Bunte notes that

“public input shows a new street peeling to the south of 28th and cutting massive commercial parcels, including Studio 28, Wyoming Village Mall and Rogers Plaza, into smaller urban blocks. The vision could become a prototype for suburban redevelopment around Grand Rapids, a consultant said. The primary concept envisions a new street veering south of 28th just east of Burlingame and arcing back to 28th just west of Clyde Park. The road would slice through the large parcels, connecting with new north-south streets to create smaller urban blocks with better pedestrian access and more green space. The sketch features a roundabout at Michael Avenue, north of Prairie Street, with a mix of commercial, residential and office uses flanking the new street in each direction.”

For the full Grand Rapids Press article see the link below:
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2010/11/radical_new_concept_for_28th_s.html

Map 1: Metropolitan Grand Rapids Population Density, 2008

The consultants with this project note that achieving this vision will be difficult. While people generally do not agree what the ideal density of a town center is, I bet that planners are looking at the Eastown neighborhood in Grand Rapids. As shown in Map 1 Eastown’s population density in 2008 was about 13,000 people per square mile. As Map 1 shows, many of the successful commercial corridors in Grand Rapids have a density that is similar or higher than Eastown’s.

Map 2: Wyoming Population Density, 2008

Map 3: Wyoming Town Center Population Density, 2008

Perhaps the greatest problem for any redevelopment of Wyoming’s Town Center will be the low levels of population density. Map 2 shows Wyoming’s population density, and Map 3 shows the density in the Town Center redevelopment area. As 28th Street changes from a regional shopping destination to neighborhood shopping center, the market capture for stores in the Town Center will increasingly shrink. In order for any redevelopment efforts to succeed, the residential base needs grow significantly. Changing the urban form of the Town Center area will be helpful, but unless the new commercial buildings contain residential units located above or within a1/8th of a mile, these businesses will just not survive.

For efforts to revitalize its commercial corridor to succeed, Wyoming must think about how to draw residents to this part of town. This might require the expenditure of tax dollars to create an urban grid, as well as finding anchor institutions willing to stick it out over the next few years. I personally think that the idea of creating a satellite Grand Rapids Community College campus at the intersection Clyde Park and 28th Street would be an excellent first step to bringing people to Town Center. The satellite campus could specialize in vocational training for students interested in working at some of the city’s industrial centers, which continue to provide a number of excellent paying jobs. A campus would for many new Hispanic residents to take courses near their homes, as opposed to trekking to downtown Grand Rapids. Similarly, a branch campus of Spectrum Health would provide some jobs and services for residents.

Wyoming is a first-ring suburb in the midst of continued economic and demographic changes. The question is whether its population and political leadership, especially those from Voorheestan, are willing to jettison a political ideology that has served it well for the past sixty years.

(PS-My article on urban planning in metropolitan Grand Rapids from 1946 to 1964 will be coming out in the next issue of the Michigan Historical Review. It is heavy on politics, planning, and personalities, which make for a good read. Let me know if you want a copy. PB)

2010 Recap Part II: Michigan State House

2010-11-23T09:26:00.002-06:00

(Cross-posted at WMR, ML, BFM and SSP-pb)

Perhaps the biggest surprise on late hours of November 2 was the enormity of the Democratic defeat in the Michigan State House. While many had predicted that the Democrats’ margin of 67 to 43 would be reduced, few predicted that they would lose control of the lower chamber (myself included) and end up with 47 seats, a humiliating 20 seat loss. Indeed, Democratic numbers in the State House and Senate have not been this low since 1954, a time when Michigan’s legislature in the legislature was malapportioned prior to the 1964 Constitution. Just for reference, Table 1 below shows partisan control of the Michigan State House and Senate from 1955 to the present.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7Os3Q/TOs7uxpSAII/AAAAAAAAHGY/hsesgJ_vP70/s512/State%20Partisan%20Control%202012.jpg
Table 1: Michigan Legislative Control, 1948-2012

What caused this twenty seat loss for the Democrats? Commentators have noted that Democratic turnout crashed on the rocks this cycle, with turnout in key Democratic precincts lower than even in 1998 or 1994 (or even 1966 for that matter). I think that the 2010 disaster can be explained largely by region, statistics, and redistricting.

Consider regionalism first. The map below shows partisan control of State House statewide.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7Os3Q/TOs75bCqz0I/AAAAAAAAHGk/p7ONpUFm5nQ/s512/House%20District%20Map%202010%20Master.jpg
Map 1: Michigan State House Partisan Control

One can see the 20 seats gained by the GOP on November 2 are largely concentrated in three regions of the state: Northern Michigan, downriver/eastern Michigan, and Macomb County. Of these 20 seats, 14 were open, while 6 were lost by Democratic incumbents. Maps 2-5 shows these areas in greater detail.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7Os3Q/TOs77vnVjCI/AAAAAAAAHGo/TYWtjfmDzWs/s640/House%20District%20Map%202010%20Northern%20MI.jpg
Map 2: Northern Michigan

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7Os3Q/TOs7-VN55OI/AAAAAAAAHGw/L3TJOi-aE6o/s512/House%20District%20Map%202010%20Macomb.jpg
Map 3: The Thumb/Macomb County

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7Os3Q/TOs79LfJMYI/AAAAAAAAHGs/BHio_CGbsoE/s640/House%20District%20Map%202010%20Snyderland.jpg
Map 4: Downriver and Eastern Michigan

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7Os3Q/TOs7_RJWR9I/AAAAAAAAHG0/NE1zrCMMNV8/s640/House%20District%20Map%202010%20West%20MI.jpg
Map 5: Western Michigan

Democrats lost six districts in Northern Michigan, two in West Michigan, eight seats in the downriver/rural eastern Michigan, two seats in the Thumb, and two in Macomb County. The loss of seats on a regional basis is significant to explaining the GOP’s success in 2010. The Upper Peninsula has long been a Democratic stronghold, although the Democratic Baseline (which is the average Democratic share of the vote cast for State Board of Education races) for the districts in northern Michigan (101, 103, 106, and 107) are much more Republican-leaning. The decline of the Democratic brand over the past two years is due in part to the retirement of Bart Stupak, who had long provided a strong conservative Democratic presence on the top of the ticket for Democratic voters in the north, and also the antipathy of voters to the first two years of the Obama Administration. This suspicion of the Obama Administration has cultural and economic roots, but is also due to the steady drumbeat of the GOP noise machine that has played on the fear and malaise of many voters.

The six seats lost in West Michigan, Macomb County, and the Thumb are swing (Districts 24, 32, and 91) or Republican leaning Districts (Districts 70, 83, 84). However, the eight seats lost in Monroe, Jackson, Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties are in many was due to Rick Snyder being on the top of the Republican ticket. Snyder almost carried his home county (Washtenaw), a county that Democratic candidates generally carry by a two to one margin. The fact that Snyder almost carried this county doomed the Democratic State House candidates in the two Washtenaw County districts (52nd and 55th). Similarly, Jackson, Lenawee, and Monroe Counties, which have generally had a slight Democratic lean over the past four election cycles, swung decisively towards the Republican column, costing Democrats four seats. In Wayne County, Democratic incumbent Deb Kennedy was caught napping in the 23rd District, while Republicans picked up the 19th State House seat, which has historically been a Republican seat.

Thus regionalism partly explains the 2010 results. Table 2 below attempts to explain the results based on demographic and economic statistical data for each seat. I pulled data on any race that was 1) a Republican pickup, 2) where the winning candidate won with less than 55% of the vote, or 3) was identified as a Weak Republican, Weak Democratic or Swing seat in my previous analysis. The categories in Table 2 are pretty self-explanatory, although a few deserve further explanation. Dem 2010% is the percentage received the Democratic State House candidate in 2010, while DB Avg% is the Democratic Baseline average from the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. %Black, %Min, %White is based on ethnic data from the 2000 Census, as is Pov% (poverty rate), Bach% (percentage of residents who hold a Bachelor’s Degree), Prof% (percentage of residents who work in professional sector), and Med House Income (Median Household Income). While this data is ten years old, it serves as a reference point for analyzing the data. Once the 2010 Census data is released next month, I’ll try to update some of this information.

In the 55 races, Democrats won 18 seats in 2010 (or 37%). In comparison, after the 2008 election they held 38 seats (69%). Some Democratic incumbents who won in 2010 performed slightly better than the 2004-08 Democratic baseline average, and only two Democratic incumbents (Terry Brown in the 84th and Dan Scripps in the 101st) who ran better than the baseline lost. Every other Democratic candidate (incumbent or challenger) performed worse than the baseline.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/2010AnalysisPartII.jpg
Table 2: District Analysis

Is there a silver bullet from the data that explains the Democratic disaster in these 55 districts? Besides the fact that Republican incumbents were invulnerable, and that every open GOP seat was held, a few trends appear when you do some preliminary regression analysis. With correlation coefficient.78, the 2004-2008 Democratic baseline average is the strongest predictor of Democratic State House performance in 2010. Which, in my opinion, is not all too surprising.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7Os3Q/TOs8BHS-bRI/AAAAAAAAHG4/WdOLBmtUUKU/s640/2010%20Analysis%20Baseline.jpg
Table 3: Baseline Regression

The other variables have a much weaker predictive value and are not statistically significant. The only other significant variable is race, and there is a -.42 correlation coefficient with the white population percentage, which has a t score of 3.369. Essentially, Democrats won any district where the white percentage of the population was under 90%. Personally, I think that the financial data, which should be available relatively soon from the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, will also show that a large financial edge for the winner will be statistically significant.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7Os3Q/TOs71htdzdI/AAAAAAAAHGg/Rfhf-spdcYM/s640/2010%20Analysis%20Race.jpg
Table 4: White% Regression

Finally, how does redistricting explain regionalism and statistics? In 2001 the Republican Party controlled all three parties in the redistricting equation (the State House, Senate, and Michigan Supreme Court). The map drawn for the State House sought to maximize the Republican gains in the 2000 election, and as a result the number of seats controlled by the GOP increased from 58 in 2000 to 61 in 2002. However, the map cut too close to the margins, and Democratic wave years in 2006 and 2008 resulted in the GOP caucus being reduced to 52 and 43 seats, respectively. Perhaps a wiser map would treat 2010 as an aberration, and a new map would seek to draw 56 to 58 safe Republican seats. Given that there are 63 members of the Republican House caucus, I suspect that every incumbent will want a seat that protects his or her interests. For the Democrats looking for a strategy in 2012, I’d look really hard at trying to knock off the GOP in metropolitan Detroit (Districts 23, 24, 52, 55, and 56) as well as reclaiming districts 108 and 110 in the Upper Peninsula and Districts 101 and 103 in Northern Michigan. This would bring the party back to a narrow majority. However, given that a new map will be created in late 2011, closer targeting will need to wait until then.

2010 Recap Part I: Kent County

2010-11-18T15:32:00.002-06:00

The 2010 elections proved to be a profound disappointment for Democrats in the United States and Michigan. Reviewing the election data, did Kent County hold similar setbacks for local Democrats?

On the surface, the answer would be yes. The 3rd District Congressional candidate Patrick Miles, despite being the most formidable candidate in nearly two decades, lost to upstart Republican Justin Amash by 59.7% to 37.5%, by a 50,000 vote margin. Democrat David LaGrand, who nearly upset incumbent Republican State Senator Bill Hardiman in 2006, narrowly lost to Republican Dave Hildenbrand by 4,500 votes in the closest State Senate race in Michigan. On the County Commission level, four Democratic seats were lost, leaving four Democrats on the county board with 15 Republicans.

The Democrats woes in 2010 started at the top of the ticket with the gubernatorial race. Democrat Virg Bernero never gained traction against Republican Rick Snyder, who ran as a moderate from the first day of his primary campaign. Republican primary voters should be congratulated for nominating a centrist candidate as opposed to candidates like Pete Hoekstra or Mike Cox, who would have given Bernero more of a fighting chance. In any event, Bernero did poorly in Kent County, pulling only 30% of the vote, the worst Democratic performance in Kent County since Fieger in 1998 and Ferency in 1966. Bernero harmed the Democratic chiefly in terms of turnout rather than persuasion, reducing Democratic numbers in Grand Rapids (where turnout was 39.6% overall) and Kentwood. As a result, the Democratic baseline in Kent County was 35.5% in 2010, the lowest in a decade. In contrast, the Democratic baseline was 47.6% in 2008, 41.1% in 2006, 38.5% in 2004, 36.1% in 2002, and 38.1% in 2000. Maps 1 to 4 below show the Democratic baseline visually in 2000, 2006, 2008, and 2010. The reduction of Democratic gains in Wyoming since 2000 is quite apparent, and a smaller slippage is also present in Kentwood and in portions of the West Side of Grand Rapids.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/2000GrandRapids.jpg
Map 1: 2000 Democratic Baseline

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/KentPrecinct2006StateSenate-1.jpg
Map 2: 2006 Democratic Baseline

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/KentPrecinct2008StateSenate-2.jpg
Map 3: 2008 Democratic Baseline

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/2010DemBaseline.jpg
Map 4: 2010 Democratic Baseline

As Map 5 shows, the decline in voter turnout was pretty uniformed throughout metropolitan Grand Rapids. Some commentators have noted that turnout in Republican areas of Kent County dropped, although not to as large of an extent as in metropolitan Grand Rapids.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/2010VTDeclineMap.jpg
Map 5: Decline in voter turnout, 2006-2010

At the same time, Map 6 shows how the Democratic baseline changed between 2006 and 2010. While the county-level baseline dropped by 6%, this decline manifested unevenly through metropolitan Grand Rapids. In the 3rd Ward, the Democratic baseline increased significantly, due in part to the absence of Republican Bill Hardiman from the ticket, who had always attracted the votes of conservative African American voters in the core portions of the 3rd Ward. The Democratic baseline also increased slightly in Kentwood and East Grand Rapids, perhaps providing a path for future Democratic gains. However, Republicans gains were significant in the West Side of Grand Rapids, which crippled any chance of David LaGrand beating Dave Hildenbrand in the 29th State Senate race. In retrospect the Republican resurgence in the West Side began last year, with the election of City Commissioner Dave Shaffer, who bested long-time Commissioner Jim Jendrasiak. Although a non-partisan race, Shaffer has identified himself as a moderate Republican, while Jendrasiak was long supported by Democratic interest groups. Yet the Republican resurgence on the West Side is largely due to the appalling drop in turnout among Democratic voters “at the bottom of the hill,” or east of Covell Street. Overall turnout in the 1st Ward was 36.5%, while turnout in the Republican precincts west of Covell Street was 53%, turnout was only 22% east of Covell and in the Hispanic neighborhoods along Grandville Avenue.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/2010DemBaseline2006.jpg
Map 6: Democratic Baseline Change, 2006 to 2010

As mentioned earlier, the combination of Republican resurgence and low Democratic turnout in the 1st Ward severely hindered David LaGrand’s chances in the 29th State Senate race (see Map 7). Bernero lost the 1st Ward by 20%, the Democratic baseline was 48%, and LaGrand won it by only 83 votes. Prior to Election Day I postulated that a Democrat could win the 29th by getting close to 50% turnout in the City of Grand Rapids, winning 58% of its votes, while pulling 43% in Kentwood. With turnout below 40% in Grand Rapids, LaGrand had an uphill battle, and splitting the 1st Ward did little to improve his chances. LaGrand performed on target in the 2nd and 3rd Wards, winning 55% in the 2nd and 61% in the 3rd, leaving him with 56% of the city’s vote. He even did better than any other Democratic candidate in Kentwood, pulling 40% of the vote.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/2010DemBaseline2006.jpg
Map 7: 2010 29th State Senate Race

Democrat’s fortunes in Kent County were better in the State House races. Representative Roy Schmidt significantly outperformed the Democratic baseline in the 76th State House District, winning with 64% of the vote. In the 75th, Kent County Commissioner Brandon Dillon also surpassed the Democratic baseline by 5% against Republican Bing Goei. Goei posed perhaps the strongest challenge to any Democrat in the city, having deep ties to the Christian Reformed Church and the aging Dutch neighborhoods on the southeast side of Grand Rapids as shown in Map 8. Indeed, Goei performed well above the Republican baseline south of Burton and west of Breton, a part of the city that has been steady trending Democratic over the past decade. Dillon’s strong campaigning efforts and strength on the north side of Grand Rapids allowed him to win this tight battle. Dillon’s victory is significant, since the 75th was the only open seat among the 15 targeted races the Democratic House Caucus won on election night. Likewise, the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 in the 75th do not appear to be an aberration but rather a long-term gain in Democratic strength on the east side of Grand Rapids.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/2010MetroGRMIHouse.jpg
Map 8: 2010 MI State House

Miles’ defeat against Amash also contains some potential silver lining. First, Miles held Amash to the lowest vote share in the 3rd District in a mid-year election in over two decades, keeping him below 60% of the vote in a year where Republicans picked up at least 62 Congressional seats. Miles ran strongly in Grand Rapids, won East Grand Rapids, and did decently in Kentwood. Miles’ fared no worse than any other Democratic candidates in the remainder of the 3rd District, paving the way for another run in 2012, although the 3rd District might be significantly altered during redistricting.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/2010USCMap.jpg
Map 9: 2010 3rd District Congressional Race

On the Kent County Commission Democrats lost four seats, while Democrat incumbent Carol Hennessey held on to narrowly retain her seat in the 14th Commission District. Of the four seats lost by Democrats, the 18th District seat vacated by Commissioner Brandon Dillon should have been retained by Democrat Richard Tormala. However, Tormala ran behind the Democratic baseline by five percent, and trailed Miles, LaGrand, and Dillon between five to ten percent. A stronger Democratic candidate will be able to retake this seat in two years.

So, was 2010 a disaster for Kent Democrats? On one hand, the loss of four county commission seats and defeat of LaGrand and Miles hurt. However, the fact that Dillon was able to hold the 75th in the worse Democratic year since 1998 shows how bad the political environment needs to be for the local GOP to make headway in the Grand Rapids. A more favorable political environment in 2012, redeveloping the base in the West Side, and vigorous party building outside of Grand Rapids, will help the Kent Democrats start a new age learning from a tumultuous decade in local politics.

The Philadelphia Story: 2008-2010

2010-11-09T14:54:00.002-06:00

My personal Philadelphia story actually begins in August 2007, when my sister started graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania. Since I was in the middle of summer break while attending the University of Michigan, I went and drove with Suzanne to her new place in the Graduate Hospital Neighborhood. I enjoyed Philly, but being a Midwesterner, I was a bit overwhelmed by the traffic, density, trash, and heat the only a sweltering Philadelphia summer can provide. I remember leaving on a Wednesday morning entering Walnut Street traffic near Rittenhouse Square and congratulating myself that I would never have to experience Philly traffic in my lifetime. Two hours later after sitting in rush hour traffic on the Schuylkill Expressway, I was on my way back to Ann Arbor.

On second thought, perhaps the Philadelphia story begins in the fall of 1993, when my dad had a sabbatical in Princeton, New Jersey. One of the great things about that year was we went somewhere every weekend, and I remember a weekend in early November going to Philadelphia for the first time. By chance, the week before I had come across a couple of books on urban planning in Philadelphia at the John Witherspoon Middle School library. The first was a book written by Edmund Bacon that was essentially a simplified version of his plan for Center City Philadelphia that was written in 1962, while the second was written ten years later comparing Philadelphia and Upper Darby, noting the serious racial and employment problems facing the former and the growing fortunes of the latter. During our trip to Philadelphia, I remember seeing Old City, clamoring for a drive through Society Hill, seeing my favorite revolutionary heroes at Independence Hall (for the record they are James Madison and John Adams, although John Marshall should have a big statue towering over dwarf-sized paintings of libertarians such as Jefferson and Charles Pickney). On the drive and walking around I also saw the woes facing a post-industrial city; homeless men begging in the shadow of Independence Hall, rundown and forgotten neighborhood in Kensington and Port Richmond from the heights of Interstate 95, and the sheer shabbiness of a worn and tired city.

To make a long story short, in July 2008 Susan and I moved to metropolitan Philadelphia for her Lilly Residency at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church. While reluctant to leave Ann Arbor, I did have fond memories of the region, especially from the two previously mentioned visits. While Susan thrived at her position at Bryn Mawr (which itself was undergoing a period of transition), the long time it took to find a job in Philadelphia made loving the region rather hard. While working for the Obama campaign was enjoyable, riches were made at the ballot box, not in the wallet. Spending hours networking for jobs and trolling employment boards was not life sustaining, although doing this from the comfort of a charming row house under the supervision of a lounging cat was enjoyable at times.

Yet it was through this miserable job hunt that I grew to love many things about the city. Temping in Center City exposed me to the joy of riding the trolley line and subways through parts of West Philadelphia kept me going through the early part of 2009. Working at the University City District in the second half of 2009 had me walking through almost all of West Philadelphia, seeing an array of housing stock and people that one rarely has the opportunity to view from a car. Doing consulting research for Bill Golderer at Broad Street Ministries led me to connect with Arch Street Presbyterian Church, a congregation in the heart of Center City that had once been a leading conservative stronghold in the Presbyterian Church that had been left for dead over the past twenty years. Becoming in a member there in October 2009 was a highlight from my time in Philadelphia.

Getting a job at the People’s Emergency Center (PEC) was another highpoint in my Philadelphia story. Working at a community development corporation which operated on the fringe of University City in neighborhoods that had seen the worst of disinvestment and urban blight over the past sixty years was a challenge, but also a great joy. How do you work in a community that is bordered on one side by the University of Pennsylvania, on the other side by Drexel University, and is surrounded by neighborhoods with rates of concentrated poverty (poverty rates over 40%)? PEC makes this happen, and I’m sure that it will continue to do so in the coming years under the new leadership of Farah Jimenez.

I am most thankful for PEC’s ability to help me flesh out some of the challenges and promises facing Philadelphia. Philadelphia has so many things going to its advantage, whether an affordable cost of living, a number of great neighborhoods, a host of colleges and universities that puts it in the second tier of global cities, great transportation networks (although the highway system is a nightmare) and a diverse mix of employers. At the same time, the city of Philadelphia is trapped under the weight of decades of demographic changes and poor choices. The city’s population has dropped from 2,071,605 in 1950 to a low of 1,517,550 in 2000 (although it has rebounded to 1,547,297 by 2009). Philadelphia’s poverty rate is 24.3%, while only 80% of residents had a high school degree in 2005, and 23% have a college degree.

Add to these woes Philadelphia’s governmental structure that is fifty years out of date. The city’s workforce has not significantly declined over the past fifty years. In 1960 the city had 27,500 employees for a population of 2 million, while in 2009 it had 24,585 workers for 1.5 million, meaning that 14% of the population works in the public sector (a percentage that is comparable to the national average of 15%). Adjusted for inflation, the city’s budget has increased from $2 billion in 1960 to $4 billion today. Why the enormous difference in spending? If you said libraries, pools, and parks, you are wrong; these three departments have seen their numbers decline significantly over the past twenty years. As noted in the Pew Center’s Philadelphia’s Quiet Crisis, $800 million of this money goes to pay for benefits for governmental employees. While the pay for public sector employees in Philadelphia is comparable to the national average, Philadelphia offers extremely generous benefits that require very little in terms of employee and retiree contributions. At the same time, adjusted for inflation, the per capita cost for this government spending has increased significantly over the past fifty years; in 1960 the cost of city government per person was $942, while in 2010 it is $2,600.

To pay for this increased spending over the past fifty years, the city has had to work with a smaller tax base in which poorer people compose a greater percentage of the population, doubly increasing the city’s tax burden. While much of the burden has been passed on to city workers (both residents and non residents) who pay a wage tax that brings in 46% of the city’s revenue, increases in property and sales taxes are much more apparent.

How can the city get a handle on increased taxes to pay salaries and benefits? By right-sizing the municipal workforce to eliminate useless departments and redirect the workforce towards public safety and amenities that will provide dividends down the road. By requiring existing city workers to pay a larger share of their health care benefits and pensions similar to the national average of 9% of their salary to ensure the long-term financial viability of the pension fund, while increasing the retirement age and switching to a defined benefit system for new hires. By reforming the property tax collection and reassessing properties to ensure a fair and equitable property tax system. By eliminating the business privilege tax to increase the competitiveness of the city as a place to do business and remain a center of economic growth. By making the State of Pennsylvania comply with the PA Supreme Court’s ruling to fund the county court system, a cost of $100 million a year that the Republicans in Harrisburg are unwilling to deal with, despite their love of local government.

Whatever woes befall the city of Philadelphia, the suburbs are not immune to these troubles. Already in eastern part of Delaware County and pockets of Montgomery and Chester Counties there are areas of growing poverty that challenge this region’s bright economic and social future. Having lived in Lower Merion Township, I know that the fortunes of even one of the wealthiest townships in the Philadelphia region are forever tied with the communities that surround it, whether it is Haverford Township or Philadelphia.

Part of Philadelphia’s governmental malaise lies in its history of one party rule. Since the 1830s, the city has enjoyed extended periods of one party rule, whether by the Jacksonian Democrats (1832-1860s), the Republican machine that governed a city that was “corrupt and contented” (1871-1951), and the Democratic reform coalition (1951-present) that has gradually evolved into a regime that preserves the status quo in an era of economic and demographic transformation. While a partisan Democrat, I firmly believe in the two-party system that requires a careful check on both the role of government and destiny of a community. This is a problem not only in Philadelphia, but in the central part of Pennsylvania.

On November 4, due to a fire on an R5 line that I rode from Bryn Mawr during the SEPTA strike (instead of my normal commute of taking the Norristown line to the Market-Frankfort Subway Line), I walked on Lancaster Avenue from City Line to Center City, a walk of about 5 miles. In a sense, Lancaster Avenue displays the racial divisions within the metropolitan region as shown in the map above. You can also see the economic fortunes of the region as one walks through west Philadelphia, from the areas of growing poverty in Overbrook, the sheer amount of abandonment between 59th and 48th Streets, the slowly revitalizing portions from 44th Street to 38th, to the Drexel University area south of 38th Street. While one can easily see the challenges that face the City of Philadelphia, one can easily see the potential for the 21st century city.

As I take leave of Philadelphia for the big sky of Dallas, Texas, I will fondly remember my time in Philadelphia. The city of William Penn and Edmund Bacon, of Benjamin Franklin and Jon Wanamaker, of Richard Allen and Wilson Goode, of Pattie LaBelle and Wilt Chamberlain, and of Ed Rendell and James Logan continues to inspire and point to a more perfect union of hope and reality. And for this I am ever thankful.

One Week: The Political Landscape of the Michigan State House and Senate

2010-10-26T17:21:00.001-05:00

(cross-posted at WMR, ML, BFM, and SSP-pb)

Introduction

A week from the November 2 election, races in the Michigan State House and Senate are coming down to the home stretch. Many pundits, anonymous party officials, and insiders believe that Republican Rick Snyder will be elected governor of Michigan over Democratic candidate Virg Bernero. Far less certain is the status of individual races in the Michigan legislature. While some pundits and partisan hacks boldly state that the Michigan Republican Party will hold 28 Senate and 59 House seats by the evening of November 2, the actual picture remains much more clouded. Can the Republicans capture thirteen seats to control the lower chamber? Will the Democrats be able to pick up four senate seats to control of the upper chamber for the first time since 1984?

The recent pre-general financial reports for candidates help shed light on the situation on the ground. Candidates must report the amount of money they have raised and spent between August 24 and October 17, and must also declare their cash on hand at the end of the reporting period. We can thus see how the financial condition of candidates has changed since the previous analysis in early September. As in previous analysis of the State House and Senate candidates, I have collected the reported financial data that can be viewed [https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdFJhVm9UUmtCckxOMG91WVhXSVY0Zmc&hl=en&authkey=CPez8pgI via the linked Google document].

State Senate

In my early September analysis, I postulated that the Republican Senate candidates and caucus’ strong financial edge would limit any potential Democratic gains in the upper chamber to one or two seats. The pre-general election financial filings confirm the GOP’s strong financial edge, an edge which has increased over the past two months. Yet does this edge translate into a GOP gain of six seats in the senate as some have predicted?

Reviewing the financial statements, I see no reason to change the earlier assessment that Lansing will certainly see eleven Democrats in the State Senate come January 2011. However, the four Democratic-leaning seats are potential sleeper Republican pickup possibilities upon first glance. However, in the 6th District (Livonia and Westland) Democratic incumbent Glen Anderson has an 18 time cash on hand advantage over Republican challenger John Pastor, who only has $4,086 on hand.

The other three races present better opportunities for the GOP. In the 10th District (Sterling Heights, Roseville, and Clinton Township) Republican Representative Tory Rocca has a sizable financial edge ($129,944 cash on hand) over Paul Gieleghem (-2,472), although Gieleghem has outspent Rocca by almost $70,000. In the 31st District (Bay County and the Thumb Region) Democratic Representative Jeff Mayes’ financial edge has dissipated after outspending Republican Mike Green by almost $140,000, with each candidate having around $40,000 cash on hand for the last week of the campaign. Internal Democratic polling has Mayes leading by a sizable margin, which has led the Senate caucus to direct their financial resources to the 38th District, a seat being vacated by Democratic senator Mike Prusi. Democratic Representative Michael Lahti and Republican Tom Casperson are in a tight battle in a historic Democratic district in the Upper Peninsula. While Casperson is perhaps the best candidate the Republicans have fielded in the Upper Peninsula in the most Republican year in Michigan since 1998, the long-standing Democratic baseline strength gives the Democrats an even shot to hold this seat.

The ten Republican-leaning seats are likely to remain in the Republican column next week. However, three seats bear watching on election night. District 13 (eastern Oakland County), the site of an epic 2006 race between Andy Levin and John Papageorge, has a strong Democratic challenger in Aaron Bailey, who has spent $151,874 in the past two months. Bailey’s spending has been surpassed by Papageorge’s $325,553. In the 16th District (southern mid-Michigan) Democratic Representative Douglas Spade remains an underdog against Republican Representative Bruce Caswell, who has spent almost $140,000 in the past two months. With two weeks left, Spade has a small cash on hand advantage over Caswell, which could provide an opening for an upset. Finally, Republican incumbent “Raging” Roger Kahn has spent more than $200,000 to hold his 32nd District seat against Democrat Debasish Mridha, who has provided significant self-financing to remain competitive against Kahn. While the 32nd District has a historic Democratic-lean, Kahn’s previous success in this district keeps him favored a week before the election.

Of the five remaining swing seats, four are currently held by Republicans, and one by a Democrat. With the death of Democratic candidate Robert Jones, the 20th District (Kalamazoo County) looks to be leaning to Republican candidate Tonya Schuitmaker, who has $84,000 remaining in cash for the final week against Bobby Hopewell, the Democratic replacement candidate. Republican candidate Geoff Hansen also has a significant financial edge against Democrat Mary Valentine in the 34th District (Muskegon County), although Valentine’s formidable ground game might pull out a victory. Republicans have an even chance of flipping the 26th District (Genesee County and northern Oakland County), as Republican David Robertson is facing Democrat Paula Zelenko. While Democrat Deborah Cherry held this seat in 2002 and 2006, the 26th is much less Democratic than expected.

Senate Democratic caucus’ best chances of picking up seats appear to be in the 7th and 29th Senate Districts. The 7th (western Wayne County), features a four way race between Democrat Kathleen Law, Republican Patrick Colbeck, and two independent candidates (John Stewart and Michael Kheibari). While the 7th District has had a historic Republican lean, a former Republican moderate like Stewart will take some votes from Republican Colbeck that improves Law’s chances. In the 29th District (Grand Rapids and Kentwood), David LaGrand remains neck and neck with Republican Representative David Hildenbrand despite being outspent by almost $150,000 over the past two months. With a week to go, LaGrand has a $25,000 cash on hand advantage over Hildenbrand

If the election was held today, I’d expect the Democrats to pick up two seats in the senate (Districts 7 and 29) while losing one (District 26), leaving 21 Republicans and 17 Democrats in the upper chamber. However, with a week left, the picture is far to fluid to make a final assessment. I’ll be watching the following seats on election night: Districts 7, 10, 13, 16, 20, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 38.

State House

In September I noted that both parties had a number of safe seats in the State House that are not going to attract the attention of the opposing party. 35 Democrats and 27 Republicans will assuredly return to Lansing. Of the remaining seats, 18 lean Democratic, 14 lean Republican, and 16 swing seats.

Of the Democratic-leaning districts, only five bear watching on election night. In District 15 (Dearborn), Republican Suzanne Sareini remains financially competitive against opponent Democrat George Darany in a district that was a swing seat earlier in the decade. Likewise, in the 26th District (Royal Oak), Democrat James Townsend has recovered from an expensive primary to pull into a financial advantage against Republican Kenneth Rosen. In the 55th District (Monroe and Washtenaw Counties) the Democratic candidates Michael Smith has increased his financial edge against Republican Rick Olson. In the 75th District (eastern Grand Rapids) Democratic candidate Brandon Dillon seeks to hold an open Democratic seat against Republican businessman Bing Goei. The Michigan Democrat House caucus’ decision to dump $125,000 into the race in the past few days symbolizes the trust the caucus has in Dillon’s ability to hold this seat. In the 110th District (western Upper Peninsula) Democrat Scott Dianda has a significant financial edge over Republican Matt Huuki, although the edge many Republican candidates have might help Huuki in this historic Democratic district. Finally, the 31st District is a Democratic-held seat in Macomb County that could be a potential Republican pickup opportunity. Marilyn Lane is facing Republican Dan Tolis, who has poured more than $100,000 into his campaign coffers. Tollis has raised and spent little money since August 23 (raising $458 and spending $4,714), while Lane has spent heavily on the race.

Of the 14 Republican-leaning seats, three are being vacated by term-limited by Democratic incumbents (Districts 20, 83, and 107) and are likely Republican pickups. Six of the 14 seats are held by Republican incumbents, and face no competitive Democratic challenger. Of the five open Republican seats, GOP candidates have a small to significant financial advantage.

Of the remaining 16 seats, five are held by Democratic incumbents. The five Democratic incumbents (District 1, Tim Bledsoe; District 21, Dian Slavens; District 24, Sarah Roberts; District 39, Lisa Brown; District 70, Mike Huckleberry) all have large financial advantages over their Republican opponents, although Mike Hukleberry’s financial edge has shrunk with his massive spending against Republican Rick Outman.

The five Republican-held swing seats, all are open seats. Districts 30 (Sterling Heights), Districts 71 (Eaton County), 85 (Shiawassee County), 97 (Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac Counties), and 99 (Isabella and Midland Counties) all feature close races, although Democrats are in stronger shape in the 30th and 97th Districts.

The six open Democratic held seats are all in danger of being Republican pickups. The Republicans look especially competitive in Districts 52 (western Washtenaw County), although Republican Mark Oumiet’s financial shenanigans while a county commissioner are catching up to him. In districts 65 (Jackson County) and 91 (Muskegon County), self-financing Republicans Mike Shirkey and Holly Hughes are likely to pick up these seats. The 106th also looks like a possible flip, with Republican Peter Pettalia continuing to maintaining a financial edge against Democrat Casey Viegelahn. The two remaining open Democratic seats seem to be much safer for their party, with Van Sheltrown in the 103rd District (Missaukee, Roscommon, Ogemaw, and Iosco Counties), and Harvey Schmidt in the 57th District (Monroe County) each have an active local party, a financial edge and strong support from the departing Democratic incumbents.

As of October 26, I expect the Republicans to pick up nine seats while the Democrats will likely flip one seat, leaving the Democrats with a 59 to 51 seat edge in the House. On election night I’ll be watching 12 races in Districts 21, 31, 52, 55, 57, 65, 70, 71, 75, 103, 108, and 110.

Central Norristown Report

2010-10-19T15:59:00.002-05:00

(another church report, this time on a congregation located in Norristown, an old river town in Metropolitan Philadelphia-pb)

Like many Presbyterian churches, Norristown Central Presbyterian Church was born in the wake of the Old School/New School Presbyterian controversy 1837. This controversy was born out of decades of polity and theological disputes within the growing denomination, particularly over the role of 1801 Plan of Union between Presbyterian and Congregational denominations and the issue of slavery. Being the center of northern Presbyterianism, the metropolitan Philadelphia region featured a number of church splits. This was the case in Norristown, Pennsylvania, which was the growing county seat of Montgomery County, just to the west of the city of Philadelphia. The First Presbyterian Church of Norristown, which was founded in 1819, had elected to join the New School Presbyterians in 1838. In 1855 a new pastor assumed the pulpit at First Norristown, and convinced the majority of the session to join the Old School Presbyterians, a move that alienated a number of congregation members, who promptly left the congregation.

These members formed Norristown Central Presbyterian Church, which formed in August 1855 at Hill Hall, which was located at the corner of Swede and Airy Street in the shadow of the County Courthouse. Like many New School Presbyterian churches, the congregation refused to adopt a pew rental system, and instead sought pledges from the congregation. This caused some discussion among congregation members, which are dutifully captured in the session minutes. This early dissent notwithstanding, the congregation was incorporated two months later on October 15, 1855, and the congregation called its first pastor Daniel Mallery (1856-1862). Under Mallery’s tenure the church’s first sanctuary was built in 1862 on the north side of Main Street between Cherry and Swede Streets at a cost of $16,000 (the equivalent of $341,155 in 2009 dollars).

Following Mallery’s departure in 1862 to serve as a chaplain in the Union Army during the American Civil War, Robert Adair (1862-1865) assumed the pastorate as the church began worship in its new sanctuary. Over the next forty years the congregation grew at the downtown location, due in party to a series of revivals conducted between 1871 and 1875 under the leadership of Pastor Henry Ford (1866-1875). Under the next three pastors (William Jenks, 1875-1881, Joseph McCaskie, 1882-1886, and Lincoln Litch 1886-1891) the congregation continued to grow, as Norristown’s population continued to grow. With the arrival of James Hunter as pastor in 1892, the congregation began to actively considering moving to the western portion of Norristown, which was growing rapidly. With the encouragement of First Norristown, the congregation selected a site at the intersection of Airy and Stanbridge Streets in January 1899. A chapel was built in 1901 on the present-day site of the church, and the congregation decided to sell the current sanctuary at a congregational meeting in March 1902. Inaugural services were held in the new chapel on November 16, 1902, and led by the pastors of both First and Central Presbyterian churches.

The new sanctuary was elegantly constructed in the English gothic style. The stain-glass windows were also constructed in gothic style, and were designed by Nicholas D’Ascenzo, who was a master glassmaker based in Philadelphia. D’Ascenzo and his studio also designed stain glass windows for the National Cathedral in Washington DC and Riverside Church in New York City. The most windows on the east side of the sanctuary are called the “Gospel Windows”, and reflect the Christ’s ministries; while the windows on the west side of the church are commonly referred to as the “Law Windows” and display scenes from the Old Testament.

Map 1: Downtown Norristown

Following the movement of the congregation to a new site and the retirement of Pastor Hunter in 1902, the congregation entered a period of transition during the first years of John Crawford’s (1903-1936) tenure as pastor. A number of congregants who lived in the downtown area transferred their membership to First Presbyterian, while 87 new members joined Central within two years of Crawford’s arrival. In many was Crawford was a “foundational” pastor for the congregation; he created a number of ministry programs for the church that took strands from the social gospel movement as well as the missionary/organizational movement that swept the Protestantism before the 1914. Under his watch the church building was completed in October 1907, programming for children and summer school began, and financial support for the Norristown Presbyterian Italian Mission began in 1911.

Following Crawford’s retirement in 1936 the congregation continued to grow in membership during the tenures of James Kell (1937-1944) and James Grazier (1945-1959). Under the former the congregation began joint evening services with other Presbyterian churches in Norristown, and with the latter the church built a new educational wing that was completed in 1955, refurbished the main sanctuary in 1957, and reached new heights in membership.

Norristown’s membership numbers began to decline following Grazier’s retirement in 1959, which coincided with the migration of white Protestants from urban centers such as Norristown to newly forming suburban communities. The membership began to decline during the tenure of Joseph MacCarroll (1959-1963), and membership fell from 728 to 509 between 1964 and 1977 during the tenure of MacCaroll’s successor John McConaughy (1963-1977). The western portions of Norristown continued to change during the 1980s, as the white population declined as residents moved to the surrounding suburban communities, and the neighborhoods surrounding Central became increasingly Latino. During Peter Leathersich’s (1980 to 1988) tenure, the congregational membership dropped from 403 to under 200. While the church experienced continued instability in the 1990s, experiencing three short-term pastorates (two of them interim), under the leadership of Frank Amalfitano (1999-2006) the congregation began to increasingly reach out to the growing Latino population, and with funds from the General Assembly, called Pastor Gadiel Gomez-Saravia to serve a new Latino congregation.

Arch Street Presbyterian Church Case Study

2010-10-11T15:38:00.008-05:00

(Going through the archive as I get ready to depart from Philadelphia. This is a report I wrote as part of a consulting project on Arch Street Presbyterian Church back in February 2009-pb)

Part I: A Brief History of Arch Street Presbyterian Church

Like many churches in urban centers of the United States, Arch Street Presbyterian Church has a long history. This history, while similar to the broader Presbyterian story, also has unique  characteristics that are reflective of demographic changes occurring in center city neighborhoods  of Philadelphia.

The current congregation at 1724 Arch St is a product of five congregations that merged over the  past one hundred years. The first congregation known as Arch Street was established in 1813 as the Fifth Presbyterian Church. Fifth Presbyterian called a few pastors but  none stayed longer than a few years until Dr. Thomas H. Skinner was called in 1816. Skinner began his tenure at the church by preaching a series of sermons against doctrinal preaching that  eventually led to a threatened church trial for heresy. While the trial never occurred, the new  pastor garnered plenty of attention that rapidly increased the size of the growing congregation  and the building of a new sanctuary that was dedicated on Saturday June 7, 1823. When  Skinner left to be a Professor at Andover Seminary in 1832 the congregation had 600 members, a number which fell quickly after his departure. The bitter disputes within the congregation over  Skinner’s successor led to only 92 remaining members who greeted George Duffield as their new pastor in 1835. Duffield’s departure in 1837 was likely due to tensions within the church regarding the New School/Old School split within the national Presbyterian Church, as Fifth  Presbyterian Church soon was among the leading Old School congregations while Duffield  became a prominent New School Pastor.

After a decade of decline and waning membership numbers, Fifth Presbyterian was reorganized  in February 1850 as Arch Street Presbyterian Church and called Charles Wadsworth as its pastor.  Wadsworth served for thirteen years, and the congregation grew rapidly, often filling the  sanctuary an hour before services began, causing the session to build a trap door behind the  pulpit to allow Wadsworth to enter through the basement of the building. While the church  continued to maintain robust membership figures during the tenures of N. W. Conklin (1863- 1868) and John Withrow (1868-1873), the continued industrialization of the eastern portions of  Center City led to the removal of many residential units and parishioners from the neighborhood  surrounding the church by the mid-1870s. Many members moved to the growing suburban neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city core, causing the church’s membership to decline under the tenures of Walter Scott (1874-1878) and John Sands (1880-1890). While the church’s  membership had rejected a merger with Second Presbyterian in March 1868, the Session strongly  considered merger in March 1894, as the income from pew rents declined drastically under the leadership of George Wilson (1891-1897). Following Wilson’s retirement in 1897 the  congregation discussed merger with West Arch Street, and received approval from the  Philadelphia Presbytery in June 1897.

The West Arch Street congregation that Arch Street members joined in 1897 had been in existence since 1828 when the congregation was organized as 11th Presbyterian in November  1828. The new church called John L. Grant as pastor in June 1829, he served until 1850. With  the arrival of Pastor John Miller in 1850, the church sought a new sanctuary to house the ever- growing congregation that soon became one of the largest Old School congregations in the  country. The present-day sanctuary was built between 1853 and 1855, with the cornerstone laid  on May 21, 1855 in the presence of numerous conservative and southern Presbyterian elites,  including Princeton Professors A. B. Van Zandt and Robert Breckinridge. The Greek Revival sanctuary was designed by Joseph Hoxie and built to seat 900 on the ground floor and 200 in the galleries at a cost of $103,571.27(or $2.5 million in 2009 dollars). After Miller’s departure (and death while fighting for the Confederacy in 1864), Jonathan Edwards (1857-1866) a descendant of theologian Jonathan Edwards, became pastor and at one point welcomed the Prince of Wales to a service. After Edwards’ tenure Alphonso Willits (1867-1880) and John Hemphill (1882-1893) served the congregation, which soon began experiencing some of the same neighborhood transition that had transformed the Arch Street Congregation seven blocks to the east. Despite merging with Arch Street in 1897 the congregation continued to experience membership  decline under the tenure of Mervin J. Eckels (1893-1913), as the central portion of the city  became a growing commercial district for the metropolitan Philadelphia region.

Part II: The Revitalization of Center City Philadelphia

With its location in the heart of Center City, Arch Street Presbyterian was adversely affected by  its population decline between 1860 and 1960. With the Center City neighborhood rapidly  becoming an industrial and later commercial center, the residential population declined, resulting  in many members of the church changing their membership to churches in their new  neighborhood.

Yet in the past fifty years the population of Center City rebounded, and since  1960 has gained population while Philadelphia’s overall population decline, and the metropolitan  region’s population remained static. The population of Center City  increased from 43,465 in 1970 to 49,211 in 2000, a 13% increase over the past thirty years.  While the population of the neighborhoods to the north and south of Center City continued to  decline until 2000, the median housing values increased along with median income levels. The  rise in income and population levels is due in part to the development of new residential units throughout Center City. While new residential unit construction had occurred since the 1970s,  the passage of a 10 year tax abatement program in 1997 for new housing developments in  Philadelphia certainly made such ventures more profitable. Between 1997 and 2008 10,316 new  housing units were constructed in Center City and in the surrounding core neighborhoods to the  north and south (known as the “Extended Area”). The wave of developments after 1997 further increased the Center City residential population from 49,211 in 2000 to 57,000 in 2008,  while the total expanded area population rose from 78,902 in 2000 to 90,000 in 2008. Much of this development is high-end condos, lofts, and townhouses that are moving into  neighborhoods such as Queen Village and Northern Liberties on the outskirts of Center City that  have historically been working-class or low-income.

A recent Center City District  publication reports that 41% of the new residents have moved into their new dwellings from outside the City of Philadelphia. These new arrivals to the neighborhoods around Arch Street Presbyterian are well-educated (with 47% holding an advanced or professional degree), and are generally between the age of 25 and 34, and generally are “empty-nesters” (married couple without children), although there is a  sizable number of single residents in the city. While the population of Center City is still largely  white, a sizable and increasing minority is multi-racial. With the rebirth in the residential  population of Center City, the population density of the area has increased as well, providing  increase impetus for mixed use commercial development that further promotes revitalization  efforts for the city’s core.

Michigan State House and Senate: September 2010

2010-09-06T10:06:00.007-05:00

(Cross-posted on WMR, ML, BFM, and SSP-pb)

(photo by Tom Gill of beautiful Lake Michigan)

As we celebrate a beautiful Labor Day weekend, we can also rejoice in the unofficial start date of the 2010 campaign season. While many voters were bombarded with attention from campaigns over the past few months during primary season, the general election season will be upon us now with full vigor. Labor Day weekend also nicely coincides with the post-primary filing date for Michigan’s legislative campaigns. Candidates must report the amount of money they have raised and spent between July 18 and August 23, and must also declare their cash on hand at the end of the reporting period.

Thus we can see the financial condition of candidates entering to the last 61 days before Election Day in the contours of Michigan’s political landscape. As in previous analysis of the State House and Senate candidates, I have collected the reported financial data that can be obtained through a subscription. Please feel free to contact me at peterbratt@gmail.com.

State House

While signs of a Republican edge in the 2010 election have emerged over the past few months, the reality of Michigan’s political geography will reduce the number of competitive seats in the state to no more than fifteen. Using electoral data from the past four cycles, I’ve created a House District matrix that is shown in the linked Google document. Both parties have a number of safe seats that are not going to attract the attention of the opposing party; the Democrats have 31, the Republicans have 25. The filing date backs the electoral data. 22 Republicans have filed financial filing waivers, meaning they will raise no more than $1,000 for the 2010 election cycle, meaning they will most assuredly lose in November. Thirteen other Republican candidates have raised less than $1,000, and are already being heavily outspent by their Democratic opponents. Thus, for all intent and purpose, the Democrats will have at least 35 Representatives in January 2011.

27 Republicans will also most assuredly return to Lansing with these 35 Democrats. 17 Democrats have filed financial waivers, while six Republicans are unchallenged this fall (Peter Lund-36th, Kenneth Kurtz- 58th, Bob Genetski-88th, Joe Haveman-90th, Jim Stamas-98th, Wayne Schmidt, 104th). Say what you will about the Michigan Republican Party, but they ran candidates in every State House District, something that the Democrats didn’t do this cycle. The remaining four Republicans face rather nominal opposition, although Democrat Garry Post has self-financed his campaign against incumbent Republican Cindy Denby in the 47th District (northern Livingston County).

The remaining 48 districts are more competitive. Of these seats, I have classified 18 as Democratic leaning districts and fourteen as leaning Republican. Of the 18 Democratic seats, only 16 are potentially competitive since two Republicans have filed financial waivers. Eleven of these 18 Democrats are incumbents and are generally in a stronger financial position than their Republican opponents. Democratic incumbents Marty Griffin (64th-Jackson County) and Judy Nerat (108th-Menominee County) are the only two incumbents in less than robust financial positions against their opponents. Democrats will be most concerned about the seven open Democratic-leaning districts, six which the Democrats are defending. In the 15th (Dearborn), Republican Suzanne Sareini has double the money that her opponent Democrat George Darany has, which could make this seat one the GOP could put in play. In the 26th (Royal Oak), Democrat James Townsend is fresh off an expensive primary, while his Republican opponent Kenneth Rosen has a significant financial edge due to his self financing. In the 55th (Monroe and Washtenaw Counties) and the 75th (eastern Grand Rapids) the Democratic candidates Michael Smith and Brandon Dillon have significant financial advantages over their opponents, making the likelihood of the GOP House Caucus spending funds in these races much less likely. In the 110th (western Upper Peninsula) Democrat Scott Dianda has a financial edge over Republican Matt Huuki, although both candidates have not raised much money. The 31st District is a Republican-held seat in Macomb County that could be a potential Democratic pickup opportunity, and Marilyn Lane is facing Republican Dan Tolis, who has poured more than $100,000 into his campaign coffers.

Of the fourteen Republican leaning seats, six are held by GOP incumbents, five are open Republican seats, and three were vacated by term-limited Democratic incumbents. Three Democrats have filed financial waivers, meaning that only eleven seats are active elections. All GOP incumbents have a strong financial edge, while in the five open Republican seats, two Democratic candidates has filed a financial waiver (District 79 and 81), and in two races the Republican candidate has a large financial edge (Districts 33 and 61). Only in the 80th District (Van Buren County) does Democrat Tom Erdmann have a narrow financial advantage against Republican Aric Nesbitt, who spent a lot of money in a six-way Republican primary. Of the three Democratic-held district, two (District 83-Sanliac County, District 107-eastern Upper Peninsula) appear to be Republican pickups, as the Democratic candidates in each district have raised very little money in a tough political environment. In the 20th District vacated by Representative Marc Corriveau, Democrat Joan Wadsworth has a significant financial advantage over Republican Kurt Heise, who has largely self-financed his campaign. If Wadsworth can hold the 20th, which covers Plymouth Township and Northville in Wayne County, it will be a testament to her political skill.

The remaining 16 seats are swing districts, with five held by the GOP. The five Democratic incumbents (District 1, Tim Bledsoe; District 21, Dian Slavens; District 24, Sarah Roberts; District 39, Lisa Brown; District 70, Mike Huckleberry) all have large financial advantages over their Republican opponents, an advantage which the Democratic State House caucus will certainly supplement over the next two months. The six open-Democratic held seats are much more open to a Republican takeover. The Republicans look especially competitive in Districts 52 (western Washtenaw County), 65 (Jackson County) and 91 (Muskegon County), thanks to three self-financing candidates in Mark Ouimet, Mike Shirkey and Holly Hughes. While I suspect that Christine Green will be able to benefit from strong institutional support in Washtenaw County, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Shirkey and Hughes win their districts. The 106th also looks like a possible flip, with Republican Peter Pettalia out raising Democrat Casey Viegelahn. The two remaining open Democratic seats seem to be much safer for their party, with Van Sheltrown in the 103rd District (Missaukee, Roscommon, Ogemaw, and Iosco Counties), and Harvey Schmidt in the 57th District (Monroe County) each have an active local party, a financial edge and strong support from the departing Democratic incumbents. MDP will likely steer resources towards these two districts.

Of the five Republican held swing seats, all are open seats. Of these, Districts 30 (Sterling Heights), 97 (Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac Counties), and 99 (Isabella and Midland Counties) all look like potential Democratic pickups opportunities in November. Each Democratic candidate has a significant financial edge over their Republican opponent. Districts 71 (Eaton County) and 85 (Shiawassee County) are also potential opportunities, although the Republican candidates might be aided by a better political climate this fall.

With two months to go, I expect the Democrats to lose between four and seven seats in the Michigan State House. While the political environment is not favorable for the Democratic Party this cycle, the Michigan Democratic House caucus has a two to one financial advantage over the Republican House caucus (As of July 20, 2010 the Democratic House Caucus had $850,469 versus the Republican’s $394,231) that will be used to effect over the next few weeks. While a Republican gain might be larger, I suspect the state party will choose instead to focus money on regaining control over the Michigan Supreme Court and retaining the State Senate. For folks interested where these house districts are located, please see the maps below

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/WayneHouse.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MacombOaklandHouse.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/ThumbHouse.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/SouthMIHouse.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/SWMIHouse.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/WMHouse.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/LPHouse.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/UPHouse.jpg

State Senate

The financial situation in the Michigan State Senate is a 180 degree reversal of the State House. The Republican Senate caucus has a three to one money advantage, with $1,584,502 cash on hand versus the Democratic Senate caucus total of $505,007 (as of July 20). This deep financial advantage, along with the unfavorable political environment will make it difficult, but not impossible, for the Democrats to take control of the State Senate.

Of the 38 seats, 30 are open in the 2010 cycle. While the turnover in senators will be significant, the partisan makeup of the chamber will not be significantly altered. Eleven seats are safe in the hands of the Democratic Party, while the Republicans will assuredly return eight senators in January 2011. Of the eleven Democrats running for safe seats, nine have Republicans who have filed financial waivers, while Republicans Michael Ennis (District 9) and Kyle Haubrich (District 23) have raised insignificant amounts of funds, ensuring that Democrats Steve Bieda and Gretchen Whitmer will be reelected in November. Of the eight safe Republicans, two are incumbents (Mike Nofs in District 19 and Mark Jansen in District 28) and their opponents filed financial waivers. Democratic candidates also filed financial waivers in the 24th and 30th Districts, while none of the remaining four Democratic candidates have raised more than $5,000 against well-financed opponents.

10 seats are leaning Republican for a number of reasons. Republicans Jack Brandenburg (District 11-Macomb County) and Philip Pavlov (Lapeer and St. Clair Counties) face opponents who filed financial waivers, and Jim Marleau in the 12th District (Oakland County) and Mike Kowall in the 15th (northern Oakland) have significant financial advantages over Casandra Ulbrich and Pamela Jackson respectively. Incumbent Republican senators John Pappageorge (13th District-eastern Oakland County), Randy Richardville (17th District-Monroe and Washtenaw Counties), and Roger Kahn (32nd District-Saginaw County) have significant cash on hand advantages over their Democratic challengers. However, Aaron Bailey in the 13th and Debasish Mridha in the 32nd have raised significant funds that would allow them to make a play at these seats in a better political environment. A similar situation exists in the open 16th and 36th district seats, where popular Democrats Douglas Spade and Andy Neumann are running against Bruce Caswell and John Moolenaar. Neumann narrowly lost in 2002 in a bid for a senate seat, and it appears that Moolenaar has a significant financial advantage of more than $200,000 at the beginning of September. Democrats might consider making a play at the 16th District, where Douglas Spade will face Caswell, who provided a personal fortune for his attempt for higher office. Finally, in the 37th District, while Republican Howard Walker’s campaign account was depleted after a bitter primary battle, Democrat Bob Carr hasn’t caught on fire financially.

The four Democratic-leaning seats are a mixed bag for the defending party. Incumbent Glenn Anderson (6th District-Livonia and Westland) and Jeff Mayes (Bay County and the Thumb region) have significant cash on hand advantages, meaning they will avoid being targeted by the Republicans. However, in the 10th (Macomb County) and 38th (Upper Peninsula) Districts, two excellent candidates for each party (Paul Gieleghem versus Tory Rocca in the former and Michael Lahti and Tom Casperson in the latter) mean that there will be a contested race with significant funding from each party. While the Republican candidates are strong, the seats both have historic Democratic leanings, which will be crucial to retaining these seats in November.

The five remaining seats will decide control of the Senate. If the Republicans can hold two of their four seats, they will have a 20 to 18 edge in the chamber. The Democrats need to hold the 26th District (Genesee and Oakland Counties) and pick up three of the Republican seats. The problem for the Democrats is that their candidates in two of the five districts are in at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the 20th District Democrat Robert Jones has just over $10,000 on hand (and has loaned himself an equal amount), and is going up against Tonya Schuitmaker, who is personally wealthy and willing to spend significant sums to hold this Kalamazoo County seat, although she only has $6,000 on hand after an expensive primary. Democrat David LaGrand ($30,648 cash on hand) trails opponent David Hildenbrand ($134,352 cash on hand) by more than $100,000, and edge that the senate Democrats will have to try and overcome to contest this seat. Democratic candidates in the 7th (Kathleen Law with $21,577 cash on hand), 26th (Paula Zelenko with $23,041 cash on hand) and Mary Valentine ($49,231) are at rough financial parity with their Republican opponents Patrick Colbeck ($13,267), David Robertson ($10,648), and Geoff Hansen ($57,371).

Given the number of strong candidates in each party competing in some competitive districts, it seems that the parties will likely exchange some seats. However, given the Republican Senate caucus’ strong financial edge, I suspect the Democratic gain will be limited to a one to two seat gain, keeping the Republicans in control of the upper chamber.

Politics is about candidates and their message competing in a political landscape strongly shaped by partisan boundaries. With two months to go, both parties will be racing to the finish line. So, enjoy the last few weeks of peace and quiet before the robocalls start, and enjoy some beautiful state senate district photos below.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/WayneSenate.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MacombOaklandSenate.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/ThumbSenate.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/SWMISenate.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/WMSenate.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/LPSeante.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/UPSenate.jpg

Poorly armed and somewhat dangerous: Tea Party candidates in the 2010 Michigan primary

2010-08-10T14:22:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at WMR, ML, BFM, and SSP-pb)

Since early 2009, the Tea Party movement has gained an enormous amount of media attention. While claiming to be a non-partisan movement, the Tea Party is remarkably consistent with some of the core constituencies at the heart of Republican Party since the late 1960s. In particular, the themes commonly evoked by Tea Party participants (economic libertarianism, fervent individualism, and deep distrust of any governmental intervention) largely mirror the platform of Republican Representative Ron Paul’s 2008 candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination. Indeed, many organizers of Paul’s campaign and leaders in the Young American for Freedom (YAF) were behind many of the early Tea Party events in 2009.

The rise of the Tea Party movement represents in part a return of many conservative libertarians to the GOP. The candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964 did much to bring libertarians into the Republican Party, were they largely remained for following four decades. During his second term, George W. Bush was responsible for driving some libertarians out, as many became extremely disenchanted with the Republican Party’s focus on social issues and increased governmental expansion. While not abandoning the Republican Party entirely, a sizable percentage of libertarians voted from Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008 for reasons similar to those voiced in blogger Markos Moulitsas’s 2006 Cato Unbound [http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/10/02/markos-moulitsas/the-case-for-the-libertarian-democrat/ article].

Thus, the Tea Party movement should be viewed as a campaign bus returning disenchanted Republicans to an active role in the GOP. As numerous polls show, members of the movement are overwhelming conservative, white, older, well off, and evangelical Protestant in religious identity. The overriding narrative should not be that the Tea Party is a bunch of angry independents ready to forge an independent political movement, but rather that libertarians will be an active participant in the ideological battles within in the Republican Party following the November 2010 elections that will likely last until the end of the 2012 GOP Presidential primary.

Of course, American politics are decided at the ballot box, not at Ron Paul forums. The 2010 Michigan State House and State Senate primaries offer a good perspective on whether the Tea Party movement will be able to translate its message resurgent libertarianism into political success.

I identified the candidates running in the Republican or Democratic primary for the State House (508 total) and the State Senate (164 total), and used the endorsements from the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) and the Independence Caucus (IC) to determined if candidates could be considered authentic supporters of the Tea Party Movement. The RLC has long been a libertarian action group within the Republican Party. Founded in 1991, the RLC’s website states that it strongly supports “individual rights, limited government and free enterprise,” hallmarks of conservative libertarianism. The IC was created in 2008 by supporters of Jason Chaffetz, a libertarian Republican who defeated long-time Republican Congressman Chris Cannon in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District. The IC’s website also supports libertarian principles, including “limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional authority.” I used the endorsements from the RLC and IC to determine a candidate’s adherence to the Tea Party movement since many candidates, while stating vague solidarity, at heart want to run away from being associated with the conservative libertarian principles of the movement.

As shown in the [https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdFZCYmxhaEx1ZTlmN2tBdFd6ekc3OHc&hl=en&authkey=CKSat4EG linked Google document], both the RLC and IC endorsed a number of candidates in the 2010 primary. 25 State House and 12 State Senate candidates were endorsed by either the RLC or the IC, and four (two in the State House and two in the State Senate) were endorsed by both groups. All candidates were Republicans, and two were GOP incumbents in the State House (David Agema-74th and Bob Genetski-88th).

The Tea Party candidates had a lousy record in state house primary races. Of the 25 candidates in State House primaries, five did not face a primary challenge (including Agema and Genteski). However, only Agema and Genteski are likely to head to Lansing after November 2010, as the three challengers are in districts that are either safely Democratic (Bret Allen-29th and Chase Ingersoll-53rd) or have a strong Democratic incumbent (Steven Mobley-62nd). The remaining 20 candidates faced competitive primaries, resulting in only two Tea Party candidates winning the Republican nomination. One winner (Cynthia Kallgren-13th) is a sure loser this November, leaving Lori Levi (District 21) as the only non-incumbent Tea Party candidate who has a legitimate shot at winning.

Why did the remaining 18 Tea Party candidates lose their primaries? One (Dave Ryan-103rd) signed a financial waiver, dooming himself to sure defeat with promising not to raise more than $1,000 for the entire election cycle. While nearly all of the candidates provided personal loans to support their campaigns, many Tea Party candidates were simply unable to raise the money to compete successfully in the primary. Only 10 candidates raised more than $10,000 during the pre-primary filing period, and only five were able to raise more than $10,000 without personal loans to carry them over to the top. Thus, a large number of Tea Party candidates simply starved for a lack of funding.

Three races in Kent County are instructive to the struggle that Tea Party candidates faced in the 2010 primary season. Two of the races (Eric Larson-72nd and Jordan Bush-75th) featured aggressive first-time candidates who ran against more moderate Republicans who raised more traditional GOP themes. While Larson had an overwhelming financial advantage he lost to Ken Yonker by a narrow margin, a defeat that some say was caused by his over-reliance on direct mail and Yonker’s out-hustling him door-to-door. Bush faced a more uphill struggle against Goei, who had a financial advantage and establishment support, and while connecting well in his Alger Heights neighborhood and portions of the 2nd Ward, did not connect with voters in the Calvin Ghetto (east of Plymouth Street, south of Hall Street). In the 86th District, Walker Mayor Rob Ver Heulen lost to Lisa Lyons, daughter of former GOP State Senator Dick Posthumus, in a classic west/east side battle that once again, the more populated east side one. Lyons’ membership in the Posthumus political dynasty did not hurt, nor did the fact that candidates John Schwartz and Kimberly Cummings help divide up the Republican vote outside of Lyons’ political base in Ada Township and Lowell.

In the State Senate, a somewhat more mixed picture appears. The RLC and IC parted ways and endorsed opposing candidates in the 7th and 30th State Senate districts, with the IC supported candidate winning in the 7th (Patrick Colbeck) and the RLC candidate victorious in the 30th (Arlan Meekhof). Meekhof will win easily in November, while Colbeck will likely be in the crosshairs in an extremely competitive swing district. While 7th District Democratic candidate Kathleen Law is flawed in so many ways, the presence of former Republican John Stewart as an independent candidate could steal a large number of moderate Republican votes from Colbeck. This will be a race to watch in November. Kyle Haubrich was unopposed in the 23rd District GOP primary, and will be defeated handily in November by Democratic Senator Gretchen Whitmer.

Of the remaining seven Tea Party candidates with primaries, only David Hildenbrand (District 29) won. Hildenbrand is a sitting State Representative with strong conservative backing from his Lowell-based district, and will face strong general election opponent in former Grand Rapids City Commissioner David LaGrand. The remaining six faced challenges similar to those faced by their state house counterparts: low fundraising numbers and opposition from the GOP establishment.

Will the Tea Party movement have a future in Michigan politics past November 2010? I suspect that there will be no more than two Tea Party-endorsed members in both the Michigan State Senate and State House. However, the ideological battle within the Michigan Republican Party will continue unabated in the coming two years, particularly if GOP gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder is elected. Of all the GOP candidates, Snyder is the one that raised the more ire among Tea Party supporters in Michigan, who seem him as the second coming of William Milliken. It will be fascinating to see how Snyder campaigns as a moderate while keeping the Tea Party movement within the GOP. Regardless, I am sure John Yob will play a role.

State House Pre-Primary Filing Statements Analysis

2010-07-28T07:51:00.001-05:00

(cross-posted at ML and BFM-pb)

As with the State Senate pre-primary filing statements, I’ve performed an analysis of the top fundraisers for the Michigan State House primary races. Again, for those interested in the complete set of financial data, you can request a subscription at peterbratt@gmail.com.

The top fifteen candidates in terms of money raised are listed in the link provided below:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdEtOZUlZLVVna25sdEEyQnpTSU9xX1E&hl=en

Five of the top 15 fundraisers are incumbents, and five of the 15 are Democrats. Two of the top fundraisers are Mike Shirkley and Mark Ouimet, Republicans running in open swing seats (Districts 65th and 52nd) that the Democrats will be fighting to hold. It is interesting to note that of the top Democratic fundraisers, only one is from metropolitan Detroit (Rashida Tlaib District 12). If the Democrats remain in the majority (which I predict they will), I’d expect to see Scripps, Schmidt, and Tlaib in the running for leadership positions. In good news for the Democrats, Brandon Dillon, who is running for the 75th State House seat vacated by Robert Dean, raised a significant amount of money that leaves him with a comfortable cash on hand advantage for the general election.

The top 15 spenders are listed next (the second tab of the spreadsheet):
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdEtOZUlZLVVna25sdEEyQnpTSU9xX1E&hl=en

Once again, Republicans dominate this list, with self financers like Holly Hughes (District 91-Swing) and Jeff Oesterle (District 67-Safe DEM) repaying a large portion of their loans and thus leading the list. As with the State Senate list, many candidates with heavy spending are in competitive primaries.

Incumbents and candidates personally financing their campaigns dominate the list of candidates with the most cash on hand listed on the third tab of the spreadsheet:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdEtOZUlZLVVna25sdEEyQnpTSU9xX1E&hl=en

11 of the 15 candidates with the greatest cash on hand advantage are incumbents, and nine of these are Democratic incumbents, three of whom are in swing Districts (Dian Slavens District 21, Sarah Roberts District 24, and Lisa Brown District 39). This financial edge is a heartening sign for continued Democratic control of the House.

Finally, Republicans hold all of the top 15 spots on the fourth spreadsheet listing candidates with the greatest amount of personal debt.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdEtOZUlZLVVna25sdEEyQnpTSU9xX1E&hl=en

While money can’t buy victory, it sure can help in competitive seats like Districts 21, 52, and 91. As in some State Senate primaries, the candidates are literally locked in a spending arms race in the final weeks until August 3.

State Senate Pre-Primary Filing Statements Analysis

2010-07-26T08:18:00.001-05:00

(Cross-posted at ML and BFM-pb)

State Senate Pre-Primary Filing Statements

While I have much more information on my subscription-only database, I figured that please might appreciate some basic information about the top fundraisers for Michigan State Senate primary races. Again, for those interested in the complete set of financial data, you can request a subscription at peterbratt@gmail.com.

Nearly all candidates have reported their financial data (with the glaring exceptions of Rebekah Warren in the 18th and Coleman Young Jr. in the 1st). The top fifteen candidates in terms of money raised are listed in the link provided below:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdEJKek50RmN3N3BkZTg3YVlJVmZHOUE&hl=en

11 of the top fundraisers of Republicans, and two are in the 20th State Senate District primary. David LaGrand and David Hildenbrand are two other top fundraisers, and are potential opponents in a general election matchup in the 29th State Senate District. The top 15 spenders are listed next (the second tab of the spreadsheet):
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdEJKek50RmN3N3BkZTg3YVlJVmZHOUE&hl=en

Incumbents and candidates personally financing their campaigns dominate the list of candidates with the most cash on hand listed on the third tab of the spreadsheet:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdEJKek50RmN3N3BkZTg3YVlJVmZHOUE&hl=en

Republicans hold all but two of the top 15 spots on the fourth spreadsheet linked below.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdEJKek50RmN3N3BkZTg3YVlJVmZHOUE&hl=en

While money can’t buy victory, it sure can help. However, in a couple of primaries, namely the 11th and 20th Republican races, the candidates are literally locked in a spending arms race in the final weeks. Should be interesting to see what happens on August 3.

An analysis of the State House races will be provided later this week.

State House and State Senate candidates Pre-Primary filing statements and some predictions

2010-07-24T08:34:00.002-05:00

(Updated Monday July 26, 2010 8am)

Representative Dean's financial statement was released on Sunday July 25. Dean raised $30,271, spent $22,779, and has $3,031 cash on hand. The campaign has debts of $24,969, a loan which Dean gave to the campaign on January 29, 2010. Dean has a total of 22 donors, and in addition to his loan he contributed another $3,500 to the campaign. So, essentially, Dean's donors have given him a grand total of $2,500.

While I have much more information on my subscription only database, I figured that folks at West Michigan Rising might appreciate some basic information about a couple of races of interest. Again, for those interested, you can request a subscription at peterbratt@gmail.com.

20th State Senate District

First, in the 20th State Senate District there is a lot of money being thrown around. Lorence Wenke raised $317,260, spent $211,476 and has $125,125 cash on hand. Much of this money came from Wenke's own pocket, as he has loaned himself $365,000. Wenke is followed by Tonya Schuitmaker who raised $126,464, spent $146,767, and has $106,085 in cash on hand. Like Wenke, Schuitmaker has spent a large amount of her own money, providing herself with $100,000 in a personal loan. Schuitmaker and Wenke are both from different sides of the Republican tent-Wenke is an unabashed socially liberal Republican, while Schuitmaker has lined up support from conservative loyalists in the 20th District despite her inferior geographic position (being from Van Buren County rather than Kalamazoo). The third candidate in the GOP primary, moderate Larry DeShazor, has raised $34,141, spent $30,809, and has $3,331 cash on hand, with personal loans of $19,804. While many consider DeShazor to be the strongest general election candidate the GOP could run, his poor fund raising is likely to hinder him in this free spending primary. For what it is worth, I'm predicting Schuitmaker to win on August 3.

On the Democratic side, Mark Totten has again substantially out raised Representative Robert Jones. Totten raised $65,942, spent $112,928, and has $73,100 in cash on hand, with a personal loan of $32,704. In contrast, Jones raised $49,770, spent $40,639, has $9,131 in cash on hand, and has a personal loan of $10, 377. While Ballenger is calling this race for Jones, I think Totten is going to pull this one out.

29th State Senate District

In the other big west Michigan primary, the 29th State Senate district has five candidates, three Republicans and two Democrats. on the Republican side, State Representative David Hildenbrand raised $100,307, spent $68,170 and has $170,192 in cash on hand. Hildenbrand's opponent Lori Wiersma raised $48,239, spent $39,237, and has $8,991 in cash on hand (and a personal loan of $1,750). While Wiersma is a stronger general election candidate for the GOP as she hails from Grand Rapids and is more moderate, it is hard to beat someone who has such a sizable financial edge that the GOP Representative from Lowell does. The third GOP candidate Judith Faye Kapteyn did not file a statement.

On the Democratic side, David LaGrand raised an enormous sum of $116,938. LaGrand spent $64,739, and has $52,198 in cash on hand. LaGrand's opponent Representative Robert Dean did not submit a statement as of 9am Saturday morning. Given all the turmoil in the Dean campaign and that Dean's campaign treasurer is Noah Seifullah, who remains on the Dean campaign despite resigning in disgrace as Dean's chief of staff, the delay in a filing statement is somewhat expected. Regardless of Dean's financial haul, I expect him to be a serious disadvantage to LaGrand on August 3 (a prediction will come later next week).

State House Districts

In the state house races, there are few things to note. First, Democratic Representative Roy Schmidt raised a lot of money, pulling in $57,748, spending $15,699, and has $82,317 in cash on hand. Not bad for running against an GOP candidate who filed a financial waiver promising not to raise more than $1,000. There isn't much more news in any other race than in the 75th District.

75th State House District

This seat, which covers eastern Grand Rapids, features a bitter Republican primary between Bing Goei and Jordan Bush. Goei, who is generally viewed as the moderate, raised $44,256, spent $41,729, and has $2,527 in cash on hand. Goei also took out a personal loan of $10,000. Bush raised $19,490, spent $23,950, and has $2,965 in cash on hand (and a $8,880 personal loan). Given Goei's connections and endorsements by the GOP establishment, he was expected to raise substantial amounts of money, but this has not quiet panned out. Bush remains in contention, and I view the race as a toss up with 10 days to go.

Waiting for either Republican candidate is Democratic County Commissioner Brandon Dillon. Dillon nearly bested Roy Schmidt in the fund raising race, pulling in $51,281, while spending only $11,816 and has $39,465 in cash on hand. Dillon isn't napping as he waits for an opponent.

MI-2 and MI-3 Second Quarter Fundraising numbers

2010-07-16T08:38:00.002-05:00

Candidates running for federal office were required to submit their second quarter filing statements by July 15th at 5pm. Most of the financial data is online now, so let's look at two races close to WMR's heart: the 2nd and 3rd Michigan Congressional Districts.

In the 2nd District Republican primary, the long-standing cash on hand edge that Jay Riemersma had has largely disappeared. Of the seven candidates in the 2nd District primary, listed below is the 2nd quarter financial data:

Candidate	Contributions 2ndQ (Total)	Spending 2ndQ (Total)	Cash On Hand (debts)
COOPER(R)	$16,920 ($92,596)	$75,949 ($164,952)	$106,038 ($178,348)
HUIZENGA(R)	$108,124 ($292,481)	$67,750 ($217,675)	$100,756 ($25,000)
KUIPERS(R)	$75,415 ($188,005)	$17,445 ($38,370)	$149,634
MCCLURE(R)	$4,682 ($4,682)	$6,757 ($6,757)	$1,419
REICHARDT(R)	$66,376 ($102,349)	$85,073 ($97,939)	$3,981
RIEMERSMA(R)	$122,545 ($448,153)	$253,011 ($521,012)	$127,540 ($200,000)
WINCEL(R)	$300 ($7,185)	$7,664 ($11,993)	$2,191 ($7,000)
JOHNSON(D)	$29,242 ($53,301)	$20,258 ($37,797)	$15,963 ($1,000)

Riemersma has just been burning cash this quarter, no doubt in part to working with Strategic National. With four candidates (Kuipers, Riemersma, Huizenga, and Cooper) having over $100,000 cash on hand for the final five weeks before the primary, the outcome is still in doubt. The winner of the primary will face Democratic candidate Fred Johnson, who reported respectable numbers. Go over the fold to see the 3rd District numbers.

Candidate	Contributions 2ndQ (Total)	Spending 2ndQ (Total)	Cash On Hand (debts)
AMASH(R)	$178,531 ($269,494)	$132,958 ($182,959)	$162,135 ($138,876)
HARDIMNAN(R)	$67,836 ($121,923)	$77,381 ($78,243)	$43,579
HEACOCK(R)	$125,608 ($198,745)	$172,496 ($172,496)	$51,298 ($25,050)
MILES(D)	$138,119 ($195,449)	$48,261 ($50,239)	$259,983 ($115,000)

As of 2pm, Overbeek had not yet filed. Heading into the final month, Amash has a substantial cash on hand advantage over Heacock, which will like be used. Interestingly, Amash made a loan of $50,000 to his campaign during the 2nd quarter, bringing his total outstanding debts to $138,876. Hardiman has kept his spending down to remain financially competitive in the closing days of the campaign.

For all of Amash's denouements of liberals, I'm pleased to see that he is using Practical Political Consulting, a Democratic consulting firm run by Mark Grebner in East Lansing. When the going gets rough, use the best. Using the Campaign Resource Group run by Don Goris in Grand Rapids isn't that surprising.

3rd District Primary Analysis

2010-07-12T08:40:00.001-05:00

Introduction

With just over three weeks before the August 3 primary, Republican and Democratic campaigns are starting to take a look at who might be coming to the polls. Voter turnout in August tends to be rather apathetic, given that many folks are out of town or find the choices on the ballot to be unappealing. However, the 2010 Republican and Democratic primaries have a host of interesting candidates to choose from, although none as interesting as in the 3rd Congressional District primary. The 3rd Congressional District covers Barry, Ionia, and Kent County (with the exception of Alpine, Sparta, and Tyrone Townships in the northwest corner of Kent County). Add to the 3rd District race the Democratic and Republican primary races for governor and the 29th State Senate seat (Kentwood/Grand Rapids), and the competitive Republican state house races in the 72nd, 73rd, 75th, 77th, and 86th districts, there are reasons to expect higher turnout in 2010

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/3rdCongDistrict2010Primary.jpg

3rd District Primary

So how many voters might come to the polls on August 3 for the 3rd District primary? The past four election cycles provide some clues. Overall primary turnout varied from 2000 to 2008, with a record 117,247 voters coming out in 2004 (largely for the zoo millage), to a low of 64,368 voters in 2008. The large number of voters in 2004 hailed overwhelmingly from Kent County, and cast huge numbers of votes in the GOP primary.

Understanding the GOP 3rd District primary in context of November election numbers can be informative. In 2000 173,465 voted for general election vote leader Spencer Abraham while 61,914 cast a ballot in the Republican primary. In 2002 152,731 voted for Ehlers in the general, while 54,132 voted in the primary. In 2004 213,895 voted for Ehlers in the general, 91,241 voted in the primary. In 2006 169,533 voted for Ehlers in the general, 52,756 voted in the primary. In 2008 203,769 voted for Ehlers in November, and 46,150 voted in the primary. Despite the noise about tea party mania, time after time turnout is lower in the gubernatorial election cycle when compared to the presidential cycle two years earlier. GOP primary turnout was 54,132 in 2002, and 52,756 in 2006, and will likely be higher in 2010 given the high-interest races mentioned earlier, but it is not going to get anywhere near the high of 91,241 in 2004. Three weeks before the election, I expect that turnout will maximize at 80,000 for the Republican primary in 2010.

The same sort of analysis applies for the Democratic primary turnout. Democratic turnout has varied significantly over the past five primaries, with 16,705 voters in 2000, 44,629 in 2002, 26,006 in 2004, 27,766 in 2006, and 15,176 in 2008. While there is a competitive Democratic gubernatorial primary, and a primary in the 29th State Senate District, turnout will not be as high as in 2002, but probably in between turnout levels set in 2002 and 2006. I would make a guess that no more than 30,000 voters will cast ballots in the Democratic primary.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/3rdCongDistrict2010PrimaryTypolo-1.jpg

3rd District Typology

As important as turnout is, where the voters come from is even more crucial for a campaign in the waning days. With an estimated turnout number in mind, where are the votes coming from? In the 3rd District primaries for both parties from 2000 to 2008 between 80% and 85% of the total vote will come from the Kent County portion of the 3rd District, while about 10% to 15% generally comes from Barry County, and about 6% comes from Ionia County. Thus, Kent County is where the action is.

However, a more informative way to look at the 3rd District would be to classify the different communities in the district into four distinct types: Rural, Exurban, Inner-Ring Suburbs, and Core City. Of course, the core city refers to Grand Rapids, which provided an average 19% of the total GOP primary vote over the past four cycles. A large portion of the GOP vote from Grand Rapids comes from the outlying portions of the 3rd Ward Dutch heartland, although there are similar GOP areas on the fringes of the 1st and 2nd Wards. Surrounding Grand Rapids are the inner ring suburbs of Kentwood, Wyoming, Grandville, East Grand Rapids, and Walker. These inner ring suburbs were largely built between 1920 and 1970, and face many of the same demographic and financial pressures facing Grand Rapids. Many of these suburbs have trended Democratic steadily over the past four cycles (especially in Wyoming and Kentwood), although strong bastions of social conservatives (in Grandville, Walker, and Wyoming) and economic conservatives (EGR) still exist. The inner ring suburbs provide 21% of the total GOP vote, giving the Grand Rapids metropolitan core about 40% of the total Republican vote. Over 32% of the GOP primary vote comes from the exurban suburbs, areas that were built largely after 1980 that have large lot sizes and have few of the infrastructure and demographic concerns of the core city and inner ring suburbs. The exurban areas of the 3rd District include Ada, Byron, Cannon, Cascade, Gaines, Grand Rapids Township, and Plainfield Townships. Finally, the rural portions of Kent, Barry, and Ionia Counties provide the final 25% of the GOP electorate.

On the Democratic side the story is quite different. Grand Rapids provides 37% of the total vote, and I suspect that this percentage will be even higher with the 29th State Senate District primary. The inner ring suburbs provide 24%, the exurban communities 19%, and the rural portions of the district 20%.

Conclusion

The suburbs, not the city, will play a key role in the 3rd District GOP primary that in which the three candidates represents different parts of the 3rd District. Heacock represents the core city and the Ehlers-Henry school of Dutch-Calvinism moderation, Hardiman the ideology of social conservativism that dominated the inner ring suburbs such until this past decade, while Amash represents the economic libertarianism that has sprung up rapidly from its slumber in the temple of Hayek and Ayn Rand over the past decade after the disastrous ideological experience of the George W. Bush Administration, and is at home in the exurban communities that have grown rapidly over the past two decades. The steady decline of the Grand Rapids Republican Party over the past five cycles will hurt Heacock the most (as well as Lori Wiersma in the 29th State Senate District Republican primary), and he'll be hurt further by the votes that Hardiman will take from conservative African American voters in the core (not that many, but still some). Haridman’s candidacy is hurt in part by Heacock’s, and the limited appeal of his social conservative ideology in the exurban areas of the 3rd District. Amash won election in the 72nd State House District in 2008 because of ample funding and a multi-candidate primary. Given that he has both again, as well as unique geographic positioning, Amash has a strong road to victory in the 3rd GOP primary. However, the general election will be another story.

State of the Senate: Part IV

2010-07-01T16:45:00.000-05:00

Introduction

A few months ago I examined the underlying political conditions of the 110 Michigan State House districts, which can be found [http://westmichiganrising.com/diary/1538/state-of-the-house-part-iii here], and in addition to previous analysis of the [http://westmichiganrising.com/diary/1531/state-of-the-senate-part-ii State Senate] and [http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/16421/state-of-the-house-part-i State House]. This analysis used a variation of the reputable House Vulnerability Index developed by Crisitunity at the Swing State Project that I called the District Vulnerability Index (DVI). This analysis is the fourth part of the series, and looks at the individual State Senate races. I last looked at individual candidate filings at the end of April, and over the past two months, the field of candidates who have filed to run in the August 2010 primary have solidified for both parties. As mentioned in previous posts, I maintain a listing of State House and State Senate candidates that includes the financial filing statements and in-depth analysis that can be obtained via a subscription by emailing peterbratt@gmail.com.

Analysis

Using the DVI, I've divided the 38 Senate seats into five different categories; Safe GOP, Leans GOP, Swing, Leans DEM, and Safe DEM. You can see the Safe GOP seats in Table 1 below (soapblox won't let me embed these tables, so just click the link below):

Table 1 (Worksheet 1): Safe GOP (8 seats)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdHJDeWIyazlEMEcxNktnNk84dXV5a1E&hl=en&authkey=CMrDvM8N

The vast majority of these seats are historic Republican strongholds, particularly those in Oakland County, and seats in rural Kent and Ottawa Counties. While only two of these seats has a GOP incumbent (Mark Jansen-Kent County and Mike Nofs-Jackson and Calhoun Counties, five of eight Democratic opponents have file financial waivers, meaning that they are going to raise no more than $1,000. Expect these eight Republicans to be in Lansing in January 2011.

Table 2 (Worksheet 2): Leans GOP (10 seats)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdHJDeWIyazlEMEcxNktnNk84dXV5a1E&hl=en&authkey=CMrDvM8N

Three of these GOP-leaning seats are held by Republican incumbents, who have attracted a range of competitors. Republican Senator Roger Kahn faces a self-financed Democratic challenger in Debasish Mridha, who could make a challenge in the 32nd District. Given the Democratic baseline lean of this district, the GOP will probably provide financial assistance to Kahn in November. Of the other seven seats, there are nasty Republican primaries that could affect the outcome of the November race. In District 11, a three-way GOP primary between carpetbagger Kim Meltzer, convicted felon Jack Brandenburg, and pig-man Leon Dorlet has gotten nasty (the descriptions of these candidates have been provided be each other, not by me). Brandenburg is viewed as the strongest Republican candidate in the general election. There are also competitive Republican primaries in the 12th (eastern Oakland County), 15th (western Oakland County), and the 25th (Lapeer and St. Clair Counties).

Table 3 (Worksheet 3): Safe DEM (11 seats)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdHJDeWIyazlEMEcxNktnNk84dXV5a1E&hl=en&authkey=CMrDvM8N
Most of these safe Democratic districts like in Detroit (Districts 1-5, 8-9) or in other long-term Democratic strongholds across the state (District 14-southern Oakland County, District 18 Washtenaw County, District 23-Ingham County, and District 27-Genesee County). These 11 seats will send Democrats to Lansing, although the identity of a few is still up in the air. Incumbents Hunter, Gleason, and Whitmer will return (despite Whitmer’s opponent Kyle Haubrich saying on Facebook that “In November I will be singing, "I can live freely now, the Dems are gone!" "Its gonna be a bright, bright sunshinny [sic] day!!!"). Many primaries in the Detroit seats feature multiple candidate primaries that will only be sorted out come August 3.
Table 4 (Worksheet 4): Leans DEM (4 seats)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdHJDeWIyazlEMEcxNktnNk84dXV5a1E&hl=en&authkey=CMrDvM8N

These four seats are districts that the Michigan Republican Party might be tempted to spend some money on this fall. Incumbent Glenn Anderson (western Wayne County) will likely be safe, and Democratic candidates Carl Marlinga is a strong candidate in the 10th District Democratic primary. While the Democratic-held 31st and 38th District seats are potentially vulnerable, the Republican primaries could hinder these candidates from getting financial traction against Democrats Jeff Mayes and Mike Lahti, respectively. I’d think that the GOP would only be going after these seats if the Dems looked DOA come the middle of October.

Table 5 (Worksheet 5: Swing (5 seats)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdHJDeWIyazlEMEcxNktnNk84dXV5a1E&hl=en&authkey=CMrDvM8N

If the Democratic and Republican candidates perform as expected and win all their safe and leaning seats, there will be at least 15 Democrats and 18 Republicans in the State Senate come January 2011. The remaining 5 swing seats are likely to be the major focus of each party in the 2010 election cycle, and rightfully so. These seats are all open and four of these seats are held by Republicans (With the Democrat Senator Deb Cherry vacating District 26). All these seats feature multi-candidate primaries (with the exception of the 34th District), and depending on which candidate makes it to the general election, each party will invest heavily in these seats. I consider Democrats Mark Totten and David LaGrand to be the strongest Democratic candidates in the 20th and 29th Districts, while Republicans Larry DeShazor and Lori Wiersma would be strong general election opponents. I’m less optimistic about the Dems being able to pick up District 7, although a weak GOP candidate could emerge from a nasty primary fight (Example A: Abe Munfakh) that Kathleen Law could seriously challenge. Districts 26 and 34 could go either way, although I’d give the edge to the Democratic candidate in both seats.

Conclusion

A month before the August primary, I’m betting that the Republicans will hold a 20-18 seat edge in State Senate come January 2011. That being said, we’ll know more come August 3.

State of the House: Part III

2010-04-29T09:15:00.003-05:00

(cross-posted on WMR, ML, BFM-pb)

Introduction

A few weeks ago I examined the underlying political conditions of the 110 Michigan State House districts, which can be found [http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/16421/state-of-the-house-part-i here], and later performed the same analysis on the [http://westmichiganrising.com/diary/1531/state-of-the-senate-part-ii State Senate]. This analysis used a variation of the reputable House Vulnerability Index developed by Crisitunity at the Swing State Project that I called the District Vulnerability Index (DVI). This analysis is the third part of the series, and looks at the individual State House races. The forthcoming last section will look at the State Senate races. I last looked at individual candidate filings in mid-January, and in the past three months, over 100 candidates have filed to run in the August 2010 primary for both parties. As mentioned previously, I maintain a listing of State House and State Senate candidates that includes the financial filing statements that can be obtained via a subscription by emailing peterbratt@gmail.com.

Analysis

Using the DVI, I've divided the 110 State House seats into five different categories; Safe GOP, Leans GOP, Swing, Leans DEM, and Safe DEM. You can see the Safe GOP seats in Table 1 below (soapblox won't let me embed these tables, so just click the link below).:

Table 1 (Worksheet 1): Safe GOP (28 seats)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tq_7t0cEoEVthqHUewbvX-Q&output=html

The vast majority of these seats are historic Republican strongholds, particularly those in Oakland County, and seats in rural Kent and Ottawa Counties. 15 of the 27 seats have GOP incumbents, and of these 15, none have a primary challenger, and only one has a general election opponent (Hugh Crawford, R-38). While the 14 other incumbents will likely get Democratic challengers in the next two weeks, expect these safe incumbents to return to Lansing in January 2011.

The other 12 seats feature open Republican primaries to replace term-limited GOP incumbents. Many of these races have attracted a large number of candidates, including District 73 (northern Kent County) with eight candidates, District 77 (Wyoming and Byron Township) and District 105 (Antrim, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, and Otsego Counties) with six. While these seats might feature combative Republican primaries (the 105th features GOP media queen Dennis Lennox), none yet have strong Democratic candidates to take advantage of potential discord. Unless a Democratic wave reappears, I can't see anything but 27 Republicans winning these seats.

Table 2 (Worksheet 2): Leans GOP (13 seats)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tq_7t0cEoEVthqHUewbvX-Q&output=html

Six of these GOP-leaning seats are held by Republican incumbents, who have attracted a range of competition. In particular, should Paul Scott (District 51-southern Genesee County) run for Secretary of State, this district would again be a swing seat, especially given his Democratic opponent Art Reyes, who is a strong labor leader in Genesee County.

Republicans in Lansing will be much more interested in three open seats being vacated by Democrats. Districts 20 (Northville), 83 (Saniac County) and 107 (Chippewa, Mackinac, and Emmet Counties) are being vacated by Marc Corriveau (running for State Senate District 7), John Espinoza (term-limited) and Gary McDowell (who is term-limited and running for US Congress). These three seats are perhaps the most opportune pickup chances for the GOP. However, each of these seats will likely feature Republican primaries, although Republican Kurt Heise is unopposed in the GOP primary for the 20th District, while Democrats Michael Kheibari and Joan Wadsworth are facing off in the Democratic primary. The 83rd District three-way Republican primary, while school teacher Alan Lewanbowski is unopposed in the Democratic primary. The 107 has two candidates in the Democratic primary and three in the Republican primary.

The remaining four seats are open districts due to term-limits removing Republican incumbents, and a number feature combative primaries. This is particularly true in Districts 79 (northern Berrien County) and 80 (Van Buren County), seats that have a historic Republican lean and where a split between GOP establishment candidates and TeaRepublicans is heading towards inter-party warfare could prove adventitious for Democrats. Democratic candidate Tom Erdmann is waiting as the Democratic candidate in the 80th District, although no Democratic candidate has yet filed in the 79th District.

Table 3 (Worksheet 3): Safe DEM (36 seats)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tq_7t0cEoEVthqHUewbvX-Q&output=html

Most of these safe Democratic districts like in Detroit (15 seats) or in other long-term Democratic strongholds across the state. 22 seats have Democratic incumbents, and the seven Democratic incumbents from outside the city of Detroit have no primary challengers, although a few have woefully funded general election opponents. 13 of the 15 Democratic incumbents in Detroit are facing primary challenges, underscoring how pathetic the GOP is in the city. For the large part these challenges are from constant candidates, although Rashida Tlaib (District 12) faces challenger Jim Czachorowski, who may be funded by businessman Matty Moroun. Stay tuned, and expect all the 22 Democratic incumbents to return to Lansing (although Lesia Liss might face a contest from disgruntled Democrats).

Of the 14 open seats, all feature multi-candidate primaries, which will be entertaining to watch. However, expect 36 Democrats to return to Lansing from these safe seats.

Table 4 (Worksheet 4): Leans DEM (18 seats)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tq_7t0cEoEVthqHUewbvX-Q&output=html

11 of these seats are currently held by Democratic incubments. None are facing primary challengers, and although all have general election opponents. The seven open Democratic seats are more vulnerable to Republican challengers, particularly seats that are historically Republican (District 55-Washtenaw and Monroe Counties, District 75-Grand Rapids). At this time I'd consider District 55 to be the most vulnerable Democratic leaning seat, although District 26 (Royal Oak and Madison Heights) could be a sleeper race.

Table 5 (Worksheet 5: Swing (16 seats)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tq_7t0cEoEVthqHUewbvX-Q&output=html

If the Democratic and Republican candidates perform as expected and win all their safe and leaning seats, there will be at least 54 Democrats and 41 Republicans in Lansing come January 2011. The remaining 16 swing seats are likely to be the major focus of each party in the 2010 election cycle, and rightfully so. However, five of these seats are held by Democratic incumbents (Districts 1, 21, 24, 39, and 70) and one can expect large amounts of resources from the MDP to flow freely to these candidates. Republicans face somewhat of an uphill battle in winning these seats, given the strength that incumbents have shown in past election cycles, and that potentially bloody Republican primaries are in the offering in a number of these districts (District 39 especially). Of the remaining 11 seats, six are being vacated by term-limited Democrats (Districts 52, 57, 65, 91, 103, and 106), while five were previously held by term-limited Republicans (Districts 30, 71, 85, 97, and 99). With the exception of District 52 (where Republican Mark Ouimet and Democratic Christine Green are the only candidates in this western Washtenaw County seat), all of these seats feature a multi-candidate primaries on both sides, particularly in District 71, where five Democrats and three Republicans are vying their party's nominations.

Conclusion

In January 2010 I made a prediction that Democrats would lose five seats, reducing their majority to a 62-38 margin. I'm sticking by this today, although. Once the primary picture clears up in early August 2010, we will know a lot more about the overall state of the House.

State of the Senate: Part II

2010-04-21T14:16:00.002-05:00

(cross-posted at WMR, BFM, and ML-pb)

Introduction

A few weeks ago I examined the underlying political conditions of the 110 Michigan State House districts, which can be found [http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/16421/state-of-the-house-part-i here]. This second part performs the same analysis on the State Senate. As stated previously, the forthcoming third and fourth parts will examine the candidates who have filed to run for seats in the State House and State Senate. As mentioned previously, I maintain a listing of State House and State Senate candidates that includes the financial filing statements that can be obtained via a subscription by emailing peterbratt@gmail.com.

Analysis

While in previous posts I had made some guesses as to which seats are the most vulnerable for a potential takeover by the opposing party, I want to quantify this estimation. Using a variation of the reputable House Vulnerability Index developed by Crisitunity at the Swing State Project, I have created my own District Vulnerability Index (DVI) which is shown in Table 1 below.

Some of the columns are pretty self-explanatory. Column 1 provides the senate district number, 2 provides the current senator's name, column 3 the senator's party, and column 4 the senator's current term. Columns 5-7 provide the Democratic baseline number from the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections, with column 8 the three cycle average for the district. I tested this model out using the Presidential/Gubernatorial numbers from 2004 to 2008 instead of the baseline numbers, but went with the baseline numbers given that the higher ticket numbers distorts the DVI by giving a Democratic percentage that is much higher on the top of the ticket than for lower level races (like the state house and state senate). Column 9 is the Partisan Voting Index, which is calculated by subtracting the statewide partisan average of 50% from the district's average Democratic baseline found in column 8. Column 12 provides my previous classification of the race in February 2010, and is included here to test its validity while using the DVI. Column 10 ranks the PVI for each district from 1 to 110, with 1 being most Republican and 110 being the most Democratic.

Column 11 is the perhaps the most important column in the entire analysis. As stated in previous analysis, incumbency is a wonderful advantage, as it provides funds, name recognition, and built in party support. In Michigan, incumbent candidates have a win percentage of nearly 95% every cycle in both the State House and State Senate since term limits were established in 1992, and despite the electorate being anti-incumbent in the 2010 cycle, the voters hate every incumbent expect their own. Column 11 is the Democratic candidate's margin of victory from the 2008 cycle, and open seats (whether from term-limits or from candidates leaving the State House to pursue other opportunities) have no margin given. Columns 14 to 17 show the data used to determine column 11, providing the votes for the Republican candidate (Column 14) and the Democratic candidate (Column 15), the Democratic candidate's two-party vote percentage (Column 16) and the Republican candidate's two-party vote percentage (Column 17).

The DVI is shown in Column 13. The DVI is determined by multiplying Column 11 by 50 and adding the PVI rank in Column 10. Districts with no incumbent thus are at a greater risk for being taken over by the opposing party. Table 1 ranks the districts from the smallest to largest DVI.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/SS2010Analysis.jpg
Table 1: State Senate DVI

Conclusion

Table 1 largely confirms that there are a number of solid Republican and Democratic seats that the opposing party will not attempt to take over in 2010. I'm guessing that 12 Democratic districts and 14 Republican districts will face minimal opposition. While the nine incumbents are all likely to return in in 2011, I was surprised how vulnerable Roger Kahn's district is, despite his incumbency advantage. Indeed, the 32nd District has as solid as a Democratic base as Glenn Anderson's 6th State Senate district, a seat that no Republican will seriously consider as a possible flip. Likewise, the usual suspects of open swing seats appear- the 7th District in western Wayne County, the 20th District (Kalamazoo County), the 29th (Grand Rapids and Kentwood), the 34th (Muskegon County) and the 36th District (northeast lower peninsula). However, Democratic candidates for the 36th (Joel Sheltrown) and 37th (Gary McDowell) are considering running for the open 1st Congressional District seat. Losing either of these candidates would make flipping these districts a much steeper challenge for the Senate Democrats in November.

One question that I haven't be able to answer yet is the role of money in winning an open seat. Generally, the candidate who spends the most (including resources from the state party and PAC money) wins. However, this does not include candidates who self-finance, who have a harder time convincing voters that they are not simply buying the seat. With the sheer number of open seats in the State Senate, both parties need to make sacrifices on where to send their dollars. This might hinder a candidate like Republican Tom Casperson in the 38th District, who will likely need ample funding from the Michigan Republican Party to compete in a traditionally Democratic district. Likewise, a candidate such as Democrat Mary Valentine, who is struggling to raise money in a competitive open seat with an increasingly Democratic lean, might require much more in state party resources, forcing the Michigan Democratic Party to reduce resources to more "long-shot" districts. Be sure to keep your eyes peeled for the forthcoming Parts 3 and 4 that examine the candidates running for the State House and State Senate seats.

State of the House: Part I

2010-04-09T05:58:00.000-05:00

Introduction

With the candidacy filing deadlines just over a month away, it is an opportune time to look at the state of play of the Michigan legislature. While pollsters are covering the gubernatorial race with increasing frequency, much of the noise regarding races in the State Senate and State House are is simply noise, and often is used by candidates (mostly of the Republican variety) who substitute updating their Facebook status with actual campaign.

The analysis below is the first part of a four-part series and covers the underlying situation in the Michigan State House. The second post examines the candidates who have thus filed to run for seats in the State House, and the third and fourth parts repeat the previous two pieces of analysis for the Michigan State House. As always, I maintain a listing of State House and State Senate candidates that includes the financial filing statements that can be obtained via a subscription by emailing peterbratt@gmail.com.

Analysis

While in previous posts I had made some guesses as to which seats are the most vulnerable for a potential takeover by the opposing party, I want to quantify this estimation. Using a variation of the reputable House Vulnerability Index developed by Crisitunity at the Swing State Project, I have created my own District Vulnerability Index (DVI) which is shown in Table 1 below.

Some of the columns are pretty self-explanatory. Column 1 provides the House District number, 2 provides the current representative’s name, and column 3 the representative’s current term. Columns 4-5 provide the Democratic baseline number from the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections, with column 7 the three cycle average for the district. I tested this model out using the Presidential/Gubernatorial numbers from 2004 to 2008 instead of the baseline numbers, but went with the baseline numbers given that the higher ticket numbers distorts the DVI by giving a Democratic percentage that is much higher on the top of the ticket than for lower level races (like the state house and state senate). Column 8 provides my previous classification of the race in February 2010, and is included here to test its validity while using the DVI. Column 9 is the Partisan Voting Index, which is calculated by subtracting the statewide partisan average of 50% from the district’s average Democratic baseline found in column 7. Column 10 ranks the PVI for each district from 1 to 110, with 1 being most Republican and 110 being the most Democratic.

Column 11 is the perhaps the most important column in the entire analysis. As stated in previous analysis, incumbency is a wonderful advantage, as it provides funds, name recognition, and built in party support. In Michigan, incumbent candidates have a win percentage of nearly 95% every cycle in both the State House and State Senate since term limits were established in 1992, and despite the electorate being anti-incumbent in the 2010 cycle, the voters hate every incumbent expect their own. Column 11 is the Democratic candidate’s margin of victory from the 2008 cycle, and open seats (whether from term-limits or from candidates leaving the State House to pursue other opportunities) have no margin given. Columns 13 to 16 show the data used to determine column 11, providing the votes for the Republican candidate (Column 13) and the Democratic candidate (Column 14), the Democratic candidate’s two-party vote percentage (Column 15) and the Republican candidate’s two-party vote percentage (Column 16).

The DVI is shown in Column 12. The DVI is determined by multiplying Column 11 by 50 and adding the PVI rank in Column 10. Districts with no incumbent thus are at a greater risk for being taken over by the opposing party. Table 1 ranks the districts from the smallest to largest DVI.

Conclusion

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MIAnalysis_Page_1.jpg

To better understand Table 1, take a look at the first district on top of the list. House District 90 covers southeast Ottawa County and includes the cities of Holland, Zeeland, and Hudsonville within its boundaries. The district is currently represented by Republican Joseph Haveman, who is in his first term. The Democratic baseline in 2004 was 21.0%, 23.4% in 2006, and 28.7% in 2008, yielding an average Democratic baseline of 24.4%. I had previous given this district the status of Safe Republican, and with a PVI of negative 25.6%, it is not difficult to see why. This is the most Republican State House District in the state and has a PVI rank of 1. Haveman did well here in the 2008 election, pulling 31,233 votes, while his Democratic opponent Clay Stauffer received 12,011 and thus lost with a 44.5% margin. As a result, the 90th State House District has a DVI of negative 21.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MIAnalysis_Page_2.jpg

Table 1 reveals how many districts are simply out of play for either party. It might have helped the GOP to run a candidate against Jimmy Womack in the 7th District, but given that the DVI is 159, the chances of a Republican knocking off a Democrat in northeastern Detroit are nil (heck, I bet Kwame Kilpatrick could still win this district if he survived a Democratic primary and was not prevented from running again by virtue of being a convicted felon and terms limits). I expect the 44 most Democratic districts and the 37 most Republican districts to remain under the control of their respective parties. However, a careful reader of Table 1 would note that Democrats currently control three Districts that have a strong Republican lean. Two of these seats are open (District 20 in western Wayne County and District 107 in the Upper Peninsula), while District 70 is held by first-term Democratic Representative Mike Huckleberry. While Huckleberry might be the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, he was helped in 2008 by a strong name recognition and a divided Republican Party, a situation that will likely present itself again in 2010 should a divisive Republican primary occur.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MIAnalysis_Page_3.jpg

In the coming months, watch the six most vulnerable Democratic seats. Five are open (Districts 20, 57, 65, 83, and 107), and present the GOP with an opportunity to narrow the Democratic control of the State House from 67 to 43 margin to a 62 to 49 margin. There are fewer vulnerable Republican seats, but leading the list are Districts 30, 85, 97, and 99. All of these seats are open and prime pickup territory for a strong Democratic candidate. Perhaps the most vulnerable Republican incumbent is Paul Scott, who represents District 51 in southern Genesee County. Scott, who has been rumored to be the Yob candidate for Secretary of State, is currently slotted to face Democratic candidate and UAW Local 651 President Art Reyes III in the general election.

While numbers are not destiny, the do provide a floor on which candidates much get their political footing. Stay tuned for Part II to see which candidates have filed for the August primary.

May 2010: GR Income Tax Vote

2010-03-31T08:39:00.001-05:00

Introduction

Most May elections in Michigan tend to be subdued affairs. With only school board races (as well as community college candidates) on the ballot, most voters tend to stay away from the polls on the first Tuesday of May. However, the election on May 4, 2010 might be a more interesting affair, largely because the City of Grand Rapids has a proposed income tax increase going before the voters. The city proposes to increase the city’s income tax for a five-year period between 2010 and 2015 for both residents and non-residents who work in Grand Rapids. The rate on residents would increase from 1.3% to 1.5%, while non-residents would see their rate increase from .65% to .75%.

Regardless of the merits of the tax increase (personal opinion moment: while local income taxes have an adverse impact on job sprawl and residential population, I can’t see many other ways for the City to balance its budget after seeing its share of revenue from the state dwindle over the past seven years-pb), what is the likely voting patterns that supporters and opponents of the measure can expect on May 4? In the past five May elections voters have cast ballots on three millage measures: two in 2007; one for GR Community College and another for the Rapid Bus System, and one in 2009 again for the Rapid. Voting returns from the past five May elections (2005-2009) and two August ballot measures (August 2004 Zoo millage and August 2008 Jail millage) that serve as a comparison indicator, can provide some clues.

Overall Trends

Over the past five years, the number of registered voters has increased steadily, largely due to strong voter registration efforts by allies of the Democratic Party. In August 2004 there were 115,502 registered voters and in September 2009 there were 126,676, an increase of about 10% at a time when the Grand Rapids’ population declined slightly (according to US Census figures from the 2008 American Community Survey). The increase in registered voters did not necessarily result in an increase in voters in the May elections, as shown by Table 1 below.

Election	RV	V	VT%
August-04	115,502	31,011	26.8%
May-05	119,772	8,566	7.2%
May-06	118,142	6,100	5.2%
May-07	123,808	17,262	13.9%
May-08	124,813	9,408	7.5%
August-08	125,623	15,040	12.0%
May-09	126,676	15,863	12.5%

Table 1: Election Turnout, 2004-2009

In May elections, turnout has ranged from a low of 5.2% in 2006 to a high of 12.5% in2009 when a millage to expand The Rapid system drew voters to the polls. Yet even the high turnout in May 2009 barely surpassed the primary turnout in August 2008 of 12% in an election where there was almost nothing on the ballot for interested voters to bother with. In contrast, the controversial zoo millage on the August 2004 ballot drew more than a quarter of registered voters to the polls, a figure surpassed only by the August 2002 primary turnout rate of 41%.

Regions of Grand Rapids

Yet examining the overall turnout rates hides larger voting trends occurring within the city of Grand Rapids. Map 1 shows the City of Grand Rapids broken down into ten distinct regions.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/Rev29th091909.jpg
Map 1: Regions of Grand Rapids

Many of these regions represent different epochs of urban/suburban development in metropolitan
Grand Rapids. While the city of Grand Rapids was founded in 1837, the city rapidly expanded until 1857, at which time it covered much of the Western Core, the City Core, the Urban Core and the Hispanic Gateway portions of the city. Grand Rapids expanded its boundaries during the era of streetcar suburbs that occurred between the 1890s and the early 1920s, and occurred in the western, northern, southern portions of the city. Finally, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the city annexed suburban areas to the west, north and south of its boundaries, while the suburban community of Kentwood (along with other suburban communities like Walker and Wyoming) was established in 1967 with a political cultural similar to the southern suburbs of Grand Rapids.

While these regions owe much to their physical form, they have also been shaped by social and political identity. The southern portion of the city was heavily influenced by the initial wave of New England and New Yorker settlers who flooded the city well until the 1870s. The migration of Dutch Reformed immigrations that followed to the 3rd Ward created a unique ruling political culture with the New England and New Yorker political leadership that continues to dominate Grand Rapids and Kentwood’s politics. Eastern European immigrants largely settled on the west side of the Grand River, although strong class divisions existed between the “hill” voters (who lived in the western suburbs region of Grand Rapids) and those who lived in the western core and streetcar neighborhoods. A similar development occurred in the 2nd Ward, with a strong- working class base in the northern streetcar neighborhoods that is markedly different from the northern suburban neighborhoods that were annexed in the early 1960s. The migration of African Americans between 1910 and 1960 into the 3rd Ward of Grand Rapids created a strong Urban Core Belt region with a strong minority voice in city politics. A Hispanic Gateway region on the southwest side of Grand Rapids is still developing, and has very limited political involvement in state and local politics, although this might change in coming years.

As a result, these regions have distinct political cultures. The Urban Core precincts are overwhelmingly African American in population, and largely are located in the 3rd Ward. The City Core is largely white ethnicity and built before the 1890s, and is relatively dense in population. The Western Core is located in the 1st Ward and is substantially more working-class than the Western Streetcar neighborhoods that lie directly to the west “up the hill” that traditionally has marked the political divide on the west side. The North Streetcar region was built between 1890 and 1920, and has historically been working-class and Catholic, remaining largely ethnic white in population. The South Streetcar precincts that cover a large portion of the 75th State House District were largely built between 1890 and 1920, although portions of Alger Heights were developed up to 1940. Historically the heartland of the Christian Reformed Church, this neighborhood has experienced substantial ethnic resorting in the past twenty years, as neighborhoods such as Garfield Park and Oakdale have become increasingly diverse as many CRC residents have moved to the suburban portions of Grand Rapids and Kentwood. This portion of the 75th District provided much of the local Republican leadership after the 1970s until recent years. The South, North, and West Suburban neighborhoods were built after 1945, exhibit many similarities to the suburbs built largely at the same time in Kentwood and Wyoming, and the most Republican and affluent neighborhood within the city.

Analysis

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MayAnalysis_One.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MayAnalysis_Two.jpg
Table 2: May Elections by Region

Let’s look again the voter turnout data from Table 1, but break it down by region as shown in Table 2. As expected, different regions of the city have vastly different turnout over the past five May elections. Turnout ranges from 3%-9% in the City Core, 2%-6% in Hispanic, 6%-15% in North Streetcar, 7%-20% in North Suburb, 6%-17% in South Streetcar, 7%-16% in South Suburb, 5%-8% in Urban Core, 3%-7% in West Core, 6%-15% in West Streetcar, and 7%-24% in West Suburb. Turnout increases noticeably when millage issues are on the ballot in the May elections, as shown in the past four millage issues facing the voters in May and August elections. It would be unlikely if this trend did not continue in May 2010.

In the past four millage elections in May and August, support has varied considerably by region. The West Core and Hispanic regions never have given a majority for a millage vote. Given the failure of millage supporters to boost turnout in the Hispanic region, as well as the historic “anti-tax” sentiment on the west side of the Grand, this is hardly a surprise. On the flip side, The South Streetcar and South Suburb regions have overwhelmingly supported every millage, never falling below 55% in favor. Other regions are more circumspect with their support of millage issues. The Urban Core region has strongly supported millages for the Rapid in 2007 and 2009, but was less supportive of the 2004 and 2008 measures for Zoo expansion and Grand Rapids Community College. The City Core has become increasingly supportive of millage issues over the past five years, and only narrowly rejected the 2004 Zoo millage.

The four regions on the West and North Side (West Streetcar, North Streetcar, West Suburb, and North Suburb) are the wildcards. The West Side Streetcar and Suburb regions voted for the August 2008 millage, but strongly rejected the May 2009 millage for the Rapid. The same patterned occurred on a smaller scale in the North Streetcar and North Suburb regions. On election night, I would expect city officials to be watching these four regions closely as the returns come in.

Conclusion

So what can we expect on May 4? First, I expect turnout to be on the higher end of the spectrum with 13% of voters casting a ballot. As I previously noted, millage votes bring voters to the polls, especially one that calls for an increase in the city income tax. Secondly, I expect the millage to pass with about 55% of the vote. While anti-tax advocates have made loud noises about how voters turned away “enormous” tax increases in 2004, 2008, and 2009, the only millage not to pass in Grand Rapids was the 2004 Zoo measure. Indeed, the efforts of Eric Larson (now a candidate for the Michigan State House) and other anti-tax advocates succeeded in 2009 on a careful understanding of western suburbs’ (Wyoming, Walker, Grandville, and Alpine Township) resistance to expanded governmental services. If 16,811 city voters head to the polls, I would expect around 9,390 voters to support the ballot measure, and 7,421 to vote against it.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/RegionsMayAnalysisProjection.jpg
Table 3: Project 2010 May election results

Table 3 breaks down the projected turnout by region, and as in past elections, I expect that the South Streetcar, Urban Core, City Core, and South Suburb regions will give over 59% of their votes in the affirmative. Likewise, of the regions in which a majority will oppose the measure (West Streetcar, West Core, West Suburb and North Suburb), I project that supporters will still pull at least 40% of the vote in each. The bell weather region will be the North Streetcar, which I project to support the measure with a bare majority of 51%. While the Hispanic region is projected to give a small majority in favor of the ballot measure, the turnout will still be rather low and will have a minimal impact on the end result.

Now, these projections are only projections. I haven’t see the mobilization efforts by supporters and opponents of the measure as in past ballot battles, but given that there are still 5 weeks until May 4, we might see this still occur. Supporters will likely launch a campaign geared towards voters in the 3rd Ward, while opponents would likely focus their efforts towards West Side voters. I personally think that city officials hope for lower turnout, given that higher turnout generally means opponents of the income tax increase are being mobilized to go to the polls (see 2004 Zoo millage). If I were Grand Rapids City Manager Greg Sundstrom, I would start to worry about the successful passage of the measure if voter turnout when above 16%. However, he has 5 weeks to talk about all the services that will be cut if the income tax increase fails on May 4.

Rundown of the Michigan State Senate Campaign Filing Statements

2010-02-07T21:53:00.000-06:00

(cross-posted at WMR, ML, BFM, and SSP-pb)

Following my earlier analysis of the 2009 Compliance Statements from the Michigan State House, the State Senate is also worth examining. It is important to remember how wide open the Senate is for turnover in 2010, as there are 30 of 38 State Senate seats open. In the past decade, only one state senate incumbent has lost to a challenger (Laura Toy to Glenn Anderson in 2006), underscoring how much easier open seats are to capture.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MISSPartisanStatus2010.jpg
Figure 1: State Senate Partisan Status

Figure 1 is a chart displaying the expected competitiveness for Michigan State Senate races. Using the underlying baseline vote from the Michigan Board of Education races over the past four elections (2002-2008), I have also noted the number of times each party has challenged a seat. For example, in Senate District 34, the Democrats have invested party resources in the seat one time, while the GOP has invested in it twice. It quickly becomes apparent that rarely spends money defending or challenging seats in their Safe or Strong category or that of the opposing party.

For an upset occur in these races means that the challenger needs to be self-financing, as the party will pay for nothing. Given the sheer number of competitive races in 2010, I have also included districts that have a GOP lean in the safe category, bringing the number of safe Republican seats up to 11. For the Democrats, I have included one of the three leaning Democratic districts (District 10) in the safe column, bringing the number of safe Democratic seats to 12 (more on this later). Thus, this analysis consists of two parts. The first looks at the 23 safe Republican and Democratic seats that feature an array of interesting primaries. The second part will focus on the 15 districts that are considered tossup, weak Democratic/Republican. Candidates are listed with the amount of money raised in the past year, the amount on money spent over 2009, the total cash on hand, and the amount of personal funds each candidate given to his or her campaign.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/SafeSenate.jpg
Figure 2: Safe DEM/GOP Seats

There are 12 safe Democratic seats that will return Democrats to Lansing next year. These are largely concentrated in Detroit (Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), Wayne County (District 8), southern Oakland and Macomb Counties (District 9, 10, and 14), Ann Arbor (District 18), Lansing (District 23), and Flint (District 27). Of these seats, Districts 5 (Tupac Hunter), 23 (Gretchen Whitmer), and 27 (John Gleason) have incumbents that are not are not expected to face a serious primary challenge. The other nine districts are open seats and are another story. District 2 has Olivia Boykins and Hans Barbe vying for the nomination, and neither have filed a CS yet. Representative George Cushingberry has filed for District 4 and presently does not have primary opposition. Former Representative Hoon Yung Hopgood ($62,182 cash on hand) is the only candidate in the 8th District (Dearborn and downriver municipalities in Wayne County). District 10 (Sterling Heights, Clinton Township, Utica, and Roseville) features a primary between former Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga and Macomb County Commissioner Paul Gieleghem ($49,238 cash on hand), and the former is expect to have a significant financial edge. Vincent Gregory ($10,582 cash on hand) and David Coulter ($32,952 cash on hand) are the two Democrats seeking the party’s nomination in the 14th District, while their potential Republican opponent James Hardin has filed a financial wavier, ensuring his defeat in November. Finally, in the 18th District, Representatives Pam Byrnes (7,100 cash on hand, although she has $104,133 in her State House account) and Rebekah Warren ($59,089 cash on hand with an additional $2,120 in her State House account) will slug it out Washtenaw County. This race should be extremely interesting to watch, and could be an excellent proxy test on the fate of Andy Dillon’s candidacy with the Democratic electorate (Byrnes is one of Dillon’s strongest supporters in the House, and Warren is an extremely harsh critic).

There are 11 safe Republican seats that will have Republicans Senators next year. These are largely located in the “out-state” region outside of metropolitan Detroit (Districts 16, 21, 22, 24, 28, 30, 33, 35, and 37) and in northern Oakland County (Districts 12 and 15). Only one of these seats (District 28-Mark Jansen) has a Republican incumbent. District 12 has four Republicans running to replace Mike Bishop, and thus far Representative Jim Marleau is the leading money raiser, with $77,149 cash on hand (although $73,000 is from his own pocket). In District 15 there are three Republicans running for the nomination, and Robert Gatt is the only candidate who has raised funds ($4,587 cash on hand), while Democratic candidate Pamela Jackson has $829 cash on hand. Republican Representative John Proos is running unopposed in the 21st District ($91,439 cash on hand), and in District 22 Joe Hune leads the money race ($160,559 cash on hand) against Paul Rogers. Representative Rick Jones ($60,127 cash on hand) is the only candidate in the 24th District, and Arlan Meekhof ($0 cash on hand, although has $29,600 in his State House account) is the only candidate in the 30th. District 33 features a primary between Representative Brian Calley ($84,835) and businessman Hong Trebesh ($307,641 cash on hand, with $335,023 from his own pockets) that will be costly to say the least, while District 35 has three Republicans slugging it out to face Democratic candidate Roger Dunigan ($3,658).

There are two traditional Republican seats that could cause the GOP some trouble in 2010. The first is in District 16 where Democratic Representative Douglas Spade ($69,725 cash on hand) is running against Republican Representative Bruce Caswell ($175,223 cash on hand-$116,000 from his own pocket). Spade has done well in a Republican leaning district while serving in the House (District 57), and is the strongest candidate the Democrats could nominate in a seat that has seen few challenges. Likewise, in District 37 Democratic Representative Gary McDowell ($38,603 cash on hand and an additional $95,219 in his State House account) has more money than his opponent Republican Representative Howard Walker ($81,517). While the 37th District has a long-standing GOP lean, McDowell has had similar success that Spade has had in the 57th, winning a traditionally GOP district (District 107) with room to spare. Both of these seats are examples of a smart Democratic strategy to expand the playing field.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/SwingSenate2.jpg
Figure 3: Weak & Swing Seats

Of the remaining 15 seats, 4 are weak Democratic seats, meaning that with the right candidate, the party will likely not need to step in with resources. Two of these are currently held by Democrats, with Districts 6 (Wayne County) represented by incumbent Glenn Anderson, who knocked off Republican Senator Laura Toy in a hard-fought matchup in 2006. Anderson spent 2009 accumulating funds, and currently has $229,221 cash on hand with no Republican challenger in sight. With such a well-funded incumbent and no viable GOP prospect, it is unlikely that the GOP will make a serious effort to challenge Anderson in 2010. A different situation prevails in District 38 (Upper Peninsula), which is being vacated by term-limited Democratic Senator Mike Prusi. The 38th has a long Democratic heritage and a deep farm-system with talent ready to move up, and expect the state party to make holding this seat a priority. The Republicans have perhaps their strongest Upper Peninsula challenger in years with former Representative Tom Casperson running for this seat. Yet Casperson is relatively weak at fundraising, with debt left over from his failed challenge to Bart Stupak in 2008 for the 1st Congressional District, and only has $9,911 cash on hand. To make this seat a possible pickup, the GOP will have to make a significant financial contribution, something unlikely given all the other seats the party needs to hold.

In a sign of Democratic failure in the 2006 election, two other weak Democratic seats are currently held by the GOP. District 34 (Muskegon County & Lakeshore) is an open seat, with the Republican Jerry VanWoerkom term-limited after two closely fought elections in 2002 and 2006 that were each one by fewer than 1,500 votes. While VanWoerkom had electoral success in this district, over the past decade this seat had strongly trended Democratic. The Democrats also have a candidate in Representative Mary Valentine ($20,955 cash on hand, with another $24,982 in her State House account) who has a reputation for running excellent campaigns in 2006 and 2008 in the swing 91st District. Valentine will face either former Representative David Farhat (whom was beaten by Valentine in 2006 and has $75 cash on hand) or Representative Geoff Hansen ($97,384 cash on hand including a personal loan of almost $80,000). Regardless of candidate, both parties will likely spend an ample amount of money for this seat, and in an even financial contest, I would pick Valentine any day.

The other weak Democratic seat held by the GOP is a tougher nut to crack. Incumbent Republican Roger Kahn won District 32 (Saginaw County) in 2006 by a narrow margin. Kahn currently has $253,203 cash on hand, and is a strong fundraiser who will likely be able to raise even more funds in 2009. The only declared Democratic candidate is Debasish Mridha, who is a doctor and a first-time candidate. Mridha has $124,213 cash on hand, all which was self-contributed. Given that District 32 is represented by a Republican incumbent, the state party might be reluctant to provide funding unless Mridha appears to be in the running after the August primary. Given this, I would say that District 34 is a much more likely Democratic pickup than the 32nd.

Three of the remaining eleven seats are weak Republican, meaning that with the right sort of candidate and a neutral political environment, the GOP candidate will win election. These include District 11 (northern Macomb County), District 13 (Oakland County-incumbent), and District 36 (northern Lower Peninsula). District 11 has attracted a number of GOP candidates, including State Representative Kim Meltzer ($5,000 cash on hand with another $4,625 in her State House account), former Representative Jack Brandenburg ($607), and Leon Drolet (who has not officially filed yet). Given the Republican lean of this district, and that no strong Democratic candidate has emerged, this seat is looking to be a Republican hold unless the divisive Drolet wins the primary. District 13, which was the site of a hard fought battle between Democrat Andy Levin and eventual winner John Pappageorge that was narrowly decided in the GOP’s favor. Pappageorge raised an enormous amount in 2009, and has $248,884 cash on hand (as well as a $125,000 loan he gave to himself in the 2006 campaign). Aaron Bailey is the only official Democratic candidate, and filed in late January 2010. Given his substantial financial edge in a Republican leaning district, Pappageorge should be considered an early favorite to win reelection.

District 36 is perhaps the most vulnerable to a Democratic challenge. An open seat being vacated by term-limited Republican Tony Stamas, the 36th has attracted three candidates. Two are Democrats, Representatives Andy Neumann and Joel Sheltrown. Sheltrown has a substantial financial edge against Neumann, although the latter previously ran and narrowly lost against Stamas in 2002. Republican Representative John Moolenaar has a substantial $232,731 cash on hand, but hails from the southernmost portion of the district, thus requiring a significant amount of campaigning and funds to familiarize himself with the 36th. If the Democratic candidate emerges from the primary in decent condition, one could easily see the state party spending funds to win this seat.

The remaining eight seats are swing districts, although two are likely to remain in the GOP column. District 17 (Monroe and portions of Washtenaw Counties) is currently held by Republican Randy Richardville ($105,923 cash on hand). Unless Democratic Representative Katie Elbi leaves her safe house seat to challenge Richardville, there are few other potential Democratic challengers. The MDP and Elbi might consider a redrawn 17th District might be easier to take in 2014 when Richardville is unable to run again. Another likely Republican hold is District 19, which was won by Mike Nofs in a 2009 special election against Democratic Representative Marty Griffin. Given Nofs’ thumping of Griffin, few potential Democratic challengers will be interested in facing Nofs ($37,300 cash on hand just months after his November election).

The six other seats are open districts, with two currently held by Democrats, and the remaining four by Republicans. Of the two seats currently held by Democrats, District 31 (Bay County and the Thumb Region) appears to be a more likely hold, with Democratic Representative Jeff Mayes ($122,944 cash on hand) having no Republican challengers as of yet. The situation in District 26 (Genesee and Oakland Counties) is more fluid. There are currently two candidates, Representative Jim Slezak and Paula Zelenko, facing off in the Democratic primary, while former representatives Fran Amos and David Robertson in the GOP primary. Of the four candidates only Robertson has a significant amount of cash on hand ($110,616), while Amos has filed a financial waiver, and both Slezak and Zelenko entered the race in early 2010 (although Slezak has $11,304 cash on hand in his State House account). Robertson has a history of winning tough races while in the state house, and will be a challenge for the Democrats to hold off. Expect the MDP to spend funds to hold this district.

Of the four Republican held seats, District 25 (St. Clair and Lapeer Counties) appears to be the safest hold for the GOP. Representatives Phillip Pavlov ($50,007 cash on hand) and Lauren Harger ($36,715 cash on hand) are vying for the GOP nomination, while Jason Davis and Jason Blauet are relatively unknowns battling for the Democratic nod. The 25th has always been a tempter of Democratic dollars, but funds spent in 2002 did very little.

The remaining three seats are truly tossup. District 7 (western Wayne County) is be vacated by Republican Bruce Patterson, and has drawn the attention of both parties. Democrats scored a coup when Representative Marc Corriveau entered the race in early January. Corriveau, much like Valentine, is a master campaigner and has one in districts long held by the GOP, and his strong fundraising abilities will surely be needed in both the general and primary elections. Corriveau ($76,314 cash on hand) is facing former Representative Kathleen Law in the Democratic primary. Facing Corriveau or Law in the general election will be either Republican Colleen McDonald or Abe Munfakh ($100,000 cash on hand and a personal contribution). If the GOP wants to hold this Democratic trending district, they’ll need to send plenty of additional funds to assist the winner of the GOP primary.

District 20 (Kalamazoo County and portions of Van Buren County) has contested primaries on both sides. The Republican primary features three candidates; Representatives Tonya Schuitmaker ($126,388 cash on hand) and Larry DeShazor ($2,341 in his state house account) represent the conservative and moderate factions of the GOP base, while former Representative Lorence Wenke ($19,337) is a liberal Republican who has deep personal pockets and is willing to spend freely in the primary. The clash between these three Republicans representing the spectrum of the Republican ideology will be fascinating to watch. That is to say, the Democratic field will be interesting to watch as well. Representative Robert Jones ($10,067 cash on hand with another $14,656 in his State House account) currently represents Kalamazoo City, and has a deep background in local and state politics. He’ll face Kalamazoo County Commissioner John Taylor ($106,330 cash on hand, although $100,000 is from his own funds) and Professor Mark Totten ($120,036 cash on hand, $30,719 of which is a personal loan) in the Democratic primary. While Jones was considered a front-runner earlier this year, Totten’s substantial haul (with a large number of donations coming from small donors across the state in addition to out of state support) has put many on notice. With 2010 shaping up to be an anti-incumbent year, it may be a candidate like Totten that will do better with the electorate than Jones. Regardless, both parties will be watching the 20th District in the next nine months.

District 29 (Grand Rapids and eastern suburbs) will be another closely watched seat. I’ve blogged about this race and the potential candidates previously, and I’m still convinced that the race to watch is the GOP primary. While Representative Dave Hildenbrand has $138,000 cash on hand, he is relatively unknown to voters in the Grand Rapids and Kentwood, as he represents Lowell and other rural portions of Kent County. Kent County GOP leaders appear to be aware of this liability as well, and a number of leading Republicans (including Senator Mark Jansen and Congressman Vern Ehlers) are considered to be behind the candidacy of Lori Wiersma. Wiersma is a political neophyte, but has deep ties to the Christian Reformed community that has long been the bedrock of the GOP base in west Michigan. If both candidates stay in the primary, it will be interesting to see if Hildenbrand’s financial edge can win victory against a city-based Republican candidate. On the Democratic side, businessman and City Commissioner David LaGrand (estimated $76,000 cash on hand) begun rolling in endorsements and funds only a few weeks after his entrance into the race. While Representative Robert Dean is also considering running, his weak fundraising totals ($9,033 cash on hand) is leading many to question whether he will instead file run for reelection to his state house seat.

With nine months away from Election Day, control of the Michigan State Senate as of January 2011 remains an open question. The Democrats need to pick up four seats to gain control of the chamber for the first time in 26 years, and there is a clear road to achieving this. At the same time, the GOP has a political climate that is much more favorable than the 2006 cycle. Whether this remains the case in November 2010 is still to be seen.

For reference, I have included some maps of the State Senate Districts discussed in this analysis.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/WayneCounty-1.jpg
Wayne County

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/OaklandMacomb.jpg
Oakland & Macomb Counties

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/Thumb.jpg
The Thumb

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/CentralMI.jpg
South Central

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/GeneseeLivingston.jpg
North Central

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/SWMI.jpg
Southwest Michigan

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/WestMI.jpg
West Michigan

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/NorthernLP.jpg
Northern Lower Peninsula

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/UP.jpg
Upper Peninsula

Rundown of the Michigan State House Campaign Filing Statements

2010-02-04T17:19:00.000-06:00

(cross-posted at WMR, ML, BFM, and SSP-pb)

February 1 marks a big day for Michigan political junkies, a day when candidates and officeholders who have filed a candidacy committee to run for office on the state level must file an annual compliance statement (CS). Candidates who have filed for a financial waiver (meaning that they are not going to spend or raise more than $1,000 on their campaign, and will most assuredly lose in their bid for elected office) are not required to file a CS, nor are candidates who have filed after January 1 of the current year. Hence, any candidates who have filed to run for office after January 1, 2010 do not need to file a CS.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MISHPartisanStatus2010SH.jpg
Figure 1: Competitiveness Matrix, Michigan State House

Figure 1 is a chart displaying the expected competitiveness for Michigan State House races further. Using the underlying baseline vote from the Michigan Board of Education races over the past four elections (2002-2008), I have also noted the number of times each party has challenged a seat. For example, in House District 51, the Democrats have invested party resources in the seat four times, while the GOP has invested in it three times. It quickly becomes apparent that rarely spends money defending or challenging seats in their Safe or Strong category or that of the opposing party. Hence, that gives the Democrats 31 worry free seats, and the Republicans 25. For an upset occur in these races means that the challenger needs to be self-financing, as the party will pay for nothing. This analysis will focus on CS from 54 districts that are considered tossup, weak or leaning Democratic/Republican. Candidates are listed with the amount of money raised in the past year, the amount on money spent over 2009, the total cash on hand, and the amount of personal funds each candidate given to his or her campaign.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/CS2010_Page_1.jpg
Figure 2: Leaning Democratic/Weak Republican Districts

Most districts in the leaning category tend to be competitive in when seats open up due to term-limits, or a “wave” year occurs for one party or the other. Judging from the 2009 CS filings, none of the leaning Democratic districts appear to be competitive, particularly for the Democratic incumbents. Roy Schmidt (76th) has an enormous cash on hand advantage, and fellow incumbents in the 69th and 109th appear to be in good shape. The open 96th seat has no GOP challenger yet but two well-funded Democratic candidates have emerged.

The Republican leaning districts are another story. While most districts currently held by GOP incumbents appear to be safe (Districts 19, 82, and 98), Sharon Tyler in Berrien County (District 78) has done little fundraising to help shore up a district that has become increasingly Democratic over the past eight years. However, the three districts held by Democrats (Districts 20, 70, and 107) are the most vulnerable seats for a potential Republican pickup. In District 20 Democratic Representative Marc Corriveau is leaving his seat to run for the 7th State Senate district, while the 107th is vacant thanks to term-limits. Thus far no clear financial picture has emerged in the 107th, although 2008 Republican candidate Alex Strobehn has filed a financial waiver, dooming himself to defeat in the GOP primary. In the 70th District, Democratic incumbent Mike Huckleberry has a small financial edge over Republican challenger Edward Sternisha, although expect the GOP to pour resources to retake this seat. However, given that open seats are much more likely to change their partisan status, I would put districts 20 and 107 higher up on the danger list.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/CS2010_Page_2.jpg
Figure 3: Weak Democratic Districts

The odds favoring incumbents is even more apparent in examining districts with a weak Democratic lean. Of the ten seats, six are held by Democratic incumbents, all whom have significantly outraised their Republican opponent. Kate Segal (District 62) and Kate Ebli (District 56) lead the pack in fundraising, and it appears highly unlikely that the GOP is going to challenge for these seats. Judy Nerat (District 108) appears to be in weaker financial shape, but expect the MDP to spend funds to ensure her victory. In the four open seats, three are currently held by Democrats and thus far look to remain in their column. Democratic candidates in districts 26 and 31 have significantly outraised GOP opponents, and while Democratic candidate Russ Angerer (District 55) filed in early 2010, the fact that he is the current representative’s spouse provides a ready avenue of financial support against Republican Rick Olson, who has a negative cash-on-hand sum. The one Republican-held seat (District 97) feature two viable GOP candidates (Kim Emmons and George Gilmore) and Jason Liptow for the Democrats. I’d expect some other Democratic candidates to consider this seat, including former representative Jennifer Elkins and Mike Shea. This seat is one to watch.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/CS2010_Page_3.jpg
Figure 4: Weak Republican Districts

Given the number of weak Republican seats held by Democrats, one would expect that the GOP would find easy pickings among these districts. However, of the thirteen seats, four are held by incumbent Democratic representatives with enormous cash on hand advantages. Leading the way is Dan Scripps (District 101) who raised a whopping $65,891 this past year, while 2008 Republican challenger Ray Franz spent as much as he raised, and is deeply indebted to himself. Other Democratic incumbents in districts 32 and 84 appear to have a large financial edge. Democratic Representative Marty Griffin (District 64) is in somewhat greater danger, given his massive defeat in the 19th State Senate district special election, and has attracted two GOP challengers. Griffin has won serious races in 2006 and 2008, and one could expect the GOP to wait one more cycle to mount a more vigorous challenge in 2012. Of the remaining nine seats, three are held by GOP incumbents (Districts 33, 43, and 94) that have no serious challenger yet. The remaining six seats are competitive to varying degrees. The death of Democratic Representative Mike Simpson puts District 65 potentially in play, although a crowded GOP primary field might be beneficial to the future Democratic candidate. Open Republican seats in Districts 33, 61, 80 and 83 are potential opportunities for Democratic pickups; however, challengers Tom Batten (District 61) and Tom Erdmann (District 80) have not yet demonstrated vigorous financial strength yet, although state party support could make each of these races interesting. District 57, is a potential Republican pickup opportunity, although Democratic candidate Harvey Schmidt ($41,050 cash on hand) has significantly performed Republican James VanDoren ($20,816) in the money race.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/CS2010_Page_4.jpg
Figure 5: Swing Districts

The remaining fourteen districts are swing seats that will be the focus of partisan attention through 2010. While there are really sixteen swing seats, I removed two seats from this category; one a likely Republican hold (District 51 Paul Scott-$52,765 cash on hand), and one that has no data yet (District 106 where Democratic incumbent Andy Neumann is term-limited and no candidate has emerged for either party). Of the fourteen districts, seven have Democratic incumbents. Of these seven, one (Robert Dean District 75) is considering running for the State Senate, although the Kent County Democrats have lined up a strong potential replacement in Kent County Commissioner Brandon Dillon, and there appears to be a likely GOP primary between attorney Jordan Bush and businessman Bing Goei. Of the remaining six Democratic incumbents, four have a large financial edge that puts them on strong footing heading into the 2010 cycle. In the 67th District, Democratic incumbent Barb Byrum is facing a challenge from Republican Jeff Oesterle, who is a self-funding his run. While Byrum’s district has long been competitive, she has repeated won against stronger GOP candidates. The only Democratic incumbent who appears in potential trouble is Tim Bledsoe (District 1) who has just over $17,000 in cash on hand. Given the expense of running in this district, the MDP will likely spend ample funds to hold this seat.

Of the remaining seven seats, four are open seats held by the GOP. In District 30, term-limited Republican Tory Rocca is leaving a historically GOP district that has been held by different family members for almost a generation. Macomb County Commission Ken Lampar has the field to himself in the Democratic primary, and has $15,000 cash on hand. Jeff Farrington is the only viable GOP candidate thus far, and he is significantly trailing Lampar ($3,393 cash on hand). District 71 features four Democratic and three Republicans candidates, although Democrat Robert Robinson ($16,939) and Republican Cheryl Haddock ($11,202) have emerged as the front runners in this race, although both have provided significant financial support of their own. District 85 has long been a Democratic target, although thus far the only candidate Pamela Drake disappointing financial numbers ($350 cash on hand) means another candidate will likely vie for the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side, David Lazar is the leading money raiser ($23,020 cash on hand), although much of his funds were from his own bank. Finally, expect District 99 to be ground zero for both parties, with Democratic candidate Toni Sessoms ($11,245 cash on hand) and Christine Alwood ($28,488) to received enormous support from each party.

Three of the open swing seats are currently held by Democrats. District 52 has been held by Democrat Pam Byrnes for the past six years, and Scio Township Mayor Christine Green ($10,967 cash on hand) is seeking the Democratic nod, while Washtenaw Commission Mark Ouimet is the Republican candidate ($67,434 cash on hand). Given the historic Republican nature of this district, and Ouimet’s strong fundraising thus far, this race is going to be on the top of the GOP’s pickup opportunities. District 91 is being vacated by Democratic Representative Mary Valentine, who is running for the State Senate. 2008 Republican candidate Holly Hughes is back, and has provided large amounts of money for her campaign (she’s given $186,389 thus far) and has $101,224 cash on hand. Hughes faces Ken Punter ($4,888 cash on hand) in the GOP primary, although it is likely that she will prevail with her enormous financial edge. Hughes’ amount dwarfs the figures raised by Democratic candidates Branden Gemzer ($1,050) and Ben Gillette ($1,838). Given that the 91st District is covered by the 34th State Senate district that is going to be strongly contested by each party, expect the MDP to provide ample support for the eventual Democratic nominee. Finally, District 103 is being vacated by Joel Sheltrown. Given that his brother Van Sheltrown has entered the race, this is a seat the Democrats can hold, especially given that the declared GOP candidates (Phil Bendily and Larry Boyce) have raised miniscule amounts of money.

While politics is not pre-ordained by money, having it helps, especially in a tough economic climate where donors are unlikely to be in a giving mood. While the GOP has a number of potential pickup opportunities, if I had to predict today I would expect the Democrats to lose five seats, reducing their majority to 62 seats. While smaller in number, this would still give the Democrats the chance to create a favorable redistricting plan for decade to come.

State Senate and State House Candidate Filings and News Roundup: January Edition

2010-01-18T17:02:00.000-06:00

(cross-posted on ML and BFM-pb)

With 2010 not even a month old, there have been numerous candidacy filings. Listed below are the candidates in the past month. If you want to see the database with all candidates who have currently filed, please contact me at peterbratt@gmail.com.

State Senate

District 7 (Status: Swing)
This district has seen four candidates emerge, and one depart. Democratic State Representative Marc Corriveau (1/13/2010) and former Democratic Representative Kathleen Law (1/16/2010) have both filed to seek the Democratic [http://www.journalgroup.com/Northville/10557/corriveau-will-seek-senate-seat nomination].

With Corriveau’s entrance into the race former Republican Representative John Stewart (who is running as a Democrat) has departed from the race [http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100117/NEWS15/1170429 race]. Corriveau is an extremely effective legislator who has a reputation for winning tough elections, winning election in 2006 in seat that was thought to be a safe Republican district, although Law might prove to be stiff competition in the a Democratic primary.

Facing either Corriveau or Law will be Republicans Colleen McDonald (1/7/2010) or Abe Munfakh (12/28/2010). Munfakh currently serves as a Trustee on Plymouth Township Board, while judging from Colleen McDonald’s twitter feed, she had worked for an auto dealership for 26 years before it was forced to [http://twitter.com/McDonald4Senate close].

District 10 (Status: Leans Democratic)
This Macomb County district covering Sterling Heights, Utica, Clinton Township, and Roseville has attracted its second candidate to replace term-limited Democratic Senator Michael Switalski (who is seemingly challenging US Representative Sander Levin in the 10th District). As noted by the [http://macombdaily.com/articles/2010/01/05/news/srv0000007250037.txt Macomb Daily News], former Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga (1/4/2010), has filed for the Democratic primary and immediately became the Democratic front-runner for the seat.

Marlinga will face Macomb County Commissioner Paul Gieleghem, in the Democratic primary. No Republican has yet filed for this seat.

District 20 (Status: Swing)
While recent news stories has focused on Representative Larry DeShazor’s official campaign [http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/01/larry_deshazor_formally_announ.html announcement], Chris Newland has filed (12/21/2009) for the Natural Law Party nomination. Newland worked for Pfizer for 8 years and currently works in the chemical industry.

District 29 (Status: Swing)
In this swing seat, Grand Rapids City Commissioner David LaGrand (1/6/2010) filed to district[http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/01/david_lagrand_announces_bid_fo.html run] for the 29th State Senate district. LaGrand ran a vigorous race against Republican Senator Bill Hardiman in 2006 and narrowly lost. Given LaGrand’s experience with running for the 29th once before he will be a strong Democratic candidate for this district.

On the Republican side, it looks like David Hildenbrand will have company, as Lori Wiersma of Grand Rapids has filed to run. Ms. Wiersma has not filed for a reporting waiver, which means that she could be a viable candidate. Wiersma is a Ministry Director at ACTION Wyoming, and is a member of the Christian Reformed Church, attending Shawnee Park (in the heart of the diminishing GOP stronghold on the southeast side). She endorsed Tim Doyle in his 2006 run for the 75th State House seat.

District 33 (Status: Strong Republican)
While he filed last April, Republican State Representative Brian Calley officially [http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20100117/NEWS01/1170529 announced] his candidacy this past weekend for District 33, which is being vacated by term-limited Republican Senator Alan Cropsey.

The 33rd District includes Ionia, Clinton, Montcalm, and Isabella Counties. No Democratic candidate has yet filed, although Calley will face Republican Michael Trebesh, who has taught at Alma College for over thirty ears. Trebesh apparently has an ample warchest, although Calley will have plenty of funds as well.

State House

District 7 (Status: Safe Democratic)
Alfred Williams (12/24/2010) has filed to run against incumbent Democratic Representative Jimmy Womack. Williams also filed a waiver saying that he won’t raise more than $1,000, which means his candidacy isn’t too serious.

District 23 (Status: Weak Democratic)
Patrick Sommerville (1/4/2010) has filed to run against first-term Democratic Representative Deb Kennedy.

District 39 (Status: Swing)
A product manager at Realtime Technologies, Karl Sipfle (1/7/2010) has filed to join Albert Clawson and Caryn Devaney in the Republican primary. Given that Clawson has filed a financial waiver, the Sipfle and Devaney will likely be the leading candidates to face off against Democratic incumbent Lisa Brown, who won a tightly contested seat in 2008. This will be a general election race to watch in 2010.

District 51 (Status: Swing)
Talk about someone who wants to have his cake and eat it too: Republican State Representative Paul Scott has filed to [http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/01/state_rep_paul_scott_r-grand_b.html run] for Secretary of State and for reelection to the Michigan State House.

Scott has entered some hot water with his campaign for Secretary of State over the past few months, and a complaint has been filed against him in Genesee County. If Scott does leave his State House district, this will be a prime pickup opportunity for the Democrats, who have narrowly lost this seat for the past four cycles.

District 54 (Status: Safe Democratic)
The list of candidates to replace term-limited Representative Alma Wheeler Smith continues to grow. David Franklin (1/4/2010) filed to join three other Democratic candidates.

District 55 (Status: Weak Democratic)
Russ Angerer (1/5/2010) has filed to replace his Kathy in the State House. Angerer, who is a decorated Vietnam veteran, works at Eastern Michigan University as a lead custodian. Angerer joins Michael Smith in the Democratic primary. However, given that Smith has filed a financial waiver, Angerer is currently the front runner. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will face Republicans Rick Olson or Joseph Zurawski in general election.

District 62 (Status: Weak Democratic)
Fresh from getting walloped in the special election in the 19th State Senate district (running as an independent against Republican Mike Nofs and Democrat Marty Griffin), Steven Mobley has filed (3/6/2009) to run against first-term Democratic Representative Kate Segal. A supporter of the Michigan Fair Tax, Mobley is a late joiner to the Republican Party, and will face an uphill battle against the popular Segal, who won convincingly in 2008.

District 65 (Status: Weak Republican)
Quick to take advantage of the death of Democratic Representative Mike Simpson in late December, Republicans Joe Rokicsak (1/11/2010), Mike Shirkley (1/11/2010), and Frank Bolak (1/6/2010) have all filed to run. No Democratic has filed yet to run for this seat the Democrats desperately need to win to hold their majority in the State House.

District 68 (Status: Safe Democratic)
Another candidate files to run against Democratic incumbent Joan Bauer. Timothy Moede (1/7/2010) has filed a financial waiver, so it is unlikely that his candidacy will amount to much in this safe Democratic seat.

District 73 (Status: Safe Republican)
According to a Grand Rapids Press [http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/01/whos_running_where_an_early_lo.html article], Republican Tom Norton (12/16/2009) has filed to term-limited Republican Representative Tom Pearce.

District 75 (Status: Weak Democratic)
With current Democratic State Representative Robert Dean considering a run for the State Senate, Kent County Commissioner Brandon Dillon has filed paperwork to run for the 75th State House district. I’ve done an [http://westmichiganrising.com/diary/1319/analysis-of-the-75th-state-house-district analysis] of the 75th District earlier this fall, and expect Dillon to be a strong candidate.

Republican Jordan Bush will face either Dean or Dillon in the general election.

District 83 (Status: Weak Republican)
With Democratic Representative John Espinoza term-limited (and running for the State Senate, Eric Tubbs (12/21/2009) has filed to run in the Republican primary. Tubbs owns an auto dealership, and faces businessman Justin Farber in the Republican primary. Democrat Alan Lewandowski has filed for the Democratic nomination.

District 85 (Status: Swing)
This swing district continues to attract candidates to replace term-limited Republican Richard Ball. Dennis Rainwater (1/13/2010) has filed for the Republican nomination, while Pamela Drake (12/26/2010) is the first Democratic candidate.

District 86 (Status: Safe Republican)
Walker Mayor Rob Verheulen has filed to run for Republican Representative David Hildenbrand’s seat. He currently faces attorney Jamie Frain in the Republican primary, although Verheulen is a strong favorite.

District 99 (Status: Swing)
Two more candidates have filed to run for this seat being vacated by term-limited Republican Bill Caul. Carl Hamm (1/5/2010) has filed for the Democratic nomination, although he has also signed a financial waiver, and will not seriously challenge Toni Sessions for the Democratic nod. Kevin Cotter (12/22/2009) has filed to run in the Republican primary, where he will face Chrstine Atwood.

New Republican Candidate for the 29th State Senate seat

2010-01-08T09:24:00.001-06:00

Looks like David Hildenbrand will have company. According to documents filed with the Michigan Secretary of State, Lori Wiersma of Grand Rapids has filed to run. You can see the filing document here:
http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=514627

Ms. Wiersma has not filed for a reporting waiver, which means that she could be a viable candidate. Wiersma is a Ministry Director at ACTION Wyoming, and is a member of the Christian Reformed Church, attending Shawnee Park (in the heart of the diminishing GOP stronghold on the southeast side). She endorsed Tim Doyle in his 2006 run for the 75th State House seat.

A Festivus Miracle: State Senate and State House Candidate Filings and News Roundup

2009-12-23T22:45:00.001-06:00

Thanks to a large number of news stories and candidates filing to run as your elected officials in 2010, here is an update bought to you by Festivus.

State Senate:

District 10 (Status: Leans Democratic)
This Macomb County district covering Sterling Heights, Utica, Clinton Township, and Roseville has attracted a candidate to replace term-limited Democratic Senator Michael Switalski (who is seemingly challenging US Representative Sander Levin in the 10th District). Paul Gieleghem (12/14/2009), currently is chairman of the Macomb County Board of Commissioners and represents District 19 (covering Central Township), has filed for the Democratic primary. Gieleghem, who served in the Michigan House from 1999 to 2005, might see some competition in the Democratic primary, including Representative Fred Miller and former Representative Frank Accavitti. No Republicans have yet filled for this seat, although Representative Tory Rocca and former Representative Sal Rocca might consider this race. Representative Kim Metlzer, another potential Republican candidate, chose to move from this district into the friendlier Republican territory of the 11th District (which shows you how strongly the GOP thinks they can win this seat).

District 11 (Status: Weak Republican)
Speaking of Kim Metlzer, she did file to run (12/16/2009) in the 11th District, which is currently represented by term-limited Republican Alan Sanborn. This northern Macomb County seat is safer GOP territory than the 10th District, which explains why Metzler risked being called a carpetbagger by potential Republican opponents (as discussed earlier at ML), which include former Representatives Leon Drolet, Jack Brandenburg, and Brian Palmer (none of whom have filled yet). No rumored Democratic candidate has emerged yet for this race.

District 12 (Status: Lean Republican)
In the past two weeks, two Republicans have filed to join the race to replace term-limited Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop. Bishop aide Cooper Rizzo (12/11/2009 and Rochester Mayor Pro-Tem Stuard Bikson (12/17/2009) have joined State Representative Jim Marleau in the Republican primary. While the Republican primary field has filled up, no Democratic candidate has yet emerged, although Representative Tim Melton is considering the race.

District 20 (Status: Swing)
As expected by many, Representative Larry DeShazor filed (11/29/2009) to run for the State Senate a little more than a year after being elected. Media in the Kalamazoo area have been covering this race pretty well in these stories here and here. Many experts say that DeShazor is the front-runner in the GOP field, although his opponents Tonya Schuitmaker and Lorence Wenke might disagree. One can only hope that Republican Jack Hoogendyk will emerge once again and join the fun as well. DeShazor’s departure from the State House makes the 61st District an open seat to watch, with Democratic and Republican candidates lining up to run to replace him. Some other stories covering the 20th District race are [http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/12/law_professor_mark_totten_to_s.html here] and [http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/12/msu_assistant_prof_hopes_to_win_seat_in_mich_senate here].

District 35 (Status: Leans Republican)
In another primary filling up with contenders, long-time Wexford County Sherriff Gary Finstrom (12/2/2009) has joined Representatives Darwin Booher and Tim Moore in the Republican primary to replace term-limited Senator Michelle McManus in the 35th District. Roger Dunigan is the only declared Democratic candidate. The GOP primary will be a barn burner, with three strong candidates going at each other.

State House

District 2 (Status: Safe Democratic)
Scott Benson (12/11/2009) is the first candidate to file in the 2nd District to replace Democratic Representative LaMar Lemmons Jr. Expect other candidates, including LarMar Lemmons IV, to run in the Democratic primary. No Republican candidate has filed.

District 4 (Status: Safe Democratic)
In a clear sign that State Representative Coleman Young Jr. is running for the 1st State Senate seat, Mary Sheffield (12/7/2009) and Marcus Brice (12/14/2009) have both filed to run for the 4th State House District. Sheffield previously ran in the 2008 Democratic primary for the 7th State House District, where she seventh with 3.4% of the total vote.

District 30 (Status: Swing)
Held by term-limited Republican Tory Rocca, this swing seat covers the northern portion of Sterling Heights and Utica. Republican businessman Jeff Farrington (12/14/2009) will join attorney David Bocek in the Republican primary. The winner will likely face Macomb County Commissioner Ken Lampar in a race that will be sharply contested by both parties.

District 54 (Status: Safe Democratic)
Want to meet a candidate? Democratic candidate Lonnie Scott wants to talk with you about state politics, according to [http://www.annarbor.com/news/54th-district-state-house-candidate-wants-to-bring-politics-to-your-place/ AnnArbor.com]

District 57 (Status: Swing)
An article from the [http://www.lenconnect.com/homepage/x441560415/Candidates-lining-up-for-Spade-s-House-seat Daily Telegram] looks at how the Democratic and Republican primaries are shaping up in the race to replace term-limited Democratic Representative Dudley Spade.

District 60 (Status: Safe Democratic)
With current Democratic Representative Robert Jones running for the open 20th State Senate seat, another candidate has filed to join Kalamazoo City Commissioner Sean McCann in the Democratic primary. Recent Western Michigan University graduate Chris Praedel (12/14/2009) will also run for this [http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/12/recent_graduate_seeks_state_ho.html seat].

No Republican has yet filed for this seat, but depending on the time of day and the weather, [http://jamestyler.org/my-politics/ James Tyler] will likely file as a Democrat/Republican/Green/RonPaulite/Misc candidate.

District 68 (Status: Safe Democratic)
Facing incumbent Democratic Representative Joan Bauer hasn’t kept Republican Kyle Haubrich from filing (12/8/2009). Haubrich, a self-proclaimed [http://www.reteaparty.com/members/haubrick1/ tea bagger], is currently a law student at Cooley Law School (class of 2011). Expect a tough race for Haubrich.

District 71 (Status: Swing)
Another candidate files to replace term-limited Representative Rick Jones, this time Justin Heany (12/10/2009). A teacher at Grand Ledge High School, Heany will join Bob Robinson in the Democratic primary. Whoever emerges from either the Republican or Democratic primaries will face off in a must-watch race to hold this swing district.

District 89 (Status: Safe Republican)
John McNeil (12/15/2009) has filed to run in the Republican primary, joining declared candidate Brandon Hall. Hall has had a rocky few months, being charged with stealing money from an American Cancer Society fundraiser in early November as covered in the [http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/297882871761189.bsp Grand Haven Tribune] and the [http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2009/11/grand_haven_school_board_trust.html Muskegon Chronicle].

Hall has pleaded not guilty, but a looming trial is not likely to help his candidacy. Republican businessman David Miller has also announced his candidacy according to an article in the [http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/297650893749374.bsp Grand Haven Tribune].

District 92 (Status: Safe Democratic)
With the entrance of candidate Steve Markel (12/3/2009), there are now six candidates in the Democratic primary. This screams for a future post just on the 92nd District. A slightly dated [http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2009/12/no_shortage_of_candidates_runn.html Muskegon Chronicle] story examines the 91st and 92nd District primaries.

District 107 (Status: Leans Republican)
This swing district covering Chippewa, Mackinac, Emmet, and a portion of Cheboygan Counties is a seat that the Republicans are itching to pickup with Democratic Representative Gary McDowell term-limited from running again. Chippewa County Commissioner (District 7) Richard Timmer (12/12/2009) has filed to join Bob Carr in the Democratic primary field. As of now, only Frank Foster, son of a prominent contractor, has filed for the Republican nomination.

December State Senate and State House Candidate Filings

2009-12-01T16:22:00.000-06:00

With the last month of 2009 upon us, it is time to take stock at recent candidate filings for the State House and State Senate. It will be interesting to see the financial numbers released by campaigns once 2010 begins, but for now we’ll have to do with rumors and potential candidacies.

State Senate

District 18 (Status: Safe Democratic)
As long suspected by many, State Representative Pam Byrnes has filed to run for the 18th State Senate District (11/25/2009). Byrnes’ entrance into the race creates a primary between her and fellow Representative Rebekah Warren. This race has been covered ably by the [http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/11/18/more-candidates-vie-for-state-house-senate/ Ann Arbor Chronicle]. While this will be a primary to watch, the winner will be heavily favored in the November election in this safe Democratic district. While Ann Arbor locals might have a better idea of the current odds on favorite for this race, my guess is that Byrnes strong support of Andy Dillon’s agenda will throw organized labor into Warren’s camp, a sure plus in a heavily Democratic district.

District 29 (Status: Swing)
While Hildenbrand’s entrance (11/10/2009) into the 29th District (Grand Rapids and Kentwood) race was covered [http://westmichiganrising.com/diary/1290/david-hildenbrand-r-files-to-run-for-the-29th-state-senate-district earlier], another recent story in the Grand Rapids Press provides further details on the [http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/11/state_house_senate_races_heat.html race].

No other Republican candidates have announced, although perennial Republican candidate Dan Tietema might run in the GOP primary. While at the moment no Democratic candidates have filed, State Representative Robert Dean has announced to supporters that he will run, while Grand Rapids City Commissioner David LaGrand and former State Representative Michael Sak are other potential Democratic candidates. Regardless of whether Sak enters the race, I consider LaGrand to be the front-runner in the Democratic primary.

District 30 (Status: Safe Republican)
This safe Republican seat covering Ottawa County is being vacated by Senator Wayne Kuipers, and as expected, State Representative Arlan Meekhof has filed to replace him (11/23/2009). No word yet on potential GOP rivals, although Bill Huizinga might consider leaving the 2nd Congressional District GOP primary to run for this seat. No Democratic candidates have yet surfaced.

District 31 (Status: Swing)
State Representative Jeff Mayes (96th District covering part of Bay County) has filed to replace Jim Barcia, who is term-limited from running for this district covering Arenac, Bay, Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola Counties (11/20/2009). Mayes filing is covered in the [http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2009/11/michigan_rep_jeff_mayes_announ.html Bay City News]. While this is a swing seat, Mayes does not yet face Democratic or Republican opposition. It is expected that former Republican Representatives Steve Ehardt and Mike Green will run for the seat.

State House

District 4 (Status: Safe Democratic)
Edgar Vann III (11/19/2009) has filed a primary challenge against second-term Representative Colman Young II. Vann is the son of Second Ebenezer Baptist Pastor Edgar Vann II, who is a strong supporter of disgraced former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, received funding from the City of Detroit for his UNITE nonprofit. This could be an interesting primary.

District 8 (Status: Swing)
This safe Detroit based seat is being vacated by term-limited Representative George Cushingberry, and Marygrove College Adjunct Professor Leslie Love has filed to run (11/3/2009). James Heath and Mikal Crawford are also expect to run for the Democratic nomination.

District 31 (Status: Weak Democratic)
With current Democratic Representative Fred Miller term-limited, Marilyn Lane has filed to run (12/01/2009) in this Macomb County seat. Republican Dan Tollis and Democrats Commissioners Kathy Tocco and Carey Torrice are also rumored to be interested.

District 33 (Status: Weak Republican)
Second-term Republican Kim Meltzer is being challenged by Republican County Commissioner William Revoir (11/10/2009) in this Macomb County seat. A bloody GOP primary could make this slight Republican seat a pickup opportunity for the Democrats, however, Meltzer is likely running for the open 11th State Senate District seat.

District 54 (Status: Safe Democratic)
Current Democratic Representative Alma Wheeler Smith is term-limited (and running for Governor), and Michael White is the second candidate to file for this seat (11/14/2009). Other Democrats are expected to join White and Lonnie Smith in the Democratic primary.

District 67 (Status: Swing)
Two Republican candidates have filed to challenge second-term Democratic Representative Barb Byrum in this swing Ingham County district. Pastor Jeff Hall (11/13/2009) and Ingham County Republican Party Vice Chair Jeff Oesterle (11/16/2009) are looking at a primary. Given that Byrum might choose to run for the 23rd State Senate seat vacated by Democrat Gretchen Whitmer (who is running for Attorney General), this might be a seat that the Democrats will find a challenge to retain.

District 79 (Status: Leans Republican)
I missed this filing earlier this summer. Fred Upton aide Al Pscholka is joined in the Republican primary by Paul "Revere" Peterson, a self-proclaimed tea-bagger. Peterson announced his candidacy on RightMichigan.com, and is clearly angling for the tea-bagger vote. Check out his blog for some [http://www.votepaulpeterson.org/ laughs]. With a divisive Republican primary a strong possibility, a Democratic candidate stands to gain in the general election. 2008 Democratic candidate Jim Hahn is rumored to be considering another run at the seat.

District 83 (Status: Weak Republican)
This Sanilac County district is a swing seat that is being vacated by term-limited Democratic Representative John Espinoza. Republican businessman Justin Faber is the first candidate to file (11/23/2009); expect many other Democrats and Republicans to enter.

District 91 (Status: Swing)
This swing Muskegon County district is being vacated by Democratic Representative Mary Valentine, who is running for the State Senate District 34. Republican Ken Punter has already filed for this seat, and is joined by Ben Gillette, who is closely tied to the Muskegon County Democratic leadership. Democrat Branden Gemzer (11/22/2009) is joining Gillette in the Democratic primary. Gemzer is an Iraq War vet and a former candidate for Egelston Township Supervisor.

District 92 (Status: Strong Democratic)
With Sean Mullally, Charles Nash, Larry McNeill, Marcia Hovey-Wright in the race for this safe Democratic seat in Muskegon County, the addition of Democrat Scott Nesbit (11/14/2009) further crowds this race.

District 97 (Status: Swing)
This swing seat covering Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac Counties is being vacated by Republican Tim Moore. Democrats Jason Liptow and Mark Lightfoot have entered the race, while Republicans Joel Johnson and Kim Emmons are joined by George Gilmore (11/25/2009).

Analysis of the 75th State House District

2009-11-29T21:31:00.000-06:00

(This post is an abbreviated bit of analysis conducted for a Democratic State House campaign-PB)

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/75thDistrictMap08Base.jpg

75th State House District

The 75th State House District covers the eastern portion half of Grand Rapids. The district has existed in a slightly modified form since 1972, with modifications occurring after each census redistricting. Despite Grand Rapids’ image as a conservative bastion, Democrats represented the district until the mid-1980s, with Jelt Sietsma, Steven Monsma, and John Otterbacher serving state house districts that covered eastern Grand Rapids during this period. In the mid-1980s as Grand Rapids became increasingly conservative, Republican Vern Ehlers (1983-1985) and Richard Bandstra (1985-1995) successfully held the eastside Grand Rapids seat, which remained in the GOPs hands during the 1990s and early 2000s under William Byl (1995-2001) and Jerry Kooiman (2001-2007). The republicans who represented the 75th District were a largely different breed than the largely suburban Michigan Republican Party (MRP), claiming moderation in economic issues, promoting urban revitalization, and public education. This tradition ended with the 2006 election, in which the GOP ran social conservative Tim Doyle for the seat. Doyle, who in tandem with the MRP, ran a race-baiting campaign against Democratic candidate Robert Dean, was stunningly upset Doyle by a 51% to 46% margin. Dean handily won reelection in 2008 in a strongly Democratic year (see the 2008 Democratic Baseline in Map 1), besting Republican candidate Dan Tietema with 59% of the vote.

While the Democratic resurgence in recent years is in large part due to the changing political environment on the state and national level, the demographics of the district have also been changing. The growing Hispanic population on the southwest side of the city, the revitalization of Cherry Hill and Eastown, the slow decline of the 1st ring suburbs on the south side Grand Rapids and Wyoming, and the fading of the CRC political/religious presence in the Third Ward of the city has changed Grand Rapids over the past decade, and the full implications of this transformation will only be visible with the tabulation of the 2010 Census.

General Vote Analysis: 1998-2008

Using election data provided by the Michigan Secretary of State, we can see the overall number of registered voters and actual voters in the 75th District in Table 1 below:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/BDTable2.jpg

Like the rest of the United States, voter turnout in the 75th is much higher on Presidential election years than in gubernatorial election years, with 71% and 70% of registered voters turning out in 2004 and 2008, respectively, while 52% and 58% turning out in 2002 and 2006. At the same time, the number of registered voters has increased steadily in the 75th district, with more than 6,000 new voters being added to the rolls between 2002 and 2008. While there is undoubtedly some amount of “deadwood” in the voter registration files, the increase in registered voters (especially in the urban core of the district) is strongly correlated with Democratic gains in the district.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/BDTable1.jpg

Table 2 examines the two-party vote for the Presidential, Gubernatorial, State House, and Democratic Baseline from 1998 to 2008. The 1998, 2002, and 2006 elections results on the top, and the 2000, 2004, and 2008 results below to better distinguish between the presidential and gubernatorial year results. The Democratic and Republican baseline is determined by averaging the statewide Board of Education races for each party. From Table 2 we can see that the 75th has had a Democratic majority since 2004, although the Democratic State House percentage has lagged behind the Democratic baseline every year, with the exception of the 2002 election, a sign of candidate quality (or lack of) for each party. Even in the 1998 and 2002 elections, two years which were largely considered horrible for the Michigan Democratic Party, the district became increasingly competitive in each. The undervote for the State House candidate (where a vote selects a presidential or gubernatorial candidate but fails to cast a ballot for the State House candidate) remains remarkably consistent between 1998 and 2008, falling between 95% and 97% (with the exception of 1998, when many Democratic voters avoided voting for Geoffrey Fieger out of disgust). The drop off in the number of voters between presidential and gubernatorial election was 25% in 2002 (from 2000) and 19% in 2006, suggesting that the drop in 2010 will likely fall within this range. Thus, between 33,239 and 36,063 75th District voters will likely vote in the gubernatorial contest, and 31,577 to 35,341 will cast their ballots for the State House race. Therefore, while turnout will likely down compared to the 2008 presidential election, the number of voters will be higher than in 2002 and will probably be around the 2006 total.

The Changing Political Regions of the 75th District, 1998-2008

To better understand the potential 2010 electorate, it is best to understand the 75th State House District as having a distinct set of political regions. The six political regions of the district have been formed over time, and are motivated by different political ideologies. The regions are:

1. Urban Core (Precincts 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-17, 3-21, 3-23, 3-32, 3-45)
These precincts are overwhelmingly African American in population, and largely are located in the 3rd Ward. In 2008 the Urban Core accounted for 21% of the registered voters in the 75th, and 18% of the actual voters.

2. City Core (Precincts 2-4, 2-5)
These two City Core precincts are upper class neighborhoods that are similar in many respects to the Heritage Hill neighborhood to the west, and are largely white ethnicity. Like the Urban Core, the City Core was largely built before the 1890s, and is relatively dense in population. The City Core accounts for 4% of registered voters, and 3% of actual voters.

3. North Streetcar (Precincts 2-20, 2-48)
The North Streetcar neighborhood dominates the 2nd Ward, although only two precincts fall in the 75th District. Built between 1890 and 1920, this neighborhood has historically been working-class and Catholic, remaining largely ethnic white in population. The North Streetcar neighborhood accounts for 3% of the registered voters and actual voters.

4. South Streetcar (Precincts 1-41, 1-42, 1-43, 1-44, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 3-9, 3-10, 3-31, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-48)
Covering a large portion of the 75th District, the South Streetcar neighborhood accounted for 24% of registered and 25% of actual voters in the 2008 election. Like the North Streetcar neighborhood, it was largely built between 1890 and 1920, although portions of Alger Heights were developed up to 1940. Historically the heartland of the Christian Reformed Church, this neighborhood has experienced substantial ethnic resorting in the past twenty years, as neighborhoods such as Garfield Park and Oakdale have become increasingly diverse as many CRC residents have moved to the suburban portions of Grand Rapids and Kentwood. This portion of the 75th District provided much of the local Republican leadership after the 1970s until recent years.

5. 1st Ring Suburbs (Precincts 2-6, 2-34, 2-37, 2-38, 2-43, 3-5, 3-38, 3-51, 3-55, 3-57)
The first ring suburbs covering eastern Grand Rapids were largely built between 1945 and 1970, and exhibit many similarities to the suburbs built largely at the same time in Kentwood and Wyoming. This neighborhood provides 23% of registered and actual voters in the district.

6. 2nd Ring Suburbs (Precincts 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 3-7, 3-8, 3-38, 2-53, 2-54, 2-56)
Like the 1st-ring suburbs, these neighborhoods were annexed into the city of Grand Rapids in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and remain the most Republican and affluent neighborhood within the city. This neighborhood remains overwhelmingly white, is high-income, and is low-density in land use. Consisting of 26% of the district’s registered voters, it accounts for 28% of the actual voters, a sign of high voter turnout.

See Map 2 for a better picture of these neighborhoods in the 75th District.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/75thNeighborhoods.jpg
Map 2

While the Urban and City Core neighborhoods have been Democratic strongholds even in 1998, it was only in the 2004 Presidential election that a Presidential or State House candidate was able to carry other neighborhoods as well (North and South Streetcar). By 2008 the Democratic edge was so strong in the75th that Obama carried every neighborhood with the exception of the 2nd Ring Suburbs, a feat that Governor Granholm likewise accomplished in 2006. While the Democratic Baseline experienced a similar climb after 2004, Representative Dean has trailed behind, especially in 1st and 2nd Ring suburbs in the 2nd Ward. Indeed, Dean’s victory in 2006 came largely from his breakthrough in the South Streetcar neighborhood, in which he cut down the GOP vote total significantly. While Dean performed better in 2008 against a lackluster and underfunded GOP candidate, he trailed in the 2nd Ward Suburbs, while performing slightly better in the 3rd Ward. Still, in both 2006 and 2008 he ran behind the Democratic Baseline and behind Obama and Granholm significantly. The Google Table linked below shows the vote breakdown by region in the 75th:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdDB0Q1gxdjNwYkhQWjcxdTBMNkw4QVE&hl=en

The six regions of the 75th all experience a drop in voter turnout when comparing presidential versus gubernatorial election cycles. The drop in turnout is generally around 20%, with the exception of the Urban Core (38% in 2002 and 25% in 2006) and the City Core (54% in 2002 and 30% in 2006). While the decline in turnout occurs in all regions, turnout increased between 2002 and 2006 versus to a relatively unchanged turnout for the presidential elections of 2004 and 2008. The Area column in Appendix 2 shows what percentage of the electorate each region provided.

2010 Analysis: A Continued Democratic Edge

The Democratic strategy for wining the 75th quickly becomes apparent when examining the district by political region. Win the City and Urban Core with at least 75%-80% of the total vote, win a majority of the South and North Streetcar neighborhoods, hold at least 45% of 1st Ring Suburbs, and win at least 40% of the 2nd Ring Suburbs. In turn the Republican strategy is to win at least 65% of the vote in the 2nd Ring Suburbs and 55% of the vote in the 1st Ring Suburbs, keep the Democratic share of the City and Urban Core under 75%, and win a majority in the North and South Streetcar neighborhoods. Democratic candidates have won with this strategy since 2006, and even began inching close to success in 2004. In contrast, the GOP has been unable to replicate its winning strategy since the 2002 election, especially in the South Streetcar region, where they have been unable to win over 55% of the vote since 1998.

The addition of 6,000 voters since the 2002 election spells further problems for the GOP. While a number of these new voters are located in the 2nd Ring Suburbs (19%), 40% hail from the Urban Core, while another 20% come from the South Streetcar neighborhood that has swung solidly to the Democratic column since 2004. As the GOP base has declined in the 75th, the rapid growth of the Democratic voting population points to further difficulties in the GOP regaining this seat, even in an open seat contest.

Michigan Senate District 20: DeShazor (R) Is In

2009-11-20T09:55:00.001-06:00

While he hasn't filed to make it official yet, Deshazor is telling folks he is in. From WKZO (AM radio):

KALAMAZOO -- Portage State House Representative Larry DeShazor is the latest to jump into the race for the State Senate…its just that he hasn’t quite made it official yet.

We heard the rumor and asked him if that was his intention when he appeared at Governor Granholm’s appearance at WMU on Thursday. He said yes! He says the formal announcement will come in January.

State House Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker and former State Rep. Lorence Wenke have already announced that they will also be running for the seat now filled by Dr. Tom George, who is term limited.

So far former Kalamazoo Mayor and current State House Rep. Robert Jones is the only Democrat vying for the seat in the 20th Senate District.

The primary will be next August and the General Election in November.

http://new.wkzo.com/news/articles/2009/nov/19/exclusive-listen-state-representative-larry-deshaz/

As posted in an earlier diary, here is a map of the 20th District:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/20thStateSenate.jpg

Perhaps Jacob Hoogendyk is going to announce as well? More later on this, but one should note that House District 61 is once again an open seat, and a potential pickup for the Dems

November State Senate and State House candidate filings

2009-11-12T17:52:00.001-06:00

Can you believe that we are two weeks from Thanksgiving? On that note, here is the November State Senate and State House candidate update, that you can talk about with your relatives around the dinner table when you are tired of watching the Lions lose.

State Senate

District 2 (Status: Safe Democratic)

With Martha Scott term-limited, this safe Democratic seat is open and waiting for candidates. Olivia Boykins (10/28/2009), director of the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights, is the first candidate to file for the seat. Expect numerous other candidates to also file, including Representatives Lemmons and Johnson. Although this seat is the most conservative of the Detroit districts (largely because of the Grosse Point suburbs are included in this northeastern Detroit district), don’t expect a Republican to win this seat.

District 8 (Status: Safe Democratic)

Covering working-class suburbs in southern Wayne County, this safe Democratic seat is currently represented by term-limited Raymond Basham. Former State Representative Hong Yung Hopgood (10/23/2009) is the first to file, and will likely be facing a Democratic primary.

District 14 (Status: Safe Democratic)

Another solidly Democratic seat (covering southeastern Oakland County), this race has attracted two Democratic candidates to replace term-limited Gilda Jacobs. Oakland County Commissioner Dave Coulter (10/13/2009) and Representative Vince Gregory (10/15/2009), who current serves the 35th State House District, both have filed for this seat. With the only competitive contest for this seat coming in the Democratic primary, expect more Democrats to eye this seat.

District 16 (Status: Strong Republican)

Currently represented by term-limited Republican Cameron Brown, this rural district covers four southern counties (St. Joseph, Branch, Hillsdale, and Lenawee). While the district has a Republican lean, former Democratic State Representative Doug Spade (10/12/2009) is running for the seat. [http://www.lenconnect.com/state_news/x1128407740/Doug-Spade-to-run-for-state-Senate-in-2010 seat].

Spade, who became the first Democrat to represent Lenawee County in a generation by winning a stunner in 1998, is certainly a recruiting coup for the Senate Democratic leadership. His Republican opponent, and former fellow State House representative, is Bruce Caswell. While Caswell might be considered the front runner for this seat, this is certainly a place were the GOP doesn’t want to have to spend money or time. Keep an eye on this seat.

District 25 (Status: Weak Republican)

This district (covering Lapeer and St. Clair Counties) has always been a tease for the Democrats, who spend serious money in 2002 in an attempt to prevent Republican Senator Jud Gilbert from winning the seat. With Gilbert term-limited, the Democrats will likely work hard to elect Jason Davis (10/25/2009). Davis might be aided by the GOP primary battle between Representatives Lauren Hager and Phil Pavlov, which is certainly expected to be heated.

District 26 (Status: Weak Democratic)

Democratic Senator Deborah Cherry is vacating this seat due to term-limits, which presents an opportunity for the Republicans to win this weak Democratic district covering eastern Genesee and northern Oakland Counties. Thankfully for the Democrats, a Republican primary is now a reality, with former Representative Fran Amos (09/12/2009) facing off against David Roberston, who filed earlier this year. This will be an interesting race, and given his record of winning close races (both in the primary and general), I’d give the early edge to Robertston. Expect Democratic Representative Jim Slezak to also run for this seat.

District 29 (Status: Swing)

This Grand Rapids-based district has received its first official candidate: State Representative Dave Hildenbrand (11/10/2009), with the GR Press story [http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/11/state_rep_dave_hildenbrand_bec.html here]. Hildenbrand currently represents a small portion of the district in the State House (some rural townships and a small portion of Grand Rapids), and while he has a sizable financial warchest, he is considered by many to be too conservative for the district. Representative Robert Dean and Grand Rapids City Commissioner David LaGrand have both expressed an interest, while former Representative Mike Sak, remains mum about his options.

District 34 (Status: Swing)

No new organization has yet covered this, but former Republican State Representative David Farhat (10/01/2009) has filed to run against Representative Goeff Hansen for the Republican nomination as previously posted on my [http://peterabratt.blogspot.com/2009/10/friday-thank-you-david-farhat.htmlblog]. This primary will pit a Muskegon County candidate versus one hailing from the rural portion of the district, which will be an interesting contest. Democratic State Representative Mary Valentine is running from the Democratic nomination, and will likely present a tough candidate for the winner of the GOP primary.

State House

District 5 (Status: Safe Democratic)

Hodari Brown (10/28/2009) has filed a primary challenge against second-term Representative Bert Johnson. Don’t expect much of a challenge here.

District 30 (Status: Swing)

Term-limited Republican Tory Rocca leaving this swing district covering Sterling Heights and Utica, and this will be a seat that is targeted by both parties. Attorney David Bocek (10/20/2009) has filed to run in the Republican primary, and is currently facing no opposition. The winner of the GOP primary will face Democratic Macomb County Commissioner Ken Lampar, who also unopposed.

District 35 (Status: Safe Democratic)

With current Democratic Representative Vincent Gregory running for the 14th State Senate District, two candidates have emerged to replace him. Eric Coleman (10/03/2009) and Rudolph Hobbs (10/28/2009) are both looking to represent this extremely safe Democratic seat.

District 50 (Status: Strong Democratic)

Democratic Representative Jim Slezak is likely running for the 26th State Senate seat, as shown by Gerald Masters (10/23/2009) filing to run for this seat. No Republican has yet filed to run for this seat.

District 53 (Status: Safe Democratic)

Current Democratic Representative Rebekah Warren running for the 18th State Senate district, this Ann Arbor-based district is open seat. Washtenaw County Commissioner Jeff Irwin (11/01/2009) has filed to run for this seat, and joins Ned Staebler in the Democratic primary. Irwin appears to be supported by the Warren-Smith faction of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party, although it remains to be seen whether Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje runs for this seat.

District 64 (Status: Swing)

After a humiliating loss to Republican Mike Nofs in this month’s special election for the 19th State Senate district, Marty Griffin announced that he would run again for his State House seat. He’s gotten one challenger thus far, as Jackson County Commissioner Earl Poleski (10/18/2009) is seeking the Republican nomination.

District 75 (Status: Swing)

With rumors building that Democratic Representative Robert Dean is running for the 29th State Senate District, Republicans are calculating this open seat might be easier to win. Republican attorney and tea-bagger activist Jordan Bush (10/29/2009) has filed to run for this seat (For a deeper analysis of this race, check out WMR-pb). Bush will likely find winning this increasingly Democratic seat hard to win, especially should County Commissioner Brandon Dillion seek the Democratic nomination. Bush might also face a primary contest from a moderate Republican like Attorney Chris Meyer, who narrowly lost the GOP nomination in 2006.

District 79 (Status: Leans Republican)
With Representative John Proos term-limited (and running for the 21st Senate District seat, Fred Upton aide Al Pscholka (10/13/2009) has thrown his hat into the ring for the GOP nomination. He’ll likely be joined by Berrien County Commissioner Jon Hinkelman. While this district has long-been a safe GOP district, over the past four election cycles it has become increasingly Democratic. 2008 Democratic candidate Jim Hahn is rumored to be considering another run at the seat.

District 80 (Status: Weak Republican)

This district has never seen a spirited Democratic campaign, despite Van Buren County favoring higher ticket Democratic candidates over the past three election cycles. With the filing of Van Buren County Commissioner Tom Erdmann (10/30/2009), this seat has clearly moved onto the radar screen for the MDP, and represents a unique opportunity to pickup a long-term GOP seat. While Republican businesswoman Shelley Hartmann has filed to run, expect a GOP primary with Van Buren County Sheriff Dale Gribler likely entering the field as well.

Two great policy books

2009-11-11T10:27:00.001-06:00

I want to give a shout out to two great policy books I recently finished reading in the past two weeks-T.R. Reid's The Healing of America and George Shultz and John Shoven's Putting Our House in Order. Both are non-ideological, and call for a transformation of America's entitlement programs and health care management systems.

Putting our House in Order examines the country's long-term fiscal danger zones-social security and health care reform. The authors (both affiliated with Stanford University and the Hoover Institution) give a remarkably even handed analysis on the long-term challenges facing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The authors examine policy proposals given by previous experts and policy groups (both liberal and conservative) and provide incremental and common sense policy proposals that partisans in both parties can agree to. Putting Our House in Order is a well-written book that does not leave the reader lost in a dense maze of policy proposals, but rather helps inform and educate interested readers.

The Healing of America is written by Washington Post correspondent T.R, Reid who asks why the United States is the only first world country to not provide health care to all its citizens. Reid helpfully notes that the United States has four health care systems, the first being the Veterans Administration (similar to Great Britain with government ownership of hospitals)-and one that my very conservative Republican grandfather used and loved, despite his dislike for socialized medicine); Medicare (similar to Canda's universal coverage program, and used and loved by my very conservative grandmother who thought FDR was a socialist); private insurance (similar to Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland's system, although these countries much like Mitt Rommey's inspired Massachusetts program, require all citizens to have health insurance), and no insurance coverage that 48 million Americans current hold (like most third world nations). With his bum right shoulder, Reid explores health-care systems around the world in an effort to understand different health care systems, and finds an array of possible policy options that Americans of all political stripes can love. Personally, I'm in favor of mandated insurance coverage for all Americans, with the government providing vouchers for all citizens to obtain basic health care coverage and to provide catastrophic coverage as well, indexed to income and age. That said, I think that given the experience of Medicare, the government would be better off providing extensive regulation and oversight of private health insurance, setting a level of minimum coverage that insurers much provide to all citizens, regardless of income, and a stronger push toward preventive health care to cut long-term costs. Seriously, read Reid's work-is an excellent book.

Finally, for those who haven't read it yet, David Goldhill's Atlantic article is a must read regarding America's current health insurance system.

David Hildenbrand (R) files to run for the 29th State Senate District

2009-11-10T14:17:00.000-06:00

Finally one of my predictions came true: Republican Representative David Hildenbrand is running for the 29th State Senate district. His filing papers are located on the Michigan Secretary of State page here:
http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=514545

I'll post more later, but this is big news. Hidenbrand currently represents the 86th District, which can be view on the map below.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/KentPrecinctMaster2008HD-1.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/KentPrecinct2008StateSenate-1.jpg

Given that only 17 of the 133 precincts in the State Senate seat are in Hildenbrand's state house district, he'll have a big task ahead of him. Of course, he has ample funds in his campaign warchest, so that will certainly assist his efforts.

In which I appear on Two Guys Named Joe

2009-11-07T23:22:00.000-06:00

Chatted with two Guys Named Joe regarding Michigan State Senate races. Listen to the show here:

http://cdn1.libsyn.com/jmunem/Two_guys_named_Joe_-November_7_2009.m4a?nvb=20091108012523&nva=20091109013523&t=0731eabd845f3bb258e14

A Closer look at Ward 1 and Ward 3 GR Commission Races

2009-11-04T18:10:00.001-06:00

I went through the precinct level data and two things stood out in both races: turnout and regions.

In the First Ward, Shaffer did well in the two affluent corners of the distrct- the "West Suburbs" portion of the west side that were annexed after 1959, and in the streetcar suburbs that I call Garfield Park South (south of Burton and west of Division). Shaffer kept Jendrasiak under 45% in these areas, and turned out voters at a rate above 15%. In Garfield Park South and the West Suburbs voters turned out at a rate well above the district average of 13%.

In contrast, Jendrasiak ran well in his 1st Ward base on the west side (east of Covell Street on the west side). However, turnout was extremely poor in his base, generally pulling in the single digits, and the Hispanic neighborhoods south of Wealthy and west of Division turnout at an even lower rate (despite generally supporting Jendrasiak).

In the 3rd Ward Townsend ran well in the south suburban neighborhoods annexed after 1950 (east of Plymouth and south of 28th Street- with the exception of Precinct 4 located behind Centerpointe Mall), and also did well in Alger Heights. White did well in the Urban Core of the 3rd Ward north of Burton and west of Plymouth. Like Jendrasiak White was plagued with low turnout in his base, but his saving grace was that Townsend was unable to bring out her voters at a markely higher rate in her core precincts. Thus, she failed where Shaffer suceeded, and that kept White on the City Commission.

2009-10-28T20:45:00.000-05:00

In the 2008 cycle the Michigan Democratic Party emerged victorious for the second straight election, picking up nine seats to bring their seat total to 67 and helping President Barack Obama win the state in a landslide. However the 2010 cycle appears to be challenging for the party; defend its hold on the executive branch and the lower legislative chamber, while picking up the upper chamber, a victory that has eluded the party since 1984.

To better determine which seats in both the House and Senate will likely be targeted by each party, I’ve replicated research I did in the last election cycle on the funding that the MDP and the MRP gives to various candidates in the State House. I used Michigan Campaign Finance Network reports for 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 to see on what races each party put their money. Before analyzing the data I suspected that both parties would protect incumbents first, and then spend money on flipping open seats. I suspected that independent expenditures (from both parties) would also follow this logic. Finally, candidates that raised little money on their own would not receive any financial support from the state parties. I listed any race where there was an investment of over $15,000 from either party, and whether the seat was open or whether a party’s incumbent was defending the seat.

State House

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/CampaignSpending2002-1.jpg
Figure 1: 2002 State House Races

Figure 1 shows the races that each party contested in 2002. The Republicans contested 18 seats, the Democrats 17. The Democrats contested 13 open seats and 3 Republican-held seats, while defending 1 seat. The GOP also contested 13 open seats and 1 Democratic-held seat, while defending 4 Republican seats. Of the 15 seats that each party actively contested, Democrats won 6, while the Republicans won 9.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/CampaignSpending2004-1.jpg
Figure 2: 2004 State House Races
As shown in Figure 2, the 2004 election cycle saw an increase in contested seats. The Republicans spent serious money on 21 seats, while the Democrats challenged in only 11 races. This difference may be a result of the large GOP money advantage for the state level races in this cycle. Regardless, the Democrats contested 7 open seats and 2 seats held by the GOP, while defending 2 Democratic seats. The GOP challenged 13 open seats and 4 Democratic seats, while defending 4 Republican seats. However, in the 10 races contested by each party, the Democrats won 7 seats. Of the 10 seats that the Democrats did not contest, the GOP won 7.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/CampaignSpending2006-1.jpg
Figure 3: 2006 State House Races

Figure 3 shows the total number of contested races decline in 2006. However, the Democrats increased the number of challenges, spending heavily in 17 races, while the GOP contested only 13 seats. Of the 17 races that the Democrats spent money on, 5 were open seats and 7 were held by the GOP, while 5 seats were defended. The GOP challenged 4 open seats and 2 Democratic seats, while defending 7 GOP seats. Of the 12 seats that both parties challenged, the Democrats won 8.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MISHSpending2002-2008.jpg
Figure 4: 2008 State House Races

Figure 4 shows the total number of contested races in 2008. 31 races were seriously contested altogether; however, of these seats the Republicans contested 20, while the Democrats spent on 21. Of the 20 seats the GOP spent on, 14 were open seats, 3 were held by Republican incumbents, and 3 defended by Democratic incumbents. The Democrats challenged 14 open seats, defended 6 incumbents and challenged 1 Republican incumbent. Of the 10 seats that both parties challenged, the Democrats won 7. Interestingly, the Democrats spent large amounts of funds defining two relatively safe incumbents, Speaker of the House Andy Dillon (34% of his total funding was from the MDP) in District 17 and Mike Simpson in District 65 (55% of his total funding was from the MDP).

Over the past 4 election cycles, only 6 incumbents have fall to challengers. Two Democrats have lost (1 in 2002 and 1 in 2004), while 4 Republicans fell (1 in 2004 and 3 in 2006). Of the 47 races contested by each party between 2002 and 2008, the overwhelming majority have been open seats. All these seats are also Weak Democratic or Republican or Swing Seats.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MISHPartisanStatus2010SH.jpg
Figure 5: State House Competitiveness Matrix

Figure 5 is a chart displaying the expected competitiveness for Michigan State House races further. Each District has a Democratic baseline number in parenthesis, along with the number of times each party has challenged the seat. The Democratic baseline is determined by the Democratic share of the Board of Education vote for the election cycles between 2000 and 2008. For example, in House District 51 (in which the Democratic baseline is 51%), the Democrats have invested party resources in the seat four times, while the GOP has invested in it three times. It quickly becomes apparent that both parties rarely spend money defending or challenging seats in the Safe or Strong category or that of the opposing party. Hence, that gives the Democrats 31 worry free seats, and the Republicans 25. For an upset occur in these races means that the challenger needs to be self-financing, as the party will pay for nothing.

Hence both parties put their attention on the remaining 54 leaning, weak, and swing seats. Thus, expect the 11 Democratic and 9 Republican seats outside the Safe or Strong categories of either party that are open to be hotly contested. The Republicans will particularly contest three Republican-leaning seats held by Democratic Representatives in Districts 57, 83, and 107, although the GOP has done poorly in the Upper Peninsula over the past three cycles (This might change with Tom Casperson running for Mike Prusi’s 38th State Senate seat). On the opposing side the Democrats will look to pick up Districts 97, while challenging a number of swing seats (Districts 30, 71, and 85) that the Republicans currently hold. The GOP in turn will certainly try hard to pick up open Democratic swing seats (Districts 52, 91, and 103). Also expect the Republicans to try and knock off first-term Democratic incumbents in Districts 32, 70, and 101, although each of these candidates significantly outperformed the Democratic baseline in the last election cycle with vigorous campaigns.

If the Republican Party is serious about returning to a majority in the lower chamber, the party needs to in seats in Wayne County. Currently it holds only one based in Livonia, and this seat will likely face a Democratic challenger should the district get significantly redrawn in 2011 by the Democrats. While there was a significant Democratic wave in 2008, there is no indication that the Michigan voting population is moving to make the GOP the majority party in the lower chamber any time soon. Indeed, some long-term Republican Party strongholds are increasingly turning Democratic. Berrien County in southwestern Michigan, a long-term Republican stronghold, has seen its two State House districts become increasingly Democratic over the past three election cycles, and could be vulnerable to a strong Democratic candidate, especially in the open 79th District. While the GOP continues to do well in the exurban districts in the state, much of the party’s post 2004 decline has come from candidates losing in first-ring suburbs in metropolitan Detroit and in other metropolitan centers throughout the state.

Despite the potential opportunities, it is unlikely that the GOP will pick up the 13 seats it needs to regain a House majority in 2010. To do so the GOP would need to pick up all the open and first-term seats held by Democrats in Swing, Weak Republican, and Leaning Republican seats without the Democrats a single Democratic pickup, an unlikely event.

State Senate

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MISS2002.jpg
Figure 6: 2002 State Senate Races

Figure 6 shows the total number of contested races State Senate races in 2002. This was the first cycle in which a number of state senators were term-limited, and thus a number of competitive districts drawn up under the 2001 redistricting plan were open seats. Of the 38 seats in the senate, 13 were seriously contested altogether; with the Republicans contested 9, while the Democrats challenged 10. Of the 6 seats that both parties challenged, the Democrats won 2. The Democratic efforts in 2002 met with resounding failure, as the party won only 4 of the 10 seats contested, while the GOP won 7 of the 9 seats they spent substantial sums upon.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MISSSpending2006.jpg
Figure 7: 2006 State Senate Races

Figure 7 shows the total number of contested races State Senate races in 2006. With few open seats available to contest, both campaigns spend funds challenging specific races. As opposed to the 13 seats challenged in 2002, only 6 districts caught the attention of the parties in 2006, and the Democrats only challenged 4 districts. Of the 4 districts the Senate Dems challenged, the party picked up only 1 seat, while the GOP successfully held 5 of the 6 seats (including open seats) they were defending. Despite concentrating their financial support on only four districts, the Democrats were outspent by the Republicans in every district, and by substantial margins in the 13th and 34th Districts.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/MISHPartisanStatus2010SS.jpg
Figure 8: State Senate Competitiveness Matrix

Figure 8 displays the competitiveness of the 38 State Senate seats. There are 11 seats that are Safe or Strong Democratic, while there are 5 Safe or Strong Republican districts. In all likeliness, the 6 Leaning GOP seats are going to be uncontested by the Democrats, simply because there are too many other seats to spent limited financial resources upon.

Districts 32 and 34 are likely to be among the most temping seats for the Democrats to contest. While District 34 is an open seat that has a strong Democratic candidate (State Representative Mary Valentine), District 32 is held by incumbent Republican senator Roger Kahn, who narrowly won against Democrat Carl Williams in 2006. What the Democrats need in the 32nd District is a strong candidate who can make strong contest against Kahn, who is likely to get piles of money from the GOP to hold this seat.

The GOP is in an unenviable situation in 2010. If Republican Mike Nofs picks up the open 19th District seat vacated by Democratic Congressman Mark Schauer, the GOP will have a 22-16 margin in the State Senate. Thus, the Democrats would need to pick up four seats to win the chamber. The Senate Republicans need to hold three seats in western Michigan where the Democrats have made strong electoral gains over the past two election cycles (District 20-Kalamazoo County, District 29-Grand Rapids and surrounding suburbs, and District 34-Muksegon County and three rural counties). If the Democrats pick up two of these three seats, the GOP needs to only lose one more seat to have a tied chamber. Unfortunately for the Republicans, Districts 7 (western Wayne County), District 13 (portions of Oakland County), and District 25 (Lapeer and St. Clair Counties) are all tossup seats.

A few Democratic seats could be potential Republican pickups. Mike Prusi’s 38th Senate District is open, and former Republican State Representative Tom Casperson is running for this district, which has a weak Democratic lean. If any Republican candidate can win this seat it is Casperson, who has a history of winning tough races, despite being pounded by Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak last year. Likewise, District 26 (Genesee County) and 31 (Bay County) are districts represented by popular senators (Jim Barcia and Deborah Cherry, respectively) who romped to victory in seats that are not as strongly Democratic as seem.

MI-2nd District: Kuipers (R) running

2009-10-27T21:12:00.000-05:00

This makes the race so much more interesting. From the GR Press:

Although his GOP rivals have a considerable head start, state Sen. Wayne Kuipers insists the 2010 2nd congressional primary is still there for the taking.

“This is the earliest I have ever gotten in a race at any level,” said Kuipers, who is poised to formally announce his campaign in Holland on Saturday. “So, no, I don’t think it’s too late.”

His chief rivals include former Buffalo Bills tight end Jay Riemersma, of Holland; former state Rep. Bill Huizenga, of Zeeland; and Fruitport businessman Bill Cooper.

Read the full article here:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/10/state_sen_wayne_kuipers_poised.html

While Ballenger might think that the race is going to be competitive between Huizenga, Kuipers, and Riemersma, I think that Kuipers announcement puts another punch into Huizenga's gut that follows his weak 3rd quarter fundraising numbers. It will be very interesting to read the 4th quarter reports.

If Cooper can run a campaign akin to what Hoekstra ran in 1992 (an outsider with a zany campaign), he might be able to do well with three Ottawa County candidates pounding each other.

State House District 91: GOP Primary: Holly Hughes (R) running

2009-10-27T21:11:00.000-05:00

The GOP is set for a primary for the 91st State House District. From a conservative blog:

Holly Hughes announced that she is entering the race for the 91st also. With both Ken and Holly in the race for the Republicans, the field is set. There will be a Primary come Aug. 2010.

Holly ran in 2008 for the 91st and lost. She has name recognition not to mention all of her signs from that race. She will be hoping to take that advantage from her loss into this race to put her over the top.

This race is turning into a classic “David and Golliath [sic]” match up. Holly has the money and political connections and knows how to play the game while Ken Punter is a fresh face and running his campaign on a shoestring and a lot of effort.

Unlike the GOP primary for the 34th State Senate District between Hansen and Farhat, Hughes clearly becomes the front runner in this primary. She has the big pockets, and the experience from last time. Still, it is nice that the GOP is tied up with a primary.

2nd District Financial Rundown: In the 3rd Quarter, Riemersma pulls ahead

2009-10-21T19:40:00.000-05:00

With the 3rd quarter filing deadline having come and gone, a clearer picture has emerged of the Republican primary for the 2nd Congressional District. First, lets review the primary for some background.

The 2nd Congressional District covers the northern portion of Allegan County (32,412 residents) the northwest portino of Kent County (33,234), and contains the lakeshore counties of Benzie (17,396), Manistee (24,640), Wexford (31,673), Mason (28,782), Lake (11,014), Oceana (27,598), Newaygo (48,897), Muskegon (174,344), and Ottawa (260,364). The latter two counties are the heart of the 2nd District, with Ottawa providing 39% and Muskegon 26% of the total population. The 2nd is one of the most conservative congressional districts in the state of Michigan, and the only one that John McCain won last year, pulling 51% of the total vote. The link below provides a map of the 2nd Congressional District.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mi02_109.gif

Republican Pete Hoekstra has represented the 2nd District since 1993, winning a primary against long-time GOP incumbent Guy Vander Jagt (1965-1993). Hoekstra has regularly been reelected by comfortable margins, although his vote percentage fell to 63% in 2008, the lowest in his nine elections since 1992.

With Hoekstra’s announcement in late 2008 that he was running for Governor of Michigan and would not seek reelection to his House seat, Republicans began considering their prospects. Former State Representative Bill Huizenga announced his candidacy in December 2008, and was followed into the primary by Muskegon businessman Bill Cooper and Focus on the Family regional director Jay Riemersma in the summer of 2009. Some still expect State Senator Wayne Kuipers to run for this seat as well, although as of January 2009 he only has $24,501 cash on hand as of February 2, 2009.

The three candidates currently in the race have all submitted their financial statements, which are summarized in the linked Google Document.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtAGGuZPwuifdGtwWTVZTmx0S01ZZ2ZwWHNUcTREbkE&hl=en

A couple trends appear in the data. First, While Riemersma and Huizinga are relatively close in total individual contributions (Riemersma with $125K and Huizinga with $96K), Huizinga had a deflating 3rd quarter in terms of fundraising. He also blew threw his dollars, with a burn rate of 110% (meaning he spent more than he raised), and is left with less cash than either Cooper or Riemersma. Secondly, Cooper and Riemersma have each chosen to spend substantial personal funds for this race, with both giving around $100,000 thus far. Cooper’s personal funds have alone kept him in the money race.

Looking closer at the individual contributions to each candidate provides to the FEC gives as much information about their supporters as the candidates themselves. Cooper’s contributors overwhelmingly hail from Muskegon County, while Riemersma and Huizinga draw a great amount of financial support from Ottawa County. Huizinga has draw a good amount of financial support from outside the 2nd District, with large contributions from the DeVos and Van Andel families, as well as the financial support of Calvin College President Galen Byker, who contributed to Huizinga during his State House days as well. Huizinga has also garnered financial support from fellow State House members, including Kevin Green, and from a number of Hoekstra’s staffers in Washington DC. In contrast, Riemersma has drawn funds from his former football colleagues from his college and professional days that are largely from outside the 2nd district. The Yob family has provided substantial fiscal support as well. Riemersma has spent a large amount of money for media and campaign consultants based in Washington DC, which explains his 90% burn rate in the past quarter.

Heading into the final quarter of 2009, I’m sensing that there is a real opportunity for Cooper to play kingmaker in this seat should Kuipers enter the race. As we’ve discussed earlier at WMR, a in a four-way primary, if three candidates are from Ottawa/Allegan County area, the outside candidate has a good chance to sweep up the remainder of the district. That said, I’m thinking that Riemersma is looking strong with his latest fundraising numbers, while Huizinga could use a good 4th quarter to close out the year. It is interesting seeing how different GOP factions are lining up against one another, which should make for an entertaining 2010.

On the Democratic side, a strong case can be made for a Muskegon County candidate, particularly if Riemersma gets the Republican nomination. Riemersma has already started running on hard-right social issues, which may play in Ottawa County, but won’t likely appeal to much of the general electoral outside of it. Should a Democratic candidate be well-financed (raising over $500,000), this could be a race. That said, the eventual GOP nominee is the clear favorite at this point.

Friday Thank You: David Farhat

2009-10-09T18:27:00.001-05:00

This doesn't seem to have been covered by any other media yet, so I guess it breaks here: Defeated 2006 Republican Representative David Farhat, who lost his State House seat in 2006 to Mary Valentine, has entered the Republican Primary for the 34th State Senate District. The official filing statement is here:
http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=514456

For the Senate Democrats looking to pick up the Muskegon County-based seat, this is great news. Until now only Republican Representative Geoff Hansen, who currently represents District 100, has entered the primary. Despite Farhat's thrashing by Valentine in 2006, expect many to consider Farhat to be leading contender for this seat. To see why, check out the map below the fold:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/pbratt/SS342008DemBase.jpg

The 34th District essentially encompasses three state house districts: District 91, 92 and 100 (with Mason County from Dan Scripps's 101st District added on the top). In terms of population, Muskegon County provides two-thirds of the total vote. In 2008 there were 42,836 Baseline Republican voters in this district, and of these, 22,987 (55%) lived in Muskegon County. Given that Farhat is currently chair of the Muskegon County Republican Party, one can expect the Muskegon County organization to work hard to deliver this portion of the district to a candidate that is relatively well known by the GOP voters in the 91st and 92nd State House Districts.

Hansen has been campaigning energetically thus far, but he'll need to start getting his name known among the party faithful of Muskegon County in order to run well in this county. This means money and time need to be spent, something that Democratic candidate Mary Valentine can use to good advantage in the coming months. Given that Valentine did very well against Farhat in 2006 in an uphill battle against an incumbent, I'm guessing that Valentine will be ready for a rematch on a larger scale.

UCD Summer 2009

2009-10-06T16:22:00.000-05:00

This summer I worked at the University City District conducting a vacancy and retail survey. While doing so I took a lot of photos, which are displayed in this slideshow. Fans of The Wire will recognize this song from the Season 2 montage. Enjoy!

Candidate Filings Michigan State Senate and House (October 6 2009 Edition)

2009-10-06T10:08:00.000-05:00

A month has past since the previous story on filings for State Senate and State House seats, and it is time for another update. Here is a brief synopsis on the various races:

State Senate:

District 7 (Status: Swing)
No filings since early September for State Senate races expect in this swing seat being vacated by term-limited Senator Bruce Patterson. Democratic Michael Kheibari (09/18/2009) has filed, and joins Democratic candidate John Stewart (a former Republican) in the race. Expect more people to join this race.

State House:

District 26 (Status: Weak Democratic)
Republican Kenneth Rosen (9/21/2009) is running for Democratic Representative Marie Donigan’s open seat. This is a seat that the Republicans need to contest strongly if they have any chance of making gains in the State House.

District 54 (Status: Safe Democratic)
As expected, Representative Alma Smith’s legislative aide Lonie Scott (10/01/2009) filed for this seat vacated by his boss. Scott is not a local candidate, and there will probably be a number of other Democrats filing for this race.

District 55 (Status: Weak Democratic)
This weak Democratic seat is being vacated by term-limited Kathy Angerer, who made winning this seat seem a lot easier than expect. Michael Smith (10/01/2009), a Monroe County resident and a member of the Bedford Board of Education, has deep ties to the AFL-CIO. Expect the Democratic candidate to face Republican candidate York Township Supervisor Joe Zurawski.

District 61 (Status: Weak Republican)
Republican Representative Larry DeShazor won a close battle in 2008 against Democratic candidate Julie Rogers, winning 51% of the vote. Democrats haven’t waited to get another strong candidate to run for the seat, with Thomas Batten (9/14/2009) filing for the seat. Getting a good candidate to run for this seat against a strong Republican Representative helps to provide the ground game to help in the Democratic candidate in both the State House race and in the District 20 State Senate race. Should DeShazor decide to run for the State Senate race, this could be a possible pickup for the Dems.

District 91 (Status: Swing)
This swing Muskegon County district is being vacated by Democratic Representative Mary Valentine, who is running for the State Senate District 34. Republican Ken Punter has already filed for this seat, and is joined by Ben Gillette (9/23/2009), who is closely tied to the Muskegon County Democratic leadership. Don’t expect any other Democratic candidates running for this seat. It remains to be seen whether Gillette can match Valentine’s phenomenal ground game

District 92 (Status: Strong Democratic)
A third Democratic candidate jumps into the race to replace term-limited Doug Bennett. Controversial Democratic County Commissioner Charles Nash (9/9/2009) is running against Larry McNeill and former Representative Marica Hovey-Wright. I’d still expect Hovey-Wright to win this primary, and hence, the seat.

District 105 (Status: Strong Republican)
Dennis Lennox has more competition for this seat, as Triston Cole (9/16/2009) has filed for this seat. Right now it looks like a three-way Republican primary, as Otsego County Commissioner Kenneth Glasser is also running. I’m hoping that Dennis the Menace has an enjoyable primary.

Expect another update in early November.

2nd Congressional District: Riemersma (R) Officially In

2009-09-14T09:11:00.000-05:00

No surprise given the chatter, but the GR Press has coverage of the official announcement this morning:

Eleven months from the 2nd district GOP congressional primary, the race is shaping up as a battle of the insiders vs. the outsider with a familiar name.

Former NFL star Jay Riemersma kicks off his formal campaign today with a speech in Holland. He vows a new brand of politics for the conservative district that U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, has held since 1993. Hoekstra is running for governor.

"The last thing we need right now is legislative experience," said Riemersma, 36. "What we need is leadership, strong conservative leadership."

Read the whole story here:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/09/former_university_of_michigan_1.html

The article is pretty positive towards Riemersma, allowing him to polish quotes bashing the other official GOP candidate Bill Huizenga (State Senator Wayne Kuipers is also expected to run). Riemersma raised $154,244 in the 2nd quarter filing report, of which $100,000 was his own money, compared to $76,201 for Huizenga. Riemersma touts his conservative creed by noting his connections to Focus on the Family, something which might appeal to the hard-core right in the 2nd District.

I'm still waiting on whether Kuipers runs; if he does, that makes this race a Ottawa County battle (three candidates) and provides an opening for a candidate from another portion of the district. Also, the 3rd quarter filing statement (due September 30) will also show how the two declared candidates are faring with raising funds for a sure to be expensive primary.