 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Election Watch The Statewide Ballot Chalk up to the sheer number of statewide executive and judicial offices and ballot issues why you may spend more than a few minutes to vote on November 7. You might size up Michigan’s bed sheet ballot the way Pat Conroy described New York City in Prince of Tides: “It’s too much of too much.” In a March 1901 essay in the Atlantic Monthly, Professor (and future president) Woodrow Wilson wrote: [Governmental arrangements in the United States] “give us so many elective offices that even the most conscientious voters have neither the time nor the opportunity to inform themselves with regard to every candidate on their ballots, and must vote for a great many men of whom they know nothing.” Executive Offices The dizzying array of state executive offices at stake is as follows:
You could cherry pick your way through 53 candidates for 11 offices because you (a) have studied each of their backgrounds and policy views, (b) reject partisan dependency and enjoy hop-scotching your way across party lines, and/or (c) enjoy making others wait their turn to get into your voting stall. Alternatively, you could simply cast a straight-party vote. Your choices are Natural Law, Libertarian, U.S. Taxpayers, Green, Republican, and Democrat. With one stroke, you entrust to your party the recruitment of the best and brightest. States, including Michigan, commonly diffuse executive power by independently electing offices in addition to that of governor. Under our previous constitution, ditched in 1963, we elected a state auditor, treasurer, highway commissioner, and superintendent of public instruction in addition to secretary of state and attorney general. Also, we elected separately a governor and lieutenant governor. Lansing was positively thick with officials claiming voter mandates to govern the state. Virtually every voter recognizes the names of the two major parties’ candidates for governor, Democrat Jennifer Granholm and Republican Dick DeVos. A solid majority of voters knows the names of the incumbent secretary of state (Terri Lynn Land) and attorney general (Mike Cox,) but not their respective Democratic opponents Carmella Sabaugh and Amos Williams. That’s where, on the statewide ballot, name recognition almost completely ends. Eight of the 11 statewide executive offices on this year’s ballot relate to education. Every two years, voters fill two of eight seats on the State Board of Education and the “Big Three’s” governing boards (Michigan State University, University of Michigan, and Wayne State University). Michigan is one of only four states in the nation to elect public university trustees (the others are Colorado, Nebraska, and Nevada, and, in each, voters elect a single board to run a state university system—the University of Colorado, University of Nebraska, and University of Nevada). Until recently, Illinois also elected university trustees. Prognosticators use four criteria to predict outcomes for the educational board contests. The candidate is pretty much a shoo-in if the candidate (a) belongs to the same political party as the one that wins handily top-of-the-ticket offices, (b) is a she, (c) has a WASPish or Irish name, (d) is a bit of a celebrity in politics or another field, (e) does not have a hyphenated name (go figure), and (f) has a partisan running mate (remember there are two seats at stake, and you are as much running against your party’s other nominee as you are against those of the opposing party) who fails to meets criteria a through e. Few people meet all the tests, so people like David Brandon (R-U of M), David Porteus (R-MSU), and Richard Bernstein (D-WSU) can overcome the odds and win. An example this year of a candidate on whom to wager heavily is Debbie Dingell, running as a Democrat for Wayne State University’s Board of Governors. Her party may not win the governorship and U.S. Senate seat by wide margins, but she meets all the other criteria in spades (her name clearly connotes her gender,1 she has a Irish name; she is very well known as a General Motors executive, philanthropist, civic leader, and Democratic National Committeewoman, and is married to legendary Democratic congressman John Dingell; and her running mate is Eugene Driker). To boot, the Republicans slotted two men (!) for the board; so, she is the only woman among the major parties’ candidates. At the risk of losing a friend—or at least getting a disappointed or irate phone call or two, the following summarizes the likely order of vote getting, based on the above criteria. I am assuming that neither party wins the top-of-ticket contests by a wide margin. An asterisk indicates an incumbent, but that is not much of a factor in outcomes. Board of Education
University of Michigan Susan Brown (R), David Brandon (R)*, Julia Donovan Darlow (D), or Kathy White (D)*—too close to call Wayne State
Michigan State
Judiciary Among the seven seats of the state Supreme Court, voters have a crack at filling two. Michigan is among the 30-odd states that elect their judges and justices. [If you serve on the Supreme Court, you carry “Justice” before your name; all other members of the judicial branch are “judges.”] Under our inane system of purported judicial objectivity, political parties nominate candidates for the Supreme Court (or individuals scoop up signatures on petitions and self-nominate) who then appear on the nonpartisan portion of the ballot, with nothing denoting of their partisan or independent stripe. Yet, the ballot discloses a big tip to voters. Incumbents are shown as “Justice [or Judge] of the [fill in] court.” This year Republicans nominated their incumbent, Maura Corrigan. Democrats likewise nominated their incumbent, Michael Cavanagh. Republicans also nominated Marc Shulman; Democrats nominated Jane Beckering. Kerry Morgan filed petitions to get on the ballot. As there are two full eight-year terms to fill, all five candidates huddle together in this section of the ballot; you get to cast two votes. Corrigan and Cavanagh (as Irish as names get) will be designated as Justices. State Ballot Proposals At some point, you will have a crack at directly deciding state policy, rather than leaving its making to elected officials. Arising out of the populist revolution at the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth century, some states’ voters decided that it was not enough to divvy up political power among the elected class. They, including Michiganians, gave voters the right to petition to place on ballots:
The 2006 Michigan ballot carries examples of each. Three constitutional amendments are
proposals 06-1,2 06-2,
and 06-4. The initiative is 06-5. The referendum
is 06-3. While briefly summarized below, I strongly encourage readers
to go to the secretary of state’s website to read the actual
ballot wording of each: In numerical order:
1I recall the sad fate of Jessie Dalman, who lost a bid for University of Michigan Regent in 1998. A Republican, she had the advantage of running in a year when Gov. John Engler was running up a huge reelection majority. Her running mate was a man (David Brandon). “Dalman” has no hyphenation, and while not a very common name, it clearly originating in the British Isles, which was pretty good. She was serving in the state House of Representatives and was at least well known in her West Michigan district. The problem? There was another Jessie making political news that year—Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. The wrestler was not a she, and it would have been logical for most voters to assume that Mrs. Dalman was a Mr. Dalman. Had her mother had the foresight to name her Jessica, she’d likely have won her race. [Return to text] 2Statewide proposals carry numbers, with two digits setting forth the year (e.g., 06, standing for 2006) and one or more digits (e.g., 1) signifying the ballot order of the issue by its chronological certification for placement on the ballot). Until the late 1990s, we used the alphabet (e.g., Proposal A, B, C, or D) to distinguish among ballot issues. Proponents and opponents were prone to coin phrases using a letter, like “D is Dumb.” That struck political leaders as too easy a means to steer voters, so they adopted the numbering approach. [Return to text] View other Michigan Policy Circle documents |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
