By John Lindstrom
Publisher
Posted: January 18, 2013 4:35 PM

With new attention directed in the state and nation to efforts to drop the winner-take-all system most states use to award their electoral votes in the presidential contest, perhaps it’s time to take note of recent history on the issue.

With President Barack Obama about to be inaugurated on Monday, with Republicans nationally having lost two straight elections, and in Michigan with Republicans having lost six straight elections, Republicans nationally and in Michigan are beginning to press the issue more seriously.

Rep. Pete Lund (R-Shelby Twp.) is planning to introduce legislation to put the state on a system where the winner of each congressional district would receive an electoral vote with the statewide winner getting two electoral votes. Such an allocated elector system, supporters say, would be fairer than the winner-take-all system which has predominated in Michigan and most states for most of U.S. history.

Before these six recent elections in the wilderness for the GOP, Democrats similarly went through a long barren stretch in this state. Republicans won the presidential elections in 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988.

So how was the issue of allocated presidential electors dealt with then? It wasn’t.

Even though Democrats (who during this period might be considered most interested in changing how electors were allocated) controlled the House during the entire period, controlled the Senate for eight years, and for a brief period controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s office, the issue never came up. At least, as legislation, the issue never came up.

A review of all elections bills introduced during that time frame shows not a one dealing with the Electoral College.

There were bills on making voter registration and voting by absentee ballot easier, opening or closing presidential primaries, school elections, village elections, recall elections, judicial election qualifications, campaign finance issues, and how long petition drives last, but nothing on presidential electors.

Former Rep. Colleen House Engler had a bill to ban exit polls at polling places. Former Governor John Engler, when he was in the Senate, had a bill requiring gubernatorial candidates who receive public funds to do debates. But nothing on the Electoral College.

Just making note, that is all.

By Zachary Gorchow
Executive Editor and Publisher
Posted: January 17, 2013 2:40 PM

For the first time in a while, Governor Rick Snyder is going to have to find a way to put together a healthy number of votes from both the Democratic and Republican caucuses in the House to pass a controversial issue, his road funding plan.

For most of his first two years, Mr. Snyder could simply rely on the big Republican majority to pass his agenda (63-47 for most of the last term, 59-51 now). But his inability to find a bipartisan accord in the House sank his plan for a state-run health insurance exchange, and without a broad coalition, his road funding plan will suffer the same fate.

Let’s take a look at just how narrow a path Mr. Snyder has to 56 votes. This is all hypothetical, but based on traditional legislative behavior.

For starters, let’s presume no House member in a politically competitive district from either party eligible to run for re-election will vote yes for fear of getting blasted with it in the 2014 election. That’s potentially 20 votes off the table, leaving 90 available.

Now let’s remove the names of those potentially running for the Senate in 2014, either in a safe Republican seat where a vote to raise taxes could cause problems in a Republican primary, or in a seat competitive in the general election. That’s another potential 10 votes lost, taking the number of available votes down to 80.

Next there are the Republicans whose anti-tax record is so staunch is it difficult to envision them voting for the legislation. That could be as many as another 15 off the table, taking potential available votes down to 65, with 37 of those Democrats and the remaining 28 Republicans.

That is a very narrow path to 56 votes.

Past speakers have built this type of coalition. Former House Speaker Andy Dillon did it several times by combining his Democratic allies with most of the minority Republican caucus to pass various budget issues. Former House Speaker Rick Johnson did so with his Republican allies and the minority Democratic caucus to raise the cigarette tax and pass fee increases.

And it certainly could be done here. But Democrats are already signaling that the broad framework of Mr. Snyder’s plan is unacceptable. Additionally, Democrats are building a narrative for the 2014 campaign against Mr. Snyder that he has pushed the tax burden from corporations onto individuals. A deal on transportation revenues could cost them a potent issue.

For Republicans who swallowed hard and voted for the 2011 tax overhaul, agreeing to support increasing the income tax burden on many individuals because the bill also fulfilled their top goal of ending the Michigan Business Tax, Mr. Snyder has no such carrot to offer this time.

By Danielle Emerson
Staff Writer
Posted: January 16, 2013 10:33 PM

As I sat on my six-to-eight inches of windowsill observing my first on-floor State of the State, I got the sense that it was much like an annual holiday party your friend invites you to: You know a chunk of people, meet some new ones, and everyone is mingling like they never see each other outside of this single, solitary event.

What also struck me as similar was the host thanking everyone for being there, for their help in x, y or z, and generally reflecting on the year that is about to (or in this case, already did) pass. And while it’s important to reflect, the host usually realizes in his or her address that it’s also important to look forward, which of course in the news industry is considered the real “meat” of the State of the State. And still like a holiday party, I thought, it doesn’t necessarily matter how good the party is, but how sustainable it becomes.

In the case of the holiday party, maybe you meet someone new or catch up with an old friend, leaving each other with the intention of doing a better job of keeping in touch this year. I sensed that same cautious optimism at one of the (what I thought to be) most awkward moments when Governor Rick Snyder acknowledged the “difficult” and “divisive” experience of lame duck 2012.

“I hope we can work together,” Mr. Snyder said. “We can have policy differences…but ultimately we’re hired by the citizens of Michigan.”

It was an olive branch from Mr. Snyder, but the awkward moment came when Republicans roared in support of the governor’s comments and most Democrats merely sat in their seats, looking at the governor, not reacting.

On one hand, the governor had somewhat acknowledged that he may have upset some folks, and I’m not sure how many times that’s been done before, especially in an address like the State of the State. Yet at the same time, he wanted to instill a sense of hope that he and the Legislature might move forward, kind of like the hope that “next year will be even better than this one” at the holiday party.

After the speech, Democratic lawmakers said what counts is actions, not words.

Regardless, the fact remains that Mr. Snyder laid out more ideas for how to grow the state than I can count on two hands (he admitted about a dozen). But much like the roads the governor wants to fix, there will no doubt be bumps ahead.

By John Lindstrom
Publisher
Posted: January 16, 2013 7:10 PM

Going into the biggest speech of the year, every governor has to come up with a way drawing the state’s attention to what he, or she, will propose.

There are, of course, the customary courtesies that must be followed, greeting the leaders, the Legislature and the people. But then, the governor has to get into, and draw his audience into, the mood and tenor of what he, or she, is going to say. In other words, the governor has to hook ‘em.

Some have tried with oratory, some with setting a story, some with a witticism.

None got everyone’s attention better than former Governor William Milliken in the 1978 State of the State.

The biggest question that year was would Mr. Milliken run for a third full term. The state was doing reasonably well economically, a legislative solution to the PPB crisis had been enacted, and Republicans were hoping to have a better year after suffering from post-Watergate hangovers.

So would Mr. Milliken run? He had given out absolutely no clues of his intent.

State of the State addresses were held in the morning, the Thursday after the Legislature returned to session in those long ago days. Reporters were parked in a raised section parallel with the rostrum to the left.

Mr. Milliken was introduced, applauded, and greeted the lawmakers, then immediately he became very, very serious.

“I have to announce,” he said to the now quiet chamber, “that this is the last time I will address this Legislature…

“…This month,”

Reporters had been climbing over each other to get to the phones before Mr. Milliken dropped the punchline.

Smoking was allowed in the chamber then, and former House Republican Floor Leader Bill Bryant said he almost swallowed his cigarette.

The chamber howled with laughter, and some relief, and Mr. Milliken went on to announce a modest income tax cut.

Okay, all current and future governors, top that.

By Zachary Gorchow
Executive Editor and Publisher
Posted: January 16, 2013 3:20 PM

Every year, the governor of Michigan delivers a State of the State address to a Joint Convention of the Legislature. Some years, but not every year, the governor puts in a last-minute surprise that generates huge news coverage and helps set the table for the year’s agenda.

Two come to mind right away. In 2011, Governor Rick Snyder shocked everyone when he declared his support for building the new bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, sometimes called the Detroit River International Crossing or the New International Trade Crossing. Even House Speaker Jase Bolger (R-Marshall) and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) did not know Mr. Snyder’s declaration was coming.

And in 1999, Governor John Engler left out from the prepared text of his speech a proposal to direct the windfall from Michigan’s share of a settlement between state attorneys general and the tobacco companies toward a college scholarship program for students scoring well on standardized tests.

On that one, word started to slip out in the afternoon that Mr. Engler was planning a blockbuster surprise proposal. A few minutes before the speech started, my colleague, John Lindstrom, found out the details of the proposal and went over it with me on the House floor. Not that we could do much about it because in those days there were no Gongwer breaking news updates via email and most subscribers would have to wait until they received their paper copy of Gongwer the next morning, or if, they were lucky, via fax that evening.

The positive spin of a well-executed surprise is that it ensures huge news coverage since State of the State tends to be the one night of the year where residents’ eyes are on the governor and its state government. And in the case of Mr. Engler’s proposal, it put Democrats on the defensive about how to spend the many millions from the tobacco settlement although the scholarship program begun with that money is defunct after the revenue was redirected to other causes in subsequent years.

Mr. Snyder’s move did not work as well, as he has acknowledged. Not only did it blindside Republican legislative leaders, but it put the opponents of the bridge on notice and gave them some 10 months to build opposition against the legislation before it was ready for committee work.

If Mr. Snyder has a big surprise planned for the speech tonight, he has kept it well-guarded. Expectations are for a low-key address that mainly focuses on repackaging his previous sweeping proposal from 2011 on raising at least $1.4 billion in revenues for transportation.

Then again, that’s the best way to spring a surprise.

By John Lindstrom
Publisher
Posted: January 15, 2013 2:34 PM

Subscribers to The Detroit News were stunned on January 15, 1993, when a front-page story detailed possibly the most severe scandal to hit Michigan state government.

That story outlined the broad details of the House Fiscal Agency, how then HFA Director John Morberg and other HFA employees used the agency’s imprest account as their personal checking account. Even the first reports on the scandal did not cover the full amount improperly used over several years, close to $2 million in total.

While the scandal was first detailed by The Detroit News, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its efforts, the best summary of its scope can be found in the sentencing opinion read by then U.S. District Court David McKeague in 1994 as he sent Mr. Morberg to federal prison (the sentencing document can be found here).

For six years, the fund was used to finance credit card payments, vacations, furniture purchases, property tax payments, social events, dental work as well as payments to HFA employees and contract workers for non-existent workers.

The scandal threatened to collapse the joint-leadership agreement reached days earlier between Republican co-Speaker Paul Hillegonds and Democratic co-Speaker Curtis Hertel.

The scandal also broke before committee assignments were finalized for the House. Beyond the criminal aspects of the scandal, one of its biggest effects was former Rep. Dominic Jacobetti being removed as chair of the House Appropriations Committee, a post he had held for nearly 20 years.

It is no exaggeration to say the scandal likely killed Mr. Jacobetti. The fire-eating “godfather” of the House was a subdued man in his final term. Though never linked to the scandal, he was depressed by how he was viewed. Health problems plagued him his last year. He won re-election by a landslide in November 1994, but was dead of a heart attack little more than two weeks later. Then-Republican Appropriations co-Chair Don Gilmer said a “broken heart” contributed to Mr. Jacobetti’s death.

The scandal also shattered a public view of state government. Before it broke, residents were confident the state was above corruption. Scandals of this sort were reported in other states, but not in Michigan, at least not since the “Purple Gang” scandal two generations earlier. With HFA workers and a state legislator, former Rep. Stephen Shepich, pleading guilty and going on trial that complacent view vanished.

In the years since, the HFA workers have vanished from view. Mr. Morberg is reportedly living in Florida, but refuses all contact with reporters. HFA analyst Warren Gregory – who spilled the beans on kickbacks involved in the scandal – died last week. Former HFA assistance director Jim Heckman, Mr. Shepich, Malik Hodari and others are also off the radar.

But the cynical realization the scandal wrought that no one and no institution can be assumed to be completely free of taint is as active and overwhelming in the state as it ever could be.

By Zachary Gorchow
Executive Editor and Publisher
Posted: January 15, 2013 12:09 PM

As I perused the official statement Friday from House Democrats reacting to the day’s Revenue Estimating Conference, I noticed a phrasing in the portion attributed to Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit), whom House Minority Leader Tim Greimel (D-Auburn Hills) wants to serve as his caucus’s minority vice chair on the all-important Appropriations Committee.

The statement referred to Ms. Tlaib as “the House Democrats’ nominee for minority vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee.”

That took me back to an incident in late 2002.

In the House, the speaker controls virtually all aspects of operations – the budget, hiring and firing of staff and committee assignments, even the assignments for members of the minority party. The minority leader will present recommendations, and usually the speaker agrees to them, but that’s all they are, recommendations.

In 2002, the House Minority Leader-elect, Dianne Byrum, announced that then-Rep. Gretchen Whitmer, now the Senate minority leader, would serve as the House Democrats’ minority vice chair on Appropriations.

A day later, the spokesperson for the then-speaker, Rick Johnson, contacted reporters to spread the word that he as speaker makes committee assignments, thought the minority leader’s announcement was presumptuous and was considering not naming Ms. Whitmer to the post. Ms. Byrum and Mr. Johnson worked it out and in January, Mr. Johnson did name Ms. Whitmer to the post.

But the point was made.

By John Lindstrom
Publisher
Posted: January 14, 2013 3:16 PM

An important date in Michigan history occurred during the weekend, and it is right to use its recollection as a time to heap some praise on the state’s first governor, Stevens T. Mason.

On January 12, 1835, Mr. Mason, then the 23-year-old territorial governor, addressed the territory’s legislative council and urged them to call a constitutional convention.

Michigan was facing a crisis, Mr. Mason said. It had officially requested Congress to hold a constitutional convention and that request had been rejected.

But Michigan deserved to be a state, Mr. Mason told the legislative council. The council should call a constitutional convention on its own.

On January 26, the council passed legislation calling a con-con. Delegates were elected in April and from May 11 to June 24 met in Detroit and drafted the Constitution of 1835. Only about 8,000 territorial residents voted that October on the Constitution, and by a nearly 6-1 margin they approved the document.

(The month before the election, President Andrew Jackson attempted to remove Mr. Mason as the territorial governor, but outraged Michiganders pelted the successor’s house with stones and horse dung. The successor fled the state.)

Michigan officially joined the union in 1837, with Mr. Mason becoming the state’s first governor.

Students of Michigan history know that Mr. Mason’s term was less than successful, in part because the national Panic of 1837 helped destroy the state’s banking system. He left Michigan after leaving office in 1840 and died just three years later.

But a little boldness on Mr. Mason’s part, backed up by the legislative council, was a decisive step towards Michigan becoming a state. Had Mr. Mason not called for a con-con when he did, who knows when Michigan would have become a state.

So, take a moment this week and give a little salute to the boy-gov.

By Zachary Gorchow
Executive Editor and Publisher
Posted: January 14, 2013 2:48 PM

Governor Rick Snyder will deliver his third State of the State speech Wednesday, and he again will speak from an outline, not a prepared text on a TelePrompTer.

I’m somewhat surprised. Mr. Snyder used the unconventional method for the formal address in his first two speeches. It worked well enough in his first speech, but it caused problems in the second one last year. Mr. Snyder’s pacing seemed off, and the speech was roundly panned.

There’s no question, though, that Mr. Snyder feels most comfortable speaking off an outline. I can’t imagine his staff is anything other than a nervous wreck about the outline format because, for one, reading a prepared text off a TelePrompTer would guard against errors like when he referred to Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) as “majority leader” in last year’s speech. And that wasn’t even that big a mistake when you consider the potential for other malapropisms.

Then there’s the headache for staff of trying to brief the news media on what Mr. Snyder will say in his speech without knowing exactly what he will, in fact, say.

Still, it’s Mr. Snyder giving the speech to a Joint Convention of the Legislature before a live television audience. It’s easy to forget that giving a speech under that type of scrutiny is stressful. So if he feels most comfortable using an outline, that’s the way to go.