By Nick Smith
Staff Writer
Posted: July 26, 2019 2:45 PM

In an era where social media further fuels the fire of partisan politics, an increasingly common front in election cycles for taking a swipe at an opponent is the parody Twitter account.

This spring, some political observers may have noticed the emergence of a parody account taking potshots at U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Township) as he has begun his campaign for a second term.

The account, which identifies Mr. Peters instead as "Larry Peters" (it was recently switched from "Jerry Peters"), is highlighted by references to the senator being a supposed unknown among constituents.

Such attacks on social media are, again, not uncommon. One could easily find parody accounts of state lawmakers, members of Congress, statewide elected officials and many taking aim at President Donald Trump.

Who runs the account is unclear, although a likely bet would be a conservative staffer for a state or national Republican group such as the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which has taken shots at Mr. Peters in digital ads in recent months using the moniker.

The attack has largely stemmed Morning Consult's quarterly polling of approval and disapproval ratings of members of the U.S. Senate. Mr. Peters in the rankings has had among the highest rate of people saying "I don't know" rather than expressing approval or disapproval of him, with 43 percent being undecided in the first quarter of this year and dropping to 40 percent more recently.

All of this has led to a string of knocks and jabs at Mr. Peters such as this scene moviegoers may remember from the film World War Z:

Constituents not knowing who I am #MIsen pic.twitter.com/nJtetmIFyv

— Senator Larry Peters (@SenJerryPeters) July 26, 2019

Of course, the campaign is still in its early stages and the calendar could flip to 2020 before the campaigns of either Mr. Peters or his Republican opponent John James open up on each other with information from opposition research.

For now, jabs such as this from conservative groups and jabs at Mr. James from progressives on his 2018 campaign comments strongly supporting Mr. Trump appear likely to serve as the opening salvos to rally their respective bases until campaign season ramps up in earnest.

By then, who knows? Perhaps there will be a John James parody account as well.

By Jordyn Hermani
Staff Writer
Posted: July 25, 2019 2:33 PM

U.S. Rep. Fred Upton hasn't been incredibly vocal about his disagreements with President Donald Trump but sometimes, voting records speak louder than words.

His most recent example being the only Michigan Republican to vote with Democrats on a U.S. House resolution that condemned "President Trump's racist comments directed at members of Congress" – four progressive freshman women of color, including U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit). Mr. Trump had tweeted the four should "go back" to the countries they came from despite all being U.S. citizens and three having been born in the U.S.

When U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (I-Cascade Township), a former Republican, said the Mueller report showed Mr. Trump had committed impeachable offenses, several notable Republicans emerged to challenge him in next year's GOP primary though Mr. Amash then declared he would run as an independent. But since Mr. Upton's vote, there's been crickets about a possible challenge. I reached to most Republican current state legislators in Mr. Upton's district for their thoughts on his vote and to gauge whether they might challenge him and received no response.

Records compiled by the analytics group FiveThirtyEight shows that during the 115th Congress, Mr. Upton sided with Mr. Trump just more than 94 percent of the time on any given issue. This Congress? Mr. Upton, who never endorsed Mr. Trump in 2016, has only sided with Mr. Trump 61 percent of the time.

Granted, we're only about a year into the 116th Congress, but when you compare to every other Republican representative from the state, Mr. Upton has the of the lowest "agreement" ratings among his colleagues – not a single Republican dips under the 95 percent agreement threshold, giving an average of agreeing with the president about 96.2 percent of the time.

Except Mr. Upton. The outlier. If you factor in his 61 percent, that average drops down to just 78.2 percent making it sound like Michigan Republican Representatives aren't very receptive to the president.

Mr. Upton has a long history of sometimes bucking his fellow Republicans. He's drawn the ire of far-right conservatives in his district and the occasional primary challenge, but has always emerged victorious. Unlike Mr. Amash, Mr. Upton has worked hard for decades to elect other Republicans in his area and has the network of support that has kept him in office.

A Republican strategist who spoke to Gongwer News Service on background said the party is in wait-and-see mode, adding that Mr. Upton is a "man of his own convictions." Even though several Republicans have told him in private that they consider Mr. Upton a traitor to the party, they still plan on "holding their nose and voting for Fred" as the alternative might be to get saddled with a more maverick congressman than he.

While it's possible that Mr. Upton could see a challenger from his own party, it's very, very unlikely as many don't have the money or network to properly contend, this source said.

It should be noted that Mr. Upton has not officially declared an intent to run again, but second quarter Federal Election Commission filings show he raised $361,178, hardly the sign of someone planning to retire. He outraised presumptive Democratic nominee Rep. Jon Hoadley of Kalamazoo by roughly $45,300, bringing his overall funds raised since the start of his campaign to $696,082.

Victor Fitz, chair of the 6th Congressional District Republican Party, reaffirmed the party's support for Mr. Upton in an interview earlier in the week saying that "Fred and the president have the same message, they just differ sometimes on the delivery of that message."

"In some ways, there's an effort to make a mountain out of a molehill," Mr. Fitz said. "If you look at the substance, and this is what's really important to us in southwest Michigan, we want a strong economy, we want jobs for all Americans including minorities and women, and I know the president – working with Fred – has worked to deliver that, and that's what we're thrilled about."

For the time being it seems that, in public, Mr. Upton has the support of the party. He's been a pillar for that side of the state since the 1980s.

But the cracks are there. It's just uncertain as to when those cracks might become fissures, sending it all crumbling down.

By John Lindstrom
Publisher
Posted: July 24, 2019 3:48 PM

It is hardly a headline that the old leave us. It is the nature of life after all. When they do go, we remember what they accomplished and the wise among us regret what we may have yet learned from them.

In recent weeks, several former senior legislators have died, and their loss has raised the question of what in fact we have lost. Further, it goes to a question of how, especially under term limits, lawmakers and policymakers in the state find a way to recover and make good use of the value those former lawmakers and officials could provide.

Among the complaints term limits opponents have made is that our system, in place since 1992, hurts the ability of lawmakers to develop experience and build relationships.

But since the deaths recently of former Sens. Billy Sunday Huffman and Gary Corbin (and though he was not an elected official, I would add Bob Berg because of his positions with both former Governor William Milliken and Detroit Mayor Coleman Young), a number of people have complained that term limits has limited something else.

That is mentorship, the ability of former leaders, legislators, officials to provide newer and generally younger legislators and officials with insight, advice and counsel based on their experience, their victories and defeats.

Talk to former legislators, and those who served from the 1970s to the 1990s will tell you how Democrats and Republicans together would meet casually and almost always have the senior legislators talk about how issues were handled in previous sessions, how they assessed and dealt with problems, what they wished they had done differently, and how solutions had worked or hadn't. Every person who talks of those times says how incredibly valuable those sessions were, how those sessions helped them understand the background of issues, who had the best knowledge on the issues, specific legal and administrative booby traps to watch for, constituencies that needed to be consulted, how to work with the other side, and how, generally, to do the best job they could for their constituents.

The lifetime limits on legislative and state office service plays a major role in limiting the ability for mentorships. Pat Anderson, a principal author and supporter of term limits, has said now that the full effect of term limits has been realized – in other words, that no lawmakers in office prior to term limits taking effect are still in office – a reasonable change could be to alter the lifetime limits, so long as that amendment does not block the ability of newer people to serve.

Short of that, lawmakers and officials could take steps on their own to encourage current officials to meet with former officials to draw on their experience and knowledge. House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R-Levering) did this in a way when he invited the former speakers to come together before he took the post. Doing so more often, in – as much as this reporter hates to suggest it – off the record lunches or events to discuss specific pending issues, could be encouraged.

True, all the best advice in the world won't stop someone from making the worst mistakes in the world, but that lies on the person acting not the advisor. Right now, the state seems stuck on a few issues. Would it hurt to have folks who have figured how to get unstuck to make suggestions?

By Zachary Gorchow
Executive Editor and Publisher
Posted: July 23, 2019 1:32 PM

Embattled Rep. Larry Inman refuses to resign in the face of a federal indictment and repeated calls from House leaders that he quit. And now he faces a recall campaign, which if organizers display minimal competence, would seem to have a strong chance of qualifying for the ballot.

At this point, it does not appear the House will seek to expel Mr. Inman (R-Williamsburg), though with the trial now delayed indefinitely, any hopes House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R-Levering) might have had for a quick and tidy trial that ended with conviction and clear grounds for Mr. Inman's ouster are dashed.

It is of course possible that Mr. Inman could win acquittal and serve out his term, rendering all this moot.

But right now, he is facing trouble on three fronts – in court, the Legislature and now the ballot – that would seem to make his departure/ouster a real possibility.

What is intriguing about all this is that if Mr. Inman faces a recall election or departs office for whatever reason anytime in roughly the next six months, election laws could heavily favor the Democrats flipping this seat in an ensuing special election.

Recall that Mr. Inman barely won re-election in 2018, by just 349 votes, or 0.74 percentage point. Traverse City has become heavily Democratic with nearby suburbs shifting as well. That's made the district a 50/50 type seat because the rest of Grand Traverse County remains solidly Republican. Both parties have been looking at this seat, the 104th House District, which exactly mirrors the county borders, as prime competition in 2020.

Now, with Mr. Inman's troubles, the possibility of a special election is on the brain.

Let's start with the resignation/expulsion scenario.

Either would trigger a special election. Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer gets to decide when to schedule it. The governor has almost total discretion in the scheduling of special elections.

Should Mr. Inman leave office by the end of the year, there's an obvious date Democrats would want the special general election to be held: March 10, 2020.

That's the date of Michigan's presidential primary. Democrats, you may have heard, have a competitive primary with a zillion candidates. Their voters will flood the polls. There is no serious organized opposition to Republican President Donald Trump for the GOP nomination. The electorate on March 10, 2020, will skew heavily Democratic. It should be a layup for the Democratic nominee for the 104th if there's a special general election on that date.

Republicans would surely squawk, but Ms. Whitmer could counter an expeditious election would assure the 104th goes a bare minimum of time without representation (unlike former Governor Rick Snyder's tendency to let seats remain vacant for almost a year) and holding the election on March 10 would mean the state picks up the cost. Holding it on another date would mean the local governments would have to pay.

If Mr. Inman remains in office well into 2020, however, that would take March 10 off the table as an election date, meaning a special election might occur in May or August, a more politically neutral playing field.

Then there's the recall scenario.

The good news for the GOP is that by law, the recall election, if it occurs, can only occur in May or August. March 10 is out.

The bad news for the GOP is their candidate in a recall election could be Mr. Inman with no way to block him.

In 2012, as majority legislative Republicans passed the right-to-work laws and other extremely controversial legislation, they also made sweeping changes to the recall process in a move to protect their members against possible recall retribution. Republican former Rep. Paul Scott had been recalled in 2011 and that was fresh on the party's mind.

The major change was to turn the recall from a "yes" or "no" on recalling the elected official, as it had long been, into an election among candidates. And as part of the effort to shield incumbents, one of the new provisions was to make the incumbent targeted by the recall the automatic nominee of their party in the recall election unless they decided to opt out and not run.

In other words, Mr. Inman could decide he will contest the recall and thus he is automatic nominee for the Republican Party in the 104th and by law there is no Republican primary. Mr. Inman would be the GOP nominee.

It's hard to imagine how Mr. Inman could survive a recall election embroiled in scandal, assuming the Democrats put forward a credible candidate and back that candidate with the necessary resources.

This is no idle matter. A Democratic win would shrink the House GOP's majority to 57-53 and mean the party needs just three seats for majority in the 2020 elections. Just getting two would probably be good enough because a 55-55 tie would mean shared power and kill the ability for legislative Republicans to overturn Ms. Whitmer's executive orders and for conservative groups to use the initiative petition as a means to end-run Ms. Whitmer on their priorities.

The universe of competitive seats in 2020 is relatively small, so the opportunity to lock in the 104th for either party (the winner of a special election would be the prohibitive favorite to win a full term in November 2020) in a special election would be huge.