Susan J. Demas: Welcome to the Liberal Tea Party

Women's March on Washington, January 21, 2017

Liberals are often parodied as effete, humorless, latte-sipping politically correct yuppies living in blue-state bubbles.

Variations of that stereotype popped up in a seemingly endless array of hot takes following Donald Trump’s shocking win last year. Politicos rushed to declare that left-wing smugness was the culprit, with many deciding that feckless Democrats were destined to wander in political desert for years to come.

So it seems to have come as quite a shock to just about everyone — the nascent President Trump administration, Republicans who control Congress and plenty of members of the beltway media — that liberals aren’t simply rolling over in 2017.

From the Women’s March in Washington (which dwarfed the attendance for Trump’s inauguration) to protests of his Muslim ban in airports across the country, progressives have proven they’re capable of organized displays of outrage — and even doing so effectively.

Many Republicans and pundits expected Democrats to follow their defeatist playbook after George W. Bush’s narrow, U.S. Supreme Court-decided 2000 victory. The Dems would privately sulk but would largely go along with the new president’s cabinet picks in the name of national unity. They’d work with him on issues that were popular in the polls, while liberal activists wouldn’t be heard from for years.

That wasn’t a bad bet to make. Democrats have been more prone to compromise than Republicans in recent years.

And the party clearly has big cracks cutting through it, as some Bernie Sanders loyalists sat out the general election or voted for third-party candidates over Hillary Clinton. Disaffected Sanders supporters likely exceeded Trump’s margin in the three states that put him over the top in the Electoral College: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

As a result, state Democratic parties are facing upheaval, although an insurgent movement petered out at Michigan’s state convention last weekend. But the Sanders-vs.-the-establishment dynamic is still playing out with the Democratic National Committee chair race.

So you could see why conservatives and analysts might think progressives would be too preoccupied with internecine warfare to fight Trump.

As it turns out, liberals can walk and chew gum at the same time. They haven’t forgotten that Clinton actually won almost 3 million more votes than Trump, even if pundits eager to blame out-of-touch lefty ideas for her loss have.

Every day, the new president does something to make progressives’ blood boil — and it’s fueling demonstrations, donations to liberal causes and interest in the Democratic Party.

Just consider the first month of Trump’s presidency. He’s tapped exceedingly controversial figures, like Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, a blockbuster GOP donor whose disdain for public schools is well-known to those of us in her native Michigan.

Even more troubling is the faith Trump instilled in now-resigned National Security Advisor Michael Flynn — who has a fondness for baseless conspiracy theories and may have jeopardized American interests with Russia.

Trump also threatened the U.S. judiciary (a co-equal branch of the government, courtesy of the Founding Fathers) after judges rebuffed his sloppy executive order banning immigrants and refugees from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

These have been mobilizing events. Liberals regard Trump’s presidency as a national emergency.

Pundits looking for the progressive playbook in the Trump era needed only to go back to 2009. That was when the Tea Party became a driving force in the GOP, spurred by Barack Obama’s historic victory that would usher in the stimulus, Affordable Care Act and Wall Street regulation.

Conservatives packed the town halls of Democratic members of Congress and shouted them down. Now it’s turnabout fair play, with progressives jamming GOP members’ events.

Count me among those who expected the new leader of the free world to get off to a flying start, aided by GOP majorities in both the House and Senate. After all, that’s worked out pretty well for Gov. Rick Snyder, who’s been blessed with strong legislative majorities to rubber-stamp much of his agenda.

I thought House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would already have his tax cut for the wealthy and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would have slayed Obamacare as promised.

But Trump’s Twitter tantrums and national security follies are throwing a wrench into the long-awaited implementation of an ambitious conservative agenda. And Republicans are clearly unnerved by angry liberal protests.

Now progressives won’t be able to block Trump and the GOP Congress on everything. There will be plenty of setbacks. But they’re certainly enjoying more early success than anyone ever imagined.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: What Would Michigan’s FOIA Reform Really Do?

Susan J. Demas

As a nosy reporter, I always want to know what politicians are up to.

That’s harder to uncover in Michigan than most states — 48, to be exact. Because unlike those states, we shield both the Legislature and the governor’s office from our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

So while you can unearth a wealth of information about your township clerk’s office or the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, you’re out of luck if you try to FOIA your state senator or Gov. Rick Snyder's office.

I think most people would like to know more about how their government operates. I think they’d like to know how the governor and legislators are spending their tax dollars and how they’re tackling problems, whether it’s the Flint water crisis or House members abusing their offices (i.e. former Reps. Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser).

But don’t take it from me. Poll after poll shows that trust in government is at an all-time low.

That’s why I don’t buy Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof’s brusque rebuke to journalists: “You guys are the only people who care about this.”

Meekhof (R-West Olive) was appearing on a Michigan Press Association panel last month in Grand Rapids when he dismissed a question about reforming FOIA (full disclosure: I also spoke at the conference).

The good news is that such legislation exists. Reps. Ed McBroom (R-Vulcan) and Jeremy Moss (R-Southfield) introduced a bipartisan package last term, which passed the House. But Meekhof made sure it died in the Senate.

Now Moss has teamed up with Rep. Lee Chatfield (R-Levering) to reintroduce the bills this term (McBroom was term-limited in 2016). The press conference announcing the legislation was staged with great fanfare, and was attended by both new House Speaker Tom Leonard (R-DeWitt), Minority Leader Sam Singh (D-East Lansing) and most members of the lower chamber.

Meekhof seems to relish his role as the bespectacled cartoon villain in this scenario, serving as a one-man wrecking crew against open government. (Although there are rumblings that he’ll eventually be willing to allow the legislation on the floor, so long as it doesn’t go into effect until 2019 — when he and the majority of senators will leave Lansing due to term limits).

But I wonder if some of the focus on Meekhof’s obstinence is inadvertently obscuring the fact that the package has serious flaws.

When it comes to the executive branch, the legislation is pretty straightforward. The governor’s and lieutenant governor’s office would be subject to FOIA with a few basic exceptions, such as materials related to pardons or special messages to the Legislature.

But if you read the many bills outlining the new process for getting information out of the Legislature, it’s hard not to conclude that it’s a bit of a mess. Instead of subjecting the House and Senate to FOIA with the same executive branch exemptions, the legislation creates a different law, the Legislative Open Records Act (LORA), complete with a new bureaucratic body.

There are more exceptions for the legislative branch, including advisory communications between public bodies and caucus records (i.e. internal Democratic and Republican communications), which sounds fairly broad. It looks as though the Legislature wants to play by its own special rules.

Another (likely intended) consequence is that as written, the law could put the governor at a tactical disadvantage in negotiating with the Legislature, as more of his/her records could be open to scrutiny.

Under the bills, the House and Senate would put LORA administrators in charge of approving records requests. If they’re at-will employees, that raises concerns about their willingness to disclose information that legislative leaders don’t want the public to see. And I’m concerned that citizens may not have recourse in the courts if their requests are denied.

Most disturbingly, the public wouldn’t have access to records related to ongoing internal or legislative investigations or litigation. That means that LORA would still keep details secret in another Courser-Gamrat debacle. Let’s not forget that the sex scandal, however delectable, was the least significant detail in that case. The Michigan House had to shell out $350,000 to two whistleblowers — meaning that taxpayers ended up footing the bill.

While Meekhof may not believe the public cares about government records, I’m fairly certain that people would like to know more about why hundreds of thousands of their tax dollars were spent in this tawdry episode.

Many of the package’s supporters see it as a good first step and want more transparency measures down the road. You can certainly make the case that something is better than nothing.

But that shouldn’t stop citizens, especially those of us in the media, from casting a critical eye at this FOIA package and digging into what it really will do. That’s our job, after all — and we shouldn’t forget that.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Michigan’s Unemployment System Fiasco Has Damaged Too Many Lives

Being fired was one of the low points of my life.

Sure, it taught me a lot about the media business and basic human nature. And it (quite unintentionally) paved the way for me to run two companies and have far more time with my children.

But as someone who gave their all and devoted upwards of 90 hours a week to work, being fired made me question everything --- who I was, what was important, what I really wanted to do with my life.

I’ve written about this before in columns and humorously in the FAQ in my website, which one dour former colleague begged me to take down (“It has too much about you being fired,” he warned). Honesty is something I’ve always promised my readers, however, which is why I’ve shared my personal experiences, like my miscarriage and being raped, when I’ve written about related policy matters.

So I admittedly have a rather visceral reaction to the fact that there are at least 20,000 cases in which Michiganders were falsely accused of unemployment fraud from October 2013 and August 2015. If I had claimed benefits, I could have been one of them.

The problem seems to have primarily stemmed from a new computer system, Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (MiDAS), which falsely flagged people for committing fraud and thus receiving payments they weren’t entitled to.

The falsely accused were then forced to pay back their benefits –– and were hit with interest and penalties that were often two to four times their original payment. Their wages and income tax refunds were garnished.

As a result, many who were already reeling from the loss of a job —— which is pretty traumatic, in and of itself —— say they lost their homes or had to file bankruptcy. It’s amazing how many lives can be damaged and how many families can be uprooted by a computer program error.

A judge just approved an agreement that halts most collections for those claiming benefits during that two-year period. And the state is looking into another 30,000 cases during that time for possible errors.

But for too many people, it will be too little too late. And it’s fair to ask, as some like U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Royal Oak) have done, why it took so long for the state to admit error and take action to help people.

I began hearing of problems with MiDAS back in early 2014 and discussed this with Tony Trupiano on his Detroit-based radio show. But the state repeatedly dragged its feet and only seemed to respond after TV news shined a light on the problem.

It’s hard not to see parallels with the Flint water crisis. For months, residents pleaded with government officials to no avail about their foul-smelling water that was sickening children. Only after doctors, scientists and reporters started raising hell did the state begin to respond. But that was after too many kids tested positive for lead and too many people died of Legionnaire’s disease.

The poor and unemployed have traditionally been forgotten members of society. As dozens of readers have pointed out to me over the years (often in curiously spelled screeds), these folks deserve what they get. They’re just too dumb or too lazy to succeed, so why should we care about them?

I don’t think Gov. Rick Snyder or his administration are that callous. But it does seem that the problems of the dispossessed consistently don’t rate as high as those of business owners. And there’s been an unhealthy level of skepticism leveled at many who are needlessly suffering.

The governor has less than two more years to leave a legacy. Doing more to help everyday people would be a good start.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Michigan Is the New Illinois in Voter Fraud Myths

I was born and raised in Cook County, Ill. So if you think you have an original joke to impart about dead people voting there, trust me, you probably don’t. I’ve heard them all.

Now elections in our country haven’t always been clean. Chicago, of course, was notorious last century for machine politics and its larger-than-life leaders, like the late Richard J. Daley, subject of the colorful bio simply titled “Boss.” To this day, Republicans bitterly maintain that John F. Kennedy stole just enough Windy City votes to become president in 1960 (conveniently ignoring that vote-counting in conservative downstate areas wasn’t exactly a pristine process).

But presidential elections in Illinois haven’t really been competitive since the 1980s. Democrats have won seven straight elections there.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton thumped Donald Trump by 17 points and almost 1 million votes, even improving on former Illinois U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s 2012 performance. If the Dems stole the state last year, they should teach a master class on theft.

Still, despite a profound lack of recent evidence, the Land of Lincoln remains, for many conservatives, the epitome of voter fraud. This makes some sense, since their crusade against tainted elections is mostly a faith-based proposition.

Consider that in the last election, the Washington Post only uncovered four voter-fraud cases in the entire country out of 135 million ballots cast.

Those inconvenient facts didn’t stop Republicans in the Michigan Legislature from trying to ram stricter voter ID bills through in the lame duck session, although it ultimately petered out. It wouldn’t surprise anyone if the legislation comes back this term.

Michigan is fast becoming the new Illinois. The myth of Michigan voter fraud is growing, with a number of conspiracy theories circulating well beyond our borders. That’s not surprising, as we were the closest state in the country in the 2016 presidential election, with Trump eking out just a 10,704-vote margin.

But because the correct candidate won, it’s kind of odd for some conservatives to keep grumbling about Clinton stealing the state. She didn’t. She lost.

That’s not to say there weren’t problems with Michigan’s election. Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, who’s a Republican, launched an investigation last year after voter irregularities were uncovered during the state’s partial recount. Disturbingly, 87 optical scanners broke in Detroit, the Detroit News reported. And ballot box and recorded vote totals didn’t match in roughly 60 percent of the city’s precincts.

But Bureau of Elections Chief Chris Thomas, who probably enjoys the most sterling reputation of any public servant in the state, says there’s no evidence of “anything we’d call fraudulent” so far.

What’s needed is better training for election officials and new equipment. The state is thankfully set to get new voting equipment in time for the 2018 gubernatorial election. But Thomas believes that improved training is the key for smoother elections in Michigan.

Unfortunately, in our choose-your-own-facts era, this will fall on deaf ears. Those who want to believe dastardly Democrats are stealing elections in Detroit (however poorly in 2016) will continue to do so.

And too many Republican officials are willing to entertain their tin-foil hat theories because there’s a practical benefit in laws that typically make it harder for African-Americans and young people to vote. Those are key Democratic voting blocs, after all.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Can Gov. Snyder Save Part of Obamacare?

Gov. Rick Snyder is jetting off to Washington, D.C., this week on a dual mission. The Republican governor, who was a vocal critic of Donald Trump during the presidential campaign and refused to endorsement, will make nice by attending the inauguration.

But he’ll also be pushing back against part of one of the new president’s biggest priorities: repealing Obamacare. Snyder is also set to attend a GOP roundtable on Medicaid, which was expanded under Obamacare.

During his first term, Snyder dueled with many conservative members of his party to shepherd the Medicaid expansion through the Legislature. He doesn’t want Congress to scrap it. He will, no doubt, sell the reform aspects of the “Healthy Michigan” plan as a conservative alternative to how Medicaid operates in other states.

Now 640,000 Michiganders have Medicaid coverage under Obamacare, which shattered all expectations. And Rick Snyder is their best hope for keeping their health care.

There are roughly 240,000 Michigan residents on top of that who gained health insurance under Obamacare, according to ACASignups.net, the nationally acclaimed site tracking data run by Bloomfield Hills web designer Charles Gaba. That’s thanks to measures like health care exchanges aimed at those without employer-based plans, the ban on insurance companies refusing coverage due to preexisting condition, and the provision allowing those up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ health plans.

In total, about 885,000 Michiganders gained health insurance under Obamacare. So roughly 9 percent of Michigan’s population could lose their coverage if the law is repealed.

If Snyder can help sell Trump and Republicans in Congress on keeping the Medicaid expansion, that would make a huge difference for Michigan. But it still isn’t clear what will happen to the more than a quarter-million people who obtained insurance outside Medicaid, many of whom are small business owners who have long struggled to find affordable coverage. It will be interesting to see if Snyder and other Republicans advocate for them, as well.

Snyder spent much of his seventh State of the State address this week touting the state’s economic comeback, his favorite theme.

But the governor clearly recognizes that state’s recovery could be jeopardized if 9 percent of Michiganders suddenly lose coverage under the GOP Obamacare repeal. No doubt he and other governors on the front lines will forcefully make that case, both at the roundtable and behind closed doors.

We’ll have to see if President Trump and the Republican Congress ultimately decide to listen.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: For Local Media, It’s Death by a Thousand Cuts

Just in time for the New Year, the newly profitable Washington Post announced it would be adding dozens of newsroom jobs.

That was greeted with universal delight from journalists, including some who recently became unemployed. Most observations were a variation on this theme: Maybe this is the sign that our industry is finally turning around.  

I hope so, too, but I sincerely doubt it. The safest places to work in journalism have long been New York and D.C., but even that’s not a failsafe plan. After all, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and USA Today all announced layoffs not too long ago.

The picture in Michigan remains grim. MLive, which includes eight publications, did some major downsizing a year ago. Both Detroit papers (the News and the Free Press) offered buyouts for two straight years and laid off staff this time around. Smaller papers like the Lansing State Journal and Battle Creek Enquirer have, too. The Michigan Radio Network closed shop. And it goes on and on.

Most presses have been mothballed in the name of consolidation. Grand downtown newspaper buildings have been shuttered due to expense. Many papers (including some I’ve worked for) are operating with a quarter of the news staffs they had even a half-dozen years ago. It’s death by a thousand cuts. And it’s somewhat amazing they still put out papers at all.

As a result, lots of reporters and editors are doubling as sales staff –– at least on their personal social media accounts –– urging folks to buy the Thanksgiving edition or gift subscriptions for the holidays. Any breach of the wall between news and sales used to be verboten, but desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose.

Journalists tend to be a self-analyzing bunch (although there are plenty of elite reporters who muck it up for the rest of us by insisting they can do no wrong). So there’s rarely a shortage of hand-wringing, especially in election years, over errors, tone, bias and missed stories.

Reporters have never been popular and they shouldn’t be. Those who go into the business looking to make friends are in the wrong industry. But there’s no doubt that there is a profound lack of trust in the media, particularly when it comes to covering politics. Most of this is a proxy war for warring ideologies. More and more, people are only looking for stories that confirm their own ideas and biases (and folks get rather snippy in their absence).

But I think that our withering (and dying) local media institutions have contributed more to this mistrust than we realize. It wasn’t that long ago that local papers and radio and TV stations employed far more people than today — and it wasn’t just writers and on-air talent. There were a lot more employees on the technical and sales sides, too: press operators, sound engineers, grips, classified sales associates, etc.

These were people who you saw at the grocery store or on the bike path. Many companies had explicit policies that you had to live in the community you served. So even if you hated the media, you may not have hated your local paper (at least as much) because you knew people who worked there. And if you had a problem with a story, you knew who to call.

That’s one reason why people trust local government more than state or federal government in surveys. (Although, ironically, far fewer people vote in local elections than in state or federal ones).

Social media is now how millions get their news, which has allowed fake stories to flourish. Convenience is one reason for this. But I would also posit that trust is a big issue. You trust your friends and family. So if they’re sharing a story, you’re probably more likely to presume it’s true.

Rebuilding our local media institutions could help rebuild some trust with readers. There would be many other benefits, including boosting local economies and better informing people about what’s happening in their neighborhoods, schools, township boards, etc.

But newspapers and radio and TV stations aren’t charities. They’re businesses. And so far, no one has come up with a business model that currently works at the local level. While Amazon saw an opportunity in acquiring the Washington Post, it’s unlikely that conglomerates will see purchasing the Escanaba Daily Press in the same light.

We’re all poorer for this, even those who hate the mainstream media with a passion.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Warren Mayor Fouts Goes Too Far

In politics, it’s usually the coverup that gets you, not the crime.

In the case of Warren Mayor Jim Fouts, I’ll take either one.

At this point, you’ve probably heard the disturbing audio recording from which independent forensic experts have said is the mayor:

“Fridays past, I would be going to meet some women. Tonight I’m going to meet a group of retards. Tonight is retard night. … It’s a prelude to the Special Olympics for the retards in the area. You see these people like, I don’t know, what good are they? They’re dysfunctional human beings. They’re not even human beings and I don’t want to be around them. I wish them well in a cage.”

Fouts is still insisting that it’s not him on the tape, but you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone, besides his stable of sycophants, who believes him.

It’s not just the degradation of disabled adults, but the casual cruelty displayed here that’s stunning. Even in an era of endless insults from our president-elect, I suppose we can take some comfort in the fact that Fouts’ alleged remarks have been condemned by so many, from the Michigan Democratic Party to the Down Syndrome Guild of Michigan.

“The comments represent a total lack of regard for our fellow citizens,” the guild said in a statement. “People with special needs are valued members of the community. They are not a punchline, or in the case of this recording, a nuisance.”

Interestingly enough, Fouts defended Donald Trump back in October over the “Access Hollywood” tape in which the Republican bragged about sexually assaulting women with the “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment.

“Should everyone’s private conversation be a public issue?” Fouts sniffed, according to Politics Central.

That’s probably because another tape surfaced in 2013 in which Fouts berated a city employee in a foul-mouthed tirade:

“If I had a baseball bat, I’d beat the f----- down to the f------ ground. I mean, it would take me just a little bit to get a f------ gun and blow his f------ head out. That’s how pissed off I am.”

In spite of his well-documented checkered past, Fouts has managed to push some fanciful stories in the media. He got reporters to bite that he was almost thrown out of the March presidential debate in Flint due to his Bernie Sanders love. And most recently, Fouts been feuding with Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel, alleging he’s covering up an environmental disaster at a landfill. Panicking residents was the inevitable side effect.

Fouts even went to court back in 2011 to fight a Freedom of Information Act request to reveal his age. A Washington Post profile cited in the case (creepily) said the mayor “doesn't like to give his age because he says he tends to date younger women.” (For what it’s worth, Wikipedia says Fouts in 74).

If there’s one thing Fouts seems to crave, it’s attention.

It’s pretty amazing that the mayor of the third-largest city in Michigan has had so many scandals and during his three terms. Warren isn’t a sleepy little hamlet, like Twin Peaks, Washington, where everyone is just delightfully zany. It’s a major economic engine in our state and it deserves a serious, dedicated public servant at the helm.

Warren deserves far better than Jim Fouts. He’s long been considered an institution there, as he’s known for always picking up his phone and attending every senior citizen function.

But his alleged comments on disabled people –– which seem pretty in keeping with his past diatribes –– are beyond the pale. It’s not enough that Fouts was fired from his 910 AM radio show. Station owner Kevin Adell said Fouts’ alleged remarks were “so despicable, repulsive and deplorable that after thinking about it, the only right thing to do was to fire him.”

The only thing Fouts has ever seemed to care about is running Warren. But he clearly doesn’t deserve to mayor. If he has any respect for the people he serves, he’ll apologize and resign as a Christmas gift to all.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: The Michigan Legislature’s War on Voting Continues

Susan J. Demas

Fourteen years ago, I was a new mom. My life consisted of doing round-the-clock feedings and trying to catch a few minutes of sleep in between. Walking to the grocery store two blocks away seemed like an exotic adventure, especially as the fall weather had taken a quick icy turn.

So when a canvasser showed up at my door that October and asked me if I’d like an absentee ballot, I had to restrain myself from hugging her. The idea that I wouldn’t have to frantically search for clothes without spit-up, bundle up a colicky infant and then stand in line for an hour to vote sounded like heaven at that moment.

That was possible because I lived in Iowa, which still has no-reason absentee voting, like 27 other states. There was also zero controversy about the policy. Maybe that’s because Iowa still has a large rural population and trekking down to your polling place can sure take awhile when you own a small family farm in the country. Why wouldn’t you want to vote absentee?

There’s no logical reason why we couldn’t do this in Michigan. Lines in big cities like Detroit and Flint are notoriously long. But you can only vote absentee for select reasons –– if you’re over 60, out of town on Election Day, etc.

No-reason absentee voting is something that bipartisan good government types have supported over the years, like the League of Women Voters. Republican Secretary of State Ruth Johnson also champions the change, as did her two GOP predecessors, Terri Lynn Land and Candice Miller.

But savvy politicos scoff at the idea because it’s widely assumed that it would help Democrats. That’s why the Republican-controlled Legislature last December dumped the latest iteration, which was tie-barred to legislation dumping straight-party voting.

As we all know, the straight-ticket voting ban became law and was quickly challenged in court. Republicans lost their bid to enact the law for this election –– and boy, are they thrilled that they did.

The presidential election was determined by roughly 10,000 votes. In an election that close, anything could make a difference, so it stands to reason that Donald Trump benefitted from straight-party voting. Just take a look at how Republicans performed up and down the ballot in northern Michigan and Macomb County –– where deeply flawed Republicans won state House races and even unknown candidates were swept into local office.

So Republicans could definitely benefit from no-reason absentee voting. The surge of rural voters who carried Trump to victory would undoubtedly appreciate it.

That’s the thing about playing partisan inside baseball. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Not everything goes according to plan.

That’s a clear case for just going with the best policy. And making it easier for people to vote is just good policy.

But right now in Michigan, the only bills the Legislature is taking up would make voting harder. The new strict voter ID bills, which Republicans introduced after the Nov. 8 election, are part of a new national push to clamp down on voting rights. There’s also a $10 million appropriation tucked in there, which means voters can’t seek a referendum to overturn the law.

We’re told this legislation is necessary to prevent voter fraud. But I’m not aware of one case of voter fraud in Michigan this election. Indeed, the Washington Post has only found four cases in the entire country. And 135 million ballots were cast.

Now perhaps you’ve heard the president-elect claim, without evidence, that millions voted illegally. But here’s the fascinating twist. In their filing to stop the recount in Michigan, Trump’s lawyers argue –– wait for it — that “all available evidence suggests the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.”

So these voter restriction bills are the classic case of a solution in search of a problem. But we can expect they’ll become law, because Republicans hold big majorities in both legislative houses and Gov. Rick Snyder has proved eager to sign just about anything they slide across his desk.

Meanwhile, there are real problems with voting in Michigan that the Legislature could tackle. In addition to absurdly long lines, we know that 87 optical scan machines broke in Detroit on Election Day. The $10 million blithely crammed into the voter suppression bills could buy a lot of much-needed updated voting equipment.

But we’d only do that if the Legislature was truly dedicated to protecting voting rights in Michigan — and not just wringing out any partisan advantage out of the system.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: A Plea for Rick Snyder

Opposing Trump Can Be Your Legacy

Susan J. Demas

Governor Snyder, your country needs you now more than ever.

As the Republican governor of a Rust Belt state, you have the moral authority to be a beacon of opposition to Donald Trump, who’s busy melding your party in his populist, nationalist and authoritarian image.

This is not conservatism. This is not Republicanism. This is not who you are. You’re a truly self-made businessman, not a firebrand or demagogue. You didn’t endorse Trump in the primary or general election. You have said you’re not running for office again. Time and time again, you have called for civility in our public discourse.

You may not have liked what President Hillary Clinton may have wrought in terms of taxes and regulation, but I believe you stay up at night wondering what President Trump will do with the nuclear codes.

Warning signs abound. The president-elect’s chief White House adviser is Steve Bannon, who runs the white nationalist website, Breitbart.com (which is primed to become some sort of state-run media a la Pravda). Trump refuses to set up a blind trust for his far-reaching business interests, instead saying he’ll turn them over to his children (who may have access to state secrets). And he’s playing footsie with Vladimir Putin on the national stage already.

None of these are partisan issues. These are all red flags about how our republic will function.

You can be Gov. George Romney, not Ronna Romney McDaniel. Her path is easier. As the Michigan Republican Party chair this cycle, she was a loyal soldier and may just end up as Republican National Committee chair. Her grandfather took the path of most resistance in criticizing civil rights opponent/libertarian Barry Goldwater in 1964, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

Right now, there are many principled conservatives who continue to oppose Trump. Writers and commentators, including David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, Ana Navarro and James Pethokoukis, were firmly #NeverTrump before and after Nov. 8.

But elected officials must lead the charge. Attention must be paid when Republicans who are governing decide to lead the fight for the heart and soul of the party. Not very many did before the election, with U.S. Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) as notable exceptions. You stayed away from the fray, as is your style.

So it’s even more difficult to stand up now that Trump has won. Victory is the magical elixir to suture intraparty wounds. But at what cost to party and country?

You could use your second-to-last State of the State address to set out your vision for this country and rebuke Trump’s excesses. I have no doubt you’ll say something about civility, but what’s needed is a full-throated defense of what conservatism really is and what our country stands for. It would certainly overshadow your last address at the height of fury over Flint, which earned you rebukes from national and international observers.

Of course, I’m not the right person to ask this of you. It should be the Detroit News’ Nolan Finley or better yet, a Republican colleague. I’ve been one of your fiercest critics over Right to Work and the Flint Water crisis. I’m probably about as popular in your inner circle as I was with that of your predecessor, Jennifer Granholm.

And even if you were to vocally oppose Trump, I wouldn’t stop holding your feet to the fire over your policies in Michigan. Neither will my colleagues. It doesn’t work that way. So this is all probably sounding like a terrific proposition for you.

I can also guarantee you that opposing Trump will cause you grief, personally and professionally. You’ll find it difficult to get any controversial parts of your agenda through the GOP-controlled Legislature (on the upside, you don’t have much left). You and your family will be subjected to insults and threats.

You’ve said you want to retreat to a quiet life in academia after your term is up. Your life will not be quiet for quite some time. But you would leave an impressive legacy.

Kids across Michigan are hurting right now. You’ve seen the video of Royal Oak students tormenting Latino kids in the cafeteria, yelling, “Build a wall!” My 14-year-old daughter was carrying a sign urging peace while walking through her school in Okemos. A group of older boys surrounded her, screaming, “Lock her up!”

This isn’t the Michigan you or I love. This isn’t the kind of country we are.

Doing the right thing is always hard. But in times of crisis, it’s absolutely necessary. Be a beacon, Governor Snyder.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Election 2016: Morning After Sickness

In the three hours since I’ve arrived home from babbling about the election on a Detroit TV station, I’ve had to roll out of bed four times to pee.

I feel like I’m pregnant — the familiar cinching on my bladder, the uncontrollable creep of morning sickness. It all briefly reminds me that my husband and I had spent months anxiously debating whether to have a late-in-life baby — one that would be ours after bringing one child apiece into our blended family. I was pushing 40; he was already there. In the end, we opted to be practical and put more money in our kids’ college funds. So I know there most certainly is no baby. There is only a dull dread in my belly. And it all feels like a lifetime ago as election results tauntingly flash through my head.

I am a political analyst. I do this for a living. This is my fifth presidential rodeo. I thought Donald Trump could very well end up being the GOP nominee back in September 2015 (and I have the posts to prove it). I also thought the Republican Party would coalesce around him, which it did.

But no, I did not think he would win the presidency. And neither did most of my colleagues (and even a majority of voters, if you look at the polls). As an analyst, you learn to game out electoral possibilities by sliding states around in the 3-D map in your head. I wasn’t alone in thinking Trump’s path was extraordinarily narrow. It was. But I was wrong like so many on Election Day. I didn’t expect Wisconsin to fall or Michigan to be agonizingly close.

There will be many pieces and books written about this election. Thousands of stories are already in the ether. I’ve barely had time to touch any of them. There will be recriminations from Democrats about picking a weak and unpopular candidate whose campaign’s grasp on analytics was vastly overblown. There will be angry columns about those who cast vanity votes for third-party candidates when it was all on the line. There will be political science analyses of negative partisanship, the breakdown of social norms and institutions, and the signaling Republican elites sent to voters by embracing Trump — or staying silent due to fear. There will be rapturous stories about the unsung heroes of the Trump operation who pulled off the biggest upset in modern American political history. There will be (even more) homespun yarns about poor Trump voters long ignored by coastal elites.

I don’t really care at the moment. I suppose I will at some point.

Elections are personal. It was personal to millions when America elected the first African-American president in 2008 after a history marred by slavery. It was nothing short of amazing. We all thought it was the ultimate symbol of progress. But it’s undeniable that racial resentment has been at the core of Trump’s message just eight years later — and it probably put him over the top.

This is personal because I’m a woman. A major party finally tapped a female presidential nominee for the first time in our 240-year history. Women haven’t even had the franchise for a century. I was raised in a traditional household where my Greek father never told me I could be anything (but my homemaker mother did). A female president is something I’ve been waiting my whole life for. I wanted my teenage daughter and especially my teenage son to witness and be part of this history. So when I’ve heard some variation from people of, “Yes, yes, of course, but not this woman,” it has made me want to scream. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most qualified person to run for president in decades. To say that she was more qualified than Donald Trump borders on black comedy. So when is it ever the right person? When is it ever the right time? Clearly, we don’t know.

This is personal because I’m a member of the media. At Trump rallies, journalists have been assaulted by attendees and staffers. Reporters have endured sexist, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, most recently including “Jew-S-A! Jew-S-A!” and “Luegenpresse,” which was, of course, what Nazis called lowly reporters. Trump has vowed to gut the First Amendment. Now we’ll see if it he makes good on that promise as the most powerful man in the world. We journalists have much to be ashamed of in this election, especially the circus-like cable news racket. Ratings and clicks superseded journalistic judgment too much of the time. And we careened through the looking glass and found ourselves in a race where truth and facts didn’t matter. Fake news sites, Twitter bots and conspiracy theorists clogged social media with garbage, some of which filtered into the mainstream media. All of it made voters angrier and less-informed.

This is personal because Trump’s bigoted campaign was on display for all to see. He is the alt-right’s darling and has been endorsed by the KKK. He won the GOP primary by promising to build a wall with Mexico, picking fights with Black Lives Matter and proposing to ban Muslims from the country. His closing argument ad was full of anti-Semitic tropes, blaming Jewish powerbrokers like Fed Secretary Janet Yellen for rigging the system against good working-class folks.

This is personal because I have a gay, half-Jewish daughter. She’s 14. She was raised to believe she could do anything. She came of age when marriage equality became legal. Last night when I hugged her before bed, she started sobbing. “Will I still be able to get married?” she asked and I assured her she would. But no, I don’t know for certain. I don’t control elections. I don’t control the Supreme Court. But I will move heaven and earth to make sure that she has the same right to happiness as anyone else in this country.

This is personal because we are not the country I thought we were. Trump, however, is exactly who he said he was. There are all sorts of reasons to have voted for him: tax cuts, Obamacare, terrorism, trade, jobs, etc. But you don’t get a pass on what he is. He is sexist. He is a bigot. He is a bully. He is an authoritarian. Your vote is an endorsement of his character, no matter what you told exit pollsters. Your vote will allow him to have the nuclear codes. Your vote will allow him to seek revenge against his enemies. Your vote will allow him to enrich himself in the Oval Office, as we don’t know his business dealings and he’s refused to commit to setting up a blind trust. Your vote will allow him to discriminate against groups of people. Your vote will allow him to hurt the least among us.

This is a shameful chapter in our history and it’s just beginning. It has made me physically ill, but sadly, not with the hope of bringing new life into the world. I’m not sure when I will sleep through the night again.

But I will never give up. My children — and all children — deserve better. The promise of America is progress. Donald Trump doesn’t share that view. He wants to take us backward. I don’t believe he shares our collective values. But he won the election and will now lead our country. For those of us with a conscience, now is the time to rise up for liberty, equality, kindness and compassion — because they are more fragile than we ever imagined. This is gut-check time. This is when you find out who you are. This is when we fight.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.