Wednesday, February 4, 2015 // The Statement
4B
Wednesday, February 4, 2015 // The Statement
5B
L
et’s lay out a hypothetical scenario: it’s the 2014 guberna-
torial election and the statewide results are based solely
off the vote tallies in Washtenaw County. The results? To
say the least, we’d find a very different state government.
A Democratic governor. A Democratic attorney general. A
Democratic secretary of state. And, in the only totals that align
with the actual reality, Democratic senators and representa-
tives both in the U.S and state congressional bodies.
In Ann Arbor, which makes up about a third of the county’s
population, that distinction only grows more pronounced.
Growing up here, the jokes are pretty frequent. We’re “25
square miles surrounded by reality” or “The People’s Republic
of Ann Arbor.” And nowhere is that easier seen than in local
politics, where Democrats have held all but one seat on Council
for ten years.
Last year, following the status quo for the past few decades,
no Republicans ran for office. There are no Republicans cur-
rently on Council, and only one independent, elected in 2011.
Incoming mayor Chris Taylor (D), after winning a four-way
Democratic primary, faced off against 28-year-old independent
Bryan Kelly in the actual race, who said at the time he was run-
ning primarily to create options for voters.
I moved to Ann Arbor when I was six, in 2001, one year after
the last Republican to hold city office, mayor Ingrid B. Shel-
ton (R), chose not to run again. For four years after that, Ann
Arbor’s Republicans clung to a diminishing majority — two
Council seats.
Following them, no Ann Arbor resident has been represented
by a Republican locally.
The implications of that, however, are sometimes a little
harder to find. On the surface, Ann Arbor isn’t that different
from other cities; its size and its policies, many less easy to
define as liberal or conservative like they might be at the state-
wide level, echo those of many other cities in the state.
At least in name, it’s Democratic — that’s clear. What isn’t
always clear is what that means, both for residents and for the
path of the city for years to come.
Checkered history
To understand Ann Arbor’s unique composition, it’s first
important to understand that it hasn’t always been this way.
Fifteen years ago, Sheldon, a popular Republican, was mayor
of Ann Arbor. She was the 27th Republican mayor the town has
had, interspersed with a steady stream of independents, Demo-
crats, and, in 1851, a Whig. Ann Arbor’s newly elected mayor,
Chris Taylor, marks only the 28th Democrat to hold that posi-
tion, meaning that, historically, the balance is actually pretty
even.
A similar narrative holds true for City Council, which began
to see Democratic predominance over the past few decades,
cemented by the end of the last two Republicans on Council —
incumbent Mike Reid, who chose not to run again in 2005, and
fellow incumbent Republican Marcia Higgins, who switched
parties.
Longtime residents and
City
Council
members
point to several reasons
for the slow collapse of
Republicans running for
office, namely the change
of general election dates
from spring to fall in 1992
and the redrawing of the
wards in 1991.
Ann
Arbor
attorney
Tom Wieder, who helped
orchestrate
both
those
policies, said the changes
helped highlight a long-
term trend in the town’s
demographics.
“Basically, the town just
became — by the evolution
of history and talent — a
Democratic town,” Wieder
said. “I mean, it used to be
a Republican town many
years ago, but that’s before
students voted, eighteen-
year olds voted — that
was the biggest change.
But then there’s been a
change in populations get-
ting older and a lot of the
townies who used to be
Republican conservatives,
moderates, they were replaced by liberal baby boomers.”
City Councilmember Jane Lumm (I–Ward 2), who served
three terms on Council as a Republican from 1994-1998, said the
city’s Republicans viewed the fall election dates as a significant
challenge because of an increase in voters.
“That was around the time the City Republican committee
dissolved, because it was essentially viewed as no longer really
likely or possible to elect Republicans in these fall elections,”
she said. “The turnout during presidential, gubernatorial races
… local elections get lost in those election cycles, which is unfor-
tunate.”
The ward changes, which came a year earlier and are still
mostly represented in the current divisions today, were also
a contributing factor, though aided heavily by the election
change, Wieder said.
“(The wards) were drawn to try and ensure Democratic
majority,” he said. “At that point, that was thought harder to do,
but as things kept changing — we got the November elections
put in in 1992 — I wouldn’t say made the ward boundaries com-
pletely irrelevant, but it diminished their importance because
at least in the even years, with such a big turnout, you could be
very sloppy almost in drawing the boundaries and still get five
Democrats elected.”
Political Science Prof. Ken Kollman pointed to another phe-
nomenon linked to the moving of election dates — the increase
in partisanship on the national level for both Democrats and
Republicans, which in turn pushes people to become more
polarized on the state and local levels.
“Ann Arbor is not all that unusual in being a one-party city,
for a city of its size,” he said. “People who are in Ann Arbor and
deciding where they’re going to vote for Republican or Demo-
cratic are primarily thinking about the reps of those parties at
the national level. So as the Republican party, nationally, has
trended more conservative, more to the right over the last 30, 35
years, places like Ann Arbor are going to just naturally become
predominantly Democratic. It goes the other way, of course.
The state of Mississippi is predominantly Republican for much
the same reason.”
All the same policies
When it comes to policy, Ann Arbor is, perhaps, arguably
progressive, as evidenced by objectives like early movements
towards conservation and a mandated living wage. But despite
the oft-repeated jokes, many of the day-to-day activities local
government engages in — like funding streets or deciding on
zoning laws — are not that easily definable as such. And despite
the clearly strong Democratic predominance, it’s hard to pin
down exactly what changed, in regard to policy, as that domi-
nance grew. The two so-called liberal examples referenced
above, for example, come from years where there were still
Republicans on Council — 2003 and 2001.
Kollman said that’s not uncommon for city-level politics.
“Dealing with issues that are strictly local, it’s hard to attach
conservative and liberal labels to them that have meaning at
other levels of government, like national levels,” he said. “In
other words, is spending more money on roads and streets, is
that a Democratic or a Republican pro-kind of policy? Well, who
knows. You’ll find plenty of Republicans who would say the gov-
ernment should spend money on roads and streets.”
Lumm agreed. She said her party affiliation rarely comes
up in her role as a Councilmember
— rather, she said she’s been able to
focus is on the issues, both in discus-
sions with constituents and during
formal sessions.
“If you look at the issues that we
deal with at the local level, they tend
to be more operational,” she said. “It’s
not so much the great philosophi-
cal debates of the day, but it’s opera-
tional things like public safety, and
making sure people are safe, and feel
safe, maintaining the infrastructure
of streets, water, sewer systems, city
parks, rec facilities, picking up folk’s garbage and recyclables.”
Instead, when talking about divisions on Council, it becomes
more about the issues, such as development, removal of home-
less camps from city land, and support for the mayor’s policies.
“You have to be paying very close attention to know the sub-
tleties of who is on which side of these issues, because the party
labels don’t give you any indications,” Kollman said. “I mean, all
the Democrats on the City Council, there’s two pretty power-
ful divisions, or have been, on the Council, over some impor-
tant issues for the local residents. But the party label obviously
doesn’t communicate anything. You have to be paying attention
closely.”
City Councilmember Julie Grand (D–Ward 3) said while she
agreed not everything had a party label attached to it, some
issues, like the recent issue of homeless camps, did.
“I think a lot of issues we deal with are non-partisan,” Grand
said. “For example, things like potholes. Very non-partisan
issue. But I also feel like there are values that come into play
when you’re setting priorities, and some of those are inevitably
shaped by what I would call Democratic values. So for example,
last week I was a co-sponsor of a resolution that was address-
ing, or helping to design, our practices in terms of homeless
encampments, and I think that focus is influenced by Demo-
cratic values.”
She said at the local level, strict partisanship loyalty some-
times has less of an impact, such as with issues like raising
taxes, which has been contentious on Council.
“It’s a difference of opinion, and one I don’t think Democrats
would tend to argue with at the state level,” she said. “They
would agree that yes, we need to grow our tax base and pay for
things like social services and other types of services that make
us an attractive state. But at the local level, it becomes a little
more insular in terms of thinking.”
For students, said both LSA senior Gabe Leaf, chairman of
the College Republicans, and LSA junior Trevor Dolan, chair of
the College Democrats, the impact is mixed.
“I think it gives us a lot more opportunities for programming
and collaboration,” Dolan said of the Democratic nature of the
city.
However, he added that the group rarely engages in policy at
the city level.
“I think that there are a lot fewer partisan issues on the city
level,” Dolan said. “Because we swing so heavily Democratic.
And I think there are a number of social issues that can be
addressed on the city level, but more often than not it’s fiscal
issues, and we find issues with a lot broader appeal on the state
and federal level.”
Leaf expressed a similar sentiment. He said the group rarely
gets involved with city politics, namely because of the lack of
Republican representation, but that there are policies Council
has considered he would support.
“One of the platforms was increasing public transportation
for the city of Ann Arbor,” Leaf said. “Whether that be buses,
or more Amtrak, all that kind of stuff that is more of just a pol-
icy instead of a Democratic versus Republican issue. So that’s
something I feel like we can get behind.”
Like the College Democrats, he said their ultimate interest
lies with broader issues.
“There’s dialect, but not really a campaigning effort with
them,” he said of city politi-
cians. “We focus on the larger
state or national state.”
The future
Adding another layer to the
puzzle is that, perhaps ironi-
cally, Ann Arbor is one of the
few cities that still relies on
partisanship for its local poli-
ticians. There are two others:
Ionia and Ypsilanti. Every
other city has adopted a non-
partisan system, a proposal
that hasn’t gained much trac-
tion here.
For cities that have done
it, there have been mixed
responses. Bay City, Michi-
gan, faced controversy earlier
this year over nonpartisan city
commissioners posing for pic-
tures to be used in partisan
promotional materials. Writ-
ing for the Royal Oak Patch
in 2011, Frank Versagi, editor
of the Versagi Voice, a news
outlet focused on city politics,
said Royal Oak elections still
had partisan tinges.
“So-called ‘non-partisan’ elections for mayor and commis-
sioner aren’t really non-partisan, anyway,” he wrote. “Can-
didates come with a history known by most voters, but party
affiliation has little influence on most local issues which a City
Commission must address.”
Everyone interviewed for this piece echoed the same idea
— that, in Ann Arbor, winning as a Republican is currently not
really an option, a sentiment most also said they didn’t like.
Lumm, the sole independent on Council, said she thought
nonpartisan elections would allow a broader scope of individu-
als to run, regaining some of the diversity lost from not having
both parties represented.
“With nonpartisan elections, voters will then be more likely
to focus on the individual candidates, their qualifications, posi-
tions and local issues, and that’s a good thing. And also, what’s
happening now is Ann Arbor elected officials are being elected
now in these off-peak primaries, in August, and that’s when we
have very low turnout, and that’s certainly not the optimal situ-
ation.”
But Grand said while she would welcome more engagement,
she also likes having her Democratic affiliation.
“I am hesitant to give that up, because for me being a Demo-
crat means something, and I’m proud to have that ‘D’ next to
my name,” she said. “I feel very conflicted about it, honestly. I
see the pros and the cons. But the pros of bringing more citizens
into the system, if I felt that it was really going to increase our
voter turnout and engagement, that would be a more compel-
ling pro than what I’m seeing right now, but I don’t know if it
would actually do it.”
Kollman, too, said party labels are important. Nonetheless,
he said the current situation — one-party control — might not
be sustainable for the city.
“I think (party labels) communicate a lot to voters,” he said.
“In the long-run, not having healthy party competition tends to
lead to a disconnect between voters and their government, and
also leads to cronyism and so forth. Now, is Ann Arbor headed
in that direction? I don’t know. I hope not. It’s not always the
case that that happens, that that leads to bad things. I think
that the evidence from the history that I know, is that one-party
dominance at any level is generally less desirable than healthy
two-party competition.”
By Shoham Geva, Daily News Editor
IS ANN ARBOR REALLY LIBERAL?
The evolution of city council
DAVID SONG/Daily
Mayor Chris Taylor presenting the Volunteer of the Month proclamation honoring the Student United Way-
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor City Hall Feb. 2, 2015.
LUNA ANNA ARCHEY/Daily
Protesters gather outside City Hall for The Vigil Against Police Brutality Nov. 25, 2014.
UPPER LEFT: Former Mayor John Hieftje and the council discuss the expansion of the Ann Arbor Transit Author-
ity’s services to include routes to Ypsilanti at the City Council meeting June 2, 2013. (Marlene Lacasse/Daily)
RIGHT: Councilmember Jane Lumm discussing a proposal at Ann Arbor City Hall Feb. 2, 2015. (David Song/Daily)
BOTTOM LEFT: Protesters gather outside City Hall for The Vigil Against Police Brutality Nov. 25, 2014. (Luna Anna
Archey/Daily)