We're Still Losing People

Michigan was one of three states which experienced a population drop between April of 2010 and July of 2011. It doesn't seem much, about 0.1%. Yet it raises questions about the direction we're heading.

It appears to be a larger proportional drop than what happened between the 2000 and 2010 Census readings, which showed Michigan losing about 55,000 residents. So long as our numbers keep dropping, it makes us wonder what perception the rest of the country might have for our state, or even what Michigan citizens themselves think about Michigan. It might open eyes to note that that drop of 0.1% equals around 7,000 people. That rate, if it continues, would result in a larger population loss between 2010 and 2020 than in the prior Census period.

If people are still leaving, then we still haven't gotten back to the point where there's enough here to merit staying. Similarly, if people aren't moving in, then we aren't where we need to be in order to attract them.

Michigan has always been a bit off the beaten path. When the nation was expanding many settlers blew by us, preferring to move more directly west. That's why so many states farther west than Michigan became states ahead of us. Part of the trouble then was the perception that Michigan was little more than a swampland. How was that overcome? The discovery of copper, the logging industry, and more recently, the automotive industry. What do all those have in common? They are single industries.

And that's where Michigan needs to improve. We need a diverse economy. We've needed it for a long time. We cannot be so dependent on any one thing. To be sure, there have been efforts to do this, and they have borne fruit. But we're clearly behind the curve, and have some catching up to do.

No Minority Clout from Michigan?

The heat is on for the August elections in Michigan, and the most interesting races may just be in the new 13th and 14th Congressional Districts in and around the Detroit area. With the Democrats having been aced out of at least one seat as a result of the redrawing of districts based on the 2010 Census, Democratic incumbents Gary Peters and Hansen Clarke are facing a showdown against each other in the 14th. Meanwhile, the 13th features a battle between long time Congress man John Conyers and a Detroit State Senator, Detroit State Representative, and a Westland State Senator. Senators Bert Johnson of Highland Park and Glenn Anderson of Westland, along with Representative Shanelle Jackson of Detroit. Also facing off in the 14th are Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence and former State Representative Mary Waters of Detroit.

Gary Peters has the ability to outspend Clarke, and Mayor Lawrence is being called a tough campaigner. Representative Conyers may be facing the toughest challenge of his political career. But perhaps the most interesting possibility, with both districts being wildly gerrymandered, is that Michigan will not lose one but both minority representatives in Congress.

With the various voting rights laws in place, it was widely thought that Conyers and Clarke would be given relatively safe seats to defend. Yet with the 14th District wildly (and even absurdly) stretched narrowly along the Detroit River, through the Grosse Pointes then back across northern Detroit, and finally up into Oakland County before finishing in Pontiac, Clarke's fate is nowhere near certain. Especially with the minority vote possibly spread quite thin among three candidates for the primary, he appears more than vulnerable.

Conyers' district on the other hand is probably safer. He retains a huge swath of Detroit, from the southwest and central parts of the City through the northwest. But the new 13th also contains a large part of suburban Wayne County, through Redford, Westland and Wayne. If Senator Johnson can split the Detroit vote it might just open the door for Glenn Anderson.

Before blaming all this on the GOP, one should remember that it is the mass exodus from Detroit and the effective dispersal of the minority vote which is the real culprit here. A point is reached where mere statistical reality can make it impossible to create secure seats for any given person, let alone group. Demanding particular outcomes can never be certain anyway. Criticize the Republicans if you wish; the Democrats would have gerrymandered too, yet been subject to the same statistical realities.

In the end, expect Conyers to win and Clarke to lose. The seats themselves will stay Democratic, unless both Conyers and Clarke should lose. That won't happen.

But the GOP can dream, can't it?