Election Fairness Matters #3
Some of you might be asking: "Why is Nubbins digging up all this voting stuff now? Things seem to be calm and going well! Why stir things up?" If you are asking that question, trust me, so am I.
My answer is, I don't trust that we won't slip back into the contention and acrimony we experienced last year as folks come back for the summer.
Despite our best efforts to be inclusive and listen to the concerns of residents, property owners and neighbors from the Townships, there may be some who will disregard the thoughtful process we have engaged in and demand we start over again. Rather than respect the common ground we have found, some will repeat the idea that they were not directly consulted despite multiple invitations to engage.
That is not fair or right. When you’ve decided you’ll do whatever it takes to win an election, the slope gets slippery quickly.
What I am trying to point out is last year's repeal may not represent the desires of most people who live here the majority of the time. (Remember, that the state of Michigan defines “residents” for voting as someone who lives in a place most of the year). With that in mind, efforts to undo all the hard work accomplished this winter should be treated with a healthy dose of suspicion.
Frankly, there is a lot that is clearly suspicious.
Take for instance that last year a 59-year-old man registered to vote at 130 Traverse Street. That is the Little Harbor Club.
Or that a 57-year-old man registered to vote at 201 E. Main Street. Yep, that is the Fudge Shop.
Again-remember, if these registrations were done at City Hall, they likely would have been denied because you cannot use a business as your primary address for voting. But if you fill out a few forms online you can “game” the system.
Voters at the Club and Fudge Shop are dramatic illustrations of the point, but there is a data point I find even more compelling:
Of our 111 new voters, more than half (56) claim an address on Bluff Drive or below. Sixteen of those are renters at Hillside, the Tribal Apartments and one resident of the church rectory. That leaves 40 new voters who registered at addresses on Bluff Drive or below.
Does anyone really think there are 40 new people living the majority of the year below the bluff in Harbor Springs? I walked around to take a look. Home after home where these new voters “live” have their porch canvases zipped up tight.
Would it further surprise you that none of the new registrations of those “owner-occupied” homes below the bluff were teenagers? To the contrary, 65% of those new “residents” are over the age of 50.
And if you suspected some of our new voters were the kids and grandkids of the homeowners, the data might confirm your suspicions. There were 14 new voters in their 20s, 30s and 40s in homes below the bluff.
Thanks again for following along with this conversation. Again, I am making no claim about the legality of what went on with registrations last year. I am saying that I believe it was an organized effort to influence the election by “gaming” the system. And I think the publicly available data goes a long way toward proving the point.
I don't think it was right for people who do not live here a majority of the time to vote here, and I think most who call Harbor Springs their home agree.
Source material: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/doc.../mcl/pdf/mcl-168-11.pdf