Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Fahey Q&A with Don Lee, advocate of equal representation

The Fahey Q&A with Don Lee, advocate of equal representation

Don Lee gathers signatures for the proposed local referendum and registers voters at the Apartment Lounge in Grand Rapids.

Courtesy: Katy Batdorff

Having organized last year's grassroots movement Voters Not Politicians ending Michigan's politicized gerrymandering, Fahey is now executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She interviews a colleague in the world of democracy reform each month for our Opinion section.

Don Lee leads the Grand Rapids Democracy Initiative, which is advocating to expand the size of the city council in Michigan's second largest city in order to give more neighborhoods and demographics a voice. He's the chair of the Eastown Community Association and has been an adjunct lecturer at Aquinas College, my alma mater. When he reached out to me this summer about his group, we were excited to help them work towards a more representative democracy in a place we both have called home.

Our recent conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.


Fahey: Let's start by having you explain your group's mission.

Lee: We are focused on improving representation at the local level for every person in the city. Currently we have a system established over 100 years ago. Grand Rapids is divided into three geographic areas known as wards. Each one is represented by two city commissioners, representing approximately 70,000 residents. That's comparable to a small state House district. This results in insufficient representation for important local issues like affordable housing, lead paint exposure and land issues. We're working with fellow residents and hearing from city government officials. We've proposed changes to improve representation for everyone, including establishment of an eight-ward system with one nonpartisan commissioner per ward. Our proposal reduces the size of the wards to approximately 25,000 residents. Right now, about a third of the city has no commissioner living in it — including one entire ZIP code, which suffers disproportionately from lack of investment. By reducing the number of constituents in each ward, and calling for special elections instead of appointments when a commissioner steps down, there will be more opportunities for residents from across Grand Rapids to have a stronger voice at the local level.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Fahey: How did your group connect with mine?

Lee: Since you and I are both connected to Aquinas College, I was familiar with your work to tackle partisan gerrymandering. When I first reached out, our group was really trying to understand what we were getting ourselves into. That initial conversation grew into direct support, which helped us organize our efforts by creating a leadership team. We were also able to get a better understanding of the challenges of redistricting and democracy reform.

Our first meeting really changed course for us because it helped us break our goals into manageable chunks. We identified milestones, helped define our team's core functions and identified specific areas where each volunteer can best utilize their expertise.

Fahey: Why do you think your volunteer team spends their free time fighting to make a more representative city?

Lee: In our day jobs, most of the committee members work in some capacity advocating for residents. What motivates us is seeing how things could improve if our commissioners were more dispersed throughout the city and therefore were identifying problems and sharing them at that level. We feel like the system is failing and that it has failed us on some of the issues like gun violence prevention, unbridled development and drug enforcement policy to name a few. Everyone in our group cares deeply about Grand Rapids.

Fahey: As a grassroots organization, how have community members become involved?

Lee: It seems like when you talk to somebody, it doesn't matter if they're conservative or liberal, or which party they identify with. We see universal agreement in the answers to questions such as, "What do you think about having less constituents per representatives?" or "Would you rather have your commissioner be appointed or would you rather have a special election?"

We all have more in common than the "system" wants us to believe and we're weaker divided. We stand to gain more for our city by talking plainly about our differences, working to understand one another and creating a better city for all residents. With the economic prosperity Grand Rapids has experienced, there is no reason residents in any part of the city should be left behind.

Fahey: Tell us about an unexpected challenge you faced in this journey.

Lee: We see overwhelming support when we're collecting signatures for our proposed local referendum in November. I'd say we convert about 98 percent of the people we speak with. We're proposing ideas that seems so common sense: fewer constituents per representative for better representation, and electing a person instead of appointing them is more small-d democratic. Yet this has been opposed by certain powers that be, including some current commissioners and the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce.

Fahey: How has your life changed since getting involved in this issue?

Lee: I'm hopeful and thankful for everybody who gives us a signature. They know that ultimately this idea will go to the voters if we can collect enough signatures. Voters Not Politicians demonstrated an awakening of Michganders to the importance of representative democracy. I'm also inspired by the fact that we're starting to see younger and more diverse candidates elevated to these positions.

Fahey: If you were speaking with a high school student, or a new immigrant to the country, how would you describe what being an American means?

Lee: I would give them an example of why the people they elect matter and why it's important for all of us to participate in our democracy. Elected officials make so many decisions that impact our daily lives, including how our tax money is spent. So it is critical to think about who you want sitting at the table making those decisions and the lens through which they make them. To me, the most important part of being an American is being an informed voter who participates at the ballot box.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less