Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

Opinion

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.

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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less