Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less