Michigan’s Governance Shake-Up: A Bold Move or Political Theater?
There’s something deeply intriguing about the way Michigan is rethinking its governance structures. Lawmakers, backed by two former governors, are pushing for sweeping changes to how the state selects its top university board members and candidates for attorney general and secretary of state. On the surface, it’s a procedural shift—moving nominations from party conventions to primary ballots and transitioning university boards to gubernatorial appointments. But if you take a step back and think about it, this is about far more than just process. It’s a reflection of deeper systemic issues, from political dysfunction to institutional instability, and it raises a critical question: Can these changes actually fix what’s broken?
The University Board Conundrum: Stability vs. Special Interests
One thing that immediately stands out is the proposed overhaul of the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University boards. Personally, I think this is where the most fascinating—and contentious—debate lies. The current system, where board members are chosen at party conventions, has been criticized for producing boards that are geographically and professionally homogenous. State Rep. Greg Markkanen pointed out that 24 of the 27 board members hail from just six of Michigan’s 83 counties, and six of the eight UM regents are lawyers. From my perspective, this lack of diversity isn’t just a numbers problem—it’s a symptom of a system hijacked by special interests.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the comparison to Michigan’s other 12 public universities, whose boards are appointed by the governor. Sen. Ed McBroom argues that these institutions are far more stable, and I have to agree. The recent scandals at UM, MSU, and Wayne State—from the Larry Nassar and Robert Anderson cases to perennial presidential departures—have exposed a governance model that seems more focused on internal power struggles than on serving students and the public. The MSU board’s recent move to pass ‘duty of loyalty’ rules and double the president’s salary feels like a band-aid on a bullet wound. What this really suggests is that the current system is failing, and a gubernatorial appointment process might just be the reset these institutions need.
But here’s where it gets tricky: gubernatorial appointments aren’t a magic bullet. They shift power from party insiders to the executive branch, which could introduce its own set of biases. What many people don’t realize is that this proposal includes safeguards, like requiring Senate approval and ensuring partisan balance. Still, it raises a deeper question: Are we trading one form of political influence for another?
Primary Elections: Democracy or Disorder?
The push to move attorney general and secretary of state nominations from party conventions to primary ballots is equally compelling. The recent Democratic Party convention in April, marred by vote-counting irregularities, has fueled calls for reform. Lon Johnson, former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, is leading the charge with the Voters Not Insiders committee, arguing that primaries would give more voters a say. And he’s right—about 1.1 million people voted in the last competitive Democratic gubernatorial primary, compared to just 7,200 at the convention.
But here’s the rub: primaries aren’t a panacea. They can be expensive, divisive, and prone to their own set of problems, like low turnout or the influence of dark money. In my opinion, the real issue isn’t the mechanism itself but the underlying culture of political parties. If you take a step back and think about it, the dysfunction at conventions is just one symptom of a broader problem: parties that prioritize internal power struggles over the public good.
The Role of Former Governors: A Bipartisan Push or Political Calculation?
What’s especially interesting is the involvement of former Governors John Engler and Jim Blanchard, a Republican and a Democrat, respectively. They’ve been lobbying for these changes for years, and now they see the moment as ‘ripe.’ Blanchard’s call to stand up for Michigan’s ‘crown jewels of higher education’ is hard to argue with, but it’s also politically savvy. Both men have personal stakes—Engler served as MSU’s interim president during the Nassar fallout—and their bipartisan alliance gives the proposal credibility.
But let’s be real: this isn’t just about good governance. It’s also about legacy. Engler and Blanchard are positioning themselves as reformers, and in a state where education and political integrity are hot-button issues, that’s a smart move. A detail that I find especially interesting is how quickly this proposal needs to move through the legislature to make the August ballot. House Speaker Matt Hall’s reluctance to prioritize it suggests that, despite the bipartisan support, this might be more about optics than urgency.
The Bigger Picture: Fixing Systems or Shifting Blame?
If you zoom out, what’s happening in Michigan is part of a larger national trend. Across the country, there’s a growing push to reform how we select leaders and govern institutions. From ranked-choice voting to term limits, there’s a sense that the old systems aren’t working. But here’s the thing: changing the rules doesn’t automatically change the culture.
In Michigan’s case, these proposals could bring much-needed stability and transparency. But they also risk becoming a political football, with each party accusing the other of self-interest. What this really suggests is that reform isn’t just about rewriting rules—it’s about rebuilding trust. And that’s a far harder task.
Final Thoughts: A Step Forward or a Sideways Shuffle?
Personally, I think these proposals are worth pursuing. The current systems for selecting university boards and statewide candidates are clearly broken, and something needs to change. But let’s not kid ourselves—this isn’t a silver bullet. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s only the beginning of a much larger conversation about how we govern and who we govern for.
What makes this moment particularly fascinating is the intersection of politics, education, and public trust. Michigan has a chance to lead the way in reimagining governance, but only if lawmakers can rise above partisan squabbles and focus on the public good. If they can’t, this will just be another example of political theater—and that’s a missed opportunity we can’t afford.
