July 8 | This Week In Government: GOP Candidates Face Off In Debate; Groups Seek EV Readiness

Each week, the Detroit Regional Chamber’s Government Relations team, in partnership with Gongwer, will provide members with a collection of timely updates from both local and state governments. Stay in the know on the latest legislation, policy priorities, and more.

GRAND RAPIDS – Four of five Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidates faced off in a debate Wednesday with more jabs between the candidates than at previous joint appearances and increasing clarity about the policies they would pursue should they become governor.

The debate held Wednesday at Grand Valley State University’s Pew Campus and DeVos Center in downtown Grand Rapids featured a slimmer field than previous debates, with a polling requirement in place to winnow participating candidates – including Tudor Dixon, Kevin Rinke, Garrett Soldano, and Ryan Kelley. Ralph Rebandt was not invited to attend.

Topics ranged from what they would do to implement family-oriented platforms following the fall of Roe v. Wade, economic woes in the face of record-high inflation and gas prices, as well as more Michigan-focused issues, like how they would offer tax relief to struggling residents and how to curb the state’s potential energy concerns.

As in previous debates, candidates focused most of their frustrations at Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the policies of President Joe Biden, but there were several tense moments where candidates jumped on each other’s past statements, their policy platforms, and attacks in another sign of how wide open the race is as it barrels toward Aug. 2.

Several moments saw Dixon and Rinke rebut each other’s statements, but there was also moments of sniping between Dixon and Kelley. Soldano also took on Dixon and Rinke, in particular, claiming that they didn’t do enough during the COVID-19 pandemic to counter Whitmer. In that regard, Kelley and Soldano have the advantage as they were on the forefront of socio-political movements that railed against the governor’s pandemic policies.

On the subject of inflation, each of the candidates tried to pin on Whitmer the policies of Biden and his current struggles to clamp down on gasoline prices and inflation, saying she hasn’t done enough to help affect those policies. Whitmer may have no formal role in the administration but she heavily touted Biden’s support of her in 2018 and then was among his foremost backers when he ran for president in 2020.

Regarding taxes, Soldano said that his administration would aim to get the “government’s boots off our throats,” adding that the state saw its population fall recently due to policies that drove them away, along with businesses and associated tax revenue. That includes, in his estimation, the policies of Whitmer during the pandemic.

Dixon said that Whitmer could have cut taxes, but vetoed the Legislature’s recent package of tax reductions as well as measures to suspend the state’s gas tax, instead preferring a one-time rebate of $500. The candidate said that was not nearly enough, and that Whitmer, coupled with her connections to Biden, hadn’t done enough to use the bully pulpit of the executive office to lobby him or others in the state.

Kelley said that focusing on energy products could help the state not only become more efficient with its energy distribution but would create jobs and taxes that would provide revenue and potentially relief from high gas prices.

Rinke had previously proposed the elimination of the state’s income tax, of which those who watch the state’s budget closely said would be catastrophic for funding on things like public schools. Still, Rinke said that was his main tool to offer tax relief should he be elected. Dixon and Soldano both called that a tough lift and proposed instead to slowly chip away at the state’s income tax while it looks for replacement revenue. Eventually, the pair said in response to Rinke, the gas tax could be eliminated but not all at once.

Almost all of the candidates pointed to the income tax as one they would work to cut or eliminate if they were elected, but Kelley again pivoted to attracting more residents and businesses to make up for that loss.

In questions regarding the fall of Roe v. Wade and the impact it will have on Michigan, Rinke said it was not the governor’s job to determine whether there is a constitutional right in the state for abortion. He said that was a legislative issue and one that needs the will of the people behind it.

The 1931 abortion ban that has been blocked by a Court of Claims judge is one of several pieces of litigation filed preempting the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe, but the case in the lower court resulted in an injunction. Rinke did not attack Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher over the injunction, but did say that it was something the people should decide. He added that was his interpretation of the 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – that abortion hadn’t been abolished, rather that it was sent back to the states to regulate.

While that is true, the decision has created a patchwork of states with legal access to abortion and those who do not, but Rinke said he’d be willing to support the Michigan Legislature should they take further action on abortion. He did not say, however, if that meant supporting a Democratic Party majority in both the House and Senate, which would undoubtedly push to codify abortion protections if a ballot initiative that would do the same falters.

Rinke has said previously that he supports an exception for the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest.

Kelley said he supported an exception for the life of the mother but turned to Dixon to note that she initially had said she believed there was no reasonable exception for an abortion procedure.

That has since changed. Dixon is the only candidate endorsed by Right to Life of Michigan, which supports a single exception for abortion when necessary to save the mother’s life. She noted the endorsement as she pivoted to say that she was appalled by Nessel’s insistence on refusing to prosecute abortion seekers and providers.

She was also one of the only candidates who said that state needed to switch gears to a family-friendly focus with its social supports, as in women’s health care, and that she would do that as governor.

Soldano accused each of the candidates for offering nothing more than lip service on the issue of abortion, and while he was not endorsed by Right to Life, he was just as unapologetically anti-abortion as Dixon.

As much of the debate focused on attacking Ms. Whitmer over her pandemic policies, moderator and WOOD-TV political reporter Rick Albin asked what they would have done differently if they were governor in 2020.

Dixon was the first to answer, saying she would have “listened to experts” on COVID, adding that she had anecdotally heard from those experts prior to running and later on the campaign trail that putting COVID patients in nursing homes was a recipe for disaster. Overall, she would not have ordered the shuttering of places of employment and other venues, arguing that states that remained open or eschewed pandemic health orders are faring better.

The candidate also said that she has already been working with members of the Legislature who support her on various bills addressing the nursing home issue and policies aimed at greater parents’ rights.

Republicans have blamed Whitmer for the more than 5,000 deaths of long-term care facility residents who had COVID-19, citing an executive order she issued early in the pandemic that required nursing homes, if they could do so safely, to admit COVID-19 patients not requiring hospitalization. Several in the nursing home industry have said that order was never implemented before it was revised. In the fall of 2020, the Legislature passed, and Whitmer signed, a bill that still allows nursing homes to house COVID-19 patients so long as they are kept safely separate from residents without the disease.

Rinke said Whitmer played political science with medical science – a common attack levied against the governor in Republican circles.

Kelley accused both of them as not answering the question, but in his turn, he said he would have “upheld God-given rights protected by the Constitution: and did not share specifics other than to empower people and provide them education on the virus.

A similar tone was struck by Soldano, who accused Rinke and Dixon of not jumping into the fight until they decided to run for governor. In contrast, Soldano was at the forefront of community organizing against the governor’s and the state’s COVID-19 policies. He said that the constant feed of images and stories form the pandemic “scared the heck out of society” and that that people weren’t told the truth about the pandemic. He would have implemented greater transparency into his decision making about health orders and would have not quarantined healthy or asymptomatic residents.

In a rebuttal to her comment about already working with the Legislature, Soldano said that he was glad to see it because he was doing the same by holding them accountable during the pandemic.

In the wake of the latest mass shooting, this time in Highland Park, Illinois, red flag laws, gun control, and mental health also peeked through the din of debate questions. Rinke said he was a constitutional conservative and supports “constitutional carry” in which a person does not need a permit to carry a concealed pistol. In Michigan, virtually any law-abiding adult can obtain a concealed pistol license provided they undergo training.

He also noted that a red flag law is in place in Illinois. Like his brethren on stage, he rejected that the country had a gun problem but instead had a seething mental health crisis that needed to be addressed “expeditiously,” and that Highland Park was a sad reminder of that.

Kelley said he also supports letting anyone carry a concealed pistol without a license and quipped that criminals don’t follow laws in general, so why would they in the face of gun legislation – a common argument in the gun control debate, at least on the Republican side of the aisle. He also claimed the Democrats were soft on crime without much more exposition.

However, Kelley said when asked what role mental health would play in curbing mass shootings, he said he would support flags on people’s communications or social media pages, which alluded to red flag policy that he could support.

Asked the same question, Dixon said that she said it was critical that the state open more behavioral health beds in hospitals, as opposed to putting those people in jails or general hospital settings. She also floated a “robust mental health committee” to oversee mental health in the state, which is something that the Legislature is already working on in response to Oxford High School massacre.

Soldano said similarly, blaming “aggressive leftists” for going after guns and noting that if gun restrictions worked, areas like New York City wouldn’t have high violent gun crime.

Michigan’s energy future also took one of the spotlights of the debate, with several saying they would not only support more energy production in the state, but also some renewables and more nuclear energy.

Among the candidates, Kelley and Dixon traded several barbs, with Dixon at one point noting that the latter was preoccupied with her campaign and statements. This reflects both of their ascents in the race since he was arrested over misdemeanors related to his actions at the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and since Dixon received sizable backing from the DeVos family, top organizations, and several state legislators.

In response, Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lavora Barnes called the debate a bit of a shouting match accented by “radical stances.”

“Between bouts of nasty infighting, the Republican gubernatorial field fought to stake out the most radical stances and again refused to offer any real solutions for Michigan families,” Barnes said in a statement. “Rinke, Kelley, Dixon, and Soldano laid out a dark vision for Michigan’s future, where anti-democracy conspiracy theories and dangerous abortion bans take priority, while progress on strengthening infrastructure is reversed, law enforcement funding is slashed, and public schools are dismantled. Instead of this backwards focused division, Michiganders deserve a leader who will continue to deliver on the fundamentals that improve people’s lives.”

Several groups in a letter to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs asked for it to adopt an international set of standards for energy conservation for the building of homes and commercial buildings, touting estimated savings on utility billing and for electric vehicle charging at homes.

In its letter to the director of LARA’s Bureau of Construction Codes, the 11 groups signing on to the letter called for the bureau to adopt the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code for residential and commercial buildings. The groups also asked for residential code that new homes should be made ready for electric vehicle charging.

Specifically, the groups asked that the 2021 code be maintained without any amendments weakening standards for either residential or commercial code. Also, it was requested that an energy monitoring requirement removed from the draft rule for the commercial code be reinstated and that the residential code include electric vehicle provisions for home readiness for EVs.

“These provisions will lower costs for Michigan residents and businesses, increase household resilience from extreme weather events, and help reduce climate impacts from the building sector,” the groups wrote. “This is crucial for ensuring Michigan’s building codes are equitable, delivering benefits to people face poor housing quality, high energy burdens, and disproportionate health impacts in their homes and communities resulting from our reliance on fossil fuels.”

The bureau received public comments this week and will soon forward its recommendations to the Legislature for final approval.

Groups in the letter commended the bureau for its adoption of the 2021 IECC and urged to maintain it without amendments to weaken it. The letter also references a recent study through the U.S. Department of Energy showing the 2021 code would lead to 10.7% energy savings compared to existing state energy code, or about a $327 yearly savings on utility bills.

It was also stated that changes under the 2021 IECC would reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the state over 30 years by an estimated 11.46 metric tons. This would be the equivalent of the yearly emissions produced by about 2.5 million vehicles on roadways.

For energy monitoring for commercial buildings, it was stated monitoring can help reduce energy consumption between 2% and 8% in buildings. This would be helpful for communities seeking to reach carbon neutrality, the groups said.

As to EV charging in residential buildings, the letter noted the most recent state statistics put the number of publicly accessible charging stations in the state total about 480, with about 1,400 charging ports between them. There are about 146 private charging stations statewide.

“Without additional EV charging readiness amendments to the state’s building code, we miss a key opportunity to help our residents transition to EVs,” the groups wrote.

Installation of residential EV infrastructure costs about $500 when a home is built, with adding infrastructure in later costing an estimated $1,500 to $3,000, the letter stated.

Signing the letter were officials with the Michigan Environmental Council, PHIUS, the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, Michigan Clinicians for Climate Action, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, the Ecology Center, DFD Architecture, the Midwest Building Decarbonization Coalition, the New Buildings Institute, and the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

The Wayne County Commission has joined calls from Michigan Democratic leaders for Michigan to be considered as an early Democratic presidential primary state.

In a resolution adopted last week, commissioners expressed their support for the Democratic National Committee to consider Michigan as one of five states that would hold early presidential primaries starting in the 2024 election cycle.

Commissioner Jonathan Kinloch (D-Detroit) said in a statement that “with its racial and ethnic diversity as well as its status as a state that is heavily urban and heavily rural, Michigan is truly representative of America as a whole.”

The DNC has been criticized for the lack of diversity in some early contest states in previous elections, namely Iowa and New Hampshire. Kinloch said that Michigan is “the perfect state to begin the process of selecting a president.”

The resolution adopted by the commission said that Michigan represents “a diverse microcosm of America and leads the way in industry and investment in the issues that matter to voters.”

The commission touted Michigan’s diversity in political views, rural-urban divide, and level of education. The resolution also praised the economic diversity of the state, including the small businesses that employ 1.9 million employees, a prevalence of Black-owned and women-owned businesses, and agricultural diversity.

The resolution also makes an argument for the economic benefits of this change, saying that “the thousands of reporters, pundits and campaign staffers who will descend upon our airports, convention centers, hotels, and restaurants will create a wide wave of economic spinoff that thousands of our residents will benefit from.”

The commission also said that “Wayne County will be included in the national conversation and debate about the issues, challenges, and opportunities that are uniquely ours.”

The resolution from the Commission is the most recent addition a series of initiatives from Michigan Democrats attempting to further bolster their case for the DNC in coming months.

Related: Business Groups Endorse Moving up Michigan Presidential Primary

A new coalition of over 20 organizations called Fund MI Future has formed with the effort of better funding Michigan’s public services with tax policy changes.

The group, announced Friday after a deal was reached on Michigan’s next annual budget, said that they will work to alter the tax system so corporations and wealthy individuals would “pay what they owe” to support school funding, job access, and clean water infrastructure.

Fund MI Future stated $7 billion remains available following passage of the 2022-23 fiscal year budget. The group said its members are reviewing what it called tax loopholes that it criticized as allowing corporations to pay less taxes.

The coalition is made up of unions and left-leaning policy groups, including the Michigan AFL-CIO, SEIU, Clean Water Action, Michigan League for Public Policy, United for Respect, Michigan Faith in Action, and the Michigan Education Justice Coalition.

In a statement released Friday, Mary Brady-Enerson, Michigan director of Clean Water Action, said: “Our goal is to leverage the policy and grassroots advocacy expertise of our organizations to collectively raise our voices to ensure we build a better future for every Michigander.”

“Michigan families and communities deserve opportunities to have good roads, strong schools, and clean water. Powerful corporations taking advantage of tax loopholes have held us back from having the funding we’ve needed to properly invest in our communities, and we finally have an opportunity to invest in those areas that have been neglected for too long,” she said.

The group also railed against tax cuts that were recently proposed by Republican legislators. Jess Newman, political manager for United for Respect, said: “We want to see Michigan become a state that is an attractive place for people of all walks of life to raise a family, get a job and start a business. The tax cuts that some conservative lawmakers are touting would permanently shortchange our communities of the critical resources we need to achieve that goal.”

Eileen Hayes, director of Michigan Faith in Action, said problems like crumbling infrastructure and lack of school funding persist “because we’ve allowed the wealthy elite to game the system and avoid paying what they owe in taxes. Clearly, that approach is failing the majority of the people in this state.”