Oct. 9, 2026 | This Week in Government: Michigan has an Income Problem. What’s the Fix?
October 9, 2026
Michigan has an Income Problem. What’s the Fix?
No other state has seen a bigger drop in per person income in the last 25 years than Michigan. With a myriad of economic development tools in limbo and other concerning national rankings to solve, some think the dire decline in personal income isn’t getting the air time it needs.
In just 25 years, since 1999, Michigan has fallen from 16th in the nation in per person income to 40th in 2024. Michigan Future, Inc., stated in a report if the trend continues for the next 25 years, then Michigan will only rank ahead of Mississippi and Alabama.
In 1999, Michigan had around the same per person income as the national average, at around $55,000. Now, Michigan’s gap has grown to 13% below the national average, which equates to about $9,500 less than the national average.
However, the report says the voters are unaware of this gap, with 66% believing Michigan is doing the same or better than 25 years ago. But, when voters do learn about the reality, 95% want to see some legislative fix.
While Michigan Future says Michigan is a “poor state,” there haven’t been a lot of policy points meant to solve the specific facet of income, instead focusing on job numbers, the general business environment of the state or how voters are feeling about their shrinking pocket books.
As the general election moves into its final weeks, the candidates have honed in on the affordability question, and in turn, answering questions about how to make Michiganders’ dollars stretch amid high gas prices and inflation.
So what does the future of addressing falling wages look like before the next administration begins their vision for the state?
Where does this income issue stem from?
Lou Glazer, President of Michigan Future, Inc., an organization focused on boosting the state’s stagnated population and economic growth, is worried about the manufacturing industry.
Around 77% do not know that the average blue-collar manufacturing job pays 20% less, at about $49,730, than the average Michigan job, in which the average salary is $63,120. The average blue collar job nationally pays $50,090, just above Michigan’s going rate.
“1999 is sort of like the tail end of high blue-collar manufacturing work, and that’s really what made us prosperous in the 20th century is the mass middle class in America, and we were one of the leaders in high-paid factory work,” Glazer said.
However, with a lot of auto industry jobs headed south, resulting in less unionized jobs and yet the state is still relying on the auto industry, lower-wage occupations have become the norm for the state, he said.
The average wage has also gone down in the state. In 1999, Glazer said, Michigan’s wages were 7% above the national average, and today, wages are 10% below the national wage, about $14,000 per worker.
Michigan is now competing for higher wages with states that are more suitable to knowledge-based industries. Glazer said the lack of educated workers and degree attainment is another burden the state has to bear before increasing wages.
“The high-wage states have one core characteristic, and they have a high proportion of adults with a four-year degree, so this is more of an education attainment problem than it is sort of a market mispricing labor problem,” Glazer said.
Only four out of every 10 Michigan jobs pay more than $60,000, and most of the jobs that do require a bachelor’s degree, at about a 66% rate. Nine out of every 10 jobs that are high-paying, or pay over $100,000, are in high bachelor’s attainment occupations, mostly in STEM occupations.
With this, 72% of blue-collar jobs pay less than $60,000 per year.
Many times, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation has stepped in with tax subsidies and grants to attract these knowledge-based industry jobs such as computer chips and defense manufacturers.
But, Glazer said, the incentives are not always the driving force of states making these deals. He shared an example of the Amazon headquarters the state was trying to attract. While the incentive package to settle in Detroit was $4 billion, Virginia secured the deal with only $1 billion “because the talent they needed was available there.”
“The evidence is that, at best, these incentives are icing on the cake; they’re not the foundation,” Glazer said.
He said, instead, the economic development agencies should be focused on creating places where talent, mostly young professionals, want to live so they stay in the state.
He said while both metropolitan cities in Michigan, Detroit and Grand Rapids, have been doing better recently with the number of young professionals in the area, the scale nationally is way off. Chicago houses about 325,000 young professionals, he said. Detroit and Grand Rapids house 20,000 each. Metro Chicago’s per capita income is 10% above the national average while Metro Detroit and Grand Rapids are both 5% below the national average.
While the statistics are public and voters are facing affordability issues everyday, Glazer still says politicians are not talking about the income issue enough in this election cycle.
What do the candidates have to say?
Candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate have been hitting the affordability question hard, but how to raise incomes has only recently become a topic, as many are focused on specific areas where they can drag down costs such as health care or utility bills.
When asked about income, the candidates usually make clear it is an important subject to address, but don’t have many actual solutions to fix it; there’s no laundry list of policy or actionable plans for the most part.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson has been one of the candidates focused on costs but usually attacks the idea from the perspective of the federal government’s effects on costs instead of the state’s role.
Even with the federal focus on costs, Benson has proved to have more of a robust plan than other candidates.
At the Detroit Economic Club gubernatorial forum, Benson answered a question about low incomes and the report from Michigan Future. She said the fact people need to work multiple jobs to afford rising costs is “abysmal.”
She called for improving the education system and workforce development to train people for higher-paying jobs. She also said Michigan needs to diversify its economy, attracting more in the aviation industry, defense and climate tech.
“There are so many industries that we can bring here and grow here in Michigan that we haven’t yet, and I will be aggressive and ruthless about doing that, recognizing that in exchange, tax credits aren’t going to be enough. In fact, they’re not going to do the job. Increasing our workforce capabilities are critical,” Benson said.
She tied all of this to the desire to grow the small business community in the state.
When asked by reporters later that day how to compel private companies to increase wages , Benson focused on boosting the workforce by investing in apprenticeship programs to bring more employers to Michigan instead of the businesses currently in the state.
Republican gubernatorial candidate John James was asked the same question by the economic club, and he said he was the candidate that isn’t looking to blame rising costs on the federal government, wanting to focus on fixing the problem in the state.
However, instead of centering the answer on increasing wages, he reverted back to lowering costs instead including health care and electricity bills and cutting regulatory costs on housing.
Gongwer News Service asked both U.S. Senate candidates for their plan to raise incomes and wages as well as their plan to work with businesses toward this goal. Both acknowledged the issue but did not give exhaustive details on plans to fix it.
Alyssa Brouillet, Mike Rogers’ communications director, said in a statement that the decline “didn’t happen by accident” and instead was because “Democrats chose it.”
She said Rogers’ comeback includes “making sure wages go up while costs, crippling regulations, and taxes come down.”
The campaign also took a swing at their opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, asking what his “solutions are,” including raising taxes, “taking away your health care” and pushing EV mandates. Brouillet said “Michiganders can’t afford Abdul El-Sayed.”
El-Sayed’s campaign also took the opportunity to drag Rogers, saying “Michigan families can’t afford to make ends meet because of Donald Trump’s price hikes which Mike Rogers fully backs,” including the war in Iran and the trade war with Canada.
“As Michigan’s next senator, Abdul will champion fair wages, fight to strengthen unions, and hold greedy corporations accountable by getting money out of politics and raising wages to put money back in people’s pockets,” spokesperson Cole Wozniak said in a statement.
How can businesses realistically increase wages?
Gongwer also asked business leaders what they believe the solutions are, what they want to see from candidates and how Michigan can get out of the income gap.
Brian Calley, former lieutenant governor and president of the Small Business Association of Michigan, said while income and overall jobs has risen, relative to the rest of the nation, Michigan is still falling behind because of the lack of earnings potential on the population overall as the economy has moved away from production tasks.
Calley also has been involved in efforts to improve population trends for the state. He said the state’s falling population has overlapped with education attainment to create the perfect storm of the overall income profile.
While population has leveled off instead of continuing to shrink, Calley said, the state still needs to invest in education to make people already based here more successful.
“People can become enamored with trying to attract more in, but I really don’t think that that’s the smart place to start. The smart place to start is with the people that are already here,” Calley said.
Calley pointed to Tennessee and Florida, in which there are more coordinated efforts between public education and the universities for talent pipelines.
When it comes to wages though, he said there has been a lot of energy put into how to make every job “essentially equal” when that energy should be put into the preparedness of the population itself.
At least with small businesses, Calley said, they want to respond to what employees need, including increased wages and benefits, but government overreach is making it harder to grant all their employees’ wishes.
“Employers in those cases, they can’t give employees what they want,” Calley said. “They have to give employees what the government requires, and because resources are finite, one comes from the other.”
One example of this is the sick leave benefit policy, Calley said, which required all employers to provide sick leave to employees. The law took effect in 2025.
He said the companies used to have their own flexibility on sick leave, and now with the cost of mandated sick leave, that comes at the expense of wage increases, which employees are asking for over better sick leave policies.
The formula for business expansion has gotten tighter, he said, pushing the number of jobs down, creating a spiral effect on income.
Calley said he was happy with the way gubernatorial candidates are talking about reforming the education system, and that while it is difficult to to make changes even at a glacial pace to the system, it is an important priority.
Wendy Block, Executive Vice President of Business Advocacy with the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said it all comes down to having the right conditions, and cannot just be an increase of minimum wage without a stronger talent pipeline.
She argued that businesses want to pay a competitive wage, but it is hard to do that without first increasing the workforce participation rate.
Block also said the state needs to pick one strategy and stay with it, whether that’s “economic gardening” with regulatory changes or targeted incentives, because companies need to have certainty, not the “flip-flopping” happening in Lansing now.
“We’re sending a lot of mixed messages to the business community, and that is not good for job creation and job growth in our state,” Block said.
Glazer said policy has to swing toward academic rigor, to create more college ready high school students while boosting completion rates as well as creating high-density neighborhoods with public transit.
There is “no good way for policymakers to mandate their way to economic prosperity,” Block said.
‘Lies,’ Digs, and Discussion of State Policy: Gloves Come Off in First Benson, James Debate
If the race for governor was written off as uninteresting or sleepy to onlookers only a few weeks ago, that assessment likely changed after a viewing of the cage match between Jocelyn Benson and John James that aired on WOOD-TV on Tuesday evening.
By the numbers: 17 mentions of President Donald Trump, five times a candidate accused the other of lying (twice from Benson, thrice from James), 20 references to data centers, 24 times the price of gas or taxes on gas came up, seven mentions of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer by name, and two uses of the phrase “dirty as sin.”
Over the course of an hour, Benson and James aired the grievances that Michiganders have seen play out across dozens of attack ads on their local broadcast channels for the past two months: who’s taken which contributions, whose spouse is employed where, which candidate is to blame for issues at the state or federal level.
Moderator Rick Albin of WOOD-TV pressed the candidates on a series of state policy topics, pulling the candidates off their advertising talking points and away from the national themes that have infiltrated what is usually a Michigan-centric election cycle.
Among the opportunities offered and eagerly taken by both candidates to clear the air – and then rebut said air – on opposition research topics that have been ad fodder in recent weeks was considerable discussion of in-state topics, whether in the form of questions about how the next governor should approach regulations causing heartburn for homebuilders or retention of third graders who fail to meet reading benchmarks.
Benson and James hit points of particular friction on the issue of gasoline prices and affordability, as Benson called into question James’s record of voting against resolutions that would have limited Trump’s war powers in Iran in the U.S. House or to curtail presidential tariffs that have had an outsized effect on Michigan (see separate story).
“I’m open to suspending the state gas tax, but I also think we need to be clear how we got here. It’s because of a reckless war in Iran that my opponent has voted six times to support, and that is directly to blame for the rising cost of gas and oil in this nation right now. That’s why the federal government also has a responsibility to play,” Benson said. “My opponent could go, as I’ve asked him and others to do, to Washington tomorrow and eliminate or put a holiday on the federal gas tax, which would also provide necessary relief for Michigan families and families all across this nation. I know the costs have gone up more than any other state on … gas in Michigan, and that’s why we need people at the federal level to take responsibility for the mess they created and do something to reduce those costs.”
James replied that he had pressed for a federal gas tax holiday, as well as one at the state level. Tuesday marked the first time Benson stepped out in firm support for a state gas tax holiday, which she had said initially she was concerned about causing a hole in Michigan’s budget.
“This is just another example where my opponent used a whole bunch of words and didn’t say anything,” James said. “We know that I can’t go back and call Congress into session. That’s just foolish.”
Benson clarified to reporters later that although she expressed concern about the potential a state gasoline tax holiday might have for causing fiscal fallout, she had been open to the option. Her initial expression of disapproval, she said, was intended to place responsibility for a tax holiday on the federal government, where she believes action should be taken due to the Trump administration’s decision to pursue prolonged conflict overseas.
For each policy issue discussed, barbs were thrown between the candidates: on the issue of hyperscale data centers, both candidates said they support disallowing public officials from entering into nondisclosure agreements related to the projects, but Benson and James went back and forth on attacks that have been the subject of many a political ad.
“This is the woman who was slapped down by a judge for literally trying to manipulate a presidential ballot. (There’s) absolutely no excuse to retain information and keep it away from the people,” he said. “Her own running mate signed an NDA for what’s going on in Saline, and there’s countless other things and omissions that we don’t know about. I led this campaign with an ethics and transparency agenda because I understand how important it is to be ethical and transparent. … No NDAs.”
Benson drew attention to what she called James “becoming a millionaire by buying stock in the data center companies (he’s) charged with regulating,” a claim he dismissed as conjecture based on routine investments.
“When you consider having mutual funds and everything that’s disclosed, then sure (I have invested in data center companies), but to insinuate that somebody is on the take from anything is reckless, and frankly, it’s wrong, especially when you consider the fact that her family has not disclosed all its information,” James said. “We have been extremely transparent. We are in compliance with ethics, and we’ve been forthcoming and abiding with law.”
The exchange became heated when Benson interjected after James said she was “playing us, manipulating us and smiling at the camera right now, because she knows that she’s dirty as sin on this, and she’s throwing mud to make everybody else look worse.”
“Congressman, have you or have you not become a multimillionaire by buying stocks in the data center companies that you’re charged with regulating?” Benson asked.
“No, and you know better –” James responded before Benson cut him off.
“Have you or not voted to cut taxes on those same data center companies?” she pressed.
“Yeah, you can twist any facts and data, but the fact right now is your running mate actually passed Public Act 233 that ramrods these data centers down people’s throats, and to answer your question, no, it was actually debunked in Bridge that said that the bulk of the money that has been made is because of successful business,” James said. “And frankly, having a governor who understands how to run successful business is an experience that you do not have, as you would run this state economically into the ground.”
Each candidate had some moments where they erred. James wrongly claimed the state had blown its entire Budget Stabilization Fund. In fact, it has about $2 billion in it, a record.
Benson claimed James in February 2023 “voted to give Trump the power to impose these taxes, these tariffs on Michigan.” In 2023, Joe Biden was president, not Trump.
They tangled on Medicaid with Benson pounding James for supporting the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that will constrain Medicaid spending while James said he supports protecting Medicaid for those who need it.
Benson hit James repeatedly for not standing up to Trump. James insisted he had done so and countered Benson never stood up to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
The subject of the state’s at times troubled new web portal to submit and review campaign finance records, lobbying data, and personal financial disclosure, overseen by Benson with the Bureau of Elections within the Department of State also surfaced. The two were arguing about personal finances.
“My family’s personal finances have been disclosed, and you can go to the personal financial disclosure portal at michigan.gov/sos to see exactly that,” Benson said.
James asked, “Is it working?”
Benson replied: “Yes, it is. It’s always been working, actually.”
Fireworks, Barrage of Attacks Dominate First US Senate Debate Between El-Sayed, Rogers
For two months, Michigan’s U.S. Senate candidates have gone scorched earth on each other during an expensive and vicious general election campaign.
On Thursday night, Michigan voters were able to see Democrat Abdul El-Sayed’s and Republican Mike Rogers’ fiercely opposing views on full display mere feet apart from each other on their television screens, engaging in a bruising hour-long debate WOOD-TV and broadcast statewide and around the nation.
Viewers were treated – “We’re going to take a break from this pleasant conversation,” moderator Rick Albin said during the mid-way commercial break – to a nearly endless barrage of attacks unleashed by both candidates, at times devolving into lightning-fast back-and-forth arguments in which the two sought to talk over one another.
Rogers accused El-Sayed of lying about his medical credentials, pursuing policies that would raise costs even more and being backed by terrorist sympathizers. El-Sayed lobbed attacks at Rogers, arguing he only cares about power and backing President Donald Trump.
The debate touched rising costs, immigration enforcement, government surveillance, healthcare, and more with testiness on immediate display when the two were asked about spiking gasoline and diesel fuel prices stemming from Trump’s war with Iran.
El-Sayed said he would support pausing the federal gas tax while blaming Rogers and the Trump administration for the spike in fuel prices. He said it currently costs him $80 to fill his tank.
“I don’t know about you, but when I go to the gas tank, I don’t feel like I’m winning. I don’t feel like our country is winning,” El-Sayed said.
Rogers said he would support both the state and federal gasoline tax being suspended. He then blamed Democrats in the state Legislature for not taking up a state gas tax reduction before pivoting to El-Sayed’s overall policies, including on energy, saying they would cost Michigan residents even more.
“His policies will raise the cost of every gallon of gasoline, number one, raise your utility rates, cause you $20,000 for a Medicare for All plan that takes away private insurance from individuals,” Rogers said. “It is a disaster. We cannot afford Abdul El-Sayed.”
The candidates were asked if there should be emergency price controls on domestic production.
El-Sayed said he would be open to it before pivoting to the Iran war, saying Rogers has “a direct line to the president” and has not made sure the war will end but has instead been a cheerleader until his recent call for winding down the war.
“That’s what we’re electing a U.S. senator to do: to stand up to Donald Trump and end this stupid war,” El-Sayed said.
Rogers repeated his stance on gas tax suspensions before going after El-Sayed’s credentials.
“This guy is not what he says he is,” Rogers said. “He is selling the best con I’ve ever seen.”
El-Sayed is not licensed to practice medicine.
To this, El-Sayed cited his medical degree from Columbia. He added that the race is about affordability issues like gas and being able to see a doctor.
“When you’re running because Donald Trump called you and asked you to run, you can tell he’s not going to stand up to anyone,” El-Sayed said.
Rogers pushed back, saying he is running due to the loss of manufacturing jobs, rising utility rates and the state’s rankings nationally in education.
“My opponent, everything he’s talking about, he won’t talk about how to pay for it … because he can’t,” Rogers said.
The contentiousness between the two continued when the topic changed to Trump’s tariff policies, starting with when Rogers was asked about his recent shift in position on tariffs.
On Wednesday, Rogers released a campaign advertisement calling for an end to the trade war initiated by Trump between the United States and Canada.
In recent weeks, Rogers also began his calls for a suspension of gas taxes as well as ending the Iran conflict.
Rogers repeated a position that there are some tariffs that are going to be good for the state and others that are not, adding he would like to work with the administration to get rid of some tariffs and achieve a deal.
Rogers then said that El-Sayed “wants to raise the cost of everything you touch.”
To this, El-Sayed said he would support tariffs that are “actually logical,” which he said is not the case in what Trump has done. He called Rogers a cheerleader for the tariffs over his previous support before his recent pulling back.
“The reason he’s flip-flopping has nothing to do with policy, has nothing to do with your costs, has everything to do with his sagging poll numbers,” El-Sayed said.
Rogers defended the tariffs, saying there have been positives.
He said Detroit Diesel added another shift and that Chevy Silverado production is returning to Michigan. He pointed to preserving cherry production in the Traverse City area as well. Rogers said El-Sayed’s previously stated stance of combatting all of Trump’s tariffs is misguided.
“He wants to undo it because he can’t see past his own political rhetoric,” Rogers said. “We didn’t change. What we said is things move; we’re trying to get it wrapped up. We want a deal on those tariff deals.”
To this, El-Sayed called Rogers weak and cowardly with his stance on tariffs. He then rattled off attacks against his opponent for corporate campaign contributions and his votes in Congress on healthcare, which sparked the first of several heated back-and-forth exchanges between the two which Albin, the moderator, tried to shut down.
Rogers countered the corporate campaign contributions attack by pointing to El-Sayed’s fundraising in recent weeks with Democratic U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. He also repeatedly cited Democratic billionaire George Soros, who has held at least one major fundraiser for El-Sayed.
To this, El-Sayed began listing off corporations he said Rogers had obtained contributions from and a company he was an advisor for after leaving Congress.
On healthcare, the two continued to go at each other.
When asked about criticism of his support for Medicare for All, that it would strip people of their private insurance and raise costs, El-Sayed said people who want to keep their private insurance would be able to do so. He added that he wants to ensure people have coverage uninterrupted by life events like a new job or marriage.
Rogers defended his support of the 2025 federal tax law that led to healthcare changes, including cuts to Medicaid. He said the tens of billions in additional funding for rural hospitals was a positive aspect of the law changes.
He then said he supported passage of the Medicare D program while in Congress before ripping his opponent as repetitive in his claims but lacking in substance.
“He’s kind of like a twitchy AI chatbot,,” Rogers said.
El-Sayed scoffed at Rogers’ talk about healthcare and repeated his attacks that Rogers has voted against lowering prices and supporting pharmaceutical industry wishes.
“This is a guy who has not been serious about providing people healthcare his entire career,” El-Sayed said. “What he has been serious about is making sure that he can monetize his time in public office.”
During many exchanges, Albin had to push hard to keep the proceedings from dissolving into a free-for-all with the candidates talking over each other.
At one point the two candidates were interrupting each other so much that Albin said, “I’d like to be part of the debate, too,” before moving to the next question, which was on the candidates’ stances on Israel.
Rogers was asked if there is anything the country could do that would lead him to withdraw support.
“I support, just staunchly, their right to exist. The right to exist for the Jewish state. And the right to defend itself in a very difficult neighborhood,” Rogers said. “And if you think about why my opponent is so wrong on all of this, his biggest funders … are from a group that supports the Muslim Brotherhood. He gets money from people who support, openly Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda.”
Rogers said “the most important thing that we do when we go back to Washington is keep America safe.” Still, he was pressed about what the country could do to lose his support.
“Listen, if they are talking about using nuclear weapons they would definitely lose my support,” he said. “But I’ve never heard them say that though.”
El-Sayed was asked if he would support defensive weapons if Israel were attacked by Iran and said he wants tax dollars spent in the United States.
“I want to make sure we’ve got good schools here. Healthcare here. I want to make sure we are taking care of people here. That is my priority,” he said. “You asked a hypothetical question about being attacked by Iran. But let’s be honest about what happened here. Israel has pushed us to go to war in Iran and of course my colleague, who thinks there is a war for everything, went right along with it. Israel had clear war aims. They wanted us to go to war with them. And their war aims were what? The annexation of southern Lebanon. Ask yourself, are we safer because of that war?”
When pressed on if he would vote to provide defensive weapons if Israel were attacked, El-Sayed said, “I don’t want our tax dollars buying weapons for other countries.”
The attacks did not end with the debate’s conclusion; they spilled over into the post-debate comments to reporters.
Rogers was asked what the biggest difference is running against El-Sayed compared to now-U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin in 2024.
“He is an absolute lightweight on policy,” Rogers said, saying he has no depth on issues. “I thought Elissa Slotkin was at least policy savvy. … He’s just, he’s a rote candidate; says the same thing over and over, every answer.”
When asked about this attack, El-Sayed sought to turn the attack back on him, using healthcare.
“What did his healthcare book say?” El-Sayed said. “He didn’t write one. He couldn’t write it. Lightweight? I actually write my ideas out.”
Gilchrist, Forlini Go Back and Forth on Election Denialism, Experience in SOS Debate
Thursday evening’s true must-see debate, about 130 miles down the road from the U.S. Senate faceoff in Grand Rapids, featured Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist II and Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini, looking to differentiate themselves from each other in the secretary of state race with a little more than three weeks to go.
The candidates met onstage at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy for a debate hosted in partnership with Gongwer | State Affairs and Bridge Michigan. Republican Forlini and Democrat Gilchrist each made appeals to voters beyond their partisan affiliations, emphasizing their professional experiences and records in public service, and sparred on how the state ought to interact with the federal government on elections.
Forlini emphasized his experience at running elections as a county clerk while working in a few digs at Gilchrist, calling out his absences presiding over the Senate. Gilchrist focused on his technology expertise as a big asset to the Department of State, especially at a time when data privacy is so important and the department possesses so much sensitive information about residents. He continued to tie Forlini to President Donald Trump and election denialism.
Forlini said he would work to assure election systems are working properly and root out any voters who should not be on the rolls. Gilchrist repeatedly hammered at Forlini for hiring someone onto his staff that participated in what turned into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol when supporters of President Donald Trump tried to prevent the certification of the 2020 election won by President Joe Biden.
“Michigan elections have been proven to be secure and to be accurate time and time again,” Gilchrist said. “The people of Michigan need to be able to trust that process.”
Forlini shot back that he’s the only candidate on the stage “that is not an election denier” – a shot at Gilchrist’s criticism while a 2017 Detroit city clerk candidate that the city’s election processes had serious problems and at frustration over nonrecountable precincts when he requested a recount.
“He felt disenfranchised,” Forlini said. “It’s people like that I’m here for. I’m here for people across the board, so they can get fair elections.”
Later in the debate, Gilchrist, asked how his criticism of Detroit’s election systems and the 2017 recount differed from the election denialism he accuses Forlini of committing, said he never questioned who won the election.
At one point, Gilchrist noted that Forlini had not directly answered who won the 2020 presidential election. Forlini later said Biden was certified as the winner, and it was that simple.
In a post-debate interview with Gongwer, Forlini said he felt good about his performance and was glad to have been able to emphasize his experience as a local election official.
“I think we were able to point out that the strength of being an experienced clerk is important for the secretary of state’s office. It’s the reliability of showing up to work, something that’s a big contrast between myself and my opponent,” he said, referencing remarks he made during the debate about Gilchrist’s attendance record as president of the Senate. “And the fact that I’m not very political, I work across the board, and I’ve got plenty of Democrats that have supported me.”
Gilchrist said he felt the debate presented a clear choice for Michiganders looking to elect a secretary of state that will handle statewide administration of the next presidential election and the final years of the second Trump administration.
“I think the contrast is pretty clear. The people of Michigan know that I’ll be a secretary of state who will stand up for the rights and voice of Michiganders, who won’t follow the president or anybody else, who can stop him from hijacking our election authority,” he said. “I’ll protect our privacy as the chief privacy officer of the state of Michigan, and I’ll use my authority to get the dirty and dark money out of our politics and help provide the doorway to Michigan for everybody to walk through it. My opponent is somebody who has brought in election-denying people who tried to overthrow the government to recruit coworkers and train clerks. (He is) someone who will do whatever Trump asks him, but I’ll do what the people ask of me.”
The candidates discussed several issues on which they shared views, like making secretary of state services more accessible to users either via brick-and-mortar locations that are located in areas where people frequently shop or increasing self-service kiosk offerings.
Both candidates talked about wanting to make walk-in services easily available alongside appointments for those who may struggle to use online booking or in instances where a customer may find themselves with a gap in the day and nearby a secretary of state location with a service to complete.
The two disagreed on whether Michigan’s petition-vetting system for ballot proposals needs changes. Forlini said the experience of the Americans for Citizens Voting, which fell just short of having enough valid signatures for ballot access, shows change is needed because the Bureau of Elections waited until the last moment to vet their signatures, and there was not enough time to rebut.
Gilchrist said amending the Constitution should be difficult, and the system worked.
Forlini emphasized his work streamlining systems in Macomb County, like eliminating voicemail from the clerk’s office phones so people who called would have to be served, while Gilchrist leaned on lessons from his time as a software developer that he said would inform how he views the role of secretary of state as a “chief privacy officer” if elected.
“If you want a secretary of state who’s going to protect your privacy, you vote for me. My opponent gave away private voter data to Donald Trump. I’ll never do that,” Gilchrist said in an interview with Gongwer post-debate. “If you want a secretary of state who makes sure that we get to run our elections in Michigan and we’re not bowing down to any authority or interference from the federal government, I’m (who) you should support … I’ve listened to the people of Michigan, gotten to know the communities of Michigan, every part of this state. I’ve been and delivered value to people. That’s what I’ll do as secretary of state.”
On issues of campaign finance, both candidates discussed transparency and agreed on the need for increased accountability for public officials in reporting their information. They struck a difference on the Michigan Transparency Network, or MiTN, whose bugs and user issues the next secretary of state will inherit alongside pressure from lawmakers to improve the platform.
Forlini talked about the process of formulating a campaign finance reporting system at the county level, which he said has worked well and was done for little money in Macomb County.
“We did it at a cost of $20,000, and it works fabulous. Everybody loves it,” Forlini said. “My (campaign) treasurer is driving me nuts (about) the state system. The problem with the state system is it is very difficult to look at these things. My opponent even has a violation in his PAC because money was going in and out; other organizations have said they receive money or send money but it doesn’t show in the PAC (report).”
Gilchrist shot back that he believes his background in engineering will position him to take on the problems facing MiTN and handle them in the open.
“That kind of problem solving and stability is the kind of training I got on this campus as an engineer, as a system builder, fixing what’s broken and building what’s needed. That’s what the people of Michigan expect from their systems in state government,” he said. “That’s what we expect from our systems of democracy. That’s what I have experienced. Only one person on this stage has actually built systems and made them work for people.”
Forlini and Gilchrist each expressed confidence heading into the final weeks of the cycle, which for both will contain heavy travel. For Forlini, it will also include running one more election in Macomb County: asked what the home stretch looks like for him, the clerk made a joke.
“Hell,” he said. “Ask me on election night.”
With Lawmakers Still Out, Whitmer Says She Won’t ‘Give People False Hope’ by Saying She’d Greenlight Gas Tax Holiday
With less than a month to go before Election Day and mixed responses from both sides of the aisle on how to handle fuel prices that are still sitting at a nationwide high in the Great Lakes states, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was frank about the chances of one widely discussed option coming to pass when asked on Monday.
“We’re taking a look at the additional things we can do, but without the Legislature in town, a lot of things are not possible,” Whitmer responded when asked whether she would sign a measure suspending the state’s gasoline tax if one were to be moved by lawmakers in Lansing.
Whitmer said she doesn’t see a version of events where the current Legislature convenes to send such a bill to her desk, given the Senate’s plan to hold session without attendance or voting on Tuesday. Efforts among legislative Republicans and their counterparts on the campaign trail, including gubernatorial candidate John James, to rally support for a gasoline tax holiday at the state level appeared to hit a wall when House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, voiced opposition.
After tomorrow’s no attendance, no voting session day, two chambers are both scheduled to hold session next on Oct. 14.
“I don’t want to give people a false sense of hope,” Whitmer said of prognosticating on how she would act on a bill that has yet to move. “The odds of it happening don’t look very realistic, so what I am focused on is what is possible.”
As Michiganders turn their eyes this week to Grand Rapids for debates between candidates for governor and U.S. Senate, Whitmer said she’ll be paying attention as a voter herself and listening for solutions that can be pursued at the state and federal levels.
“I want people who are going to fight for Michiganders, right? We’ve worked really hard to put more money in people’s pockets, but the Trump war with Iran is what is jacking up the costs. This craziness around chaos and tariffs and vilifying our neighbors to the north and to the south; that is not productive. That doesn’t help anyone put food on the table or gas in the tank,” she said. “What we need is real leadership in Washington, D.C., to make sure that we don’t have a bunch of yes people, but people who are actually going to deliver for Michiganders. That’s what we’ve done these last eight years, and that’s what I know Michigan voters all across the state want to hear from those who want to earn our votes in the upcoming election.”
Whitmer was emphatic that despite cost-cutting actions performed by state government, like rolling the retirement tax, increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families or possibly suspending the sales tax on gas, culpability for spiked prices and irregularities in the economy due to the Iran war or trade conflicts lies in Washington. Without a willingness to cooperate from the federal government, she said, states are left without any real solution.
“We’ve done a lot to help people, but what I can’t do is stop the Iran War, which is what Donald Trump has decided to do, and that’s what’s jacking up costs on people. I’m mad about it too. I know that people are hurting because of that. That’s why where we can help people at the state level, we will try to,” she said. “But at the end of the day, it is the tariffs and the war that is creating this pain from an administration that promised that they’d help people get ahead, and they’ve done exactly the opposite. And I hope that we hear more about that as this campaign comes to a close, and that we elect people who are going to fight back and make sure that Washington actually delivers for people instead of makes life harder.”