One debate isn’t enough

This was the largest lead since June for Snyder in any of the dozen poll tracked by HuffPost Pollster. It wasn´t entirely unexpected. Like a prize fight, Schauer needs a convincing win to claim the championship, and to date it´s been a fight of body blows. Which another poll suggests may be working.

The latest automated poll of 1,306 likely voters, done for Fox 2 in Detroit, gave Snyder 47 percent of the vote and Schauer 46 percent. Only 3 percent of those surveyed on Oct. 10 said they were undecided. The race according to this poll is essentially tied.

It´s likely that the Detroit News poll overstates Snyder´s appeal and that the Fox 2 poll is a bit too favorable toward Schauer. Sill, the race is very tight, and the debate between the candidates Sunday evening was pretty much a draw. Schauer demonstrated the ELECTION 2014 political gravitas to contend against a sitting governor. But he didn´t deliver the crusher needed to derail Snyder. And he pulled a Terri Lynn Land by refusing to meet with reporters after the debate as he´d promised. He needs all of the publicity he can get.

The debate unfolded along familiar lines: Snyder highlighted his belief that Michigan´s economy is improving, defended his Detroit “grand bargain” bailout plan, asked for more time to work out troublesome Aramark prison food services contract and stumbled over his unwillingness to take a stance on samesex marriage. Schauer, mostly in the attack mode, criticized cuts to classroom education spending, Snyder´s tax on pension income and tax cuts for business. He was clear in his support for gay rights and correctly pointed out measures Snyder has taken in the other direction. He never brought up the state´s anti-labor right-to-work law.

Snyder has agreed to only one debate, which is unfortunate. Another debate would allow both candidates to help voters understand some very clear differences in how they approach significant issues. The people deserve better.

* * * * As for the other races, the decision by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to pull its television advertising for Terry Lynn Land pretty much assures Democrat Gary Peters of a November win. He has consistently led Land in polls and private polling by the Republican´s likely shows that she has no chance to win. But at least she tried – well, sort of.

Which is more than you can say for some seeking state and local offices. A shocking number of candidates declined to respond to the Ingham County League of Women Voters survey.

For the Michigan Senate District 23 seat being vacated by Gretchen Whitmer, Republican Craig L. Whitehead did not respond to the league´s survey in time to be included in its Voters Guide. Same with the Lansing State Journal´s Voters Guide. Granted Democrat Curt Hertel Jr., Ingham County Register of Deeds was from the start of the campaign a likely winner in the East Lansing centric district. But show a little respect for voters.

Whitehead is hardly alone. Also snubbing the League´s bid to aid voters and not bothering to respond to questions about their positions were these Republicans: For the Michigan House District 67; John L Hayhoe; for the Michigan House District 68 seat: Rob Secaur; for the Michigan House District 69 seat: Frank L Lambert.

For the Ingham County Legislature these candidates, again, all Republicans, didn´t provide basic information to the League: In District 1, John McNamara; District 3, Beverly Hansen; District 4, Vickie Niklas; District 7, Anthony Markwort; District 8, Alasdair Whitney; District 9, Derek M. Drushel; District 10, Michelle Gormas; and District 12, Jim Hershiser.

The race for trustee seats on the Lansing Community College board is nonpartisan. These candidates provided no information for the League´s voters guide: Angela L. Mathews, Kris T. Nicholoff and Kevin Colman O’Malley.

You have to ask yourself why you would run for these offices if you were obviously disinterested in competing. But better for voters to learn before the election about these candidates´ character than after they are in office.

* * * *

There are a handful of significant county proposals for voters. Some are renewals; other will increase people´s taxes.

In Ingham County there is a proposal to fund a county system of trails and parks with a 0.5 mil (50 cents per $1,000 of assessed value) to be levied for six years — 2014 through 2019. It would raise $3.5 million the first year. County voters also will be asked to vote on a renewal for for Ingham County Health Services. It provides basic health care services for those not eligible for Medicaid under the Federal Affordable Care Act and with income less than $28,000. The levy is .52 mills (52 cents per $1,000 of assessed value). It would raise $3.4 million in the first year.

Eaton County is tackling roads with a millage proposal to fund rehabilitation, restoration and resurfacing. The proposal seeks 1.5 mils ($1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value) for 12 years – 2014 through 2025. It would raise $4.9 million in the first year.

Other proposal: In Lansing, voters will be asked whether they want to vest the mayor with “emergency powers” over the Lansing Board of Water and Light during a crisis and also whether they want to expand the BWL board to include three non-voting members from communities that get their power from the utility.

There is also a Lansing proposal to sell Grant Woods Park, located along the southern banks of the Grand River, just west of Waverly Road. It isn´t in the city.

East Lansing wants permission to sell a passel of parcels west Abbot Road for potential mixed-use development. This is the latest iteration of the tortured City Center project.

There are dozens of other local-local proposals to fund schools, fix roads, sell buildings and amend local charters. There also is the statewide referendum on establishing a hunting season for wolves and a related referendum that would grant the Natural Resources Commission the power to designate wolves and certain other animals as game without legislative action.

Even if you don´t really care about wolf hunting, taking the power away from the Legislature is worth a yes vote. It´s just the sort of issue that legislators love. They don´t need the distraction.