Skip to content

Post Election analysis: Don’t get comfortable, resist state oppression, practice solidarity, take risks and fight like hell for collective liberation

November 10, 2026

“Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens against the obstacles to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”    Howard Zinn

A week has not passed since election day and I find myself in a space here I have some fears and concerns.

I remember attending a big rally in 1992 along the lakeshore in Chicago, just months before the Presidential Election. The crowd was estimated to be 100,000 to hear speakers and listen to musicians. There were civil rights activists, LGBTQ activists and anti-war activists, but the person I remember the most was a labor organizer from El Salvador.

The labor organizer from El Salvador talked about the US-backed counterinsurgency war and the challenges his union faced against the Salvadoran death squads. Near the end of his comments he implored people to not forget about what the US was doing in El Salvador and that is Clinton was elected President it would not change the relationship between the US and his country.

When Bill Clinton entered the White House a few months later his administration continued to fund the Salvadoran death squads and the counterinsurgency war the US was waging with the Salvadoran dictatorship.

One of the fears I have in the coming months and years is that all of the euphoria that people are experiencing because of the Democratic Party victories will not translate into substantive change for people, especially the most marginalized. Will the Democrats make it a priority to Abolish ICE, will they end the US war against Iran and stop funding the Israeli genocide in Gaza? Will the Democratic control of Congress result in Medicare for All, for ending Citizens United, and a massive reduction is US military spending? Will the Democratic Party put an end to the war on trans people, call out police killings of Black people, embrace Climate Justice principles, stop providing massive subsidies and tax breaks to corporations, really tax the billionaire class, release the Epstein files and embrace a living wage for all people?

I don’t expect the Democratic Party to do these things, because they don’t really have a history of doing them. My read on history is that whatever meaningful gains we have made have come from social movements – civil rights, LGTBQ, anti-war, tenant unions, climate justice, environmental justice, disability justice, worker movements and immigrant justice movements.

When the FDR Administration implemented worker rights, social security and other policies that benefited working class people, it was not because FDR thought these were good ideas. The Roosevelt administration, coming into office, faced a nation in turmoil. The unemployed were rioting in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York and Seattle. In 1934, strikes broke out all over. There was a general strike in Minneapolis, a general strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on strike in the textile mills of the South. Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to put back the furniture of evicted tenants.

Because there was so much resistance happening all around the country, the FDR Administration was essentially forced to adopt New Deal policies or face even more uprisings from the general public. Civil Rights legislation was adopted during the Johnson Administration because there were hundreds of thousands of people protesting in the streets, getting arrested in the lunch counter sit-ins, and Freedom Riders getting beaten by racists for the whole world to see.

I get that people are excited by the election last week, but that was the easy part and now we have to make, indeed, to force politicians to do what we want.

I am concerned about this possibility, because I have witnessed over and over again in my adult life where white liberal have become comfortable when Democrats are in the White House, control Congress or have the majority on the state level.

During the Clinton years NAFTA was put into place, the Crime Bill was adopted, the welfare system was dismantled, the prison industrial complex grew, immigrants were criminalized and the US provide billions to Israel, maintain the economic blockage against Cuba, began the expansion of NATO, sent the US military to Haiti, bombed Sudan and the former Yugoslavia, attacked Somalia, and bombed Iraq regularly, along with imposing economic sanctions on Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.

During the Obama Administration he bailed out Wall Street, did not pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform, deported over 3 million immigrants, allowed the wealth gap to grow, continued US imperialism abroad, supported the coup in Honduras, escalated the war in Afghanistan, maintained $3 billion annually in funding to Israel and overthrew the government of Libya.

During the Biden Administration funding for the police was increased, there was no prosecution of those in the first Trump Administration, a failure to increase the federal minimum wage, did not end student debt, deported roughly 4 million immigrants, increased the US military budget, allowed for an increase of oil drilling in the US, saw the billionaire class grow, saw housing costs and housing insecurity increase, along with unconditionally supporting and funding Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The worst part of those years is that so many democrats just defended those administrations, often using the weak ass argument that Republicans would be worse.

What was instructive is that during the Clinton Administration there was a resurgence of the labor movement and a radical anti-globalization movement. During the Obama years there was the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Movement for Black Lives. During the Biden years there was the ongoing immigrant justice movement, the Defund the Police movement, the Rent is Too Damn High movement and a Palestine Solidarity Movement.

Social Movements were born during Democratic Party control, because they did not meet the needs of so many people around so many critical issues. In a recent article from Crimethinc, entitled, The Hot Potato Changes Hands Again: On the 2026 Midterm Elections:

The core issue at the root of the hot potato pattern is that the existing political order cannot address the instability, disparities, and crises of a capitalist system that has concentrated most of the wealth of society in the hands of a few while inflicting grievous social, psychological, and ecological damage on the rest of us. No political party will initiate the kind of revolutionary transformation that will be required to shift to a more egalitarian and sustainable way of life; such change can only come from grassroots mobilization. As long as there is no widespread, powerful social movement that offers the prospect of addressing these problems through profound change, people will continue rejecting one government after another in increasing desperation.

The article continues by stating:

At best, the election results should function as a mandate for grassroots resistance to the Trump administration’s policies, not as a pressure valve for anxiety about them. We must build the grassroots capacity to defend and care for our communities. If we succeed, Democratic politicians will probably try to co-opt whatever we have achieved by offering to do the same things for us through the state. But they will only offer us what we demonstrate the ability to accomplish ourselves, and it is better to develop the ability to address needs directly and consistently than for the well-being of our communities to depend on the outcome of elections.

Don’t get comfortable, don’t blindly defend the Democrats, and don’t think that fascism is gone. Get involved in social movement work, practice Mutual Aid, resist state oppression, practice solidarity, take risks and fight like hell for collective liberation.

New communications to Grand Rapids City Commission on their unanimous vote to exempt the Amphitheater from the noise ordinance further demonstrates it is a class issue

November 9, 2026

At the last Grand Rapids City Commission meeting there was a public hearing regarding  the issue of exempting the new downtown Amphitheater from the City’s noise ordinance.

I wrote about who spoke at this hearing, where a majority of people opposed the noise ordinance exemption. I noted that there were three business people – all connected to the DeVos family – who commented about half way through the public hearing. I then went on to write:

These three corporatists and DeVos family operatives who spoke was not lost on those who spoke afterwards, those who were not happy about the invasive noise coming from the Amphitheater. In fact, one person made the point of saying that it was instructive to hear these three speakers who represent business interests and how they were received as opposed to how regular folks, folks who are part of the working class, how they were treated by the City Commission. It was a lovely moment of class consciousness, despite the fact that the City Commission unanimously vote to exempt the Amphitheater from the noise ordinance.

Out of curiosity I checked the agenda packet for the November 10 City Commission meeting, which you can find here, and there continued to be communications send it regarding the unanimous vote on October 27 to exempting the Amphitheater from the City’s ordinance. There were roughly an equal number in support and against the vote, but let me begin with some of the comments from those who opposed exempting the Amphitheater from the City’s noise ordinance.

“During Sept 9, I heard the amphitheater both inside and outside my home. My house

was shaking lol. For me, this meant not okay! I just bought my house and did not sign up for this unexpected obnoxious and totally avoidable distraction.”

“Surely the City knew noise would be an issue, particularly bass noise. This ordinance needs to stand to protect people who have built their lives on the edge of downtown. The spectators IN the amphitheater can surely hear the music just fine. Please reconsider this action.”

“We are fed up with being ignored!”

“That every person who votes yes must be required to sit in someone’s home during the

performances where the sound is penetrating and invading people’s personal space.

They must sit in that home during the entire invasion of noise and feel what it’s like to

have it so pervasive and invasive.”

“On 7/26, I heard the amphitheater inside my home. I could hear very loud base and music. It woke up my husband, myself and my children, who all had sound machines on while we were sleeping.”

“I could hear it over my TV show. If I were having a party that loud the police would come to my home. I could not sleep with my windows open.”

“Also there were other times when we could just feel the vibration of the bass drums with our windows closed. I thought about older people, people working early the next day or families with kids who needed to sleep or get up for school.”

“Make the amphitheater put up sound barriers. The sound traveling all the way over to my home, about 3.5 miles away, is ridiculous and the result of poor sound engineering.”

“Represent your constituents and recognize the fact that you would not be considering making this change to a legitimate ordinance if any one of us, your constituents, were operating outside of any ordinance parameters.”

“On July 17,2026, I heard the amphitheater both inside and outside my home. Base, boom, boom , even with earplugs ,I live 7 miles away there is absolutely no reason for it to be so loud. It actually has health risk. I get up at 4am for work. This noise pollution affects my sleep and performance at work. No to letting we the people vote on this matter. A few greedy people put money before anything or anybody.”

“I have to get up early for work, and I found it difficult to sleep due to the constant bass noise, which can travel for miles. I also have a condition called misophonia, a sound sensitivity associated with neurodivergence that can cause significant overstimulation in response to certain noises.”

“I live just over 2 miles away and I could hear/feel the thumping of the EDM as well as multiple concerts this summer. You disappoint me as mayor.”

I am not going to quote people who supported the City’s unanimous vote to exempt the Amphitheater from the City’s noise ordinance, but I do want to provide the names and profession of the people who support the commission’s vote.

  • Bradley Thomas – Progressive Companies which was involved in the development of the Amphitheater and is involved in the soon to be opened soccer stadium.
  • Doug Dozeman – attorney and partner for Warner Norcross & Judd.
  • Bryan Harrison – Government Affairs Manager for Amway.
  • Javier Olvera – Co-owner and President of Olvera Enterprises
  • Kara Harrison-Gates – Vice President of Plante Moran (which has contracts with the City)
  • Leonard Wernette-Leff – Account Manager for AVI-SPL
  • Maddy Miller – Event Coordinator Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce
  • Michael B Verhulst – Founder & CEO of Spesh Construction. Verhulst also site on the Board of Directors for the Grand Rapids-Kent County Convention/Arena Authority, which manages the Amphitheater.
  • Monica Steimle-App – Cofounder and CEO of Innovar Advisors.
  • Sherry Rennick – CEO of Perspective 3D
  • Wendy Ensing – Independent Business Owner at Legacy Finance Solutions, LLC.
  • Will Payne – CEO, TRELLIS and Curo Cleaning Services

It is hard not to see how those who are part of business class are all in favor of the City’s unanimous vote to exempt the Amphitheater from the noise ordinance, as compared to what residents, both home owners and renters feel about this matter.

The class division is abundantly clear on this matter as it has been with so many contentious issues facing Grand Rapids in recent years. The City of Grand Rapids has consistently sided with the interests of the Capitalist Class since 2020, like their response to the 2020 Uprising, their refusal to reduce funding to the GRPD, voting to adopt a GR Chamber initiated ordinance to criminalize the unhoused, voting to approve the use of public funds on the DeVos/Van Andel Three Towers project, and voting to approve the use of public funds on the Grand Action proposed projects like the Amphitheater and the soccer Stadium.

Ultimately, the Grand Rapids City Commission ends up rubber stamping whatever provides more funds to those in the Capitalist Class in the city, while ignoring and dismissing working class families, marginalized communities and the unhoused. Another example of West Michigan Nice!

Post Election analysis: Voters pass Prop 2, ending utility corporation campaign finance influence, but corporate contributions still a major problem in Michigan politics

November 9, 2026

Prop 2 won by an overwhelming margin in last Tuesday’s election. On the ballot the language for Prop 2 read as – A Proposed Initiated Law to Prohibit Campaign Contributions for Certain Regulated Utilites and Government Contractors and Apply Campaign Finance Laws and Regulations to Additional Types of Political Communications.

In Kent County 82.44% of voters said yes to Prop 2. In fact, there were 242,505 people in Kent County who voted for Prop 2, but only 51,641 voted against it, according to the Kent County Clerk’s office.

In addition, Prop 2 will do the following three things:

  • Prohibit regulated electric and gas utilities, contractors with over $250,000 annually in government contracts, and people and organizations with substantial connections to these utilities/contractors from making direct or indirect campaign contributions to those who run for or hold offices that impact them.
  • Expand laws regulating spending on political communications, including those requiring disclosing donor information, to apply to communications clearly identifying candidates or ballot questions, even if they do not expressly advocate voting for/against them.
  • Expressly apply the law requiring disclosure of who paid for political communications to internet political communications.

However, the campaign for Prop 2 said Money Out of Politics, which is why there have been lots of people who thought all corporate money or PAC money would be banned from future elections in Michigan. Prop 2 is a good start, but corporate and PAC money will still wield tremendous influence in Michigan electoral politics.

For example, let’s look at the state races that were on the ballot in Kent County and how many candidates took money from members of the local oligarchy, corporate funds and PACs. I am listing just a few of the largest.

State Senator – 18th District

Anthony Pennock (D): MEA PAC $3,000, MI Rural PAC $500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/committee-to-elect-anthony-pennock-state-senator-0606448

Thomas A. Albert (R): Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $5,500, Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $3,600, Family Business Owners of MI PAC $3,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/thomas-albert-for-state-senate-520305-can

State Senator – 20th District

Dale Murney (D): McCann for Michigan Fund $2,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/committee-to-elect-dale-murney-0612975

Chris Moraitis (R): Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $5,500, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $5,000, TGIF Victory Fund $5,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/chris-moraitis-for-state-senate-0608612

State Senator – 29th District

Abbie Groff-Blaszak (D): Grand Rapids Firefighters Union PAC $2,500, Lee – Texas PAC $2,450, Michigan League for Conservation Voters PAC $2,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/abbie-groff-blaszak-for-state-senate-0611665

Brady A. Middleton (R): No PAC or corporate money

State Senator – 30th District

Carol Glanville (D): International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $25,250, The PAC for America’s Future Michigan $24,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/friends-of-carol-glanville-0610967

Mark E. Huizenga (R): Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $24,500, MI Assoc of Community Bankers of Michigan PAC $8,500, Small Business Association of Michigan $8,500, Moving Michigan Forward Fund $7,350 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/mark-huizenga-can

State Senator – 33rd District

Stan Opal (D): Local 324 PAC $10,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/committee-to-elect-stan-opal-to-state-senate-0613125

Gina Johnsen (R): Michigan Families First PAC $24,000, Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $7,400, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $6,500, Family Business Owners of MI PAC $3,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/gina-johnsen-can

State Representative – 78th District

Rachel Gross (D): Michigan Nurses Association PAC $1,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/rachel-gross

Brandon Strong (R): Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $1,750, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $1,500, Michigan Electric Cooperatives PAC $1,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/brandon-strong

State Representative – 79th District

Zach Abbott (D): Michigan Rural PAC $500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/committee-to-elect-zach-abbott-0610444

Angela Rigas (R): Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $4,000, Family Business Owners of MI PAC $1,500, Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $1,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/angela-rigas

State Representative – 80th District

Lily Cheng-Schulting (D): Michigan League for Conservation Voters PAC $1,000, MEA PAC $500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/lily-cheng-schulting

Doug Lee (R): No PAC or corporate money

State Representative – 81st District

Stephen Wooden (D): Elevate Michigan $12,250, Puri PAC $12,250, Meijer PAC $9,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/stephen-wooden

Holly DeBoer (R): No PAC or corporate money

State Representative – 82nd District

Kristian Grant (D): Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $12,500, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $7,000, Michigan League for Conservation Voters PAC $7,000, Meijer PAC $6,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/kristian-grant

Ryan Malinoski (R): No PAC or corporate money

State Representative – 83rd District

John Fitzgerald (D): Comcast Corporation and NbcUniversal PAC $6,500, Automobile Club of Michigan PAC $6,000, Health Care Association of Michigan PAC $5,000, Dte Energy Company PAC $3,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/john-fitzgerald

Cindy Ramirez (R): TGIF Victory Fund $5,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/the-committee-to-elect-cindy-ramirez-0612434

State Representative – 84th District

Khristian Silvis (D): Emilys List Michigan $12,250, Building Bridges PAC $5,000, Grand Rapids Firefighters Union PAC $3,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/khristian-silvis

Drew Jake Robbins (R): TGIF Victory Fund $12,250, Grand Rapids Police Officers Assoc PAC $5,000, Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $1,500

State Representative – 89th District

Meegan Zickus (D): No PAC or corporate money

Joe Moss (R): TGIF Victory Fund $5,000, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $1,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/joe-moss

State Representative – 90th District

Rachel Crowther (D): No PAC or corporate money

Lynn Afendoulis (R): Michigan Society of Anesthesiologists PAC $10,000, Family Business Owners of MI PAC $3,500, Cms Energy Corp Employees for Better Government $2,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/lynn-afendoulis-for-state-representative-0612849

State Representative – 91st District

Frank Lafata (D): Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters PAC $5,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/frank-lafata

Pat Outman (R): Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Assoc PAC $7,500, Comcast Corporation and NbcUniversal PAC $5,000, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $4,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/patrick-outman-can

In looking at the state races that were specific to Kent County you can see that nearly $200,000 in PAC money was contributed for the ones that I listed. As I stated earlier, Prop 2 was a good start, but we need to eliminate PAC money, corporate contributions and significantly limit the amount that those with deep pockets can contribute to candidates. This is why electoral politics, particularly at the federal and state level looks less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy.

Learning from the past: 41 years ago Calvin students and faculty won a divestment campaign in the international South African Anti-Apartheid campaign

November 8, 2026

The South African Anti-Apartheid movement was a global movement that took decades to dismantle the legal system of apartheid in South Africa.

The anti-Apartheid movement used numerous strategies and tactics, which were primarily driven by direct actions, boycotts, divestments, disruptions and tens of thousands of people engaging in civil disobedience. People did not vote to end apartheid in South Africa, it ended because of a mass global movement, something we should not lose site of if we are serious about working towards structure change in the present.

In Grand Rapids, there were several anti-Apartheid campaigns that were successful, including the Grand Rapids Public Schools and the City of Grand Rapids. Both of those entities adopted resolutions and put in place practices to divest from companies profiting off of the racist system of Apartheid in South Africa.

A third campaign was led by students from what was then called Calvin College. The students would then recruit Calvin faculty to be part of the campaign, which was eventually successful. What follows is a letter from one of the student organizers to Calvin administrators, a letter that was dated early November, 1985.

Dear Priorities Committee Member,

The following is a copy of a motion passed unanimously by Student Senate at its October 28 meeting. Part of the request was that the faculty join the Student Senate in making this resolution. This resolution now comes before the Priorities Committee for our discussion regarding its presentation to the entire faculty.

In the summer of 1984, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church condemned the Biblical defense of apartheid as heresy. The the autumn of 1985 apartheid remains the official policy of the South African government. Under this system of racial segregation, the injustice of minority oppression continues. Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of the Synod’s decision, we the Student Senate of Calvin College, resolve to commit ourselves to take the following action as a manifestation of our strong disapproval of the policy of apartheid and as an expression of our sincerest desire to see the system of apartheid dismantled and replaced by a system that recognizes the equality and oneness of all people before God their Creator: The Student Senate strongly urges Calvin College to divest itself of all holdings in corporations currently doing business in South Africa or transacting business with the government of South Africa.

Student Senate also mandates the Student Senate Executive Committee to draft letters to the companies from which we are recommending the divestment of Calvin College’s holdings expressing Student Senate’s concern regarding involvement in South Africa and explaining the reasons for our action.

Student Senate urges the Faculty to join us in making this resolution.

Very Truly yours,

Craig Knot

Student Body President

Coverage of the Anti-Apartheid efforts at Calvin can be found in the student newspaper, The Chimes, over a several year period.  One can see that there were ongoing efforts to educate the campus community on the issues centered around South African Apartheid, but most of the coverage was about the actual campaign of divestment.

Students and faculty had begun a campaign to get Calvin College to divest from any company profiting off of racist Apartheid policies. The Student Senate had done the research looking into how much money Calvin College had invested in companies doing business in South Africa and in a letter to the college president in October of 1985, they provide a breakdown of this money. (page 13)

One can see that the amount was not very large, especially when compared to larger colleges and universities across the country, but the amount was not relevant to the students organizing around the campaign. in fact, the students deeply involved in the campaign had very well thought out arguments in response to those who questioned the efficacy of divestment (pages 16 – 21)

This well organized campaign paid off, when the finance committee of the Board of Trustees decided to divest Calvin College funds from two companies in November of 1986. The Chimes article (page 9) on this action states,  According to President DeWit, “These two companies were right on the verge of the legitimate classification in the Sullivan system. It was proper, rather than to press the point, to sell them.”

It was the efforts of people at institutions such as Calvin College, using the tactic of divestment, which eventually dismantled the Apartheid policies of South Africa.

For more information on the Grand Rapids anti-Apartheid Movement, especially source material, go to this link. For coverage by the Calvin student newspaper go here.

Post Election analysis: Kent County Sheriff response to the millage defeat for the Kent County Jail

November 7, 2026

On Election Day voters in Kent County voted against the millage for the Kent County Jail, which appeared on the November 3rd ballot with this title – Kent County Millage Renewal and Increase Corrections and Detention Facilities.

I wrote about this millage effort, along with the organized effort to defeat said millage. The no vote on this millage is a clear indication that taxpayers do not have confidence in the Kent County Sheriff’s Office, that they reject government surveillance and that they oppose racial injustices perpetrated at the jail, especially their collaboration with ICE by engaging in detainers for ICE.

According to the Kent County Clerk’s office there were 174,341 votes (60.05%) against this millage, with 115,998 votes (39.95%) in favor. If you want to look at how the vote went in all 226 precincts you can see that breakdown at this link.

The day after the election the Kent County Sheriff’s Office posted a statement in response to the defeat of the millage. You can read the statement in its entirety here, but I wanted to point out two parts of the statement.

First, the statement says:

“Our corrections facility serves law enforcement agencies throughout Kent County. Its central intake operations provide shared booking, screening, custody, and care services. Helping residents understand those responsibilities and how they are funded will remain part of our work. We remain hopeful about our community’s continued partnership with the Sheriff’s Office.”

This part of the Sheriff’s Office statement is misleading in that it creates a narrative about how they want the public to view what they do. The language used in the above portion of the statement is administrative, but omits a great deal of the realities of what the Sheriff’s Office does, especially the role of the Kent County Jail. They also state they want continued partnership from the community. Lets be honest here, the only real partnership is with the other police departments in Kent County. The community at large does not partner with the Sheriff’s Office, especially since they have no say in the the funding, something that is decided by the Kent County Commission.

The second part of the statement I wanted to address states:

“I am proud of our deputies and staff, who do demanding work every day with professionalism, compassion, and dedication,” said Sheriff Bryan Muir. “We will continue supporting this team, working to provide the services our community expects and keeping the public informed as we plan for the future.”

Again, the language here is vague and clinical, with no indication that the Sheriff’s Office has a plan to truly engage the community to better understand what concerns the public has since the majority voted the millage down.

If the Kent County Sheriff’s Office really wants to know why 60% of voters voted against the millage then they might look at the three main objections to the millage that were part of the Urban Core Collective’s Power Fund, the group that ran the Vote No campaign.

There were three main objections to this millage:

Increased cost to taxpayers – An increase in taxes shows that the Sheriff’s Office has mismanaged public funds to run the jail, plus with the increased cost of living it is a kick in the teeth to the public to ask them to pay more for the Kent County Jail.

Racial Injustices that the jail perpetuates – The Kent County Sheriff’s office detains people for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as stated in their 2025 Policy and Procedures. In Kent County, Black people only make up 11.1% of the total population, but 47.5% of the incarcerated population. In 2025, 82% of charges at the time of booking at the Kent County Jail were for non-violent offenses; in other words, an overwhelming majority of people being held at the jail were being held for non-violent offenses. 53% of the charges at time of booking were for crimes of poverty.

Government surveillance – In February 2026, $750,000 of our tax dollars were used to develop the Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC). The RTIC, which is housed in the Sheriff’s office, processes videos and information from Flock cameras and other Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR). They are using our tax dollars to surveil us without our consent. We didn’t vote for this. According to the Sheriff’s office, 63% of people are detained at the jail for 47 hours or less, indicating that the Kent County Jail serves as a turnkey operation, detaining a majority of people for a short time frame when they could be back in the community.

These are the reasons why people voted against the millage, elements that are completely absent from the Kent County Sheriff’s Office statement. The public needs to keep pressuring the Kent County Commission on these matters and demand that the county conduct a year-long process for participatory budgeting so that anyone living in the county can determine how we want our tax dollars to be spent.

History of US Immigration Policy: Summary of GRIID Class week #7 – The US Immigration Deportation System

November 4, 2026

For anyone who could not join the class tonight or who couldn’t find time to be part of this class, I want to share a summary of what was discussed. I also want to provide links and resources for anyone who wants to do their own investigation on the history of US immigration policy.

As with each of the 8 weeks of this class we will rely on the Popular Education resource I created and update regularly. The Popular Education resource provides an important overview of this history, along with a list of books and online resources that can help us with developing a robust analysis of the history of US immigration policy and how to frame it.

In week #1 we relied heavily on the book, No One is Illegal: Fighting Racism and State Violence on the US/Mexican border, which look at the way that Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, Jewish and even German immigrants have been treated since the mid-1800s.

In week #2 we the responded to the question about why so many immigrants were coming, especially those who were risking their lives to enter the US/Mexican border at unsanctioned border points.

For week #3 I focused heavily on the anti-immigrant narrative or the xenophobic narrative(s) about immigrants that politicians and US news media companies use when talking about undocumented immigrants.

In week #4 we talked about why people are taking the risk of coming to the US without documentation and what the root causes of displacement are. We all read an overview article on the history of US interventions in Central America and discussed the motives of the US government for their support of US corporate interests and regional control of Central America. We then did a more detailed account of the US History with Guatemala.

For week #5 we continued our discussion on the root causes of why people are fleeing Central America and Mexico and taking the risk to come to the US as undocumented immigrants. In week #4 we talked about the history of US foreign policy in that region, along with economic factors, but for week #5 we discussed Climate Change and the so-called War on Drugs as factors of displacement.

First we all read part of Todd Miller’s book, Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration and Homeland Security. We also read an interview with Miller about the same topic, but with additional information and analysis.

Second, we read an article from Dawn Paley, an article that beautify summarizes her book, Drug War Capitalism. Paley’s article is entitled, Militarization & Economic Transformation in Colombia & Mexico. In that article she states:

Reconsidering the so-called drug wars requires — in part — evaluating how they have encouraged the expansion of foreign direct investment and extractive industries in Colombia, Mexico and Central America.

Paley discusses how the US used the same model to fight the so-called War on Drugs in Mexico that was used in Colombia.

For week #6 we discussed the ICE detention system in the US. First, we read a chapter from the book Immigration Detention Inc.: The Big Business of Locking up Migrants. This chapter covered the growth of the ICE detention system from the Reagan years through the Biden years, demonstrating how the ICE detention system has always had bipartisan support and how it has continued to grow over the past 45 years.

We also discussed two articles from The Intercepted, one on private detention companies getting bank loans for expansion and one on the use of bounty hunters to track down immigrants for ICE.

In addition, we looked at the data on the GEO Group from OpenSecrets, which shows how much money they contribute to political campaigns and how much they spend on lobbying. Then there was an article on the rapid growth of the detention system that was from August of this year that NPR did. Lastly, we looked at the GEO Group site and their map of detention center locations.

In week #7 we focused on the system of deportation that the US government has used since the late 19th century. The primary text we used was a chapter from Adam Goodman’s book, The Deportation Machine: America’s Long History of Expelling Immigrants. 

Two important aspects of the chapter from Goodman’s book were the increase in deportations and the bipartisan nature of deportation as policy.

“Between fiscal years 1986 and 2013, the number of formal deportations (known in bureaucratic parlance as “removals”) rose from around 24,600 to a historic high of around 433,000, while the number of voluntary departures (or “returns”) dropped from more than 1.58 million to just under 179,000. By 2011, formal deportations outnumbered voluntary departures for the first time in seven decades; five years later, they made up three out of every four expulsions from the United States. During this period, formal removals came to resemble voluntary departures in their expedited nature and their restrictions on due processbut they carried much harsher consequences. This shift in how officials deported people represented aradical break from the past century of immigration enforcement policy and practice.”

As for the bipartisan nature of US deportations, the author states:

“In his second term, some migrant activists and advocates took to calling Barack Obama the “Deporterin-Chief.” The moniker stemmed from the fact that formal deportations reached unprecedented levels during his presidency.85 But total expulsions dropped. Assigning responsibility to a particular president or solely focusing on how many people he expelled does not explain immigration enforcement’s punitive turn. It is only by examining the cumulative policy changes under both Republican and Democratic administrations since 1986 -from the unprecedented spending on enforcement, militarization of the border, and increased reliance on expedited formal deportations to the criminalization of migration, externalization of migration control, and expansion of immigration detention-that we can begin to understand the recent transformation of the deportation machine.”

The other resource on deportation we used for week #7 was the site https://mappingdeportations.com/. There are several good videos on this site, along with excellent data and analysis.

Other great resources of information on the https://mappingdeportations.com/ site are the timelines of deportation, maps and the excellent visuals they have created to communicate the realities of who is most impacted by deportation from the US in recent decades, which is reflected in the graphic below.

Follow the Money: Campaign finances for Mayor LaGrand’s re-election in 2028

November 3, 2026

We have now passed the November 3rd Election date, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be thinking about politicians who are up for re-election in 2028.

One such politician is Grand Rapids Mayor David LaGrand. LaGrand will shortly complete year two of a four year term. As I have been documenting over the past two years Mayor LaGrand has enabled the Grand Rapids Power Structure to continue with development projects using massive amounts of public funding, has justified ongoing GRPD brutality by voting to fund whatever the GRPD want, and he has failed to listen to and adopt the 6 sanctuary policy demands of Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE, along with refusing to meet with them to have an open and honest conversation about how ICE is terrorizing immigrants, taking between 3 – 6 people every day in recent months.

However, this post is primarily about campaign finance documentation for David LaGrand. When LaGrand won the Mayoral position in 2024, he had raised $192,850.40, according to the County Clerk’s campaign finance data. As I noted in a 2024 post, David LaGrand received substantial funds from entities outside of Grand Rapids, developers, police apologists, members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure and other business people.

As of his most recent campaign finance reporting from 10/26/2026, LaGrand has already raised $36,731.97. During the past year of campaign finance data he continues to receive campaign contributions from various PACs, business people and members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure, such as Johnny Brann.

Another group of people that have made significant contributions to LaGrand’s 2028 re-election bid are lawyers. Of the 32 people who contributed to LaGrand’s campaign and are included in the July 2026 campaign finance report, 29 of them are lawyers, with 1 judge, 1 financial advisor and 1 retiree.

Maybe this group of lawyers who contributed to LaGrand’s re-election campaign went to law school with him or maybe they are people he has a connection with because LaGrand is also a lawyer, but either way these people are not representative of the majority of the people who live in Grand Rapids. While Mayor LaGrand has presented himself as progressive, very little of what he has done over the past 22 months as Mayor of Grand Rapids should be considered progressive.

Follow the Money: Campaign Finance data for Prop 1 & 2 in Michigan

November 2, 2026

In my continuing look at campaign finance data, I want to turn our attention to both of the statewide ballot initiatives, Prop 1 and 2.

Prop 1, is listed on the ballot as  – A Proposal to Convene a Constitutional Convention for the Purpose of Drafting a General Revision of the State Constitution. There is no single entity that has spent signifiant funds to promote a yes on Prop 1, according to a recent Bridge Michigan article.

There is however, a politically diverse group of organizations seeking to defeat Prop 1, which you can find listed here. The coalition is called Protect MI Constitution From Special Interests. According to TransparencyUSA they have raised $4,404,861 and spent $4,423,680.

Here is a list of the top contributors, including the amount from each contributor:

  • The Fairness Project – $3,080,000.00
  • American Opportunity Action – Federal – $825,000.01
  • ACLU Michigan – $251,455.23
  • Global Impact Social Welfare – $175,000.00
  • National Education Association – $50,000.00
  • Michigan Disability Rights Coalition – $21,287.00

Prop 2 is listed on the ballot as  – A Proposed Initiated Law to Prohibit Campaign Contributions for Certain Regulated Utilites and Government Contractors and Apply Campaign Finance Laws and Regulations to Additional Types of Political Communications

The entity that is supporting Prop 2 is the group known as Michiganders for Money Out of Politics Ballot Committee. According to TransparencyUSA they raised a total of $9,339,334 and spent $8,327,844.

Here is a list of the top contributors, including the amount from each contributor:

  • All Hands on Deck Network Inc. – $3,155,000.00
  • Michigan Action United – $1,233,635.91
  • Pro-Democracy Campaign – $750,000.00
  • Sixteen Thirty Fund – $700,000.00
  • Movement Voter Project – $402,500.00
  • Tides Foundation – $380,000.00
  • Clean Water Action – $283,279.20
  • Detroit Action – $269,423.39
  • Working Families Organization – $250,000.00
  • Boom  – $239,988.84
  • Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee – $221,588.41
  • Green Advocacy Project – $200,000.00

The group attempting to defeat Prop 2 is known as Protect MI Free Speech. According to TransparencyUSA they raised a total of $834,000 and spent $810,278.

Here is a list of the top contributors, including the amount from each contributor:

  • Inc Mita – $125,000.00
  • Michigan Citizens for Better Health – $120,000.00
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan PAC – $115,000.00
  • CMS Energy Corp Employees for Better Government – $115,000.00
  • Michigan Energy First – $100,000.00
  • Comcast Financial Agency Corp – $65,000.00
  • Delta PAC – $40,000.00
  • Priority Health PAC – $30,000.00

How much money the DeVos family spent to influence State Elections in Michigan alone

November 2, 2026

The DeVos family has been the single largest campaign contributor to State Elections in Michigan at least since 1990. This year (2026) is no different with the DeVos family collectively contributing $10,165,750.00, according to https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/contributors.

  • Daniel DeVos – $4,008,225.00
  • Pamela DeVos – 2,521,550.00
  • Maria & Doug DeVos – $1,242,325.00
  • Suzanne Cheryl DeVos – $1,185,750.00
  • Betsy DeVos – $606,575.00
  • Dick DeVos – $601,325.00

Total DeVos family campaign contributions – $10,165,750.00

Other members of the GR Power Structure

  • Richard Hayworth – $1,083,825.00
  • JC Huizenga – $783,000.00
  • Daniel Hibma – $515,025.00
  • John Kennedy III – $505,800.00
  • Michael Jandernoa – $400,700.00
  • Hendrick Meijer – $375,000.00
  • Mark Meijer – $331,225.00
  • Matthew Hayworth – $318,275.00
  • Ethelyn Haworth – $221,950.00
  • Nancy Kennedy – $205,050.00

Total – $4,739,850.00

This means that between the DeVos family and other members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure, they collectively contributed $14,905,600.00. That is a veritable boat load of money to influence the elections in Michigan, with the end goal of influencing public policy. This is what an oligarchy looks like.

Grand Rapids City officials once again are dismissive of the Cosecha led campaign to get sanctuary policies adopted

November 1, 2026

Once again there were several dozen people who specifically spoke about the 6 sanctuary policy demands that Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have been demanding since January of 2025. And once again two elected officials were dismissive in their comments, Commissioner Belchak and Mayor LaGrand.

Commissioner Belchak said that since 2017 the City has already had in place policies to address ICE and immigration. This is false, since the GRPD’s Foreign National Policy was not even adopted until 2019 and the only reason that happened is because of how racist the GRPD acted in regards to the case of Jilmar Ramos Gomez.

Both Commissioner Belchak and Mayor LaGrand made comments about activists not listening to them, by not sticking around for their closing comments, but the reality is that despite efforts to have real conversations with Grand Rapids City Officials, only Commissioner Kilgore has met with Cosecha. Cosecha has been trying to meet with Mayor LaGrand since June when he said during a commission meeting that he would be willing to meet with Cosecha. Cosecha held a Press Conference to address the failure on the part of Mayor LaGrand to meet with them in August and at the end of August I wrote an article that included Email exchanges between the Mayor’s office and Cosecha and how the Mayor was not willing to meet the immigrant-led group on their terms.

As always, Mayor LaGrand has a great deal to say, which you can watch from the video beginning at the 3:35:55 mark.  

Mayor LaGrand said that he has been working with the ACLU on discussions on how to do things that can benefit undocumented immigrants. “The ACLU document says draft all over it, which shows that you don’t do things immediately,” said LaGrand. This is misleading, since it was Cosecha that has been meeting with the ACLU since the beginning of 2026 to work with them to craft a draft of an ordinance that could be presented to City officials. Mayor LaGrand conveniently leaves out the role that Cosecha has had in the draft ordinance document, which you can find here.

Mayor LaGrand went on to say in his comments last Tuesday, “Every time someone says they want us to adopt the 6 sanctuary policies, I say, yeah us too. The heart of those sanctuary policies were adopted a number of years ago. They are on the website and people can go look at it.”

I have responded to what the City website says in response to the Cosecha 6 sanctuary policy demands. I am listing them here with a response to some of them in bold.

  • The City does not operate a detention facility or jail. Kent County operates the county jail. The Trump Administration has been pushing detention centers in abandoned warehouses and GR has several of those. Cosecha is demanding that the City adopt a policy to never allow vacate buildings/warehouses to be used as detention centers.
  • The City does not have a 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The City currently does not, but the Cosecha demand is to adopt a policy that says Grand Rapids will never sign a 287(g) agreement with ICE.
  • The City does not enforce immigration detainers. This is true, but Kent County does. When the GRPD arrests immigrants for non-violent offenses they end up in the county jail and then the Sheriff’s Office holds them for ICE.
  • GRPD is prohibited from conducting investigations or making arrests based solely on a person’s immigration status.
  • GRPD’s Foreign Nationals Policy prohibits collaboration with ICE on investigations. The GRPD’s Foreign Nationals Policy does provide language that says, “The policy allows officers to provide assistance to federal immigration authorities when there is an emergency that poses an immediate danger to public safety or federal agents.” In addition, Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have first hand accounts and photo evidence of GRPD assisting ICE during ICE arrests.

For a brief period Mayor LaGrand shifts to talk about snow removal suggestions.

Then beginning at 3:41:00 in the video Mayor LaGrand said that something “snapped” for him. LaGrand then explained that he spent a day with an immigrant who had an appointment at an ICE office in GR to make sure that person got in and out safely. The person thought he had a work visa but didn’t, since it was on appeal. This is the kind of work that GR Rapid Response to ICE does every week, which they have shared at City Commission meetings, with no response and no affirmation of the work.

Mayor LaGrand then went on to say, “The real issue is that the federal government has a broken immigration system. Work visas and a reasonable clear path to citizenship. The presence of ICE in Grand Rapids makes him sick, but the real problem is getting rid of those unjust (immigration laws), that make no sense and that we have been trying to fix for 30 years.This is all a federal elected problem, it’s not a problem for the GR City Commission. I hope you will starting demanding better from federal elected officials,” said Mayor LaGrand.

I’m glad the Mayor came to this realization about how the US immigration system doesn’t work for most immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants. However, for the Mayor to say that people have been trying to fix these unjust immigration laws for the past 30 years is a bit misleading. US Immigration Policy has always been rooted in white supremacy and xenophobia, which I have studied for decades, which are reflected in my Popular Education Class slides – History of US Immigration Policy. I also have been doing an 8 week class on this very topic since 2019 on an annual basis, just like the class I am doing right now that has completed 6 of the 8 weeks.

However, the larger problem of why US immigration policy fails immigrants is not just the policies that are unjust by design, it is the fact that US military and economic policies create the displacement and desperation of immigrants who enter the US through the US/Mexico border without documentation, which are addressed in week #4 and week #5 of the class on the History of US Immigration Policy.

Lastly, the most important point to make here is that Mayor LaGrand evades taking any responsibility for not adopting policies that would reduce the harm to immigrants, particularly when it comes to the ongoing GRPD collaboration with ICE. Mayor LaGrand wants us all to think the city has nothing to do with it, since it is solely the fault of the federal government. Failure to act when families are being separated every day is not leadership, it is abdication.