Michigan and cities

This piece rambles a bit.

Craig Ruff at Dome Magazine has an interesting series of stories on cities in Michigan. I agree and disagree with parts of it, but it is worth a read. The first one is Does Michigan Need Cities and the second one is The race factor.

Ruff and I have our biases. He says Michiganian for one. I have yet to know what a Michiganian is, but I know what a Michigander is. He's a Saginaw guy and grew up there. I'm from Livingston County before it became considered a exurban or suburb area. I was here pre-sprawl. Across the street from the house where I grew up used to be nothing but woods on two sides. Most of the subdivisions that propped up within 2 miles of the place were from the time I was in High School or afterward. The road is still gravel, and I hope it stays that way. I prefer the country or small towns.

One thing that we do agree on is that what happens in Michigan cities do effect the entire state, directly or indirectly.

From Ruff's article:

Do cities still matter? They surely do. They headquarter corporations, jobs, government, cultural legacies, and entertainment. Because of so many producers and retailers, consumers benefit from relatively low prices for higher quality goods and a plethora of choices. Talent thrives when confronted by a critical mass of other talent.

I'll give you the HQ for government (Lansing), cultural legacies, and entertainment, although the biggest museum in the Detroit area is Dearborn. Cultural legacies are in both cities and suburbs. Entertainment is mostly in the suburbs outside of Downtown. Corporations are in both in cities and suburbs. Most of the jobs are in the suburbs. Technically, the suburbs are cities and incorporated as such outside of occasional urban townships like Redford. Low prices? I can get lower prices at Meijers than I could in Detroit.

Young people flock to cities. They ditch their cars and ride public transit. They shop and play within walking distance of their apartments. Tourists, too, love cities because of their cultural and entertainment vitality and their historical treasures.

Cities are gritty and not simple. We put up with the often ill-tempered mood of frenzied residents and with jam-packed, sweat-laden buses and trains and horrific traffic. High prices. Dinky dwellings. Tons more concrete than greenery. Crime. Often poor schools. But for at least half of human history, the more people who live in a place, the more people who want to live there.

I never ditched my truck, even in college. In fact the fact I had my truck made me popular with many classmates who didn't have it, especially on those nights where I decided not to get hammered. There's benefits and drawbacks to cities. The entertainment is much better in East Lansing compared to here, but Livingston County is home. As far as tourism goes, where do Michiganders usually go on vacation? Up North.

Against the grain of history and in contrast to most populous states, the last couple of generations of Michiganians have eschewed cities. Of our 20 most populous cities, 15 lost people between 2000 and 2010. The gainers (Sterling Heights, Dearborn, Troy, Wyoming, and Rochester Hills) lie outside the central cities of their regions (Detroit and Grand Rapids). In these 10 years, some cities lost astounding percentages of residents: Detroit (25 percent), Flint (18 percent), Pontiac (10.3 percent), and Southfield (8.4 percent).

Michigan’s population declined by 54,852 between 2000 and 2010. Detroit lost 237,493 people and the remaining 19 largest cities recorded a net loss of another 66,000 souls. Were it not for the outflow from our largest cities, the state would have shown a gain of a quarter million people during the aughts.

A lot of ex-city dwellers prefer many things about small towns and country compared to the city. Better schools, less crime, less taxes, land, nature. Detroit's taxes are higher than even the Grosse Pointes. 62 mills. Plus the income tax.

That's not unique to Michigan though. It's not against the grain. It's typical of older cities in the Midwest, ultra-hyped Chicago has lost 1 million people since 1950. Milwaukee 150,000 since 1960. Toledo 100,000 since 1970. Cincinnati 207,000 since 1960. Cleveland 520,000 since 1950. Minneapolis 130,000 since 1950. St Paul 18000 since 1960. St Louis 540,000 since 1950. Gary 100,000 since 1960. South Bend 30,000 since 1960.

The exceptions. Kansas City rebounded to 489000. It's down from 507,000 in 1970 but is higher than 1990 numbers of 435,000. Same with Des Moines at 203,000. Down from 208,000 but higher than 193,000. At their peak currently, Indianapolis is at 839,489 and has passed Detroit. Columbus is at 787,033. Madison is at 233,000. Omaha at 409,000. Sioux Falls 153,888. Fargo 105,549. Wichita at 382,368. The major manufacturing areas lost population. The heavy democrat areas outside of Madison and Kansas City lost population. So did Cincinnati, which leans but isn't overwhelmingly democrat (German population more republican, blacks vote democrat). Indianapolis and Columbus lean dem, but are competitive. It's difficult, but not unheard of for republicans to win there despite high minority populations (around 40%). The other areas are all competitive. I think politics are a major factor in the city declines across the region.

I recognize that our metropolitan areas, which include core cities, are holding their own. Indeed, they represent nearly 90 percent of all jobs and gross domestic product of Michigan. We may need to expand our thinking about what is urban — what is a city — to include the areas and people living places nearby cities.

Why Michiganians fled cities, in defiance of a long global and current national experience, unsettles me greatly. It is terribly destructive economically. You cannot explain cities’ depopulation simply because a downturn of this or that industry, important as that often is. Abandoning cities is damn near unique to Michigan (although one easily can point to other once-powerful cities, such as Cleveland, that share our cities’ distress) and requires you to suspend economic logic and the historical record.

It's not unique to Michigan, and is common in the Midwest and parts of the Northeast as well, particularly Pennsylvania and upstate New York. Philly, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Rochester. Oftentimes, Race is pointed to as the factor. It is to an extent in some areas, although doubtful in Scranton, Minneapolis-St Paul, and Wilkes-Barre, all of which are still largely white. That's likely due to the steel industry in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. I'm not as familiar with the Twin Cities. Pittsburgh still has a large white majority. In other cities, it may be a bigger issue as those cities are at least 40% minority.

The questions are this:

Is core city abandonment a good, bad, or neutral thing?

Should metro areas follow the Louisville or Nashville model of consolidating city-county? Grand Rapids considered and rejected it.

Is the destructiveness the abandonment of the city, or what pushed people out in the first place?

I'll get to those later.

Decitification in Michigan is a pressing matter. State public policy has not been on the side of cities. The State must take the lead in bolstering them. Our attitudes and behavior, too, are way out of synch with global societies. We have an attitude (I go so far as to call it a sickness) that begs for analysis. Our cities have characteristics, like woeful public transit and few outlets for groceries, that cling to a car-frenzied industrial age.

Cities do not appeal to a lot of people in Michigan. A couple of hundred years from now, historians may say that by letting cities wither we were, as Heath Ledger (The Joker) so creepily uttered, “just ahead of the curve.” That’s a bit like betting on the longest of long shots.

Michigan today, with nearly 10 million residents, has but one city, Detroit, that houses more people than Ephesus in the 1st century B.C. or Cordoba in the year 1000. From Ephesus, Cordoba, and Rome, we are unlikely to learn much about the reasons for Detroit’s evacuation and the decline (possibly fall) of less populated cities of Michigan. We learn far more from Chicago, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Denver, and a host of American cities that attract people in the modern era.

Minneapolis and Chicago are dropping population. They are hyped. Reality is different than the hype. I'm not familiar with Minny outside of its weather, but Chicago's "growth" is a couple of areas. Much of the rest of that city is hung out to dry. Kind of like Detroit. It's downtown or bust.

Atlanta is also hyped heavily, but is like a Kansas City in size and rebounding effect. It has 420,000 people today, up from 390,000 in 1990, but down from 496,000 in 1970. Same with Boston. 617,000 now. Was 560,000 in 1980, but 800,000 in 1950.
Denver and Phoenix are growing. I wouldn't look to Chicago for learning. I'd look first to Indianapolis and Columbus, followed by many of the plains cities. They are Midwestern. They are closer culturally to Michigan.

Public transport is also very overrated. Light rail and Wally trains to nowhere doesn't make a city. There's a bus system and the people mover. Chicago has a well known public transport. It still doesn't change the fact that they dropped a million people and still drop population. We like our cars in Michigan, but that's not unique here.

Grocery outlets. That's a chicken and egg question. Occasionally a big name grocery store opens up shop in Detroit. Usually it closes quickly. Meijer is supposed to open up one on 8 mile. Currently there is no Meijer, Walmart, or Kroger. There are a bunch of Spartan Stores (Think Glens Up North) locations here. There isn't a big selection, and the question is why in a city of still 700,000+ people is there no big selection.

Back to these.

A. Is core city abandonment a good, bad, or neutral thing?

I'd say it's bad IF the people living like a city environment and want to live in cities as opposed to small towns or rural areas. If people don't like a city environment, move out. Just please don't bring the city with you when you move to the country, particularly its nasty politics that caused a lot of the problems to begin with.

To those who like a city environment, why did they move out? In Detroit's case, it was largely schools, crime, high taxes, and bad services for the high taxes. That largely started when liberals took over the city. Jerome P Cavanagh. If Detroiters want those people to move back, they need to address those issues. I think Bing might be the best mayor the city has had in over 50 years, but he's got a tough road ahead of him with the council.

Should metro areas follow the Louisville or Nashville model of consolidating city-county?

Grand Rapids considered and rejected it. If there was any place in the state where that would occur, it would be there. It wouldn't work in Detroit's case, because the Detroit area is three counties. A Detroit-Wayne County government would never form. The suburbs would never vote for it, and that would be across racial lines. Same for a Tri-County incorporation. I think more likely, but probably wouldn't happen would be "City-County" governments formed with Oakland County or Macomb County. If that happened, you'd have a "city" with over 1 million people. Local control is strong in Michigan. That's why most counties have 16 townships, some villages, some cities, and several school districts, all with different administrations. That's a legacy from the horse and buggy era. In some cases that is good. In others, probably not.

Is the destructiveness the abandonment of the city, or what pushed people out in the first place?

I'd argue the latter. Cities are in competition. They compete with other cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The factors are jobs, cost of living (housing, insurance, land), taxes, regulations, services, schools, crime, property values and the community. If one city fails to do a good job in those areas, people will vote with their feet. Detroiters have voted with their feet. It's not just white folks anymore either. Blacks and Mexicans have also left the area. If Detroit wants to make a comeback, it will have to address those things. Stadiums, theaters, and casinos are good for visitors. Visitors. They visit, and go home.


Coach Tom Izzo of Michigan State used this quote to describe his national title winning 2000 team. ""We've got to drop the pretty-boy attitude and adopt a meat-and-potatoes attitude." I have no idea what Izzo's politics are, but that's the right attitude that can apply to cities, counties, townships, and government in general. If you want stable cities, they need to be built on foundations of families. If they will raise their kids there, they will often stay. It takes meat and potatoes issues for people and especially families to stay. Crime, costs, jobs, schools. Those are the big four. How many people if they had the choice would send their kids to Detroit Public Schools? School and crime. Property and income taxes in Detroit are outrageous. 62 mills and an income tax. That's plus insurance costs. The cost of living is cheaper even in Grosse Pointe outside of possibly initial housing costs. Costs. Unemployment rates are high. Jobs. Those are the big issues. The rest comes after the big four. Detroit can be fixed to a large part, if Detroiters want to fix Detroit and are winning to fix Detroit. That is a choice to be made. Detroiters must fix Detroit. Can they do it? Yes, if they choose to do it. It will require a change in their thinking. That doesn't apply just to Detroit, but all cities and municipal governments.

The second piece from Ruff on race states a lot of truth and discusses Ruff's experiences with his city of Saginaw. It's conclusion.

Michigan has had, for a half century, a pernicious walking-away epidemic among whites from cities with growing black populations. I rationalize, in part, our cities’ declines to an ugly racial history. While increasing numbers of middle-class blacks have been leaving our cities to avoid crime, find better jobs, and get better schools, even greater numbers of whites flee or have fled not only for the same objectives, but also to avoid blacks. It boils down, in large part, to voluntary racial segregation.

That's true. Michigan is a largely segregated state, especially in the Detroit area. It used to be segregated due to housing codes, redlining, restricted covenants, and in some cases the Klan. Quasi De jure, little different than the Jim Crow South. Today it is because Michiganders largely choose to live in segregated areas. De Facto. I'm not saying that as an insult. It just is what it is, and it is as part of Michigan as the automobile. While the black population has migrated out some, the vast majority are clustered in cities, or even neighborhoods. Even in "integrated" areas, the cities are still often segregated.

White city/suburban folk move away when areas - especially schools - become increasingly black. The pattern is whites move to new area. Black middle class and professionals move there. No problem. Black population gets to about 25% or so, whites start moving out before or when the inner city starts moves in. Property values drop. Black professionals follow white suburbanites out to escape the new "inner city." Repeat. The other scenario is schools of choice accept a large number of Detroiters. Home district whites move out then too. Often times it's these "tolerant white progressives" that start moving out. They love "diversity" and sneer from their high horse until "diversity" moves to their school. I get a real laugh out of redistricting where more and more of democrat portions in Oakland County get placed into a Detroit based congressional district. I wish Pleasant Ridge and Ferndale and that area were added as well. They asked for it.

That's part of the reasons of city "abandonment", but there's another cultural factor as well. The culture factor is the big one.

Personally I don't care about color, but if you leave the city - or suburbs - and come to my area, leave the city behind. That goes for all colors. It's not the colors that destroyed Detroit and increasingly some of the suburbs. It's the attitudes of the majority of people in the city who kept electing the same people there over and over again and enact the same policies you had at your own home. Democrats destroyed Detroit. Progressives destroyed Detroit. Democrats of all colors destroyed Detroit. White Jerome Cavanagh democrats and black Coleman Young democrats.

My personal bias is stronger against white progressives. They are the threat to me. They want to control people's lives. Black inner city democrats are not a threat to me. While they enable white progressives, they don't want to control people's lives. In addition, moderates are less apt to vote for an inner city candidate. (Obama aside, and he's from Hawaii and Cambridge before he moved to Chicago)

Where race does factor in is that blacks in Michigan vote over 90% democrat (and I have all the respect in the world for that 10% with the pressure put on them). If my area starts going from moderate republican to liberal democrat on a consistent basis, then it's time for me to go. That is no longer my home. Is that racial flight, or is it cultural flight? I'd argue the latter. I don't want Ann Arbor leftism here either, and that's prominently white. One problem is those who move from one area and keep their voting habits, policy values, and change the area they move to if it is different to the same area they left with more regulations and more taxes. I happen to know a lot of ex-Farmington Hills residents here. They aren't liberal like much of current Farmington Hills is today either. They haven't tried to change Brighton. However, Farmington Hills has changed from 1990 and even 2000. Even Rocky (who won 3 times there) didn't win there in 2010, a good GOP year. Neither did Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson who made it close, but no cigar. It's pretty much gone outside of a landslide year. Demographics. What I don't want to see is the same thing coming to Livingston County that is happening more and more in Oakland County.

Under status quo, white liberals will move further and further away from core cities (and closer to this area) as more and more blacks move into their current homes, away from the core cities. That's a problem. Those white liberals if they stay that way want to change the new area to their old area. That is the bad part about urban sprawl, and it creates more of it. One of my favorite sayings from a tavern is "Be good or be gone." Those who move into an area need to respect the believes of the community of the area. It doesn't mean agree 100%, but it does mean that you shouldn't go into the area and try and change it to the same thing you left. If your goal is to change the community to what you left, you need to be gone - or preferably fix your own city.

Craig Ruff of Dome Magazine and Public Sector Consultants on constitutional convention

I was looking up some writings on the constitutional convention proposal which we will be voting on in 2010, and found some interesting stuff in Dome Magazine. Surprisingly to me, I haven't been familiar with it. It's quite interesting, and has some interesting comments on the articles, including Bob LaBrant and Richard McLellan, two individuals whom have earned my respect with their political knowledge.

Recently, Craig Ruff (former Milliken/Brickley staffer) of influential Public Sector Consultants in Lansing wrote several columns in Dome Magazine in support of the constitutional convention proposal and gave reasons for them. Some of his proposals I those I'd support. On other proposals I have strong disagreement. That does not change my opposition to a con-con in any matter largely because of the risks and processes involved in a con-con due to the rules of the game which I discussed in length several times, most recently on December 6th. That won't change at all even if it looks like 2010 will be a repeat of 1994. 

There are six columns Ruff wrote which are all at the Dome Magazine website. I recommend taking a look at them, as well as the comments, and my previous writings on this, no matter which side of the con-con debate you stand.

The first was titled Really Big Changes which is his introduction on this issue. He has his pros and cons on a con-con. Here are the pros. I didn't post his cons in the except because they aren't much different than what I wrote.

A Few Pros
The people of Michigan may gain from a convention looking over a document nearly 50 years old and amended 32 times since 1963.
Compare the history of the U.S. Constitution to Michigan’s constitution:

• The U.S. Constitution has been amended fewer times, even though the national document is 218 years old and the state constitution is 46 years old. Since 1789 and with the exception of the first 10 (the Bill of Rights) coming right off the bat in 1789-1791, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 17 times in 218 years, compared to the state constitution being amended 32 times in its 46 years.
• Since Michigan adopted its current constitution and adopted 32 amendments, we have added four amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Amendment 24 prohibiting poll taxes; the 25th prescribing presidential succession; the 26th setting 18 as the voting age; and the 27th requiring that the compensation to federal legislators be set after the election of new House members — this guy had been sitting on the “proposed and to be resolved” desk since 1792!).
• The state constitution’s length dwarfs by thousands of words that of the nation’s. Put the two in the same font size on a scale. If you weighed what the state constitution does, you’d call an 800 number for a weight-loss pill or 911.

Bogged down in excruciating detail, the state constitution is less a template for how government governs and how we balance the rights of individuals and the powers of government than a laundry list of this is how you should do that details.
How detailed is the Michigan Constitution? Allowing for space, I must deflate fonts to give three examples.

• For the retirement of notes and bonds issued under Section 26 of Article X of the 1908 constitution there is hereby appropriated from the general fund each year during their life a sum equal to the amount of principal and interest payments due and payable in each year.
• The legislature may authorize lotteries and permit the sale of lottery tickets in the manner provided by law. No law enacted after January 1, 2004, that authorizes any form of gambling shall be effective, nor after January 1, 2004, shall any new state lottery games utilizing table games or player operated mechanical or electronic devices be established, without the approval of a majority of electors voting in a statewide general election and a majority of electors voting in the township or city where gambling will take place. This section will not apply to gambling in up to three casinos in the City of Detroit or to Indian tribal gaming.
• State Police Troopers and Sergeants shall, through their elected representative designated by 50% of such troopers and sergeants, have the right to bargain collectively with their employer concerning conditions of their employment, compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions, and other aspects of employment except promotions which will be determined by competitive examination and performance on the basis or merit, efficiency and fitness, and they shall have the right 30 days after commencement of such bargaining to submit any unresolved disputes to binding arbitration for the resolution thereof the same as now provided by law for Public Police and Fire Departments.

Dorothy Parker inscribed her tombstone and gave us good advice: If you can read this, you’re standing too close.

 As strong as my opposition to a con-con is, those are good points. It has been amendment, more often than it should have been. However, those amendments can also be repealed in the same way. I remember the gambling proposal quite well. Look how that's worked with the new Indian casinos (which I have no problem with). I voted no for the record.

The big push is for abolishing one of the legislature chambers. Ruff suggests the following:

You can argue that two houses are better than one because they protect against hasty decisions. Three, four, or more legislative chambers would be even better if that is your goal. To my knowledge, Nebraska has not enacted policy any smarter or dumber than 49 two-house states.

To me, the gravest threat to democratic progress and governmental efficacy is paralysis, not haste or recklessness. The people still have a governor who can veto; courts that can render rulings on the constitutionality of statutes; and future elections and legislators who can reverse bad decisions.

No Michigan county, city, township, or K-12 school system elects two or more legislative bodies. Why not? If it makes sense for state government, wouldn’t it be rational for local units to do so? The trickle-down philosophy behind the federal system extends to nearly all states, yet not their local jurisdictions. Was that because it looked clunky, confusing, and duplicative to have multiple bodies setting policy? Very likely

A unicameral state assembly has made sense since 1962. It would make smoother sailing for policy change with plenty of protection against nutty change through gubernatorial vetoes, court reviews, and future elections. It would lessen confusion among voters about who should be held accountable for legislative decisions, their senator or their representative or both. It would marginalize those frequent, petty squabbles between the members; the aura, turf, and legitimacy of each chamber; and those persistent “look at who’s angling for your seat” shenanigans

......
Two legislative chambers in Lansing slow down policy change. They cause unnecessary friction in serving the customers of democracy. Two legislative chambers are anachronistic.

As much as I think there are too many salaries and politicians in government, I can't go along with this. The big reason is that I prefer slow change to rush jobs. We need checks and balances, and eliminating a check and balance on a level the size of the state or federal government is a risk I don't think we need to take. Bad laws often pass one chamber. They normally don't get taken up in the other. Sometimes good laws pass and don't taken up in the other chamber. That's a price I'm willing to pay, along with the salaries. We'd have a lot more taxes and spending if there was a unicameral legislature.

Two columns that are very interesting that I haven't thought about are regarding two members per seat and parliament. Regarding two members per seat

Can you handle two people representing you in the state legislature?

Picture that voters in each district send to a single legislative body the two highest vote getters in the general election. Each gets a percentage of a single vote on the state Assembly’s floor equal to the percentage of the vote s/he received in the last election.

For example, Assemblyperson Judith, a Democrat, garners 55 percent of the vote against her Republican challenger, John, who receives 45 percent. Judith gets 0.55 percent of one vote on the Assembly floor; Raymond gets 0.45.

What’s the point of this? Parties, if rational, would nominate candidates who can maximize the general election vote; presumably, nominees would appeal to independents and folks who tilt toward the other party. We would get more moderate, less sharply partisan people in the legislature. Currently, in so many safely Democratic or Republican areas, rabid partisans nominate the most extreme candidates.

All political parties would strive to mount strong challenges in all districts. There is little point, today, for a Republican to run in a Detroit district or a Democrat to run in Ottawa County. They are sacrificial lambs. If, however, the two leading vote-getters get seated, Republicans shrewdly would contest Detroit districts (and Democrats, Ottawa County seats) because even a small percentage of the vote would give the loser some clout in Lansing.

I don't think it would pass the one person one vote standard under federal constitutional law (Equal protection). That aside, it's an interesting concept. Democrats in state rep districts usually get 28-40 percent of the vote here in Livingston County based-races. I think Donna Anderson got almost 40% in her race against Valde Garcia in 2006, mostly due to running almost even in the Ingham County portion of the state senate district. I haven't researched or thought about this idea to have a strong opinion one way or the other. It has advantages and disadvantages. However, one thing it would not change is that candidates need to fit the district.

I couldn't disagree more with the parliamentary system, for the same reasons I opposed a unicameral legislature. This is a case of different philosophies. As Ruff says in Parliament Works Better:

Previous columns have called for a unicameral legislature with two members elected in each district, each with a legislative vote equal to the share of the popular vote. In case readers view that as too timid, I propose that Michigan adopt a parliamentary system.
When then-Lieutenant Governor Jim Brickley chastised me for thinking small about America’s policy making machinery and its flaws, he said: “Our system’s antiquated. The fear of a throne drove the constitution’s framers to shackle the public will. Today, I fear the tyranny of paralysis.”

Judicial appointments, which Ruff supports,  are something I can not support. Judicial appointments by chief executives I support even less. It goes back to my Jeffersonian views when it comes to checks and balances. I've seen way too many political appointments run roughshod over the constitution with judicial activism. It is nothing new. It goes back to Dred Scot, and really rears its ugly head post-reconstruction. Slaughter-House, Cruikshank, Plessy, Presser, and Lochner. After FDR gets his people, we get Wickard v Filburn. Brown v Board of Education was the right judgment, but should have been written better on clear 14th Amendment grounds. With the Burger Court onward - Roe and Doe kickstarted judicial activism. Then we get the baffling O'Connor with her look to foreign laws with Gratz and Grutter cases. I may get flamed, but Bush V Gore wasn't all that great either - although SCOTUS wasn't AS bad as Florida's Supreme Court on that one. Both could have done better.

State courts aren't perfect, and neither are electing judges. He uses the Irish judges stereotype. As he says "Erin wins."

Democratic adrenaline drives people to assume that their sheer act of voting produces judicial competence. Excuse me as I try to hold back from projectile vomiting. I do not buy the pretense that voters actually know enough to judge judicial candidates.
Aside from a smattering of partisan, special interest, or personal adherents, few honestly can defend Michigan’s politically charged system of picking judges. Running successfully for judgeships are people with good solid names (once in a blue moon has a Cavanagh/Cavanaugh, Kelley/Kelly, Corrigan, Hathaway, or Mc-something lost a judicial race) and often have good track records winning other elections, i.e., have name recognition, fundraising abilities, and solid organizational bases.
Are these political assets judicial assets?

That's true. Brennan.

He goes on, but his proposal isn't as bad as most "appoint judges" proposals I've seen. It's similar to the Missouri system.

Since the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate’s rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, presidential appointees all have been nondescript ciphers or ideological purists. I was disgusted by the U.S. Senate’s rejection of Bork, among the most cerebral and intellectually inquisitive people a president has sought to place on the U.S. Supreme Court since Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis. Since Bork’s rejection, every nominee has faced sharply partisan and ideological badgering in the Senate.
Call me an elitist, but here is a plan to award critically important judicial posts to the well-deserving. The governor appoints every state judge or justice to a term of 10 years. The governor must select from three highly/exceptionally qualified people recommended by the State Bar Association. The governor selects one, or if the governor rejects all three, the State Bar Association nominates three more candidates, one of whom the governor must pick. The nomination goes to the state Senate, where it takes a two-thirds super-majority to reject.
Upon appointment, the judge or justice must seek voters’ approval at the next general election. The referendum before voters is, “Do you wish to retain Judge/Justice _______ in office or not?” If a plurality votes “yes,” the judge may serve out the 10-year term. If a plurality votes “no,” the judge vacates the office, and the appointment process starts over.
While a sitting judge may be renominated and reappointed for a second 10-year term, voters still must ratify the choice at the next election. After 20 years, a person may not win reappointment to the same bench. A judge who reaches the age of 70 must retire.

I prefer a choice of names instead of an up or down vote, but at least that has a check and balance. I'd rather have it be as it is now, flawed as it is. I also think that Supreme Nominations should be the same process as appeals court nominations is now (not party nominated - straight up elections or appointment of vacancy and election).  I don't want the State Bar of Michigan however getting involved in this. You can't take ideology out of judicial selections in the post Lochner and Post Roe eras. It is a requirement for attorneys to join the State Bar of Michigan, which is understandable. It is best that the State Bar is removed at least from direct politics - on either side.

Lastly is the Fusion ballot. This is similar to the New York style of system.

Imagine a ballot on which you may vote for a candidate under several party lines. You may like a candidate because he or she is identified on the ballot as a Democrat or Republican, our safe, big-tent binary choices. You may like a candidate who is a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or socialist. Personally, you hold a value of right-to-life or pro-choice. You demand that government cuts taxes or increases them to maintain and expand public services. You are willing to sacrifice jobs for a cleaner environment, or you prefer to sacrifice a cleaner environment for more jobs.
Craig runs for the state Senate. Democrats have nominated him. So, too, have the Liberal Party, the Right-to-Life Party, the Environment Protection Party, and the Friends of Transportation Party. You may cast a vote for him under any party line, and come election evening, the clerk totals every vote for Craig under every party. Craig loses to Sally because she has gathered more votes combined cast for her on Independent, Republican, Economic Growth, Pro Choice, and Champions of Less Regulation partisan lines.
This is called fusion. More than one political party may nominate and endorse the same candidate as other parties. In the end, their votes for Craig and Sally are combined.
What is the advantage of a fusion ballot? Voters get to express a more customized opinion, but do not have to throw away their votes on a candidate who cannot win. A voter may be voting for Craig because he opposes abortions. Another may vote for him because he is a staunch environmentalist. Yet another may prefer him because he pledges to put more funding into transportation. Many people will vote for Craig because he carries the brand of Democrat. The voter gets the right to express a specialized or brand name opinion of Craig, but is not forced to waste a vote on a candidate who has no chance in hell of being elected. When the final tally is in, Craig or Sally goes to the state legislature more bound to specific values than general pabulum.
If you are a Republican candidate in what otherwise is a pretty safely Democratic district, you might work hard to peel off some Democratic voters by being pro-choice, pro-environment, and/or pro-transportation funding. Similarly, a Democrat running in a safely Republican district may win the backing of Right-to-Lifers, economic free marketers, and smaller government types. Fusion ballots encourage candidates to niche market, while also being part of a big tent.
.....
A recent example comes from Long Island’s Nassau County. In a race for county executive, the Democrat won 107,777 votes as a Democrat. The Republican won 112,340 votes as a Republican. The Democrat also won 10,334 votes from minor parties; the Republican, 5,534. The Democrat holds a razor-thin lead of 118,111 to 117,874, with thousands of absentee ballots yet to be counted. A Conservative Party candidate won 9,552 votes. Clearly, had the local Conservative Party leaders felt comfortable in nominating the Republican, the GOP candidate would have won pretty handily. They didn’t. He didn’t.
John Lindsay won reelection as New York City mayor in 1969. He had been elected mayor in 1965 as the nominee of the Republican and Liberal parties. In 1969, he lost the GOP primary for mayor, but managed to win reelection as a Liberal. A year later, James Buckley ran for the U.S. Senate in New York State under the Conservative Party banner. He beat the liberal Republican incumbent and a liberal Democrat challenger. For three years, neither the mayor of New York City nor one of the state’s U.S. senators held office as a Republican or Democrat.

Although a correction is in order as the Republican won in Nassau County.

I can support this. I like the ideas of minor and major parties supporting the same tickets when it is called for.
However, I don’t think the NY style will affect things much. Every senate race since Buckley was an R or D. Every house race there I’ve followed has been the same way. I’m less sure about state house and state senate.

The only possible thing I can really see is the occasional split leading to a minor upset like there was in NY-23 when the GOP leadership blundered in a big way by choosing a candidate in DeDe Scozzafava that did not fit that district (and neither did Doug Hoffman for that matter on the Conservative party ballot). NY-23 was an aberration however because there was no primary.

Under the NY system here, you’d probably have the conservative party/R fusions in Zeeland, the Right to Life/R fusions in Livingston County, and Gun Rights/party fusions in those areas, but it would be the same people winning.

If people want moderate candidates, moderates need to vote in the primaries. I don’t see things changing otherwise. So while I support the fusion system, I don’t see it changing the ideological factor much in elections.

All in all, Dome Magazine has some good reads on different political news and commentary in Lansing. The series of con-con and proposal discussion is one of them. It doesn't change my mind, but the issues themselves were worth looking over.