Where Michigan governor candidates stand on rural government crisis

Michigan’s rural townships are struggling to find people to run for office and maintain services
Townships have more vital responsibilities in Michigan than most states
Reforms are possible in Lansing if politicians choose to address the potential crisis

Rural governments in Michigan are teetering toward crisis, facing rising costs and fewer leaders. And candidates for governor have dramatically different solutions.

Republican John James supports reforms that would make it easier for municipalities to merge and wants to consider moving some responsibilities from townships to counties.

Democrat Jocelyn Benson proposed no changes and prefers local control, according to written statements from both candidates in the Nov. 3 election to succeed term-limited Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

James said Michigan may want to consider following the lead of other states and making it easier to shrink government.

“I do not believe the answer is for Lansing to simply eliminate local governments or force communities into consolidation,” he wrote. “Local control matters and must be preserved. But the state should give communities more flexibility and better tools to determine what structure works best for them.”

While the state has the power to reform Michigan’s township system, Benson urged “keeping decision making where it belongs: with the people who live and lead in those communities.”

Related:

Michigan has more local units of government with more critical responsibilities than almost any state in the nation. The state’s 1,240 townships were plotted in the second decade of the 1800s when James Madison was president and have mandated responsibilities first laid out before the Civil War.

As chronicled by Bridge Michigan, some rural townships are now straining to fulfill core duties. More than 75% of townships and villages report increasing difficulty filling mandatory elected positions, according to a recent University of Michigan survey.

Without intervention, some officials warn of a crisis in Michigan’s front line of government that manages elections and collects property taxes.

Some Midwest states, including Indiana, have taken steps to reform their township systems. So far, Michigan hasn’t.

Bridge asked the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor to share their ideas for easing the potential crisis. Here are their full responses:

Jocelyn Benson

I have always sought the advice and input of local leaders because they know their communities best, and as governor, that will not change. From my plans to tackle housing, healthcare and data centers, I’ve been clear that we need to bring everyone to the table, work with local leaders and take a partnership-based approach to solving problems.

I look forward to speaking with township leaders about what the state can do better to make sure their elections run smoothly, they are making the most of state and federal resources, and they have the support they need to lower costs and make government work for their communities.

Rural communities should not have to solve these challenges alone and forcing mergers or usurping authority would be wrong and increase the disparities we need to address. As governor, I will bring the resources and expertise of running one of our state’s largest agencies to the table, while keeping decision making where it belongs: with the people who live and lead in those communities.

John James

Michigan’s township system puts significant responsibility on local officials, and in many of our smallest and most rural communities, those responsibilities have become increasingly difficult for part-time officials to manage. The state should take this problem seriously. Michigan has 1,240 townships, and township officials handle essential functions including property assessment, tax collection, and election administration. At the same time, many rural communities are struggling to find enough people willing and able to serve.

I do not believe the answer is for Lansing to simply eliminate local governments or force communities into consolidation. Local control matters and must be preserved. But the state should give communities more flexibility and better tools to determine what structure works best for them.

First, I would support making it easier for neighboring townships to voluntarily consolidate services or, where residents and local officials believe it makes sense, pursue consolidation. The state can help by removing unnecessary legal barriers, providing technical assistance and examining whether short-term financial incentives could help communities cover the transition costs associated with voluntary consolidation or shared services.

Second, we should take a serious look at whether every responsibility currently placed on a small township must remain there. Election administration is an example. Elections have become increasingly complex and demanding, particularly for small communities with part-time clerks. The state should explore options that let counties and townships share election responsibilities or allow qualified election officials to serve across jurisdictional lines, rather than requiring every township to independently maintain the same administrative capacity. Any changes should protect election integrity, accountability, and local access while reducing unnecessary strain on small communities.

Third, the state needs to better support the people who choose to serve. That means stronger training and technical assistance for township officials, particularly new clerks, treasurers, supervisors, and assessors. It should also include practical assistance for rural communities without professional staff dedicated to grant writing, compliance, or navigating state programs. Small communities should not lose opportunities simply because they cannot afford a full-time grant writer or administrator.

My approach would be to work with township and county leaders rather than dictate solutions from Lansing. We should preserve local control while recognizing that a township of a few hundred residents cannot reasonably be expected to maintain the same administrative capacity as a large suburban community. State government should give local communities the flexibility, tools, and support necessary to provide essential services efficiently and responsibly.

Thank you to our Northern Edition sponsors

Bridge Michigan Northern Edition is made possible by generous financial support from our sponsors. Sponsorship supports our independent journalism mission but does not constitute sponsor endorsement of individual articles or editorial content. Bridge Michigan journalism remains fact- and data-driven and independent at all times.

Please visit the About page for more information and to subscribe to Bridge Michigan Northern Edition. Interested in becoming a sponsor? Contact Emma Carr.