The race is on for the Democratic nomination for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat.
The contentious primary closely mirrors the longstanding internal battle happening within the national Democratic Party. The trio of candidates, Abdul El-Sayed, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, are cast as a wide cross-section of Democratic politics ― even if that’s often more a matter of style than substance.
While it’s clear where these candidates stand on issues like health care, what’s unclear is whether any of them are making a serious case to Michigan’s Black voters.
While some candidates have earned the endorsement of key Black political groups, there has been little discussion as to issues specific to the party’s most loyal constituency.
Whether a Democratic candidate is seriously engaging Black voters is not a political box to check, but a governing test: Can a candidate who does not engage with Black Michiganders truly represent us in the U.S. Senate?
A Senate primary can force candidates to do the work
In 2024, a contested Democratic U.S. Senate primary was of great benefit to Black Michiganders.
In that election cycle, I examined where then-candidates Elissa Slotkin, Hill Harper and Nassar Beydoun stood on issues facing Black voters. Slotkin’s record, I wrote, was weak when it came to supporting issues of significance to the community.
During the contested primary, Slotkin moved more aggressively to connect with Black voters. As she campaigned, she held over 80 events in Detroit and heard meaningful feedback from Black Detroiters. Her stance on issues like H.R. 40, a bill to study reparations, would evolve as she would go on to co-sponsor the legislation.
She unveiled an Opportunity Agenda aimed at eliminating barriers and creating opportunities for Black people, and was quoted saying, “It’s on me to earn the respect” of Black voters.
Slotkin won the primary by a large margin, and went on to win the general election.
Black voters want more than lip service; we’re looking for true engagement, real commitment and tangible outputs shaped by those processes.
We want to know what has the candidate actually done to benefit Black Michiganders, what has the candidate pledged to do in the U.S. Senate, which candidates are engaging Black voters, leaders and institutions and how vigorously the candidate is promising to advocate for Black voters. We want specifics about which social or economic justice policies the candidate has supported or proposed, and how the candidate envisions change, incrementally, or through disruption.
Now, let’s apply that test to this year’s candidates.
Establishment candidate Stevens has a record
Stevens, who represents Michigan’s 11th District, centered in Oakland County, is positioned as the establishment candidate. She is the only candidate with a federal track record, where much of the legislation key to Black voters’ interests is decided.
Stevens is a moderate, assumed by many to be best positioned to beat presumptive Republican nominee Mike Rogers, and is best described as an incrementalist.
On health care, she has called to strengthen the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). Stevens garnered early support from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and is said to have the private backing of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Stevens was also a co-sponsor of H.R. 40, a bill to study and develop reparations proposals.
On criminal justice reform, she co-sponsored the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Although ultimately voting yes, she failed to co-sponsor the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act. On economic justice, she co-sponsored the Raise the Wage Act, guaranteeing $17 minimum wage — an issue with clear implications for Black workers, who are overrepresented in minimum wage jobs.
Notably, Stevens has been endorsed by a group of Congressional Black Caucus members, including former U.S. Rep. Brenda Lawrence, D-Southfield. But counter to the position of the CBC, Stevens voted in support of a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk, the slain right-wing activist whose rhetoric on issues of race was controversial.
While she began her campaign with frontrunner status, some polls suggest that her support among likely Democratic primary voters may be waning.
Stevens’ approach reflects a broader philosophy: incremental change rather than sweeping disruption. This debate — between gradualism and transformational reform — has long shaped movements for racial justice, from abolition to the civil rights era.
U.S. Rep. James Clyburn is a shining example of supporting gradualism when he all-but-resuscitated Joe Biden’s fledging primary campaign by endorsing Biden right before the 2024 South Carolina presidential primary election.
The thought is, better to have a moderate at the seat of power than the opposition. It’s fair to say that Stevens sides with gradualism in advancing issues facing Black voters.
Many, but certainly not all, Black Michiganders have accepted that pragmatic bargain. Often this is a generational signal, in which older Black voters who have been confronted by harsh opposition to progress see the danger in that hard-fought progress taking a backward step.
El-Sayed is running as the disruptor
El-Sayed, who trained as a doctor and spent his career as a public health administrator, is ideologically farthest to the left. In 2018, he finished second in Michigan’s Democratic gubernatorial primary, losing, of course, to Gretchen Whitmer. A Medicare-for-all champion, El-Sayed has been endorsed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont. He’s taken strong positions against Israel and has been condemned for campaigning with ― and subsequently refusing to condemn ― controversial streamer Hasan Piker for his antisemitic rhetoric.
While El-Sayed has never held elected office, as public health director for Wayne County he led initiatives eradicating $700 million in medical debt that disproportionately burdened black residents.
In contrast to Stevens, El-Sayed, has adopted a more disruptive posture.
His politics emphasize large structural change, and a more confrontational style.
Yet it is worth noting that, on several key issues — reparations, marijuana decriminalization and raising the minimum wage — the practical legislative outcomes may be similar.
The difference lies less in how Stevens or El-Sayed would vote, and more in how they would lead and advocate on issues of importance to Black voters.
El-Sayed was recently endorsed by the The Black Slate, an organization affiliated with the Shrine of the Black Madonna which was critical in electing Coleman Young as the first Black mayor of Detroit.
McMorrow has the message. Does she have the support?
Then there is McMorrow. She seems ideologically positioned in between the farther-left El-Sayed and the more-moderate Stevens.
Currently, McMorrow represents a large number of Black voters, as her state Senate district covers a portion of Detroit.
On health care, a fair measure of a candidate’s ideological temperature, McMorrow has called for a public option ― short of El-Sayed’s sweeping Medicare-for-all proposal, but beyond the incremental improvements to Obamacare Stevens has called for. As a state lawmaker, she has supported paid sick leave, which impacts hourly employees, and in a floor speech, advocated for considering racism a public health crisis, telling her colleagues to listen to Black Michiganders. On the campaign trail, McMorrow announced a maternal health policy platform intended to decrease maternal mortality. Black mothers die at higher rates than other racial or ethnic groups.
U.S. Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, are notable endorsements for McMorrow due to their national progressive profiles, but she trails in gaining visible support from Black leaders and institutions comparable to that of her opponents.
Can McMorrow position herself in between El Sayed and Stevens on issues of race and class ― not a disruptor, but not an incrementalist ― as she has done with issues like health care?
Her rhetorical skills are through the roof. She emerged on the national scene with a viral floor speech rooted in progressive ideology, staring the bigotry of her colleague in the face.
Her ability to communicate values clearly and forcefully may resonate with voters — but whether it translates into durable support remains to be seen. However, she wouldn’t be the first U.S. Senate hopeful who catapulted into the national spotlight with a compelling speech.
Loyalty is not the same as representation
One thing is clear: The dialogue surrounding where these candidates are on issues of racial and economic justice deserves deeper exploration ― and these candidates must prove their sincerity to Black voters’ satisfaction.
Free Press contributing columnist Michael Griffie is an educator, attorney and infrastructure executive. Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters, and we may publish it online and in print.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Black Michiganders need answers in Michigan U.S. Senate primary | Opinion
Reporting by Michael Griffie, Contributing columnist / Detroit Free Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
