Font size:
Six years after the COVID-19 pandemic hit Michigan, the state’s response remains shrouded in ambiguity. Despite the profound consequences of lockdowns, important questions about their effectiveness and legality remain unanswered. The Whitmer administration’s secrecy leaves Michigan ill-prepared for future public health crises.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has yet to order a review of the state’s COVID-era lockdowns. The reluctance to revisit past decisions is understandable, given concerns that the findings might reflect poorly on the governor. But unless Michigan addresses these issues, we risk repeating past mistakes when the next pandemic strikes.
Critical questions remain about the governor’s use of emergency powers during the pandemic. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that one law granting broad power to the executive branch was unconstitutional. But it has since refused to evaluate a similar law the governor used to impose a second lockdown. The court’s current position, apparently, is that it is illegal for the governor to use unconstrained emergency authority but not if one of her appointees, such as the state health director, does the same.
If a future governor and Legislature do nothing before the next emergency, we’ll have a replay of Whitmer’s COVID-19 response. The state’s current pandemic plan still concentrates all authority in the hands of the state health director. The Legislature will be shut out of all decisions. The director will have full authority to regulate virtually anything.
The aggressive lockdown measures implemented by the Whitmer administration had significant repercussions on Michigan’s economy and society. Businesses and schools faced unprecedented disruptions, the effects of which are still felt today.
And there were many harder-to-quantify consequences, such as induced depression, loneliness, stress, and fear. How do you calculate the pain of watching a loved one die alone?
Michigan must prepare for future pandemics by learning from experience. The Mackinac Center plays a critical role by advocating for necessary reforms and ensuring that political challenges do not obstruct essential policy discussions. It is imperative that the state thoroughly review its previous pandemic response to ensure preparedness and prevent harmful legal controversies.
