Michigan Attorney General election, 2018
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9
- Early voting: N/A
- Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6
- Online registration: No
- Same-day registration: No
- Voter ID: Photo ID requested
- Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
2022 →
← 2014
|
Michigan Attorney General |
---|
Election details |
Filing deadline: April 24, 2018 |
Primary: N/A General: November 6, 2018 Pre-election incumbent(s): Bill Schuette (Republican) |
How to vote |
Poll times: 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Voting in Michigan |
Ballotpedia analysis |
Federal and state primary competitiveness State executive elections in 2018 Impact of term limits in 2018 State government trifectas State government triplexes Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2018 |
Michigan executive elections |
Governor Lieutenant governor |
Dana Nessel (D) defeated Tom Leonard (R) and three other candidates for Michigan attorney general on November 6, 2018.
Heading into the election, Michigan had been a Republican trifecta since 2011, when Gov. Rick Snyder (R) took office and Republicans gained a majority in the Michigan House of Representatives. During the 2018 election, Michigan was a Republican triplex.
Incumbent Bill Schuette (R), who was first elected in 2010, was prevented by term limits from seeking re-election. Michigan's Republican Party looked to win its fifth straight attorney general election in 2018. This contrasts with the state's trend in choosing a presidential nominee; in the five presidential elections leading up to 2018, Michigan was won by the Democratic candidate in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 and by the Republican candidate in 2016.
Third party and independent candidates included Lisa Lane Gioia (L), Gerald T. Van Sickle, (U.S. Taxpayers) and Chris Graveline (I).
For more information about the Democratic primary, click here.
For more information about the Republican primary, click here.
Candidates and election results
General election
General election for Attorney General of Michigan
Dana Nessel defeated Tom Leonard, Lisa Lane Gioia, Chris Graveline, and Gerald T. Van Sickle in the general election for Attorney General of Michigan on November 6, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
✔ | Dana Nessel (D) | 49.0 | 2,031,117 | |
Tom Leonard (R) | 46.3 | 1,916,117 | ||
Lisa Lane Gioia (L) | 2.1 | 86,807 | ||
Chris Graveline (Independent) | 1.7 | 69,889 | ||
Gerald T. Van Sickle (U.S. Taxpayers Party) | 0.9 | 38,114 |
Total votes: 4,142,044 | ||||
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. |
Candidate profiles
Party: Republican
Incumbent: No
Political office: Michigan House of Representatives (Assumed office: 2013)
Biography: Leonard received his bachelor's in history and Spanish and his J.D. from the University of Michigan. He was a prosecutor for Genesee County from 2007 to 2010 and served as an assistant attorney general in Lansing from 2010 to 2012.[1] He was first elected to represent District 93 in the Michigan House of Representatives in 2012.
- Leonard emphasized his experience as a prosecutor in his campaign messaging. He said he "prosecuted murders, drug charges, elder abuse, and violent assaults to help the families of Flint find justice in the most difficult times."[2]
- Leonard said he is "the only candidate with experience working in the attorney general’s office, and he has the experience necessary to hit the ground running on Day One."[2]
- His campaign priorities included increased penalties for elder abuse, helping the mentally ill, and addressing opioid abuse.[3]
Party: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Political office: None
Biography: Nessel graduated from the University of Michigan and received her J.D. from Wayne State University. After graduating, she was an assistant prosecutor in the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office. In 2005, she opened a legal firm. She founded the Fair Michigan Foundation, which "investigates and prosecutes hate crimes committed against the LGBTQ community."[4]
- Nessel campaigned on her experience as a prosecutor. She stated she had become known as a "staunch defender of constitutional rights" and "one of the premier litigators of LGBTQ issues in Michigan."[4]
- Her campaign priorities included establishing greater inclusion in civil rights laws, protecting the environment, legalizing and regulating cannabis, and defending workers and labor unions.[5]
Polls
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
Michigan Attorney General election, 2018 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll | Dana Nessel | Tom Leonard | Undecided | Margin of Error | Sample Size | ||||||||||||||
The Detroit News/WDIV-TV September 5-7, 2018 | 42% | 29% | 24% | +/-4.0 | 600 | ||||||||||||||
Note: A "0%" finding means the question was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org |
Campaign finance
Noteworthy endorsements
This section lists noteworthy endorsements issued in this election, including those made by high-profile individuals and organizations, cross-party endorsements, and endorsements made by newspaper editorial boards. It also includes a bulleted list of links to official lists of endorsements for any candidates who published that information on their campaign websites. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. If you are aware of endorsements that should be included, please click here.
Noteworthy general election endorsements | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Endorsement | Nessel (D) | Leonard (R) | ||||
Individuals | ||||||
Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) | ✔ |
Campaign advertisements
This section shows advertisements released in this race. Ads released by campaigns and, if applicable, satellite groups are embedded or linked below. If you are aware of advertisements that should be included, please email us.
Tom Leonard
Support
|
|
|
Dana Nessel
Support
|
|
|
Campaign themes
The themes below were taken from the candidates' 2018 campaign websites.
Tom Leonard
Elder Abuse
Michigan’s seniors are being ripped off every day, and it is well past time we put a stop to it. They are being scammed and preyed upon, all too often by those who are closest to them. My first bill when I became a state representative increased penalties for people who abused our seniors. As your next attorney general, I will continue to lead on this issue and protect our most vulnerable Michiganders.
Mental Health
Too many Michiganders have been left behind during the mental health crisis plaguing our state right now. If we can get these people the help they need, we can help them lead better lives and prevent many crimes before they ever happen. As Speaker of the House, I created the House C.A.R.E.S. task force to look into how we can better solve this crisis. This task force is a good first step, but we still have a long way to go. As your next attorney general, I will use my experience working in the state’s first ever mental health court in Genesee County to work hard every day on finding comprehensive solutions for those struggling with mental illness and those closest to them.
Sexual Abuse
From domestic relationships to doctors abusing their positions, too many Michiganders have been victims of sexual abuse. During one of the worst sexual abuse scandals in the history of the United States, Michigan was thrown into the spotlight in how we would prosecute Larry Nassar. I called for the resignation of Michigan State University president Lou Anna Simon when no one else would and helped pass legislation to reform MSU’s outdated procedures to make sure this never happens again. As your next attorney general, I will fight every day to punish the offenders and anyone who enabled them.
Opioid Crisis
The opioid epidemic has devastated far too many Michigan families, and it is impacting communities all across our state. The simple truth is criminalizing opioid addiction is not always the right answer. For real healing to occur, we need to treat those suffering from addiction with compassion and care, but there can be no leniency for criminals who are responsible for this suffering. I will hold those responsible for this crisis accountable as the next top law enforcement officer in Michigan.
Civil Asset Forfeiture
One of the most important doctrines in the American legal system is innocent until proven guilty. For too long, law enforcement agencies in Michigan have been able to confiscate property from those they simply thought were guilty. It is time we put an end to this injustice, and require a conviction before the government can seize your property.[3]
Dana Nessel
Stand up for Civil Rights
Michigan needs an Attorney General who advocates for greater inclusion in civil rights laws. As Attorney General I will aggressively prosecute hate crimes and all cases of discrimination, protect women's rights to access healthcare, and defend immigrants from Federal overreach.
Protect our Environment
I will be a tireless advocate for our environment. I will fight to shut down Enbridge Line 5, and any other pipeline that threatens the Great Lakes. I will enforce environmental laws, prosecuting polluters who harm our environment and threaten the health and safety of Michiganders
Defend Workers and Labor Unions
For years elected officials have attacked laws that protect workplaces and workers rights. As Attorney General, I will make certain that Michiganders have safe workplaces, free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and environmental hazards.
Legalize and Regulate Cannabis
Michigan needs common-sense licensing and regulation of cannabis manufacturing and distribution. When elected, I will work with the legislature and local law enforcement to ensure a safe market that keeps cannabis out of kids hands, and off the roads.
Protect Consumers and Students
As Attorney General, I will go after bad actors, predatory lenders, and shady corporations that target Michigan residents. I will create an Auto Insurance Fraud Division to address our sky-high insurance rates, and I'll work to protect student borrowers from aggressive debt collection tactics.
Safeguard Senior Citizens
Michigan Seniors need help too. As AG, I will increase resources to defend seniors from neglect, abuse, and exploitation. I'll ensure that unsafe assisted living facilities and in-home care providers are stripped of their licenses, issue scam notifications for public awareness, and vigorously prosecute cases of Medicaid fraud.[5]
Social media
Twitter accounts
Tweets by Tom Leonard Tweets by Dana Nessel
Facebook accounts
Click the icons below to visit the candidates' Facebook pages.
Pivot Counties
- See also: Pivot Counties by state
Twelve of 83 Michigan counties—14 percent—are Pivot Counties. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 Pivot Counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.
Counties won by Trump in 2016 and Obama in 2012 and 2008 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
County | Trump margin of victory in 2016 | Obama margin of victory in 2012 | Obama margin of victory in 2008 | ||||
Bay County, Michigan | 12.55% | 5.56% | 15.31% | ||||
Calhoun County, Michigan | 12.46% | 1.60% | 9.36% | ||||
Eaton County, Michigan | 4.72% | 3.13% | 8.40% | ||||
Gogebic County, Michigan | 14.80% | 8.10% | 17.27% | ||||
Isabella County, Michigan | 3.66% | 9.28% | 19.26% | ||||
Lake County, Michigan | 22.77% | 5.01% | 12.28% | ||||
Macomb County, Michigan | 11.53% | 3.99% | 8.62% | ||||
Manistee County, Michigan | 15.29% | 5.93% | 13.26% | ||||
Monroe County, Michigan | 21.97% | 0.98% | 4.35% | ||||
Saginaw County, Michigan | 1.13% | 11.89% | 17.34% | ||||
Shiawassee County, Michigan | 19.59% | 3.67% | 8.59% | ||||
Van Buren County, Michigan | 13.92% | 0.45% | 8.78% |
In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump (R) won Michigan with 47.5 percent of the vote. Hillary Clinton (D) received 47.3 percent. In presidential elections between 1836 and 2016, Michigan voted Republican 60.8 percent of the time and Democratic 34.7 percent of the time. In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, Michigan voted Democratic four out of the five elections.[6]
Presidential results by legislative district
The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state House districts in Michigan. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.[7][8]
In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 53 out of 110 state House districts in Michigan with an average margin of victory of 37.1 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 43 out of 110 state House districts in Michigan with an average margin of victory of 39.3 points. Clinton won four districts controlled by Republicans heading into the 2018 elections. |
In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 57 out of 110 state House districts in Michigan with an average margin of victory of 12.4 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 67 out of 110 state House districts in Michigan with an average margin of victory of 21.2 points. Trump won eight districts controlled by Democrats heading into the 2018 elections. |
2016 presidential results by state House district | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Obama | Romney | 2012 Margin | Clinton | Trump | 2016 Margin | Party Control |
1 | 76.12% | 23.52% | D+52.6 | 74.49% | 22.85% | D+51.6 | D |
2 | 75.84% | 23.76% | D+52.1 | 74.45% | 22.64% | D+51.8 | D |
3 | 98.21% | 1.58% | D+96.6 | 96.30% | 2.42% | D+93.9 | D |
4 | 96.04% | 3.37% | D+92.7 | 92.77% | 5.06% | D+87.7 | D |
5 | 96.95% | 2.71% | D+94.2 | 93.33% | 4.83% | D+88.5 | D |
6 | 94.15% | 5.34% | D+88.8 | 90.29% | 7.44% | D+82.9 | D |
7 | 98.97% | 0.86% | D+98.1 | 96.95% | 1.74% | D+95.2 | D |
8 | 97.77% | 1.98% | D+95.8 | 95.72% | 2.90% | D+92.8 | D |
9 | 96.42% | 3.28% | D+93.1 | 93.92% | 4.34% | D+89.6 | D |
10 | 83.03% | 16.36% | D+66.7 | 80.28% | 16.66% | D+63.6 | D |
11 | 69.83% | 29.28% | D+40.6 | 60.65% | 34.79% | D+25.9 | D |
12 | 69.66% | 29.46% | D+40.2 | 56.96% | 38.90% | D+18.1 | D |
13 | 58.70% | 40.26% | D+18.4 | 47.99% | 46.73% | D+1.3 | D |
14 | 63.97% | 34.90% | D+29.1 | 50.54% | 44.29% | D+6.2 | D |
15 | 65.45% | 33.49% | D+32 | 62.76% | 31.92% | D+30.8 | D |
16 | 65.88% | 33.26% | D+32.6 | 56.06% | 38.69% | D+17.4 | D |
17 | 53.64% | 45.27% | D+8.4 | 38.41% | 56.34% | R+17.9 | R |
18 | 58.28% | 40.69% | D+17.6 | 50.48% | 44.92% | D+5.6 | D |
19 | 47.24% | 51.98% | R+4.7 | 43.64% | 51.18% | R+7.5 | R |
20 | 47.63% | 51.76% | R+4.1 | 49.30% | 45.76% | D+3.5 | R |
21 | 55.97% | 43.27% | D+12.7 | 54.96% | 40.68% | D+14.3 | D |
22 | 62.75% | 36.16% | D+26.6 | 50.97% | 44.23% | D+6.7 | D |
23 | 51.61% | 47.53% | D+4.1 | 41.73% | 53.84% | R+12.1 | D |
24 | 48.16% | 51.15% | R+3 | 40.03% | 55.91% | R+15.9 | R |
25 | 51.35% | 47.82% | D+3.5 | 42.94% | 52.49% | R+9.6 | D |
26 | 58.60% | 40.29% | D+18.3 | 56.27% | 37.48% | D+18.8 | D |
27 | 74.32% | 24.77% | D+49.6 | 71.48% | 23.39% | D+48.1 | D |
28 | 63.19% | 35.81% | D+27.4 | 54.82% | 40.99% | D+13.8 | D |
29 | 75.48% | 23.86% | D+51.6 | 69.48% | 26.66% | D+42.8 | D |
30 | 47.68% | 51.54% | R+3.9 | 39.34% | 57.11% | R+17.8 | R |
31 | 57.26% | 41.80% | D+15.5 | 47.27% | 48.11% | R+0.8 | D |
32 | 45.10% | 53.91% | R+8.8 | 30.78% | 64.53% | R+33.8 | R |
33 | 43.07% | 56.18% | R+13.1 | 32.28% | 63.80% | R+31.5 | R |
34 | 91.05% | 8.32% | D+82.7 | 85.10% | 12.15% | D+73 | D |
35 | 81.97% | 17.64% | D+64.3 | 81.81% | 15.71% | D+66.1 | D |
36 | 38.24% | 61.04% | R+22.8 | 30.40% | 65.42% | R+35 | R |
37 | 59.10% | 40.27% | D+18.8 | 60.06% | 35.59% | D+24.5 | D |
38 | 45.76% | 53.61% | R+7.9 | 45.77% | 49.43% | R+3.7 | R |
39 | 47.87% | 51.46% | R+3.6 | 45.98% | 49.67% | R+3.7 | R |
40 | 46.75% | 52.82% | R+6.1 | 53.61% | 42.72% | D+10.9 | R |
41 | 47.73% | 51.57% | R+3.8 | 48.35% | 46.97% | D+1.4 | R |
42 | 39.08% | 60.20% | R+21.1 | 35.20% | 59.46% | R+24.3 | R |
43 | 44.30% | 54.75% | R+10.5 | 37.46% | 56.79% | R+19.3 | R |
44 | 40.04% | 59.10% | R+19.1 | 33.95% | 60.71% | R+26.8 | R |
45 | 43.50% | 55.87% | R+12.4 | 43.89% | 51.48% | R+7.6 | R |
46 | 38.96% | 60.14% | R+21.2 | 33.28% | 61.11% | R+27.8 | R |
47 | 36.64% | 62.49% | R+25.9 | 29.62% | 65.24% | R+35.6 | R |
48 | 58.92% | 39.84% | D+19.1 | 42.94% | 51.79% | R+8.9 | D |
49 | 70.36% | 28.78% | D+41.6 | 62.12% | 33.46% | D+28.7 | D |
50 | 56.32% | 42.74% | D+13.6 | 47.23% | 47.93% | R+0.7 | D |
51 | 45.91% | 53.06% | R+7.1 | 35.38% | 58.95% | R+23.6 | R |
52 | 51.66% | 47.46% | D+4.2 | 52.00% | 42.81% | D+9.2 | D |
53 | 79.38% | 19.51% | D+59.9 | 84.00% | 11.95% | D+72.1 | D |
54 | 75.10% | 23.79% | D+51.3 | 72.03% | 23.05% | D+49 | D |
55 | 67.37% | 31.61% | D+35.8 | 68.76% | 26.59% | D+42.2 | D |
56 | 48.37% | 50.57% | R+2.2 | 35.50% | 59.23% | R+23.7 | R |
57 | 49.04% | 49.87% | R+0.8 | 36.78% | 57.21% | R+20.4 | R |
58 | 38.71% | 60.10% | R+21.4 | 26.28% | 68.98% | R+42.7 | R |
59 | 44.29% | 54.72% | R+10.4 | 32.68% | 61.96% | R+29.3 | R |
60 | 72.01% | 26.83% | D+45.2 | 69.41% | 24.00% | D+45.4 | D |
61 | 50.04% | 49.13% | D+0.9 | 49.18% | 44.85% | D+4.3 | R |
62 | 55.24% | 43.75% | D+11.5 | 46.21% | 48.51% | R+2.3 | R |
63 | 44.40% | 54.59% | R+10.2 | 36.73% | 57.51% | R+20.8 | R |
64 | 47.70% | 51.23% | R+3.5 | 39.65% | 54.58% | R+14.9 | R |
65 | 45.58% | 53.37% | R+7.8 | 34.34% | 59.82% | R+25.5 | R |
66 | 49.22% | 49.68% | R+0.5 | 40.21% | 53.57% | R+13.4 | R |
67 | 54.11% | 44.79% | D+9.3 | 48.13% | 45.14% | D+3 | D |
68 | 74.22% | 24.64% | D+49.6 | 69.86% | 24.09% | D+45.8 | D |
69 | 63.28% | 35.87% | D+27.4 | 65.25% | 29.76% | D+35.5 | D |
70 | 46.16% | 52.60% | R+6.4 | 31.66% | 61.85% | R+30.2 | R |
71 | 51.63% | 47.28% | D+4.4 | 45.73% | 48.08% | R+2.4 | R |
72 | 42.84% | 56.25% | R+13.4 | 42.15% | 51.76% | R+9.6 | R |
73 | 38.17% | 60.92% | R+22.8 | 38.73% | 55.53% | R+16.8 | R |
74 | 38.55% | 60.36% | R+21.8 | 34.41% | 58.80% | R+24.4 | R |
75 | 74.68% | 23.76% | D+50.9 | 72.00% | 20.81% | D+51.2 | D |
76 | 54.72% | 44.21% | D+10.5 | 56.22% | 36.96% | D+19.3 | D |
77 | 40.65% | 58.32% | R+17.7 | 39.18% | 54.16% | R+15 | R |
78 | 42.78% | 56.14% | R+13.4 | 35.48% | 58.95% | R+23.5 | R |
79 | 47.82% | 51.46% | R+3.6 | 43.78% | 51.52% | R+7.7 | R |
80 | 41.20% | 57.64% | R+16.4 | 34.03% | 59.93% | R+25.9 | R |
81 | 43.91% | 55.01% | R+11.1 | 29.26% | 65.68% | R+36.4 | R |
82 | 43.67% | 55.14% | R+11.5 | 28.22% | 66.56% | R+38.3 | R |
83 | 46.42% | 52.52% | R+6.1 | 33.33% | 60.79% | R+27.5 | R |
84 | 43.28% | 55.59% | R+12.3 | 28.81% | 66.70% | R+37.9 | R |
85 | 49.88% | 48.85% | D+1 | 35.62% | 57.97% | R+22.4 | R |
86 | 36.01% | 62.99% | R+27 | 34.93% | 58.61% | R+23.7 | R |
87 | 40.02% | 58.70% | R+18.7 | 30.07% | 63.54% | R+33.5 | R |
88 | 26.40% | 72.87% | R+46.5 | 25.79% | 68.49% | R+42.7 | R |
89 | 37.56% | 61.56% | R+24 | 36.28% | 57.85% | R+21.6 | R |
90 | 32.62% | 66.46% | R+33.8 | 32.75% | 60.91% | R+28.2 | R |
91 | 50.46% | 48.46% | D+2 | 39.61% | 54.18% | R+14.6 | R |
92 | 67.85% | 31.32% | D+36.5 | 58.17% | 36.52% | D+21.7 | D |
93 | 46.26% | 52.90% | R+6.6 | 38.97% | 55.17% | R+16.2 | R |
94 | 43.56% | 55.67% | R+12.1 | 37.44% | 57.65% | R+20.2 | R |
95 | 74.44% | 24.76% | D+49.7 | 66.46% | 29.76% | D+36.7 | D |
96 | 53.72% | 45.31% | D+8.4 | 43.05% | 51.44% | R+8.4 | D |
97 | 45.55% | 53.21% | R+7.7 | 30.25% | 65.08% | R+34.8 | R |
98 | 43.01% | 56.04% | R+13 | 37.35% | 55.97% | R+18.6 | R |
99 | 50.75% | 48.05% | D+2.7 | 40.94% | 52.83% | R+11.9 | R |
100 | 43.36% | 55.52% | R+12.2 | 30.44% | 64.16% | R+33.7 | R |
101 | 48.22% | 50.74% | R+2.5 | 40.48% | 53.98% | R+13.5 | R |
102 | 42.55% | 56.27% | R+13.7 | 30.87% | 63.45% | R+32.6 | R |
103 | 42.90% | 55.90% | R+13 | 28.62% | 66.46% | R+37.8 | R |
104 | 43.58% | 55.39% | R+11.8 | 40.74% | 53.27% | R+12.5 | R |
105 | 40.35% | 58.47% | R+18.1 | 31.11% | 63.83% | R+32.7 | R |
106 | 45.20% | 53.57% | R+8.4 | 32.06% | 63.22% | R+31.2 | R |
107 | 43.34% | 55.54% | R+12.2 | 35.33% | 58.84% | R+23.5 | R |
108 | 44.37% | 54.58% | R+10.2 | 32.79% | 62.29% | R+29.5 | R |
109 | 53.29% | 45.44% | D+7.9 | 44.75% | 48.82% | R+4.1 | D |
110 | 47.04% | 51.62% | R+4.6 | 37.59% | 56.55% | R+19 | D |
Total | 54.30% | 44.79% | D+9.5 | 47.36% | 47.59% | R+0.2 | - |
Source: Daily Kos |
Seat election history
2014
Attorney General of Michigan, 2014 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
Republican | 52.1% | 1,603,471 | ||
Democratic | Mark Totten | 44.2% | 1,359,839 | |
Libertarian | Justin Altman | 1.9% | 57,345 | |
U.S. Taxpayers | Gerald T. Van Sickle | 1% | 30,762 | |
Green | John Anthony La Pietra | 0.8% | 25,747 | |
Total Votes | 3,077,164 | |||
Election results via Michigan Department of State |
2010
2010 Race for Attorney General - General Election[9] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
Republican Party | 52.3% | ||
Democratic Party | David Leyton | 43.5% | |
Libertarian Party | Daniel W. Grow | 2.3% | |
U.S. Taxpayers | Gerald T. Van Sickle | 1.9% | |
Total Votes | 3,136,224 |
2006
2006 Race for Attorney General - General Election[10] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
Republican Party | 53.8% | ||
Democratic Party | Amos Williams | 43.6% | |
Libertarian Party | Bill Hall | 1.6% | |
U.S. Taxpayers | Charles Conces | 1.0% | |
Total Votes | 3,690,415 |
2002
2002 Race for Attorney General - General Election[11] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
Republican Party | 48.9% | ||
Democratic Party | Gary Peters | 48.7% | |
Green Party | Jerry Kaufmann | 1.5% | |
U.S. Taxpayers | Gerald T. Van Sickle | 0.9% | |
Total Votes | 3,068,012 |
State overview
Partisan control
This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in Michigan heading into the 2018 elections.
Congressional delegation
- Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in Michigan.
- Republicans held 9 of 14 U.S. House seats in Michigan, Democrats held four seats, and one seat was vacant.
State executives
- As of September 2018, Republicans held eight of 16 state executive positions, Democrats held four, and the remaining four positions were officially nonpartisan.
- The governor of Michigan was Republican Rick Snyder. The state held an election for governor and lieutenant governor on November 6, 2018.
State legislature
- Republicans controlled both chambers of the Michigan State Legislature. They had a 63-46 majority in the state House and a 27-10 majority in the state Senate.
Trifecta status
- Michigan was a Republican trifecta, meaning that the Republican Party controlled the state government. Rick Snyder (R) served as governor, while Republicans controlled the state legislature.
2018 elections
- See also: Michigan elections, 2018
Michigan held elections for the following positions in 2018:
- One U.S. Senate seat
- 14 U.S. House seats
- Governor and lieutenant governor
- Five lower state executive positions
- 38 state Senate seats
- 110 state House seats
- Municipal elections in Wayne County
Demographics
Demographic data for Michigan | ||
---|---|---|
Michigan | U.S. | |
Total population: | 9,917,715 | 316,515,021 |
Land area (sq mi): | 56,539 | 3,531,905 |
Race and ethnicity** | ||
White: | 79% | 73.6% |
Black/African American: | 14% | 12.6% |
Asian: | 2.7% | 5.1% |
Native American: | 0.5% | 0.8% |
Pacific Islander: | 0% | 0.2% |
Two or more: | 2.6% | 3% |
Hispanic/Latino: | 4.7% | 17.1% |
Education | ||
High school graduation rate: | 89.6% | 86.7% |
College graduation rate: | 26.9% | 29.8% |
Income | ||
Median household income: | $49,576 | $53,889 |
Persons below poverty level: | 20% | 11.3% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Michigan. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. |
As of July 2016, Michigan's three largest cities were Detroit (pop. est. 673,000), Grand Rapids (pop. est. 199,000), and Warren (pop. est. 135,000).[12]
State election history
This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in Michigan from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the Michigan Secretary of State.
Historical elections
Presidential elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the presidential election in Michigan every year from 2000 to 2016.
Election results (President of the United States), Michigan 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2016 | 47.5% | 47.3% | 0.2% | ||
2012 | 54.2% | 44.7% | 9.5% | ||
2008 | 57.4% | 41.0% | 16.4% | ||
2004 | 51.2% | 47.8% | 3.4% | ||
2000 | 51.3% | 46.2% | 5.1% |
U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in Michigan from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.
Election results (U.S. Senator), Michigan 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2014 | 54.6% | 41.3% | 13.3% | ||
2012 | 58.8% | 38.0% | 20.8% | ||
2008 | 62.7% | 33.9% | 28.8% | ||
2006 | 56.9% | 41.3% | 15.6% | ||
2002 | 60.6% | 37.9% | 22.7% | ||
2000 | 49.5% | 47.9% | 1.6% |
Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in Michigan.
Election results (Governor), Michigan 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2014 | 50.9% | 46.9% | 4.0% | ||
2010 | 58.1% | 39.9% | 18.2% | ||
2006 | 56.4% | 42.3% | 14.1% | ||
2002 | 51.4% | 47.4% | 4.0% |
Congressional delegation, 2000-2016
This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent Michigan in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.
Trifectas, 1992-2017
A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
Michigan Party Control: 1992-2025
Two years of Democratic trifectas • Fourteen years of Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Governor | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
Senate | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D |
House | D | S | S | R | R | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | R |
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Michigan attorney general election 2018. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
Michigan government: |
Elections: |
Ballotpedia exclusives: |
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ LinkedIn, "Tom Leonard on LinkedIn," accessed September 19, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Tom Leonard 2018 campaign website, "About," accessed September 19, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Tom Leonard 2018 campaign website, "Issues," accessed September 19, 2018
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Dana Nessel 2018 campaign website, "About," accessed September 19, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Dana Nessel 2018 campaign website, "Issues," accessed September 19, 2018
- ↑ 270towin.com, "Michigan," accessed June 29, 2017
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' statewide election results by congressional and legislative districts," July 9, 2013
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' 2016 presidential results for congressional and legislative districts," February 6, 2017
- ↑ Michigan Department of State - 2010 General Election Results
- ↑ Michigan Department of State - 2006 General Election Results
- ↑ Michigan Department of State - 2002 General Election Results
- ↑ Michigan Demographics, "Michigan Cities by Population," accessed September 5, 2018
|
|
|