By/ Adel AlAdlani
The city of Dearborn stands at a crossroads. A movement known as “Dearborn Wants Wards” has emerged, advocating for the division of the city into nine electoral districts, each electing its own representative to the city council. Proponents argue that this system will enhance representation, ensure equitable resource distribution, and increase political participation among marginalized communities. However, the reality is far more complex. The wards system is not a panacea for Dearborn’s challenges; rather, it risks deepening divisions, reducing voter turnout, and weakening the collective identity of the city. Instead of fragmenting Dearborn into competing districts, we must strengthen the principle of “One Dearborn” as articulated by Mayor Abdullah Hammoud in his (2022) inauguration speech when he emphasized “We are one Dearborn, one community with shared dreams, shared struggles, and a shared future”. One Dearborn is not just aspirational, it is practical; a unified city where all residents are equally represented and where council members are accountable to the entire community, not just a single neighborhood.
The wards system, also known as district-based representation, divides a municipality into smaller geographic units, with each electing its own council member. This model has historical roots in 19th-century urban politics, where it was often used to balance competing ethnic and immigrant interests. However, the system has also been criticized for fostering parochialism, where council members prioritize narrow local concerns over the broader needs of the city. In the United States, the debate over wards versus at-large systems has often been shaped by racial and ethnic tensions. In the mid-20th century, many cities moved away from wards due to concerns about corruption and inefficiency, opting instead for at-large elections to promote citywide accountability. For example, Evan Mast’s study “Warding Off Development: Local Control, Housing Suppy, and NIMBYs” investigates how shifting from at-large to ward-based elections impacts housing construction in cities. Analyzing data from nearly 300 cities between 1981 and 2011, he finds that cities making this switch issued 24% fewer housing permits, with multi-family developments seeing the steepest decline (47%) compared to single-family homes (12%). The findings suggest that election systems influence housing supply, potentially affecting affordability and availability for residents. However, in recent decades, some municipalities, particularly those with significant racial and economic disparities, have reintroduced wards in an effort to increase minority representation.
While the intent may be noble as some see it, the results have been mixed. Cities like Detroit and Warren adopted hybrid systems with both ward-based and at-large seats, yet disparities persist. The failures of ward systems in ensuring fair representation are evident in U.S. case studies even beyond Michigan such as Austin, Texas, and Cincinnati, Ohio, and others. In Austin, the ward system used until 1953 suppressed minority voices, leading to a sharp decline in African-American and Hispanic representation after switching to at-large elections, no minority council members were elected for decades, prompting a later shift to a hybrid system. Similarly, Cincinnati’s old ward system was riddled with corruption and neighborhood favoritism, leading to its replacement with at-large elections in 1924, which initially reduced graft but later weakened minority representation, eventually necessitating a mixed system. These examples demonstrate how rigid ward structures can undermine unity and equitable representation, reinforcing the need for systems that balance local and citywide interests without deepening divisions.
Proponents of the wards system claim it will improve representation, but the reality is more nuanced. There are key reasons why wards would be detrimental to Dearborn. The most fundamental objection to the wards system is that it institutionalizes division. Dearborn is a diverse city, but its strength lies in its ability to function as a cohesive community. By partitioning the city into competing districts, we risk creating a council where members advocate solely for their own neighborhoods rather than the collective good. Council members elected at-large must appeal to voters across the entire city, ensuring they consider diverse perspectives. In contrast, ward-based representatives may focus narrowly on localized issues, leading to fragmented governance. As inspired by philosopher John Dewey’s ideas on democracy and community, “True unity is not achieved by partitioning people into wards, but by creating shared institutions that transcend local divisions.” Wards system would turn our neighborhoods into political battlegrounds rather than shared spaces. As former Wayne County Commission Chairman Gary Woronchak noted, wards risk “pitting neighborhood against neighborhood” rather than fostering a unified vision for Dearborn. In other words, the introduction of wards could inadvertently weaken citywide solidarity by encouraging council members to focus narrowly on their own districts rather than the collective good of Dearborn as a whole. In an at-large system, elected officials are accountable to all residents, incentivizing policies that benefit the broader community. By contrast, a ward system might foster a fixed-pie mindset in which representatives advocate only for their own constituencies, potentially neglecting citywide priorities such as infrastructure, public safety, and economic development. This fragmentation could hinder cohesive decision-making and slow progress on critical issues, ultimately harming Dearborn’s ability to function as a unified and forward-thinking city.
Advocates argue that wards will ensure marginalized areas like the Southend gain representation. However, opponents of ward-based elections argue that the current at-large system already reflects Dearborn’s diversity, with four of seven council members being of Arab descent, proportionally representing the city’s 55% Arab American population. The real barrier to equitable representation is not the electoral structure but low voter engagement, particularly in underserved neighborhoods. For instance, the 2021 charter commission election saw a dismal 12.5% turnout, demonstrating that residents disengaged from city politics are unlikely to participate more actively under a ward system. Evidence from other Michigan cities further undermines the claim that wards boost participation: Detroit’s hybrid system yielded only a 14.6% turnout in 2021, Ann Arbor’s ward elections saw 17.8% participation in 2022, and Warren’s post-ward 2023 election reached just 18.2%, with historically marginalized areas still lagging. Dearborn’s own 2021 city election, with a 12.5% turnout, confirms that voter apathy, not the electoral framework, is the core issue. If Dearborn adopts wards, we may see fewer competitive elections, with incumbents entrenched in safe districts and voters in non-swing areas feeling even more ignored. Rather than dividing the city into wards, efforts should focus on improving civic outreach and unifying residents under the existing at-large system, which has already proven capable of fostering inclusive representation.
One of the most pressing concerns that advocates seem incapable to fathom is the costs associated with the wards system. The financial and logistical challenges of transitioning to a ward system in Dearborn would impose significant burdens on the city, diverting resources from essential services. Implementing such a system would require extensive redistricting efforts, involving costly demographic analyses, legal consultations, and public hearings to ensure compliance with voting rights laws while avoiding gerrymandering. For example, when Philadelphia explored shifting to district-based representation, the redistricting process alone was projected to cost millions, factoring in consultant fees, community engagement efforts, and the administrative complexities of redrawing electoral boundaries. Similarly, Louisville, Kentucky, faced substantial expenses when it transitioned to a full ward system in 2003, spending an estimated $500,000 just on initial redistricting and voter education, not including recurring costs like legal disputes and census-based boundary adjustments. Beyond redistricting, Dearborn would also need to invest in updated election infrastructure, including precinct mapping software and poll worker training, while launching public awareness campaigns to explain new voting districts and candidate eligibility rules. These logistical hurdles are compounded by the long-term operational costs of maintaining a ward system, as seen in cities like Chicago, where each district requires its own staff, offices, and funding, leading to inefficiencies, redundancies, and a strain on municipal budgets. In Dearborn, where resources are already allocated to critical services like public safety, infrastructure, and community programs, adopting a ward system could force difficult trade-offs, siphoning funds away from citywide priorities. The experiences of Philadelphia and Louisville demonstrate that while ward-based representation may offer localized benefits, the costs, both monetary and social, often outweigh the advantages, making unity-focused governance a wiser path forward for Dearborn.
A significant concern with implementing wards in Dearborn is the risk of gerrymandering. The potential of gerrymandering means the deliberate manipulation of electoral boundaries to benefit specific political factions or ethnic groups. While the proposed system would assign redistricting responsibilities to a commission, historical evidence suggests that such processes are rarely immune to political interference. A stark example can be found in Warren, where the implementation of wards led to widespread accusations of racial and partisan bias in the drawing of district lines. The southern part of Warren, in particular, continues to face challenges in securing fair representation, demonstrating how ward systems can exacerbate divisions rather than resolve them. If Dearborn adopts a similar structure, it risks replicating these conflicts, further fragmenting the city along political or ethnic lines and eroding the sense of unity that currently defines the community. Rather than fostering inclusivity, a ward system could deepen polarization, turning local governance into a battleground for competing interests instead of a collaborative effort to serve all residents equitably. Additionally, while advocates of wards argue that they will lead to a more balanced distribution of city resources, this assumption relies on the questionable premise that council members from historically underserved neighborhoods will possess enough political influence to secure necessary funding. In reality, budgetary decisions are still made by the full council, meaning representatives from more affluent or politically dominant districts could still override the needs of less powerful areas. This dynamic has played out in other municipalities where ward systems failed to deliver on promises of equity, leaving marginalized communities no better off than before. A more effective and inclusive alternative would be to strengthen neighborhood advisory councils, which allow residents to voice their concerns directly without dividing the city into competing districts. Coupled with equity-focused budgeting, a process that systematically prioritizes underfunded areas, Dearborn could address disparities without resorting to a ward structure that risks Balkanizing local governance.
Given these risks, preserving Dearborn’s current at-large system, while implementing targeted reforms like advisory councils and equity-based budgeting, offers a more stable and inclusive path forward. Rather than gambling on a ward system that could deepen divisions and invite political manipulation, the city should focus on strengthening existing structures to ensure fair representation and resource allocation for all residents. Maintaining unity in Dearborn requires governance that prioritizes collaboration over competition, and an at-large system, supplemented by thoughtful equity measures, is better suited to achieve that goal. By learning from the shortcomings of other cities and avoiding the pitfalls of gerrymandering and unequal representation, Dearborn can continue to thrive as a cohesive and resilient community.
In conclusion, the push for a ward system in Dearborn represents a significant moment in the city’s civic discourse. While the desire for improved representation is commendable, the potential risks of division and disenfranchisement cannot be overlooked. Emphasizing “One Dearborn” is crucial in fostering a sense of community that transcends geographical boundaries. By focusing on enhancing voter engagement and representation through alternative methods, Dearborn can build a more inclusive and equitable future without resorting to a divisive ward system. The path forward should prioritize unity, collaboration, and a shared commitment to the well-being of all residents, ensuring that every voice is heard and valued in the governance of this vibrant city.
