Tuesday, November 02, 2010

The State of Superior

The Upper Peninsula as the 51st state in the union. It's a nice thought, now isn't it? In certain ways, it's a novel idea. However, there are many logistics that make the idea unrealistic. The idea to turn the Upper Peninsula into it's own state has been attempted before, but has failed to be achieved. The last time an effort was mounted into making the U.P. a state was in the 1970's, when long-time Michigan House of Representative Dominic Jacobetti formally introduced legislation to make the Upper Peninsula, which would go under the state name of "Superior," its own state. The idea never really gained much traction, although at the time, certain residents in the U.P. and even northern Wisconsin felt they were being ignored of their concerns at the state level in Lansing and Madison respectively, thus, they joined the efforts to make the state of Superior more than just a dream.

There were a few other attempts prior to the 1970's at creating the new state of Superior. Sometime in the 1960's, legislation was being proposed to secede from Michigan and to join the state of Wisconsin. After all, the U.P. does have more of a connection land-wise than it does with the Lower Peninsula. The 906 area code was even designated for the Upper Peninsula for this reason. Yet as we all know now, those plans failed. In 1962, an Upper Peninsula Independence Association group was formed for the purpose of beginning the process of making the U.P. its own state. 20,000 petition signatures were collected for the effort to secede from the state of Michigan in order to make it a ballot initiative - some 36,000 signatures short.

So as you can see, efforts have been made in the past to turn the U.P. into its own state. Going even further back, parts of Minnesota and Northern Wisconsin, along with the U.P., were considered as part of a new state either called Superior or Ontonagon. Could you imagine how cool it would be to have a state named Ontonagon, as part of the United States? People from downstate have a hard enough time pronouncing Ontonagon as it is - can you imagine if everyone else in the country had to? With that being said, there's a major reason why many of these attempts at statehood have failed. It's largely because of population, or lack thereof. The Upper Peninsula alone has a population of 320,000 people. A state including all of the U.P.'s 15 counties would make it the state with the smallest population in the country. However, it would rank as 40th in land mass, larger than Maryland.

Not only would the U.P.'s small population inhibit future attempts of statehood, but the U.P. could not survive if it was not apart of another state like Michigan or Wisconsin. Even though we get frustrated and feel ignored by the politicians in Lansing, the U.P. does receive a healthy amount of funding by the government in our state capital. There's no question that times are tough in the state. With the failing auto industry and state unemployment figures still well into the teens, the state government has been cutting back funding to a variety of programs. How can you hand out money when there is none to hand out? Even in these desperate times, Michigan does its fair share in supporting the Upper Peninsula. The Lower Peninsula would struggle even further in losing the U.P. and vice versa.

So as you can see, issues that plagued the attempts of statehood back in the 1960's and 70's would continue to be a problem today if such an attempt were made in present times. Honestly, I think it's much better to leave well enough alone despite the fact that the creation of the state of Superior would be a unique and novel idea. I just don't know how the state of Superior would be able to support itself with just 320,000 of residents. I think if any idea were to succeed, it would be for the U.P. to become a part of Wisconsin - or at least the western half of it. However, I highly doubt anything will change in that regard. If the U.P. were to become its own state, it would've needed to happen much sooner in history than in today's times.

No comments: