A principal influence of Michigan’s local government structure came from the 1785 Northwest Ordinance which provided a basic framework of settlement and governance.  Local governments in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin all took a similar form.  Introduction of township government followed a path similar to that of counties.  The Northwest Ordinance provided for a pattern of government that established territorial governors and congressional townships.  Each township consisted of a six-mile-by-six-mile square.  Migrants to Michigan came from northeastern states where township government was popular (Meyer, 2006).

Thomas Jefferson believed in local government, a strong legislature, and popular control (Kettl, 2002).  Jeffersonian tradition aptly illustrates the vast majority of general law townships and even some counties.  A suitable description of the Michigan local government condition might be “Jeffersonian tradition on steroids” as the grass-roots approach is overwhelmingly dominant.

Today, municipal governments in Michigan consist of 1,858 independent units in the form of counties (83), townships (1,240), cities (278), and villages (257).  Each citizen lives in one county and in either a city or a township. More than 275,000 residents live in villages which have their own government but also remain part of a township.  Michigan ranks seventh among the 50 states in the number of general-purpose local units of government (Citizens Research Council of Michigan, 1999).  Census figures from 2010 revealed an average population density of 2,120 (median = 1,670) persons per square mile living in Michigan cities, 901 (median = 760) in villages, 188 (median = 58) in counties, and 141 (median = 55) in townships.  With more urbanized charter townships removed, population density of the remaining 1,123 townships falls to an average of just 80 (median = 48) persons per square mile.

Such low population density among counties and general law (non-charter) townships begs the question of whether both levels of local government are even necessary.  Many functions performed by each level are redundant and can easily be provided by far less-numerous counties.  Jeffersonian traditionalists promote a model of “bottom-up government” with a weak executive, arguing that “government closest to the people governs best.”  Contemporary experience suggests our citizenry is not especially interested in government getting too close.  Industrial and technological advances over two centuries have reshaped the dynamic of local governance. Framed in this modern age, it would be useful to redefine Jeffersonian ideals in terms of local government efficiency and answering the question, “How close is close enough?”