When Gerald Ford resigned his Congressional seat to accept the vice-presidency, the special election to succeed him the following February, resulted in the election of a Democrat. Many were stunned. Not only had Ford had held the seat convincingly since his first election in 1948, but no Democrat had won the Grand Rapids area district since 1912 and Nixon had racked up 60% in ’72. But the election of Richard Vander Veen was the first sign for Republicans that, in the heart of Watergate, they could not expect business as usual in the fall.
Vander Veen’s win was actually one of three barometers of the fall. Democrats captured another long held Republican seat in Michigan that Bob Traxler seized, and in Pennsylvania, a young State senator named Jack Murtha wrested away a GOP seat. And Vander Veen himself had lost to Ford, in 1958, before he was a leader in Congress and in, save for 1964, the best Democratic year prior to ’74.
Vander Veen was squaring against, Vander Laan. That would be Richard Vander Laan, GOP leader in the Michigan State Senate (the Dutch are aplenty in these parts).
Vander Veen was a lawyer long active in politics. Most recently, he had served on the Grand Rapids Board of Education, not exactly a steppingstone for a seat in Congress. And Vander Veen wasn’t shy about who he was running against. He asked voters to make the election a “referendum on the moral bankruptcy of Richard Nixon.” He also linked Nixon to other area problems, such as unemployment.
Congressional Quarterly said Vander Veen swept Grand rapids and came within 300 votes of winning the rural areas. But in a pretty adroit move, Vander Veen had hoped that Nixon would resign, which obviously signaled his approval toward Ford. Outspending the Republicans was also unexpected and while, probably wouldn’t have made a difference, surely didn’t hurt.
Vander Veen won 51-44%. The results left Democrats buoyantly predicting gains for November (Phil Burton said 100 GOP seats were at risk of falling in November), and shocked Republicans acknowledged their loss. Republican National Committee Chair George H.W. Bush said, “candidly, this is a seat we felt confident we would hold in the spite of the national problems.” “It takes little imagination to expect that other Democrats will pick up on the Vander Veen strategy in November.”
Vander Veen worked the district hard and won a full term with 55% in November against Paul Goebel Jr, whose father was a Grand Rapids Mayor. He tried to keep his distance from the national party. But in ’76, he had a big problem. Not only were voters returning to their usual Republican proclivities, but the man who was leading it was Ford himself. He faced Kent County prosecutor Harold sawyer who charged Vander Veen with not voting with Ford the way he had promised.
A news conference discussing the shock of his win (Ebay photo)
A September poll showed Vander Veen up by 14% but as the election approached, it became clear that the race would be close. In he end, Ford took 68%, which, the Almanac of American Politics noted, was more than he had received in most of his Congressional races. That was a little too much for Vander-Veen to bear and he lost the seat 54-46%. Vander Veen returned to Grand Rapids and kept up his civic invlvement. He died at 84 in 2006, praised by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Vander Veen’s tenure was brief. But in this age when an “upset” can hardly be considered that because it is expected, having a true shock was nice indeed. And true to form, no Democrat has held this House seat since.