On this day five years ago, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's first lockdown took effect. Lockdown policies were unprecedented in the state's history and deviated from Michigan's official plan for responding to pandemics. To date, the Whitmer administration has not revisited or studied the ramifications of her lockdowns. Important questions remain unanswered.

What made Whitmer’s lockdown shocking to many was its sweeping and aggressive approach. It applied to "all individuals currently living within the State of Michigan." It banned "all public and private gatherings of any number of people." Whitmer signed it on the morning of March 23 and made it effective at 12:01 a.m. on March 24. Michigan residents had about 12 hours to prepare to be subjected to a first-of-its-kind shelter-in-place, a policy typically only considered in wartime.

The order created a broad prohibition on all activities that were "not necessary to sustain or protect life." All other social interactions were prohibited and punishable under criminal law. The lockdown order banned all in-person work and declared that this prohibition must be "construed broadly." The result was that every business had to cease all operations that were not explicitly allowed in the order.

Whitmer's lockdown order divided all of society into two crude categories: activities that are "necessary to sustain or protect life" and those that aren’t. The governor has yet to explain how she chose which activities fell into each category.

The governor's orders were so confusing that her administration felt compelled to write more than a thousand responses to frequently asked questions. State officials were dictating policy by making up the rules on the fly. It is hard to express how preposterous this was: The Whitmer administration tried to command the behavior of 10 million Michigan residents by simply posting clarifications of the governor's confusing and vague executive orders to a state webpage.

This approach has not been thoroughly reviewed or studied. Is this the best way to make policy decisions during a pandemic emergency? Would the Whitmer administration use this same approach if another pandemic panic arose?

Some other important questions remain about Whitmer's COVID-19 response. These include:

• Are lockdowns constitutional? The Supreme Court determined that Whitmer’s use of emergency powers was illegal, but courts have yet to assess the legality of permitting a state official to assume unilateral and indefinite authority to regulate virtually every public interaction. Is that what lawmakers intended when they created emergency power laws?
• Who should be in charge of the state's pandemic response? Initially, Whitmer used her own emergency powers but later shifted to issuing orders through the state health director's authority. Previous pandemic plans say local health departments should take charge. Who should issue pandemic orders? Should the Legislature be involved?
• Should a "gathering" be defined as "any occurrence, either indoor or outdoor, where two or more persons from more than one household are present in a shared space?" This is the definition the health department came up with to justify regulating every social interaction in Michigan. Is this what legislators meant when they passed that law back in 1978?
• What were the benefits of Whitmer's compulsory orders compared to less restrictive ones? What was the benefit of forcing every person in the state to stay home under penalty of law compared to simply making this a recommendation? Was the use of force necessary and appropriate?
• Why did Michigan record more COVID-19 deaths per capita than neighboring states, such as Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Illinois? How did those states fare better?
• Should the state have allowed schools to stay closed for so long? What were the benefits and costs of forcing children to endure remote instruction for months at a time?
• Is a targeted approach better than a broad one? Most of the time, Whitmer issued statewide orders. But at other times, she tailored her orders to specific regions. Which is more effective?
• What were the benefits and costs of the following policies:
  • Requiring two- to four-year-olds to wear masks in April 2021.
  • Closing indoor bars in July 2020.
  • Keeping ice arenas, theaters, bowling alleys and gyms shuttered for more than a year.
  • Allowing people to walk on a golf course but not golf on a golf course.
  • Mandating teenage athletes test weekly for COVID-19 in April 2021.
  • Permitting people to fish from a rowboat but not from a boat with a motor.
  • Allowing downhill skiing but not outdoor ice skating.
  • Closing high schools for three weeks in November 2020.

No one in state government seems interested in answering, or even asking, these questions. One reason for this may be that the Whitmer administration knows the answers to these questions may reflect poorly on her lockdown decisions. If that's the case, it's better not to know. But it would be a shame if these questions remain unanswered the next time the state government tries to wage war against an easily transmissible respiratory virus. Michigan residents will likely find themselves engulfed in a whirlwind of confusion and controversy once again.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.