COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE HOW MICHIGAN GOVERNORS SELECT AND MICHIGAN CITIZENS ELECT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The current system of selection and election of Michigan's Supreme Court Justice is in serious need of evaluation and repair. The current system has some obviously weird features. For instance, the elections are nominally non-partisan, but candidates are nominated by political parties (though party designation does not appear on the ballot). Also, judicial incumbents are so listed on the ballot, though incumbent candidates in the other two branches of government (executive and legislative) are not so designated.
The current system also allows the Governor unchecked discretion to fill Supreme Court vacancies, always with party loyalists, but often party loyalists without any judicial experience. Witness our current Michigan Supreme Court for verification.
Lately, our Supreme Court elections have become expensive partisan blood-lettings, most recently featuring the "Sleeping Judge" ads on the one hand and the "Diane Hathaway-Vacationing on the Issues" ads on the other.
As bad as the current system is, it has defenders. Usually, and obviously, the most ardent supporters are members of the political party of the incumbent Governor. The filling of vacancies "perk" is a valuable one. The opposition doesn't want to lose its turn to benefit from a bad system when it inevitably regains power, either. There is not a lot of support for reform within the political parties, major or minor. (The abortive attempt at a reform ballot initiative for the 2008 election notwithstanding).
Then there are folks like Dan Pero and the American Justice Partnership. They oppose judicial election reform. In my opinion, this opposition is based simply on the belief that more money wins more elections under the current arrangement, and that AJP sponsors like the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce have more money.
Advocating necessary reform in this area is not a fast track to advancement for any political partisan. Judicial reform advocates are subject to attack from all sides.
Therefore it is not really surprising that a comprehensive plan for reforming the current system comes from Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver. A Republican, Justice Weaver has demonstrated admirable independence during her time on the bench. Being a good Justice first may benefit the citizens of Michigan, but does not help the value of your stock with the Republican Party. (Or get you many invitations to lunch with Cliff Taylor, Robert Young, et al., which may not be a bad thing.)
Justice Weaver's Proposal to Reform Michigan's Dual System of Election and Appointment of Supreme Court Justices was sent on to the Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State and members of the Michigan House and Senate on March 5, 2009.
The proposals contained in the three page document do go a long way toward addressing the problems (euphemism alert) of the current system. The proposals include the following:
- No political party nomination.
- Election by district, 7 districts, one Justice per district.
- Public funding of electiions, by tax return check off
- One term of eight years; Justice never eligible for reelection or appointment
- A new system for filling Supreme Court vacancies, which does not give the Governor unfettered discretion, and provides that the appointees serve only until the end of the vacant term.
There is much to think about here, and I haven't thought through all of the proposals yet. I am not sure I support all of them. But I am sure that I support most of them, and that they address most of the problems of the current system (a partisan, yet non-partisan election process, incumbency ballot designations, unrestrained gubernatorial discretion, as well as unrestrained campaign spending.).
I hope that Justice Weaver's proposals bring our broken Supreme Court selection/election process front and center. I hope many, if not all, of the proposals are enacted.
Justice Weaver is to be commended, not only for the content of her proposals, but for the courage required to introduce these proposals to what I assume will be a less than receptive partisan audience.
I wonder, do they make asbestos and/or cast iron lined judicial robes? Justice Weaver may need them, though I am confident she can stand the heat, slings and arrows that will come her way.
Comments