Michigan: new laws require state court administrative office certify all veterans, drug, DWI, and mental health courts

A set of bills previously discussed here, that require Michigan judges/courts that want to operate special problem solving dockets be certified by the state court administrator’s office has been signed by that state’s governor (press release here).

SB 435 (drug courts), SB 436 (DWI/sobriety courts), SB 437 (mental health courts), and SB 438 (veterans courts) provide that existing or new problem solving courts/dockets must be certified (“The state court administrative office shall establish the procedure for certification.”) or will be shut down starting January 1, 2018.

Michigan: Senate unanimously approves bills requiring state court administrative office certify all veterans, drug, DWI, and mental health courts

A set of bills previously discussed here, that require Michigan judges/courts that want to operate special problem solving dockets be certified by the state court administrator’s office has cleared that state’s Senate (news report here).

SB 435 (drug courts), SB 436 (DWI/sobriety courts), SB 437 (mental health courts), and SB 438 (veterans courts) provide that existing or new problem solving courts/dockets must be certified (“The state court administrative office shall establish the procedure for certification.”) or will be shut down starting January 1, 2018.

The bills are “tie-barred”, meaning for one to pass, they must all pass.

The bills have now been assigned to the House Law and Justice Committee.

Michigan: plan to study how trial courts are funded clears legislature; report due by 2019

Michigan’s House and Senate approved yesterday (June 15) creation of a commission to examine how Michigan’s trial courts are funded.

HB 4613 as approved by both chambers would create the Trial Court Funding Commission. The Commission comes in light of People v. Cunningham, a July 2014 Michigan Supreme Court decision holding that a section of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not provide courts with the independent authority to impose costs upon criminal defendants. Those costs helped pay for trial courts in the state.

The Commission shall

(a) Review and recommend changes to the trial court funding system.

(b) Review and recommend changes to the methods by which the courts impose and allocate fees and costs.

(c) Suggest statutory changes necessary to effectuate recommended changes.

(d) Prepare a final report to the governor and legislative leaders “not later than 2 years after the effective date of this act.”

HB 4613 now goes to the governor for approval.

Michigan: bills set for hearing next week would require state court administrative office certify all veterans, drug, DWI, and mental health courts

A set of bills up for a hearing next week in the Michigan Senate’s Judiciary Committee would require that judges/courts that want to operate special problem solving dockets would have to be certified by the state court administrator’s office.

SB 435 (drug courts), SB 436 (DWI/sobriety courts), SB 437 (mental health courts), and SB 438 (veterans courts) provide that existing or new problem solving courts/dockets must be certified (“The state court administrative office shall establish the procedure for certification.”) or will be shut down starting January 1, 2018.

The bills are “tie-barred”, meaning for one to pass, they must all pass.

The hearing is set for June 13.

Michigan: repeal of mandatory judicial retirement age advances out of House committee; would allow judges older than 70 to run for or be appointed to judicial office

Michigan’s mandatory retirement age is something of a misnomer. A judge who reaches the age of 70 isn’t forced to retire that day, month, year, or even term, they just aren’t allowed to run for or be appointed to judicial office again. Or, as the state’s constitution puts it

No person shall be elected or appointed to a judicial office after reaching the age of 70 years.

Under HJR G of 2017, however, that restriction would be repealed. The repeal plan advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee on April 25.

HJR G is just the latest attempt to bring forth such a repeal.

  • HJR S and SJR J of 2015/2016 House: Died in committee. Senate: Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee. Died on Senate floor.
  • SJR F of 2013/2014 Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee. Died on Senate floor.
  • SJR U of 2011/2012 Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee. Died on Senate floor.
  • HJR FF of 2007/2008 Filed, never taken up.

 

NC: So how many other states/courts elect their appellate judges in a partisan manner? It’s complicated.

Amid the debate on SB 4 today and the decision to switch North Carolina’s Supreme Court and Court of Appeals from nonpartisan to partisan races, there’s been a good amount of discussion of how many other states and appellate courts have partisan elections. Numbers have ranged widely. The reason for this is fairly straight forward in that for many states it is not a straight forward answer.

There are 8 states with 9 courts in which at one point or another justices of the supreme court/court of last resort show up with a party label somehow. It was 9 states with 10 courts until 2015 when West Virginia ended partisan races for their Supreme Court of Appeals.

  1. Alabama: partisan primaries and partisan general elections.
  2. Illinois: partisan primaries, partisan general elections but only for the first election. If a person does get elected to the Illinois Supreme Court, the next time they are up they are put into a yes/no retention election, however to stay in office they need to get a 60% “yes to retain” vote.
  3. Louisiana: The state uses a “blanket primary” in which all candidates appear with party labels on the primary ballot. The two top votegetters compete in the general election. Thus in the general election, you could have two Republicans vying against each other for the seat, as occurred most recently in 2016 when Republican James “Jimmy” Genovese defeated fellow Republican Marilyn Castle for the 3rd Supreme Court District (Louisiana elects their justices by district, not statewide).
  4. Michigan: candidates for Supreme Court are nominated by political parties but the actual ballot in November is nonpartisan (i.e. no party labels).
  5. New Mexico: very complicated. When a vacancy occurs on the New Mexico Supreme Court, it is initially filled via merit selection (nominating commission sends list of names to governor, governor picks). The newly appointed justice must then run in a partisan primary and partisan general election but only for the first election. If a person does get elected to the New Mexico Supreme Court, the next time they are up they are put into a yes/no retention election, however to stay in office they need to get a 57% “yes to retain” vote.
  6. Ohio: Partisan primaries, but nonpartisan general elections.
  7. Pennsylvania: partisan primaries, partisan general elections but only for the first election. If a person does get elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the next time they are up they are put into a yes/no retention election (50% “yes to retain” to remain in office).
  8. Texas: Everything is bigger in Texas, including their appellate courts. Texas has two “courts of last resort”: the Supreme Court for civil matters and the Court of Criminal Appeals. Both courts use partisan primaries and partisan general elections.

Michigan: bill on House 3rd reading calendar would tie judicial salary increases to state employees; judges haven’t seen increase in 13 years

A plan set for a vote in the Michigan House today would tie judicial salary increases to those given to state employees. As the most recent edition of the Survey of Judicial Salaries indicates, Michigan judges have already had to wait 13 years since their latest salary increase the longest wait in the nation.

Currently judicial salaries are set as a percentage of the salaries of the supreme court. For example a judge of the Court of Appeals makes 92% of a justice of the Supreme Court, a Circuit Judge makes 85%, etc.

Under SB 56 as amended by the House the salaries would equal a percentage of the salary of a Supreme Court justice as of December 31, 2015, plus an amount based on percentage pay increases, excluding lump-sum payments, paid to civil service nonexclusively represented employees classified as executives and administrators on or after January 1, 2016.

If approved by the House, the bill would have to go back to the Senate to concur with the House amendment.