Michigan Votes

2007 Senate Bill 435 (Divide eighty-seventh judicial district into three )

Public Act 137 of 2008

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Tony Stamas on April 25, 2007, to break up the eighty-seventh judicial district into three separate districts, one each for Otsego, Kalkaska and Crawford Counties.
    • Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2007.
      • Reported in the Senate on July 18, 2007, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
  • Passed in the Senate (27 to 7) on July 25, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the House on July 25, 2007.
    • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on July 25, 2007.
      • Reported in the House on April 16, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on April 23, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on April 23, 2008.
  • Passed in the House (103 to 2) on April 23, 2008, to break up the eighty-seventh judicial district into three separate districts, one each for Otsego, Kalkaska and Crawford Counties. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the Senate on April 23, 2008.
  • Passed in the Senate (28 to 7) on April 29, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on April 29, 2008, to give the bill immediate effect. The motion failed in the Senate (21 to 14) on April 29, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on May 21, 2008.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Tony Stamas on April 25, 2007. Passed in the Senate (27 to 7) on July 25, 2007. New Comment

1) more judges? [by bspern on July 19, 2007]
Given the reduction in litigation and the reduction in MI population, any increase in districts that results in new judges and staff in these new districts MUST be accompanied by a reduction in judges. An obvious place is in Detroit where the population continues to drop but the number of judges does not!
Reply New Comment

Line



A free public service of Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

Search legislation: