Public Act 338 of 2012

      Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Rep. Kevin Cotter (R) on October 26, 2011, to require district, circuit and probate judges within a county or judicial circuit to adopt a “concurrent jurisdiction” plan for the various types of judges, and if they do not, empower the Supreme Court to impose one.
  • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on October 26, 2011.
    • Reported in the House on May 24, 2012, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the House on May 30, 2012, to not require concurrent jurisdiction if a majority of judges in a circuit and district vote not to do it. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 30, 2012.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Kurt Heise (R) on May 30, 2012, to clarify a detail related to a district or circuit judge's "power of appointment" under a concurrent jurisdiction plan already approved by the state Supreme Court. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 30, 2012.
• Passed 67 to 43 in the House on May 31, 2012, to revise details of the procedures by which district, circuit and probate judges within a county or judicial circuit adopt a “concurrent jurisdiction” plan for the various types of judges.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on June 5, 2012.
  • Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 5, 2012.
    • Reported in the Senate on August 15, 2012, with the recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Amendment offered in the Senate on September 11, 2012, to require that if the judges in a judicial circuit choose not to adopt a concurrent jurisdiction plan they must submit an explanation of why not to the state court administrator, and the reasons must reflect an assertion in the bill that such plans are for the benefit of the citizens and not the judges. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on September 11, 2012.
• Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on September 12, 2012, to revise details of the procedures by which district, circuit and probate judges within a county or judicial circuit adopt a “concurrent jurisdiction” plan for the various types of judges. Judges in a circuit choosing not to do this would have to submit an explanation to the state court administrator, with reasons reflecting an assertion in the bill that such plans are for the benefit of the citizens and not the judges.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on September 12, 2012.
• Passed 78 to 30 in the House on September 27, 2012, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on October 16, 2012.