Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 18, 2009

The vote was 25 in favor, 10 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 230 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senators Switalski, Cropsey and Sanborn asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Switalski’s first statement is as follows:

I call on all my fiscally responsible colleagues, all my colleagues who are advocates of reducing the size of government to stand up and be counted on my amendment. This provision made sense yesterday, and it was in the budget. I would ask, what has changed in 24 hours?

Let me address what this amendment does. It gives the local funding unit, usually the county together with the State Court Administrative Office, the option to delay filling judicial vacancies created when judges turn 70 and are barred under Michigan law from seeking re-election. It does not affect vacancies subject to gubernatorial appointments in any way. The Governor would still retain all powers and opportunities to make judicial appointments that she currently has.

There are currently nine such vacancies across the state for the 2010 election. Shouldn’t they have the right, during this economic crisis, to delay filling those vacancies until the election of 2012? After all, it costs locals $1 million per judge because the county is responsible for finding the support staff of court officers, judicial secretary, court clerk, court recorder, and a prosecutor, along with the judicial retirement and operational costs. The state pays the salary at $140,000 per judge. So we have nine of these across the state. They are in Oakland, Macomb, Ingham, Allegan, St. Clair, Bay, Ottawa, and Saginaw Counties. Two are in Macomb County, and let me describe what the effect is.

The county of Macomb is currently $9 million in the hole, and that is after they raised taxes. Shouldn’t they have this option, especially after we are cutting revenue sharing and their property tax revenue is plummeting? Macomb County is asking its circuit court for $900 thousand in cuts. Shouldn’t the county have the option for meeting this target to have everything on the table? Or should they be forced to lay off Friend of the Court workers, referees, and support staff who make the whole system work, while delaying filling judicial vacancies they could muddle through without?

By approving this amendment, we would not be forcing them to spend money they don’t have. We are stopping them from making the reductions that could balance their budgets. We are stopping them from downsizing government. This is antithetical to what we profess daily about fiscal responsibility. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an issue of responsible budget cutters versus profligate spenders.

I have heard many speakers in these chambers about the need to downsize government; about how we are not the state we used to be when GM and Chrysler dominated the auto industry; about how we have to shrink government to match our rapidly contracting revenues. Here is a concrete chance to do that. If we will pass this amendment and co‑sponsor the implementing legislation to accomplish this reform that I will introduce this month, we can make this government work.

The State Court Administrative Office supports this; the Macomb County Board of Commissioners supports this and will offer a resolution to us shortly. Oakland County is asking for this option. The Michigan Association of Counties and the Judges Association will be meeting this month and I predict will be supporting this policy.

Please join them and support this amendment. I have made two improvements from our earlier version. I have added the introductory phrase, “It is the intent of the legislature.” It is our intent that locals in the State Court Administrative Office be able to do this, and I have specified that when they delay it, they can delay it for two years. So those are changes from the earlier version of this amendment. I hope all members will support it.

 

Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows:

The previous speaker asked what on earth has changed in the last 24 hours? Well, there are a couple of things that have changed. First of all, I read the amendment. I would like to read you the amendment. It says, “Sec. 320. It is the intent of the legislature that at the request of the funding unit and the state court administrator, the state may elect to delay for 2 years the filling of non-incumbent circuit court judicial vacancies where the incumbent justice is ineligible to stand for election due to the requirements of state law.”

Then I heard I didn’t quite get all the counties down, but I think the previous speaker talked about Oakland, Macomb, Bay, Ottawa, and Saginaw Counties and maybe one or two others in there.

Now I am reading this amendment. I am taking a look at it,” non-incumbent circuit court judicial vacancies where the incumbent justice.” Alright, if you have an incumbent, you don’t have a vacancy, but somehow that seems to make sense in some eyes. Also, a justice sits on the Supreme Court of the state of Michigan, not on the circuit court of Macomb County—at least the last time I checked. So are we talking about counties? Are we talking about the Supreme Court? We talked about nine judges or there are only seven justices. So we have some very serious problems with just the facial reading of this amendment.

Now the second thing I did was I read the Constitution dealing Article 6, dealing with the judiciary, and it is very clear that we set up the judicial districts by law, not by budget. We set up the number of judges in those judicial districts by law, not by budget and it is one of these things where there is a right way to do things and there is a wrong way to do things. I commend the previous speaker and the maker of this amendment for trying to find money, but we have to do it in a constitutional way.

The constitutional way is to introduce a proposed law. It is called a blueback in parlance around here to change the districts or change the number of judges. I think you are looking at judges on this and not justices, but to change the number of judges in certain areas. I would suggest that you read the Constitution where it talks about the Supreme Court can make recommendations, which the Supreme Court has done. They have done their constitutional duty. Then the Legislature should act upon those recommendations.

I remember a couple of years ago, I attempted to do that, to implement, at least, part of the Judicial Resources Recommendations and guess who opposed me? Well, I think it was the other side of the aisle and the Governor. The Supreme Court did what it was constitutionally required to do. Well, we didn’t do what we were constitutionally—what we are supposed to do, and it was the Governor blocking our way with the other party.

So I would suggest, I would really suggest, that the maker of this amendment do as I suggested on General Orders to get the blueback around to at least do the cuts in the judiciary, where they say we are overjudged and to find money that way because I believe that is very appropriate, but we cannot do it in a budget bill because this is a one-year budget bill. We have to do it through the statutory changes that are required by our State Constitution.

So am I fiscal conservative? I hope so; I try to be. But I am also sworn to uphold the Constitution. I would hope that the good sponsor of this amendment would come forth with the Judicial Resources Recommendation in a blueback form and that we would take it up in that way. That is the proper way to do it.

 

Senator Sanborn’s statement is a follows:

Again, I respectfully point out to my colleague from Roseville, Michigan, whose opinion I respect very much when it comes to issues of appropriations, I hope that he would work with me on matters of judiciary such as this since I have spent my entire career here in the Legislature being on the Judiciary Committee, as well as working for the court system 20 years prior to coming here.

With that being said, I would hope that you would tap into my experience in that regard. I would have advised him that he could have reviewed the State Court Administrator’s report that says Macomb County is 3.8 judges short. So we should not decimate the circuit court by continuing to further the backlog of cases. We should not jeopardize the public safety in Macomb County.

There is a better way of doing it. I have already shared with my colleague from Roseville, and he has indicated he is going to support me in this effort. You cut the judges pay 10 percent, cut their pay 10 percent. You know that is a real cost savings. Wayne County has 68 circuit judges. Certainly, it is not five times bigger than Macomb County. Macomb County only has 13, and Oakland County has 19. Boy, we could save millions of dollars if we would only cut their pay 10 percent. We could save millions of dollars without jeopardizing public safety and without backlogging the courts further.

I urge my colleague to work with me and also to review the State Court Administrator’s report, so he would be better informed, so as not to decimate the judiciary in Macomb or other counties. I look forward to working with my colleague from Roseville, Michigan, to make these necessary pay cuts for judges.

 

Senator Switalski’s second statement is as follows:

In terms of cutting justices 10 percent, you know, I thought they should have been included in our resolution when we cut our own pay 10 percent. But let me just point out that that wouldn’t save the funding unit, the county, a single dime. The salaries of the justices—I am sorry I will address the justices in a moment. The salaries of the Judges are paid for by the state, so it would save the state money, but it would not save the funding unit, the county, a dime. Let’s review who is putting out what money here again.

For a judge in the circuit court, the county is putting out $1 million; the state is putting $140,000. So the real fix for the budget is for the local funding unit.

Now I do want to address the remarks of my learned friend, the Floor Leader, and he is quite right to point out the distinction between judge and justice. I appreciate that, and if he were willing to offer a friendly amendment to fix my wordsmith amendment, I would only be too happy to join him in that and perhaps my inelegant expression of the vacancy created when a judge ages out of this system. Maybe I could have said where the incumbent is ineligible to stand for the election due to the requirements of state law. Those are mirror phrases, inelegant choices of words where the policy that we are trying to reach at is clear. We are trying to get the opportunity for the people who are paying the bill the chance to delay filling spots that are becoming open.

I have learned from the experience of my learned friend from the Majority Floor Leader’s position that, you know, that it is very hard to eliminate judicial positions when you have an incumbent. It is almost impossible, and as soon as you propose such a thing, you will have the Judges Association and the various interest groups totally opposed to you on that, and you will end up with the result that his well-meaning legislation met, which was no result at all.

So I offer this as a practical way to get results because I’ve intentionally kept away from many judicial appointments so we would not incur the wrath of the Governor who would maybe lose the ability to appoint, a very valuable thing to hang onto. And I have also avoided openings where you had an incumbent who could run again, who had, who was in mid-career, and now you are going to take their job away. Those are very difficult to eliminate. So I have tried to pick the ones—there are nine of them around the state, and there is more next time that is actually capable of being accomplished.

Remember, this is coming from the locals and the State Court Administrative Office. They have to ask not to fill it. This is what they’re paying for. If they don’t want to pay for it, then they should have that right to delay filling it for two years.

Sanborn states from the Senate Roll 340:
With that being said, I would hope that you would tap into my experience in that regard. I would have advised him that he could have reviewed the State Court Administrator’s report that says Macomb County is 3.8 judges short. So we should not decimate the circuit court by continuing to further the backlog of cases. We should not jeopardize the public safety in Macomb County
 
It should be pointed out that most of these judge increases are family court related and that most "public safety" issues of the misdemeanor type are with District Court Judges. If there is a commensurate jump in "felonies" requiring circuit court trial involvement, then there are other issues and solutions to contend with than putting into place more judges.

Government bureaucracy continues to continue at the expense of the taxpayers at both the State and the Federal levels. Focusing on judicial resources as a solution to the ills that are plaguing this state doesn't help. We need a complete reduction in all branches of government across the board and require our state bureaucrats to endure the same as the members of the general public. Our state government is becoming that of an elitist class, better benefits, better pay, better vacations than the 14.1% and climbing unemployed.

Lary Holland

Host and Producer of Get Your Justice Live

http://www.getyourjusticelive.com

 

 

Rep. McMillin, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted ‘no’ because the spending in this bill does not even meet the ‘Revised House Targets’ of $152M in General Fund expenditure. We have to spend below the Revised House Targets in order to avoid spending to such a degree that we either have to use ‘stimulus money to fill budget holes’ or raise taxes. This bill authorizes spending above the Revised House Target.”