« Law - Chicago: "The winners in city scandals? The lawyers " | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 2 NFP) »

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Courts - "Constitutional ballot proposal presents quandary for Michigan justices"

A lengthy and fairly odd AP story today in the South Bend Tribune, by David Eggert, begins:

LANSING -- Judges who would see a pay cut and in some cases a pink slip under a sweeping amendment to the state constitution likely will decide if the measure gets on the November ballot.

It's an ethical quandary because court rules say judges can be disqualified from hearing a case if they have an "economic interest" in the result.

The salaries of Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judges and trial judges would fall 15 percent if the proposal passes. It also would cut the number of high court justices from seven to five and appeals judges from 28 to 21 while adding 10 trial judges.

Backers of the amendment, including Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer, refuse to say who wrote it or paid to collect 487,000 signatures to try to put it on the ballot. But Brewer and other supporters say judges have a clear conflict of interest if they block the measure from reaching voters.

Michigan allows constitutional amendments to be proposed via a referendum process. Here is another story, from July 9th, reported by Saulius Anuzis in the Detroit Free-Press. The story begins:
What happens when a constitutional amendment is so complicated that the amendment itself becomes unconstitutional?

We might be about to find out. Here's why.

A group calling itself Reform Michigan Government Now! -- a group that won't tell us anything about its members or where it gets its money -- has filed signatures for a constitutional amendment that involves wholesale changes to four different articles and 28 different sections of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, with a complicated implementation schedule and more fine print than a subprime mortgage.

Here's the rub: The same state Constitution requires that the ballot voters will see explain the "purpose" of this proposal in 100 words or less. A hundred words? Or less? Impossible.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 10, 2008 11:23 AM
Posted to Courts in general