The Legislature has prospectively eliminated 36 trial court judgeships and four Court of Appeals judgeships. An obvious question is why a judgeship shouldn't be eliminated immediately if a court's workload doesn't require the judgeship. There's a good answer to this question, but it is far from obvious to those unfamiliar with how Michigan's court system works. Who better than lawyers to help the public understand? Here are three key points you can offer when a nonlawyer asks what's going on:
- Downsizing judgeships without degrading services requires thoughtful planning, good management -- and time. The phased-in eliminations allow for an orderly, workable transition.
- The judges in courts identified as having excess judgeships will not be idle. The workload analysis identified 45 excess judgeships, but also found that there was a need for 35 new judgeships in other jurisdictions. At the recommendation of the Supreme Court, the Legislature has enacted legislation phasing out the excess judgeship, but has not created any new judgeships. Michigan's constitution wisely provides for "one court of justice" administered by the Supreme Court, which means that the excess capacity available through the phased-in eliminations can be used to address the need for judicial services in the "under-judged" jurisdictions.
- To ensure balance of powers, the Michigan Constitution protects the seats of judges for the duration of their terms.
