MIRS news is reporting that Chief Justice Robert Young has urged Governor Snyder not to fill the two vacancies on the Court of Appeals, as a first step on the road to trimming the court down to 24 judges and achieving substantial savings in the judiciary budget. The Governor's office posted the vacancies March 4 on the State Bar of Michigan website, but his press secretary, Sara Wurfel, said that Snyder is holding a "variety of meetings with officials to seek input" on both the judicial "need and structure of the court."
Caseloads have been declining at the Court of Appeals for many years, and in 2009 the State Court Administrative Office's Judicial Resource Recommendations called for a reduction of four judges. As have his predecessors, the Chief Justice says that judgeships should be eliminated at the point at which there is a vacancy -- when a sitting judge dies or retires, rather than at the end of a term. Such a process is viewed as reducing the politics of reducing the number of judgeships, and as leading to a more predictable and orderly outcome. The Judicial Crossroads Task Force Report, which supports the concept of reducing judgeships through attrition based on a respected and objective formula, says that given the state's mandatory retirement at age 70 requirement and an aging bench of Gen X and baby boomer judges, sticking with the attrition principle will not be an obstacle to making needed reductions throughout the court system.
Meanwhile, attorney Richard McLellan raised an issue pointed out by former Chief Judge William Whitbeck -- that Art. 6, Sec. 8 of the Michigan constitution refers to increases in the Court of Appeals but not decreases: "The number of judges comprising the court of appeals may be increased, and the district from which they are elected may be changed by law." This raises the question of whether the constitution was intended to ban a decrease in judgeships regardless of need. Editorial comment: It would be ironic indeed if Michigan's constitutional article on the judicial branch, whose provisions put flesh on principles of separation of powers, was found to prevent principled and cost-savings changes in the numbers of judges recommended by Chief Justice himself.
