Weaver lays out reform ideas for state’s high court

Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver may no longer hold a spot on the state’s high court, but she is calling for serious reforms in the way the state selects its justices.

Weaver laid out her six point reform plan in an editorial in the Grand Rapids Press Wednesday afternoon. Weaver resigned her position this summer clearing the way for Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm to appoint Judge Alton Davis to the high court. That in turn cleared the way for Davis to seek election to the high court in November. He lost, and Weaver was savaged by Republican activists for having cleared the way for Davis.

The former justice was nominated by Republicans until this past summer when she announced she would seek the bench as an independent. That move was forced by newly appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Young’s threat not to run if the GOP nominated Weaver again.

Election reform is the core of the issue for Weaver.

I suspect that the initial impressions of at least some on the Task Force is to replace elections with appointments. You write about such an eventuality in some detail. I think that unlikely for a variety of reasons. Primarily, there is no reason to assume that appointments would be any less political than the current elections. Too, why should we modify the State Constitution in order to give us citizens less direct say in our government? There is nothing inherently wrong with elections; it’s our selection process of party nominees and unregulated, untraceable spending that’s doing us in. You make mention of both those dangers, and those are commonsense observations.

In Weaver’s proposal, she recommends the nomination process for the high court be removed from the state parties and instead achieved via petitions and signatures of voters on nominating petitions. Most judgeships are run this way in Michigan.

She also recommends that Supreme Court Justices be elected to represent districts in the state, that their campaigns be funded exclusively by state funds and their posts be term limited. She also says that campaign contributions should be reported in real time during elections.

For judicial appointments, Weaver proposes a commission of as many as 40 people from a variety of stakeholder groups like labor, trial lawyers, education and corrections. That group would establish the minimum qualifications for judicial appointments. When a vacancy happened, that commission would provide the governor with two names, and the reasons those people were most qualified to fill the vacancy.

The governor, under Weaver’s plan, would not be required to appoint either of the commission’s recommendation, but would be required to explain in writing why his or her choice was qualified. That nomination would then go to the state Senate for approval. As part of the approval, the Senate would be required to hold a public hearing on the nominee.

So why is this new process so important to Weaver?

While the selection process is now before the public — thanks to the formation of this task force — the issue of unnecessary secrecy has not yet reached to the level of general attention and notice. All the reform of how we select our justices will have little effect unless and until we can open the inner workings on our Supreme Court to public scrutiny.

Needless secrecy in Supreme Court justices’ performance in the business of judicial government allows and encourages the abuse of the judicial powers of interpretation and discretion. That can lead to violation of the rule of law and the unjust, unprofessional, unfair, and disorderly performance of the justices’ duties. It also can lead to the growth of the worst human propensities — deceit, lust for power, hatred and revenge — which encourage good people to do bad things.