Michigan Supreme Court supports elimination of up to 49 judgeships

August 22, 2011

Michigan: The Michigan State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) released the 2011 "Judicial Resources Recommendations" report this month. The study suggested the elimination of 45 trial court judgeships and 4 Appellate Court judgeships in an effort to save money. The judgeships would be phased out by "attrition," meaning that once judgeships in certain counties became vacant (due to retirement or death, for example) they would not be filled. The cuts are estimated to save the state approximately $8 million per year.

The justices of the Michigan Supreme Court have unanimously endorsed the report and are recommending its money-saving strategies to the Legislature, which has the final say in budgetary decisions. Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr. explained, "This is unprecedented, not just in Michigan but nationally, to have a state court system not only recognize that it needs to shrink, but also have a practical plan to accomplish that goal...This is an aggressive, but achievable, set of recommendations." The Court of Appeals, the Michigan Judges Association, the Michigan Probate Judges Association and the Michigan District Judges Association have also backed the proposal, along with Governor Rick Snyder.

Former Macomb County prosecutor Carl Marlinga was one of the few who voiced opposition to the judicial slimming, explaining that judicial shortages in the Macomb County Circuit Court have already resulted in overworked judges and trial delays, among other things. "Whether you're a liberal Democrat or a member of the tea party, we can all agree that law enforcement and the judicial system are two of the prime priorities of government...When you are in tough times and you need to restrict the size of government, you should work at the electives, rather than the basics" he stated.

In the study, the SCAO used a weighted caseload formula to determine the number of judges needed in each court. Factors included "Average Annual New Case Findings", "Case Weight" and "Judicial Proportion", which, divided by the "Judicial Year", provided an estimate of the number of judges needed in a court. State Court Administrator Chad C. Schmucker explained, "We use a weighted caseload formula, so that we’re not looking just at numbers of cases, but also at how much of a judge’s time a particular type of case needs...We then do an extended analysis to take into account other factors that might affect a court’s workload – population and case filings trends, for example. The result is the right number of judges for that court’s workload and environment."

The results showed that many counties had an extra one or two judges. The study also recommended that the Court of Appeals eliminate judgeships, since appellate court filings fell 22% from 2006 to 2010. However, the study also found a need for 31 more judgeships in certain courts, such as Macomb County, which was estimated to be almost 7 judges short. The SCAO, nevertheless, with the support of the courts, did not recommend that any more judgeships be added, due to budgetary limitations.

You can read the SCAO's report here: State Court Administrative Office: Judicial Resources Recommendations, August 2011