Michigan judicial elections
Judges in Michigan participate in nonpartisan elections. Judges must run for re-election in nonpartisan elections for subsequent terms.
Michigan is one of 12 states that uses nonpartisan elections to select judges and does not use retention elections for subsequent terms. To read more about how states use judicial elections to select judges across the country, click here.
| Supreme Court | Court of Appeals | Circuit Court | District Court | Probate Court |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonpartisan election - Eight-year terms | Nonpartisan election - Six-year terms | Nonpartisan election - Six-year terms | Nonpartisan election - Six-year terms | Nonpartisan election - Six-year terms |
Elections
- Michigan Supreme Court elections, 2024
- Michigan intermediate appellate court elections, 2024
- Michigan Supreme Court elections, 2022
- Michigan intermediate appellate court elections, 2022
- Michigan Supreme Court elections, 2020
- Michigan intermediate appellate court elections, 2020
- Michigan Supreme Court elections, 2018
- Michigan intermediate appellate court elections, 2018
- Michigan local trial court judicial elections, 2018
- Michigan judicial elections, 2016
- Michigan judicial elections, 2014
- Michigan judicial elections, 2012
- Michigan judicial elections, 2010
- Michigan Supreme Court elections, 2008
Election rules
Primary election
If there are more than twice the number of candidates than there are judgeships up for election, the race will appear on the primary election ballot. In the nonpartisan primary, the two candidates who receive the greatest number of votes advance to the general election.
General election
If there are not more than twice the amount of candidates than there are persons to be elected, the race will not appear on the primary election ballot, but only on the general election ballot.[1]
Ties
If two or more candidates in a race receive the same number of votes, the election is to be decided by lot. In a process run by a county clerk, the candidates choose slips of paper from a box that say either "elected" or "not elected".[2]
Supreme Court elections
Supreme Court candidates run in the general election. Incumbents may run for re-election by filing with the secretary of state no less than 180 days before the end of the term.[3] Although the judicial elections are nonpartisan, and party information is not displayed on the ballot, candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court are nominated at party conventions.[4] Corresponding candidates are nominated at the Democratic Party, Republican Party, or minor party conventions.[5]
Arguments in support of the Michigan state supreme court election method
Ballotpedia was unable to locate any arguments in support of this judicial selection method. Below are arguments we found in support of nonpartisan elections generally. If you are aware of supporting arguments specific to the Michigan method, please email us and let us know.
In a paper published for the University of Chicago Law School in 2010 titled "Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary," the authors wrote:[6]
| " | Using a dataset of state high court opinions, we construct objective measures for three aspects of judicial performance: effort, skill and independence. The measures permit a test of the relationship between performance and the four primary methods of state high court judge selection: partisan election, non-partisan election, merit plan, and appointment. The empirical results do not show appointed judges performing at a higher level than their elected counterparts. Appointed judges write higher quality opinions than elected judges do, but elected judges write many more opinions, and the evidence suggests that the large quantity difference makes up for the small quality difference. In addition, elected judges do not appear less independent than appointed judges. The results suggest that elected judges are more focused on providing service to the voters (that is, they behave like politicians), whereas appointed judges are more focused on their long-term legacy as creators of precedent (that is, they behave like professionals).[7] | ” |
In a paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Political Science in 2007 titled "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior," the authors wrote:[8]
| " | Broadly speaking, there are two mechanisms by which elections might produce faithful representation on the part of elected officials. The first is selection. Ideally, competitive elections allow voters to choose candidates whose preferences most closely mirror their own (Downs 1957, Fearon 1999). In the selection account, the presence of challengers facilitates a closer match between voters and their representatives through the provision of alternatives. The second mechanism is the incentive effect of elections (Barro 1973, Ferejohn 1986). Even those incumbents who do not share their constituents’ preferences or possess strong qualifications may nonetheless behave faithfully or work hard if their failure to do so will result in their subsequent punishment at the polls.[7] | ” |
Arguments in opposition to the Michigan state supreme court election method
In an article published in 1986 in the SMU Law Review, author Thomas Brennan wrote:[9]
| " | There has been one useful purpose served by Michigan's fifty-year experience with a nonpartisan elective method of choosing judges in which one court continued to be nominated by partisan political conventions. The experience has provided a controlled experiment from which certain conclusions about the two systems can be drawn. The primary conclusion is that nonpartisan elections are far superior to partisan election. Partisanship is a notion clearly at odds with impartiality, and impartiality is the goal of the judiciary. There is no place for party discipline or party loyalty in the courts.[7] | ” |
In an article published in 2004 in the Cleveland State Law Review, author Bradley Link wrote:[10]
| " | Our system of electing judges has several negative effects: 1) election of judges gives the appearance that the judiciary will be unable to act with the independence and impartiality necessary for the proper; 2) election of judges undermines the public confidence in the judiciary; and 3) election of judges may discourage qualified candidates from seeking the bench.[7] | ” |
Campaign spending
Under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1976, committees for state-level and judicial candidates are required to submit campaign finance disclosure statements to the Michigan Department of State. PACs and political party committees are also obligated to file reports. The reports are then available to the public.[11]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Michigan Legislature, "Michigan Election Law, Section 168.540," accessed July 9, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Legislature, "Michigan Election Law, Section 168.851," accessed August 27, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Legislature, "Michigan Election Law Section 168.392a," accessed July 17, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Legislature, "Michigan Election Law Section 168.392," accessed July 9, 2014
- ↑ Michigan.gov, "Filing Requirements: Supreme Court Justice - 2014 Election Cycle," accessed July 17, 2014
- ↑ Choi, Stephen, Mitu Gulati, and Eric A. Posner. "Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary." John M. Olin Law & Economics (2d series), Working Paper No. 357. (August 2007).
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Gordon, Sanford and Gregory Huber. "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior." Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2:107-138. (2007).
- ↑ Brennan, Thomas E. "Nonpartisan Election of Judges: The Michigan Case" SMU Law Review Volume 40 Issue 6 (1986).
- ↑ Link, Bradley. "Had Enough in Ohio - Time to Reform Ohio's Judicial Selection Process Process" Cleveland State Law Review Volume 51 Issue 1 (2004).
- ↑ Michigan Department of State, "An Introduction to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act," accessed August 27, 2014
| |||||||
Federal courts:
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Michigan, Western District of Michigan • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Eastern District of Michigan, Western District of Michigan
State courts:
Michigan Supreme Court • Michigan Court of Appeals • Michigan Circuit Court • Michigan District Courts • Michigan Probate Courts
State resources:
Courts in Michigan • Michigan judicial elections • Judicial selection in Michigan
