S.J.R. D: FIRST ANALYSIS JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
Senate Joint Resolution D (as enrolled) Sponsor: Senator Virgil C. Smith, Jr.
Committee: Judiciary
Date Completed: 2-15-95
The State Constitution of 1963 requires that justices and judges of courts of record be licensed to practice law in Michigan, but includes no requirement of length of experience as an attorney. Reportedly, some lawyers have been elected to judicial positions after being admitted to the State Bar only a short time before the election. It has been claimed that this happens because a person's name may be recognizable or because he or she may have some political experience, but not necessarily experience in the practice of law. Some people believe that, in order to get the most qualified lawyers on the bench, the Constitution should include a length of experience requirement for attorneys who wish to hold judicial positions.
The joint resolution proposes an amendment to Article 6, Section 19 of the State Constitution of 1963, which establishes the qualifications for judges, to specify that to be qualified to serve as a judge of a trial court, a judge of the Court of Appeals, or a justice of the Supreme Court, a person would have to have been admitted to the practice of law for at least five years. The requirement would not apply to a judge or justice who was elected or appointed before the date that the resolution became part of the Constitution.
The joint resolution would have to be submitted to the electorate of the State at the next general election.
(Please note: The arguments contained in this analysis originate from sources outside the Senate Fiscal Agency. The Senate Fiscal Agency neither supports nor opposes legislation.)
Simply requiring that a judge be licensed to practice law is not enough to assure that he or she has the necessary legal experience to perform adequately on the bench. Only the best lawyers should be judges, but a system in which a well- known name or political connections, regardless of legal qualifications, gets a person on the bench can produce a mediocre judiciary. The joint resolution's proposed requirement that a judge have at least five years' experience as an attorney is reasonable and would prevent legal novices from ascending to the bench based solely on name recognition or political connections. The State Bar of Michigan and various judges' and prosecuting attorneys' associations have supported such a requirement in the past.
The joint resolution falls well short of implementing the necessary standards to ensure that Michigan has legally knowledgeable and competent judges. The Michigan Constitution should include meaningful minimum standards for a person to qualify as a judge. The joint resolution's meager five-year licensure requirement would do little to improve Michigan's current system of selecting judges. Five years in the practice of law is a relatively short time and not all licensed lawyers actually engage in litigation. Further, both the current Constitution and the joint resolution include identical requirements for judges at all levels from district court to the Michigan Supreme Court. Higher courts should have more stringent job qualifications than lower courts, in order to ensure that judges of higher courts have sufficient knowledge and practical experience. The joint resolution should include a sliding judicial requirement based on knowledge and experience.
In addition, the system of appointing people to vacant judgeships should be addressed, perhaps to make gubernatorial appointments subject to legislative review, the Constitution's age limit on running for judicial office should be abolished, and a rating system should be enacted.
Response: Rarely does an incumbent judge lose an election; a sitting judge can be fairly certain of having the job for life. The age limit thus acts as a practical way of limiting that tenure and ensuring adequate turnover on the bench. If the age limit were eliminated, it should only be done in conjunction with some other change to limit the overwhelming electoral advantage gained by incumbency, such as eliminating the ballot designation of incumbency.
To require the advice and consent of the Senate would be to delay unnecessarily the process of appointing judges. Requiring legislative review of judicial appointments could create considerable hardship in busy jurisdictions in which clogged dockets needed quick attention. The current system of filling vacancies has worked adequately and there is no need to change it.
Legislative Analyst: P. Affholter
The joint resolution would have no fiscal impact on State or local government.
Fiscal Analyst: L. Nacionales-Tafoya
A9596\SSJRDA
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.