MSC's Taylor target of new Democratic TV ad

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer, unfazed by his party's lack of a declared Michigan Supreme Court candidate for the November election, has rolled out a television ad aimed at achieving one of his stated goals for this election cycle: defeating Chief Justice Clifford Taylor.

The 30-second spot, "What Will Cliff Taylor Do?", urges Taylor not to block a ballot proposal that, among other things, cuts salaries, limits retirement benefits and requires financial disclosures for elected officials of all three branches of government, including the presumably self-interested chief justice.

"Special interests are willing to go all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court to block your right to vote for change," warns the ad's voice-over announcer.

"Justice Taylor should let the voters decide," she concludes.

Brewer is correctly anticipating legal challenges to the proposal, which amends the state constitution in dozens of ways and is being pushed by Reform Michigan Government Now! He's hoping to hit a public relations home run every time a judge rules against letting the proposal on the ballot.

He's touting the notion that there's an ethics problem for any judge who tries to block the proposal, which, it's been widely reported, Brewer has had a heavy hand in crafting.

But Brewer has a lot more on his mind than the situational ethics of those who might pass judgment on a plan that would let voters cut their pay.

The proposal contains the means for Brewer to accomplish his not-so-hidden agenda of shifting the high court's balance of power. As Detroit Free Press Deputy Editorial Page Editor Stephen Henderson astutely observed in last Sunday's editions, the proposal has "a kind of court-packing by reduction" feature.

If passed, the supreme court's bench would shrink from seven justices to five. The court's two most junior justices, Republican appointees Robert P. Young and Stephen J. Markman, would have to step down. That would leave the court with Taylor and Justice Maura Corrigan, who usually champion the Republican viewpoint. Justice Elizabeth A. Weaver has been in the Republicans' corner in the past. But, to their great annoyance, she has been a vocal maverick ever since the other court Republicans refused to back her for a second two-year term as chief justice. The Democrats would have two justices they can usually count on, Michael F. Cavanagh and Marilyn Kelly.

If the proposal reaches the high court, if Taylor votes with a majority to keep the proposal off the ballot, and if Brewer successfully pins the blame on Taylor (the television ad lays the groundwork for that), then, the thinking goes, the Democrats can cast Taylor as the villain and capture his seat on the court in November. This would leave Weaver as a swing vote to be wooed by both sides of a seven-justice court. It wouldn't be exactly the situation Brewer was looking for, but he'd be able to live with it.

And if the court unanimously rules against the proposal? This is not a good result for Brewer. Any criticism of Taylor can be applied with equal force to everyone on the court. But in similar situations in the past, Brewer has plowed right ahead. See, Case selection is important: Democratic Party chair slams chief justice for decisions joined by Dems, detractor", Michigan Lawyers Weekly, June 16, 2008.

If Taylor votes with a minority to keep the proposal off the ballot, Brewer gets a chance at a five-justice court and a solid three-Democrat majority. If the voters approve the proposal and reject Taylor in favor of a yet-to-be-named Democratic player, then Brewer will accomplish something he and his team have been dreaming about for years - a major philosophical change in the high court's makeup.

And he'll have done it by convincing voters to downsize the court with a designer amendment to the Michigan Constitution.

Despite what the ad might lead voters to believe, this is about a lot more than just pay cuts.

23rd Circuit judicial ballot jousting continues

The on-the-ballot, off-the-ballot, back-on-the-ballot saga of Christopher Martin, a Tawas attorney who wants to bump either Judge Ronald M. Bergeron or Judge William F. Myles from the 23rd Circuit bench in November, has moved to the appellate arena.

The judges have been busy trying to bump Martin from the ballot.

Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court told the incumbent judges that the Michigan Court of Appeals gets first crack at deciding whether they can even complain about Ingham County Circuit Judge William Collette's decision to put Martin back on the ballot. The Secretary of State had removed Martin because his nominating petition was short on signatures.

The judges had sought a bypass appeal directly to the supreme court. Full text of the court's order here.

It's an unseemly situation.

According to some fine reporting by Holly Nelson in The Oscoda Press, when Martin decided to run, he checked with elections officials and was told, orally and in writing, that he needed between 100 and 200 signatures to get on the ballot. Martin says he was also told that if he submitted more than 200, it would be a criminal violation of state election laws.

Martin took the middling ground and submitted 158 signatures. Two days after the filing deadline, the incumbent judges claimed that wasn't enough. From the Oscoda Press:

"Bergeron's challenge noted that, in 2003, the counties of Alcona and Arenac were added to the 23rd Circuit, expanding it from Iosco and Oscoda counties and increasing the circuit's population from 36,757 to 65,745. State law sets the signature requirement for non partisan petitions at 200 to 400 for districts with a population between 50,000-74,999."

The elections officials confessed error, told Martin they were awfully sorry, and removed him from the ballot.

Martin didn't take this lying down. After the state refused to take an additional 208 signatures from him, he sued to get back on the ballot.

The case landed in Collette's courtroom. First, Collette denied Bergeron and Myles' motion to intervene. One argument the two judges advanced was that they "have an obvious interest in whether an otherwise uncontested election becomes a contested election" and that they "have their own interests to protect that are not necessarily protected by the named defendants."

The state's attorneys, says Martin, argued that the law is the law, there weren't enough signatures, and that Martin, as an attorney, should have been sophisticated enough not to rely upon the filing information the state provided to him.

Collette gave Martin everything he wanted. The Secretary of State was ordered to accept the late-submitted signatures, verify them, and if valid, to put Martin back on the ballot. And, from the Belt-and-Suspenders Department, Collette enjoined state officials from taking Martin off the ballot.

Up at the Court of Appeals, Bergeron and Myles weighed in with a 200-page brief arguing that they belonged in the case, and that Collette had it all wrong.

And what about the elections officials and the Secretary of State's office? They declined to appeal Collette's decision.

The Michigan Supreme Court, in yesterday's order, instructed the Court of Appeals to issue a decision by Aug. 21. Court of Appeals Judges Patrick M. Meter, William C. Whitbeck and Stephen L. Borrello have asked Myles and Bergeron to address whether they are "aggrieved parties" within the meaning of MCR 7.203(A). The panel wants to know the judges' thoughts about "whether unsuccessful intervenors can be considered aggrieved parties for purposes of an appeal, and if so, under what circumstances."

So, there you have it. An attorney wants to make a judicial election competitive. The incumbents he's running against have forthrightly stated they have an "obvious" interest in not having to bother with an actual campaign to keep their jobs. A circuit judge from another county has hit that notion broadside with a blunderbuss. The Secretary of State and the elections officials, who provided the misinformation that helped spawn the whole affair, have checked out and are standing on the sidelines.

And a Court of Appeals panel will decide whether two incumbent judges who thought they were shoo-ins can even bellyache about the fact that now they are not.

Kallman named to State Bar's Board of Commissioners

David A. Kallman, a family law practitioner in Lansing, has been appointed to the State Bar of Michigan's Board of Commissioners.

The Michigan Supreme Court announced the appointment today.

Kallman, who is a home schooling champion, will serve a three-year term as a commissioner-at-large. He takes office Sept. 17.