By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, one of Michigan's most unpredictable jurists, is asking the state to consider a massive change to the way it selects candidates for the high court bench on her way out the door.
That should come as no surprise to those who have watched her career closely, because the ace up Clement's sleeve has always been a wild card.
In a wide-ranging interview with Gongwer News Service, Clement discussed her time on the bench as she plans to step down this month to become the president of the National Center of State Courts.
The role will allow her to help state courts and judiciaries nationwide find innovative solutions to its foremost problems, work she spearheaded while serving as a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and as its chief across one and half terms.
Clement also discussed the current state of the court and the ways it can regain some trust in an era punctuated by mistrust in government.
The latter argument goes with Clement's claim that the two dominant political parties have too much influence on the nomination process because candidates are selected by party delegates at conventions rather than through a nonpartisan primary, a rarity among the states and in a branch that prides itself as apolitical.
“I do not think it's transparent or understandable to the general public,” Clement said. “There are so many people that I meet who want to know my story of how I got on the court, and when I explain the process, they're often very confused.
“They expect their judges to be nonpartisan … and so it surprises a lot of people that we have this bifurcated system where people are nominated by a political party and an hour later are going to be on the nonpartisan section of the ballot."
Clement was appointed by former Gov. Rick Snyder in 2017. A year later, she was up for election to her seat for a partial term but faced headwinds from within her own party during the 2018 nomination process.
Clement drew the wrath of her party's activists over two rulings: she held school districts have the legal authority to regulate firearms on school campuses and that the proposal to change redistricting and prohibit gerrymandering met legal muster to go on the November ballot.
In both cases, Clement joined with another Snyder appointee to the court, former Justice David Viviano, as well as the court's two justices nominated by the Democratic Party, Justice Richard Bernstein and former Justice Bridget McCormack.
At the party's convention that year, Clement and former Justice Kurtis Wilder were running as incumbents. Neither needed their party's nomination to appear on the ballot, so it was more of a formality. Wilder was greeted with cheers while Clement was booed. Former House Speaker and then-convention chair Jase Bolger had to gavel down the crowd and approve the nomination as "nays" flooded the hall over the "ayes."
Clement was eventually nominated and won the race. Wilder, on the other hand, did not. That experience had a lasting impression on Clement regarding the process, and it was not a good one.
“Having been at numerous conventions over my career and seeing how those worked and it not being like that before, I had higher expectations,” said Clement, who spent time on Republican legislative staff before working for Snyder as legal counsel. “There were a number of people that did have my back, that disagreed with the decisions that had so many people upset with me, but said, ‘we know her. She isn't some activist. She read the Constitution, looked at the ballot proposals … and made a decision that was required under the rule of law. We may disagree with her, but that doesn't mean we throw her out.’”
Clement said she focuses on the positive outcome of the election rather than the negative, but it did lead her to consider running next year as an independent, fully understanding that the party may not have nominated her. That, too, carried its own difficulties, but it was something she was actively looking into as she decided what her next steps should be.
As to how the state should change the process, Clement said she didn't know if there was one right answer. Several states have different ways of handling nominations for their respective Supreme Courts, but Clement said that an election was important to ensure the public has some sort of check and balance on the judiciary.
“"Does it have to be the way that we have it set up now, or could it be something more like an appointment process with a retention election? I think there's a lot of different options,” Clement said. “What works best for Michigan might be different than what works elsewhere, or something that might be modified from what works best in a different state.”
Clement said that what she wouldn't want to see is a lifetime appointment like what happens with the federal courts.
The question remains whether the right players will heed her call. It's uncertain whether the political parties were eager to so willingly relinquish their hold over Supreme Court nominations. Still, the outgoing chief justice said politics might prevail in her quest to remove politics from the court.
“I think maybe a party that has not been successful in the last several election cycles might say, ‘okay, maybe we're open to talking about this,’” Clement said. “I would love to see that, to see the parties (acknowledge) this was an arrangement that was put together more than 50 years ago and maybe we should look at this.”
Clement noted the example of 2026, with Republicans and Democrats expected to fight tooth and nail for control of the executive offices, a U.S. Senate, the state Senate and the state House. She wondered if anyone was going to pay attention to those races and what kind of money the parties would need to funnel to those races when they clearly have larger priorities.
The chief justice is not alone. Court of Appeals Judge Mark Boonstra called for the same kind of changes after a tense Republican convention battle for the open seat in 2024.
Boonstra lost that nomination to former Rep. Andrew Fink of Hillsdale, a loss that also soured him on the current process.
Clement said change was necessary for the courts to hold their standing as an institution.
“It has dipped in the last few years, and that is very concerning to me,” Clement said. “I don't know where that's going to go in this current landscape, but that's one of the main reasons I decided to leave the court and take on this new challenge, because that to me is the bedrock of our democracy.”
Clement said that her administrative work on the bench was focused on helping people, including her advocacy for the advancement of problem-solving courts. That would continue in her role with the National Center for State Courts.
“I can do that better in a different way and just take what I’ve been able to do as a justice and as chief and help more people,” Clement said. “And to help lead an organization that their sole mission is to drive trust and innovation and improvement in all of our court systems.”
Although many regard Clement’s independence on the bench as one of her lasting legacies, Clement said she doesn’t think about her life’'s work in those terms.
“I took my oath, and I tried every day to do the job and uphold the rule of law, to be a good listener and to collaborate and to work well with others,” she said. “I don’t think that’s anything that’s legacy defining. That’'s just not how I operate.”
Gongwer News Service
Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, one of Michigan's most unpredictable jurists, is asking the state to consider a massive change to the way it selects candidates for the high court bench on her way out the door.
That should come as no surprise to those who have watched her career closely, because the ace up Clement's sleeve has always been a wild card.
In a wide-ranging interview with Gongwer News Service, Clement discussed her time on the bench as she plans to step down this month to become the president of the National Center of State Courts.
The role will allow her to help state courts and judiciaries nationwide find innovative solutions to its foremost problems, work she spearheaded while serving as a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and as its chief across one and half terms.
Clement also discussed the current state of the court and the ways it can regain some trust in an era punctuated by mistrust in government.
The latter argument goes with Clement's claim that the two dominant political parties have too much influence on the nomination process because candidates are selected by party delegates at conventions rather than through a nonpartisan primary, a rarity among the states and in a branch that prides itself as apolitical.
“I do not think it's transparent or understandable to the general public,” Clement said. “There are so many people that I meet who want to know my story of how I got on the court, and when I explain the process, they're often very confused.
“They expect their judges to be nonpartisan … and so it surprises a lot of people that we have this bifurcated system where people are nominated by a political party and an hour later are going to be on the nonpartisan section of the ballot."
Clement was appointed by former Gov. Rick Snyder in 2017. A year later, she was up for election to her seat for a partial term but faced headwinds from within her own party during the 2018 nomination process.
Clement drew the wrath of her party's activists over two rulings: she held school districts have the legal authority to regulate firearms on school campuses and that the proposal to change redistricting and prohibit gerrymandering met legal muster to go on the November ballot.
In both cases, Clement joined with another Snyder appointee to the court, former Justice David Viviano, as well as the court's two justices nominated by the Democratic Party, Justice Richard Bernstein and former Justice Bridget McCormack.
At the party's convention that year, Clement and former Justice Kurtis Wilder were running as incumbents. Neither needed their party's nomination to appear on the ballot, so it was more of a formality. Wilder was greeted with cheers while Clement was booed. Former House Speaker and then-convention chair Jase Bolger had to gavel down the crowd and approve the nomination as "nays" flooded the hall over the "ayes."
Clement was eventually nominated and won the race. Wilder, on the other hand, did not. That experience had a lasting impression on Clement regarding the process, and it was not a good one.
“Having been at numerous conventions over my career and seeing how those worked and it not being like that before, I had higher expectations,” said Clement, who spent time on Republican legislative staff before working for Snyder as legal counsel. “There were a number of people that did have my back, that disagreed with the decisions that had so many people upset with me, but said, ‘we know her. She isn't some activist. She read the Constitution, looked at the ballot proposals … and made a decision that was required under the rule of law. We may disagree with her, but that doesn't mean we throw her out.’”
Clement said she focuses on the positive outcome of the election rather than the negative, but it did lead her to consider running next year as an independent, fully understanding that the party may not have nominated her. That, too, carried its own difficulties, but it was something she was actively looking into as she decided what her next steps should be.
As to how the state should change the process, Clement said she didn't know if there was one right answer. Several states have different ways of handling nominations for their respective Supreme Courts, but Clement said that an election was important to ensure the public has some sort of check and balance on the judiciary.
“"Does it have to be the way that we have it set up now, or could it be something more like an appointment process with a retention election? I think there's a lot of different options,” Clement said. “What works best for Michigan might be different than what works elsewhere, or something that might be modified from what works best in a different state.”
Clement said that what she wouldn't want to see is a lifetime appointment like what happens with the federal courts.
The question remains whether the right players will heed her call. It's uncertain whether the political parties were eager to so willingly relinquish their hold over Supreme Court nominations. Still, the outgoing chief justice said politics might prevail in her quest to remove politics from the court.
“I think maybe a party that has not been successful in the last several election cycles might say, ‘okay, maybe we're open to talking about this,’” Clement said. “I would love to see that, to see the parties (acknowledge) this was an arrangement that was put together more than 50 years ago and maybe we should look at this.”
Clement noted the example of 2026, with Republicans and Democrats expected to fight tooth and nail for control of the executive offices, a U.S. Senate, the state Senate and the state House. She wondered if anyone was going to pay attention to those races and what kind of money the parties would need to funnel to those races when they clearly have larger priorities.
The chief justice is not alone. Court of Appeals Judge Mark Boonstra called for the same kind of changes after a tense Republican convention battle for the open seat in 2024.
Boonstra lost that nomination to former Rep. Andrew Fink of Hillsdale, a loss that also soured him on the current process.
Clement said change was necessary for the courts to hold their standing as an institution.
“It has dipped in the last few years, and that is very concerning to me,” Clement said. “I don't know where that's going to go in this current landscape, but that's one of the main reasons I decided to leave the court and take on this new challenge, because that to me is the bedrock of our democracy.”
Clement said that her administrative work on the bench was focused on helping people, including her advocacy for the advancement of problem-solving courts. That would continue in her role with the National Center for State Courts.
“I can do that better in a different way and just take what I’ve been able to do as a justice and as chief and help more people,” Clement said. “And to help lead an organization that their sole mission is to drive trust and innovation and improvement in all of our court systems.”
Although many regard Clement’s independence on the bench as one of her lasting legacies, Clement said she doesn’t think about her life’'s work in those terms.
“I took my oath, and I tried every day to do the job and uphold the rule of law, to be a good listener and to collaborate and to work well with others,” she said. “I don’t think that’s anything that’s legacy defining. That’'s just not how I operate.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
