Columns

Any foreign national who obtains legal status in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident is issued a Lawful Permanent Resident Card, commonly known as a “green card.”

Any foreign national who obtains legal status in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident is issued a Lawful Permanent Resident Card, commonly known as a “green card.” Pursuant to 8 USC 1304(e), “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.” While this federal statute has existed for decades, it has not been regularly enforced by USICE. Until recently. Therefore, a legal permanent resident could find themselves facing federal misdemeanor charges for an innocent moment of forgetfulness, and become saddled with a criminal record for failing to carry the green card.

Although legal permanent residents are notified of this requirement by USCIS when they first receive their green cards, many forget over the years. Therefore, if you represent any legal permanent resident clients, you should remind them of this potential federal criminal charge and associated consequences if they fail to produce their green cards when asked by law enforcement. All LPRs should maintain a front and back photo of their green cards on their phones, so that if they forget their cards they are able to produce some level of proof of their lawful status. It is unknown, however, whether producing a photo of one’s green card on their phone will be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Therefore, the original green card should be carried.

If your LPR client does not have a valid unexpired green card in their possession, then they can apply for a new green card to be issued by USCIS. Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Green Card), is available on USCIS’s website, and LPRs can file Form I-90 to obtain new green cards if they are lost, stolen, damaged, or expired. Filing the I-90 form on-line can also provide your LPR client with an immediate receipt notice from USCIS, which they should carry until the new green card is received. As USICE increases their enforcement of immigration laws, LPRs should also increase their preparedness.

Nicole Mackmiller of Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C. represents clients in Immigration, Family Law, and Probate matters. She started her legal career at a boutique immigration law firm in Detroit. Before joining PSED Law, Mackmiller operated her own immigration law firm, after leaving Mackmiller Manchester PLLC in Ypsilanti, where she was solely responsible for handling the firm’s immigration law case load, while assisting with probate and estate planning matters. Most recently, she served as the Supervising Attorney at the Eastern Michigan University Legal Resource Center. Mackmiller serves as Co-Chair of the Washtenaw County Immigration Section. She also volunteers as an advocate and speaker with the Alliance for Immigrants Rights and Reform - Michigan. Mackmiller earned her undergraduate degree in criminal justice from Madonna University, and her juris doctor from Ave Maria School of Law, where she was also a student client advocate at the law school's Asylum and Immigrant Rights Clinic. 

She can be reached at nmackmiller@psedlaw.com or at 734-665-4441.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Do you want to have greater scheduling flexibility? Do you want to choose your own clients? Do you want to make money for yourself rather than someone else? 

Do you want to have greater scheduling flexibility? Do you want to choose your own clients? Do you want to make money for yourself rather than someone else? 

If you answered any of these questions in the affirmative, then perhaps you want to become a sole practitioner.

As someone who practiced for nearly 19 years on my own, I can attest to the benefits and detriments of being a sole practitioner. 

There are several things that should be considered, however, before taking the leap.

It is impossible to be a successful sole practitioner unless a lawyer is also a good administrator. In my time as a sole practitioner, I knew that I liked trying cases, loved researching the law, and loved writing briefs. However, what I strongly disliked was running my own accounting, ordering supplies, deciding which internet or phone plan was best for my business, and figuring out which computers, photocopiers, and fax machines were best for me to complete my work. As a sole practitioner, a lawyer needs to be an expert on all these things.

Furthermore, unless a lawyer is entering sole practice with a great deal of start up cash, that lawyer is also going to be their own secretary, bookkeeper, and law clerk. Lawyers can only bill for time spent on a client’s case, which means that as a sole practitioner, a lawyer is spending time working on many non-billable matters.

Then, a lawyer must consider where they are getting clients. If an attorney breaks from a firm, there is no clear guidance under the Michigan Professional Rules of Conduct as to whether the client belongs to the firm or the attorney who serviced the client. Therefore, it is imperative once a lawyer chooses to leave the firm and go solo, that both the lawyer and the law firm discuss the lawyer’s departure with each client that the lawyer services. Each client has the right to decide which lawyer the client wants to handle its affairs. Interfering with the client’s right to choose their own counsel violates MRPC 1.16. For more information regarding changing law firms, a lawyer should consult the State Bar’s article, “Changing Firms: Ethical Responsibilities for Lawyers and Law Firms.” 

Regardless of whether a lawyer is starting from scratch or continuing to service clients from their prior law firm, a sole practitioner will not survive without developing a steady stream of clients. Marketing is essential for a sole practitioner. In this day, one cannot survive without a web presence. So, who is going to build your website, do search engine optimization, or advertise for the sole practitioner? All these things can be costly.

However, there are marketing opportunities that can be done for minimal cost. One easy method is to network. Networking can be accomplished by joining associations, getting involved with the association committees, and going to association events.

Another free marketing opportunity is social media. A lawyer can utilize Facebook, TikTok, and even Reddit. However, if one markets in this way, a lawyer needs to make certain there is compliance with MRPC 7.1 – 7.5.
A law practice can also be built by accepting court appointments. This approach might be time-sensitive and have some minimal costs associated with it, as there may be educational requirements, and the classes required to get on the court-appointed lists may only be offered periodically. 

On the other hand, this strategy can open up a plethora of new clients (albeit at reduced fees), and other networking opportunities in fields such as criminal misdemeanors, felonies, juvenile law, guardianships and conservatorships, and mental illness cases. It also is a great way to get in front of judges and build a rapport with the court.

One drawback to being a sole practitioner is, what does a sole practitioner do when they have to be in two courts at once? Can you manipulate the cases with the courts that you can be at one court later than the other, or does the lawyer need to spend time trying to get one or the other courts to adjourn the case? What happens if neither court will move the case? Does the sole practitioner know someone whom they trust to handle the case when the sole practitioner cannot? How do you plan vacation time around potential court dates? Remember, if the sole practitioner is not working, there is no money coming into the practice. These are all common problems for a sole practitioner and must be considered before taking the leap into the sole practice world.

Most importantly, lawyers have an ethical duty to our clients that lasts not only beyond their deaths but the lawyer’s own death. All Michigan attorneys in private practice are required to name a person with knowledge of their practice and designate an interim administrator or enroll in the State Bar of Michigan Interim Administrator Program. The purpose of this rule is to allow for the smooth transition of a law practice and its clients when a lawyer resigns, is disbarred, suspended, disappears, is imprisoned, has become disabled or incapacitated, or died. I have encountered this situation twice in one year alone where opposing counsels have died and, in one case, had not named anyone to administer the practice. For the protection of the solo’s clients, transition planning is an essential step in creating a sole practice – knowing who you could trust with your clients when your practice ends.

Becoming a sole practitioner can be extremely rewarding. The ability to leave the office for personal activities is quite enticing. Personally, I made numerous events that I might not have been able to attend if I was working in a large firm. However, being the sole person responsible for every facet of the practice also meant that I worked numerous times past midnight and on weekends without compensation because non-legal things (or even legal things) had to get accomplished.

Therefore, before making the leap, it is important that one considers all the other aspects of sole practice before leaving the comfort of a firm.

Stuart Collis, of Collis, Griffor & Hendra, is an expert in collections and has over two decades of civil litigation, family law, and criminal law experience. Collis is a trained mediator and has extensive experience with case evaluation procedures. He has also served on a number of state and national organizations, including NARCA, WCBA, MCBA, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s Companion Animal Committee. Collis has been published extensively, including several republications. He has created and presented numerous educational sessions for interested organizations.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.

This article serves as the twelfth and concluding installment in a comprehensive 12-part series on domestic arbitration, designed to provide a clear and practical guide through every stage of the process. In this edition, Enforcing and Collecting Arbitration Awards: The Final Step Toward Justice, we examine the legal framework and procedural steps involved in enforcing an arbitration award and securing compliance. With this final chapter, we bring the series on domestic arbitration to its conclusion. An arbitration award, no matter how well reasoned or elegantly written, achieves its true purpose only when it is enforced. The journey from hearing to award is the heart of arbitration—but enforcement is its lifeblood. Without it, even the most meticulous proceeding risks becoming a paper victory.

From Award to Judgment: Understanding the Legal Bridge

Once an arbitrator issues a final award, the prevailing party’s focus must shift swiftly from persuasion to enforcement. In domestic arbitration, this usually begins with confirming the award in court. Under Sections 9 through 13 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and comparable state statutes, a party may petition the appropriate court—typically a circuit or federal district court—to confirm the award and have it entered as a judgment. Timing is critical. The FAA provides a one-year window from the date of the award to file a petition for confirmation, though prompt action is always best practice. A court’s confirmation transforms the award into a judgment “having the same force and effect as any other judgment,” enabling collection by the usual means—garnishment, liens, or execution. Courts have a narrow role at this stage. They are not appellate bodies for arbitrators. Unless a statutory ground for vacatur or modification exists—such as evident partiality, misconduct, or excess of authority—the award must be confirmed. The judiciary’s restrained posture underscores a fundamental principle: finality is the crown jewel of arbitration.

The Respondent’s Resistance: Motions to Vacate or Modify

A losing party may seek to vacate or modify the award within three months of its issuance under Section 12 of the FAA. Courts, however, apply these provisions narrowly. The burden is steep, and the evidentiary threshold high. Common missteps include mere disagreement with the arbitrator’s reasoning or an attempt to re-argue the merits—grounds that never justify vacatur. For practitioners, this underscores the importance of procedural precision. Ensuring that the record reflects fairness, notice, and an opportunity to be heard can fortify an award against later attack. An enforceable award is not born in the courthouse—it is built during the arbitration itself.

The Mechanics of Confirmation: How to File and Proceed

A typical confirmation petition includes: Verified petition or motion citing the FAA (or state act); Copy of the arbitration agreement and the final award; Affidavit of service on the opposing party; Proposed judgment order for the court’s signature. Filing in the jurisdiction where the arbitration occurred—or where the losing party or its assets are located—strategically positions the prevailing side for efficient enforcement. Some courts allow summary procedures, while others may set a brief hearing. Unless a valid opposition is filed, confirmation is usually granted as a matter of course. When drafting, counsel should remember that courts favor succinct, fact-based petitions that demonstrate procedural regularity and compliance with deadlines. Over-argument can be counterproductive; credibility, not verbosity, wins the day.

From Judgment to Collection: Turning Paper into Payment

Once confirmed, the award takes on new life as a judicial judgment. Enforcement then proceeds under the state’s civil enforcement mechanisms—typically those applicable to any money judgment. Practical tools include: Writs of garnishment or attachment against bank accounts, wages, or accounts receivable; Judgment liens recorded against real property; Execution orders allowing seizure and sale of non-exempt assets; post-judgment discovery to identify hidden or transferred assets. Creative enforcement may also involve negotiating payment plans, obtaining consent judgments, or leveraging reputational incentives when the opposing party values confidentiality or ongoing business relationships. In short, collection requires both legal precision and strategic diplomacy. The tone of enforcement—firm yet professional—often determines how swiftly compliance follows.

State vs. Federal Considerations

In Michigan and most states, the Uniform Arbitration Act supplements federal provisions, allowing confirmation, modification, or vacatur through local courts. Counsel should always verify which statute governs the arbitration agreement and whether it contains any venue or procedural requirements. For example, while the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9) requires a motion to confirm an arbitration award to be filed within one year, Michigan’s Uniform Arbitration Act (MCL 691.1702) imposes no such deadline. However, certain procedural distinctions such as methods of service, filing requirements, or the form of judgment entry can differ. Navigating this dual framework effectively ensures that an award is not lost in a procedural gap between federal and state law.

Beyond Confirmation: Interest, Costs, and Attorney Fees

A confirmed award may include post-judgment interest, calculated under the applicable state or federal rate, to compensate for delay in payment. When contracts or statutes provide for attorney fees or collection costs, the prevailing party should expressly request them in the petition. Courts often respect such contractual provisions, viewing them as part of the bargained-for expectation of the parties. For example, an arbitrator’s award granting $100,000 with a contractual interest clause at 12% continues to accrue interest until paid. A delay of even a few months can substantially increase the obligation—a quiet yet powerful incentive for compliance.

The Symbolism of Enforcement

Enforcement is not merely procedural; it is symbolic. It reaffirms the legitimacy of arbitration as a binding and respected process. Each confirmed award strengthens the ecosystem of alternative dispute resolution by signaling to the legal community that arbitration delivers not just decisions—but results. As one federal court aptly stated, “An arbitration award is not an invitation to negotiation; it is the end of the debate.” The power of enforcement ensures that endures. This twelfth and final installment mark the culmination of our exploration into the practice and procedure of domestic arbitration. From the first notice of arbitration to the final act of enforcement, we have traced the lifecycle of disputes resolved outside the courthouse yet within the rule of law. Enforcement is where theory meets consequence. It is where the neutral’s pen finds its echo in the judge’s gavel and it reminds us that arbitration’s promise—efficiency, finality, and fairness—means little without the certainty of compliance. To all who have followed this series: may your next award not only be well-reasoned, but well-respected—and, most importantly, well-enforced.

Harshitha Ram is an international disputes attorney, arbitrator, mediator, and lecturer in law. She is the President of the Global Arbitration Mediation Academy (GAMA), Chair of the ADR Section of the DBA, and the Co-Chair of the ABA Arbitration Committee. To learn more or connect, visit: www.harshitharam.com | www.adracademy.us

As of October 1, 2025, Michigan employers with 10 or fewer employees (“small businesses”) must begin providing paid sick time under the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). Larger employers (11+ employees) have been covered since February 21, 2025; the small employer effective date was intentionally delayed to give the smallest operations time to prepare.

As of October 1, 2025, Michigan employers with 10 or fewer employees (“small businesses”) must begin providing paid sick time under the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). Larger employers (11+ employees) have been covered since February 21, 2025; the small employer effective date was intentionally delayed to give the smallest operations time to prepare.

Who counts toward “10 or fewer”?

Headcount is calculated broadly. Employers must include all employees across the United States and its territories—full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, including those supplied by staffing agencies. Employers who reach 11 or more employees for 20 or more workweeks in the current or prior calendar year are treated as a larger employer through the end of that year and the next.

How sick time accrues and can be used

Under ESTA, employees accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Small employers may limit both carryover and use to 40 hours per year (larger employers use a 72-hour cap). Unused paid sick time rolls over year to year, up to 40 hours for small employers.  

Alternatively, employers can frontload sick time at the start of each year to avoid tracking accrual and carryover. For small employers, that means providing at least 40 hours up front for full-time employees, with prorated amounts for part-time staff (subject to specific notice and “true-up” requirements).  

For small employers, accrual begins the later of October 1, 2025 or the employee’s start date. Employers using the accrual method may impose a waiting period of up to 120 days before new hires (on or after February 21, 2025) can use accrued time; during the waiting period, hours still accrue. Frontloaded time is available for immediate use and may not impose a waiting period.

What counts as “sick time” under the law

ESTA leave is broadly available for an employee’s own illness or preventative care, care for a family member, and certain needs related to domestic violence or sexual assault. Employers may track usage in one-hour increments (or the smallest timekeeping increment) and must compensate time off at the employee’s regular hourly rate (exclusive of overtime premiums, bonuses, commissions, tips, and holiday pay).

PTO policies can satisfy ESTA—if they meet or exceed the law

Employers already offering a paid time off (PTO) bank can use it to comply so long as it is at least as generous as ESTA (for small employers, at least 40 hours per year) and can be used for the same purposes on the same timelines. Many small employers will find this approach simplest, but review accrual, caps, and carryover to ensure alignment.

Required notices and posting

By 30 days after the February 21, 2025 amendments (or at hire, whichever is later), employers must provide written notice describing ESTA rights, the measurement “year,” usage rules, anti-retaliation protections, and the right to file a complaint. Employers must also display the state workplace poster in English, Spanish, and any other language that is the first language for 10% or more of the workforce if the state has provided a translation.

Action checklist for small employers (=10 employees)

1. Confirm headcount status. Count all U.S. employees—including temps and staffing-agency workers—and document weekly totals for the 20-week threshold analysis.  

2. Choose your method: accrual (1 per 30 hours, cap/use/rollover at 40) or frontload (40 hours for full-time; prorate part-time). Frontloading simplifies tracking but requires careful onboarding notices and potential true-ups.  

3. Align your PTO policy. If you use a general PTO bank, ensure it provides at least 40 hours and can be used for ESTA-covered reasons without extra hurdles.  

4. Set a waiting-period rule (optional). If using accrual, decide whether to apply up to 120 days for new hires (who still accrue during that period).  

5. Update payroll and timekeeping. Configure accruals or frontloads, carryover limits, and usage caps, and pay at the correct regular rate.  

6. Issue required notices and post the state poster in the necessary languages. Train managers on anti-retaliation and consistent administration.  

7. Calendar policy start date: If using accrual for eligible employees, employers should have begun no later than October 1, 2025 (or date of hire, if later) and be prepared to accept covered uses immediately if frontloaded.
Michigan’s Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) maintains plain-language guidance, including a February 27, 2025 slide deck that summarizes the 40-hour small-employer caps, the October 1, 2025 compliance date, frontloading options, notice requirements, and more. For complex scenarios like fluctuating headcount, multi-state operations, or collective bargaining agreements, employers should seek out legal counsel to tailor a policy and rollout.

—————

Zana Tomich is co-founder of Dalton & Tomich, a versatile Detroit-based law firm, where she works with lending institutions and privately held businesses and nonprofits, often in a general counsel capacity.

As new lawyers, we were taught in law school how to use technology to our advantage. However, this means there are also ways that the use of technology in the legal profession can go awry. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the most prominent example of a technology that has many helpful uses, and some pitfalls.

As new lawyers, we were taught in law school how to use technology to our advantage. However, this means there are also ways that the use of technology in the legal profession can go awry. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the most prominent example of a technology that has many helpful uses, and some pitfalls.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems that can perform complex tasks usually done by humans, such as reasoning, decision-making, creating, drafting, etc. Because of AI, attorneys can produce better legal work in fewer hours, benefiting clients greatly. Some lawyers hesitate to incorporate AI into their practice, partly because AI raises ethical questions and risks, such as compromising confidential client data, or waiving attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

Recently, lawyers and law firms have gotten sanctioned for failing to check case citations generated by AI. In June 2023, two New York attorneys filed a brief written by ChatGPT, which included citations to six non-existent cases and erroneous quotes. It is a cautionary tale that led to sanctions and public scrutiny.

In February of 2025, a federal court fined an attorney for “hallucinated” AI citations. When AI generates plausible but false text, this is a ‘hallucination.’ The court found that lawyers have an ethical duty to check the cites used in their legal filings and “read the case to ensure the excerpt is existing law to support their propositions and arguments.” Judge Kelly H. Rankin, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., D. Wyo., No. 2:23-cv-118-KHR

On July 29, 2024, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics & Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. In Formal Opinion 512, the ABA stated, 

“To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.” 

I have compiled a list of key do’s and don’ts below to help guide you through best practices.

Do:

1. Start Using AI with Simple Tasks: To familiarize yourself with AI tools before applying them to more complex legal work, begin with low-stakes tasks such as document summarization or text editing.

2. Leverage AI for Efficiency: Use AI to legal research, contract review, and predictive analysis tasks.

3. Critically Review Answers: Always validate AI-generated content to align with legal standards and client interests. AI tools are not foolproof and require human oversight to avoid errors or omissions.

4. Maintain Ethical Standards: Adhere to ethical obligations such as client confidentiality, informed consent, and competence when using AI tools.

5. Invest in Training: Gain a basic understanding of how AI works and its limitations.

6. Experiment with Different Tools: Explore various AI platforms, such as Casetext’s CoCounsel, Westlaw Edge, or MyCase IQ, to find the tools best suited to your practice needs.

7. Treat AI as a Tool, not a Decision-Maker: Use AI to assist your thinking, never to replace it.

8. Stay Updated on AI Ethics and Bar Guidance: Regularly check with the State Bar of Michigan and the ABA for updates, opinions, and rules involving AI and legal practice.

Don’t:

1. Rely on AI for Legal Research Without Independent Verification: Always verify the facts and conclusions yourself. AI tools can assist, but the final responsibility lies with you.

2. Submit AI-Generated Content Without Review: As discussed above, copying and pasting from AI without proofreading or fact-checking can lead to ethical violations and sanctions.

3. Input Confidential Client Data: Treat AI like any third-party service provider. Avoid inputting sensitive client data to adhere to ethical standards such as client confidentiality and informed consent.

4. Misunderstanding AI’s Limitations: New lawyers might assume AI can handle complex legal reasoning or strategic decision-making. However, AI tools are best suited for repetitive tasks like document review or research, and cannot replace nuanced legal judgment or human expertise.

5. Assume AI is Always Neutral or Unbiased: AI tools can reflect biases in their training data.

6. Ignore It: Lawyers and firms that resist AI will fall behind.

7. Stop Learning: The best lawyers will be the ones who keep adapting and staying informed.

AI is a powerful tool for legal professionals, but it does not replace the need for legal expertise and judgment. While it can streamline processes and enhance efficiency, lawyers must remain vigilant about their ethical duties and responsibilities.

Natalie Lennon is a health law attorney with a background in regulatory compliance, healthcare transactions, and administrative law. 
With an LLM in health law from Loyola University Chicago School of Law, she advises providers and institutions in navigating federal and state healthcare regulations. Before focusing on health law, Lennon gained experience in general practice, which informs a well-rounded, strategic approach to client advocacy. 
She is admitted to practice in Minnesota and Michigan and is active in professional organizations focused on health law and policy. Lennon values collaboration across legal disciplines and is committed to delivering practical, business-oriented solutions. She can be reached at nlennon@chapman-lawgroup.com or at 248-644-6326.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Legal News newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur

People created governments to advance the public interest, and they elect the leaders of those institutions. These public servants use their best judgment to tackle the problems important to voters.

People created governments to advance the public interest, and they elect the leaders of those institutions. These public servants use their best judgment to tackle the problems important to voters.

But elected officials are also people like the rest of us — often seeking the easy way. This puts people at a disadvantage when their interests collide with the government’s. It’s simply easier for officials to take the government’s side against the citizens.

This matters because elected officials are many. In addition to representatives at the state and federal level, we elect school board members, city councilmembers and mayors, village councilmembers and presidents, township trustees, mayors, clerks, treasurers, library boards, county commissioners, drain commissioners, community college trustees, select state university board members, state board of education members, and likely more that I am forgetting.

Elected officials are responsible for guiding and operating their government unit. One universal fact becomes clear to everyone: It’s easier to run the unit when revenues increase faster than expenses. It’s not fun to make tough decisions on what might need to be cut. This is one reason why there’s always a loud chorus of government officials calling out for more revenue.

This tendency isn’t just in government, though. As Mr. Micawber observed in Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield, “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenses nineteen pounds and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

It’s just easier to operate governments when they have more money. Consider the property tax elections to build and improve school buildings. Taxpayers would rather not have to pay more to get something that could be accomplished without these taxes. Schools can use their existing resources to build and maintain their own buildings without special millages. In fact, this is how charter schools in Michigan operate, as they are not allowed to ask local taxpayers to pay for their buildings.

Nearly all school boards opt not to use their existing resources for building improvements and ask voters to approve more taxes instead. That way, the district will have more total revenue to spend, and the tough choices are avoided. School officials’ lives are easier that way.

It is harder to run a school when administrators have to economize on existing resources to pay for buildings. Some of those choices may lead to consequences that local voters would find worse than paying more in property taxes. But the incentives faced by elected officials tip the scales toward asking taxpayers to economize on their budgets rather than asking districts to economize on theirs.

That’s why local tax questions require voter approval these days. New local taxes are required by the 1978 Headlee Amendment to be approved by voters. It ensures popular support for local taxes as a counterweight to the tendency for local elected officials to consistently seek higher revenue.

It makes sense that officials want more money for their agencies. Transit officials argue for more transit funding. School groups argue for more school funding. Local government officials argue for more local government revenue. None of this is surprising. Who else would you expect to make these claims?

One might then wonder why, then, Republican legislators and governors sometimes talk about tax cuts. Surely that would make their jobs managing the state government harder. Yet people hear a lot about cutting costs of government from conservatives.

While tax cuts reduce government revenue from what it might otherwise be, governments that cut taxes tend to have extra money to spare. When the majority of states cut taxes after the pandemic, state revenues came in beyond expectations. Although many taxes were reduced, state governments increased total spending from $2.1 trillion in fiscal year 2018-19 to $3.1 trillion in fiscal year 2023-24, a 19% increase above inflation.

Tax cuts are easier to deliver when revenue is up. Lawmakers can afford to let people keep more of their money when they themselves don’t have to spend less.

The lure of taking the easy way is a powerful force that even affects elected officials who want to let taxpayers keep more of their own money. It’s a tendency that voters ought to keep in mind next time elected officials ask for a tax hike. Their elected representatives might be more interested in securing an easy job than in protecting the public interest.

   ___________________

James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.