By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
A bill creating enhanced protections against the dissemination of personal information and physical safety protections for Michigan judges was moved to the Senate floor on Thursday after a previous iteration died failed to reach the finish line last session.
The Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee reported an S-1 substitute of SB 82 on a 5-1-1 vote, with Sen. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) abstaining and Sen. Ruth Johnson (R-Groveland Township) voting no.
The bill was sponsored by Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit) and is a reintroduction of SB 871 of 2024. The latter bill, and its counterpart in HB 5742 of 2024, both died in lame duck in December 2024 due to House inaction on both.
Chang said a high-profile attack from a disgruntled former litigant on a judge’s home – in which her son was fatally shot and her husband was critically wounded – spurred Congress to pass federal legislation protecting judge’s personal information. Other states have followed and her bill would do the same.
“Unfortunately, no such protection exists today for state level judges in Michigan, but we have the Judicial Protection Act, which I’m hopeful we can get through the Michigan Legislature this year,” Chang said. “We passed the bills in the House and Senate, but a slight change was required for House concurrence, and therefore the bills did not get done.”
The substitute adopted by the committee adds a new subsection, which exempts the display of a property address on a real estate or mapping platform when the address is not displayed or disclosed in connection with any ownership or occupancy information or other protected personal information of a judge or judges immediate family member.
Chang said that was added as a way to address an issue raised by real-estate related platform in the state.
Johnson offered an amendment to the S-1 version of the bill, which would have prohibited the disclosure of the address of any residence or dwelling of a judge, but would remove the prohibition on other properties, like commercial or investment buildings that might be owned by a judge.
“I just don’t think it’s wise to further restrict transparency in Michigan, which already struggles with integrity and ranks very low nationally. I do believe in shielding the primary residences and secondary residents of judges. That makes sense for safety reasons,” Johnson said. “Extending it to all commercial investment properties raises a number of concerns. Here’s why: public access to real estate records help track potential conflicts of interest, unethical dealings and corruption within government and business. Without it, politicians and public officials could secretly own properties, oppose conflicts of interest, engage in self-dealing or benefit from insider information. Investment properties in commercial real estate are business assets, not personal residences.”
The amendment was rejected by the committee despite Johnson’s call to balance privacy and safety with accountability. Runestad voted yes on the amendment along with Johnson, but abstained on the vote to adopt the S-1 version as it was initially presented. Runestad also abstained and Johnson voted no on the motion to report the bill.
Speaking in favor of the bill was Court of Appeals Judge and Court of Claims Chief Judge Brock Swartzle, who said the bill before the committee was narrower in scope than its federal and other state counterparts.
Gongwer News Service
A bill creating enhanced protections against the dissemination of personal information and physical safety protections for Michigan judges was moved to the Senate floor on Thursday after a previous iteration died failed to reach the finish line last session.
The Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee reported an S-1 substitute of SB 82 on a 5-1-1 vote, with Sen. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) abstaining and Sen. Ruth Johnson (R-Groveland Township) voting no.
The bill was sponsored by Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit) and is a reintroduction of SB 871 of 2024. The latter bill, and its counterpart in HB 5742 of 2024, both died in lame duck in December 2024 due to House inaction on both.
Chang said a high-profile attack from a disgruntled former litigant on a judge’s home – in which her son was fatally shot and her husband was critically wounded – spurred Congress to pass federal legislation protecting judge’s personal information. Other states have followed and her bill would do the same.
“Unfortunately, no such protection exists today for state level judges in Michigan, but we have the Judicial Protection Act, which I’m hopeful we can get through the Michigan Legislature this year,” Chang said. “We passed the bills in the House and Senate, but a slight change was required for House concurrence, and therefore the bills did not get done.”
The substitute adopted by the committee adds a new subsection, which exempts the display of a property address on a real estate or mapping platform when the address is not displayed or disclosed in connection with any ownership or occupancy information or other protected personal information of a judge or judges immediate family member.
Chang said that was added as a way to address an issue raised by real-estate related platform in the state.
Johnson offered an amendment to the S-1 version of the bill, which would have prohibited the disclosure of the address of any residence or dwelling of a judge, but would remove the prohibition on other properties, like commercial or investment buildings that might be owned by a judge.
“I just don’t think it’s wise to further restrict transparency in Michigan, which already struggles with integrity and ranks very low nationally. I do believe in shielding the primary residences and secondary residents of judges. That makes sense for safety reasons,” Johnson said. “Extending it to all commercial investment properties raises a number of concerns. Here’s why: public access to real estate records help track potential conflicts of interest, unethical dealings and corruption within government and business. Without it, politicians and public officials could secretly own properties, oppose conflicts of interest, engage in self-dealing or benefit from insider information. Investment properties in commercial real estate are business assets, not personal residences.”
The amendment was rejected by the committee despite Johnson’s call to balance privacy and safety with accountability. Runestad voted yes on the amendment along with Johnson, but abstained on the vote to adopt the S-1 version as it was initially presented. Runestad also abstained and Johnson voted no on the motion to report the bill.
Speaking in favor of the bill was Court of Appeals Judge and Court of Claims Chief Judge Brock Swartzle, who said the bill before the committee was narrower in scope than its federal and other state counterparts.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://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
