By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
Another round of debate on trial court funding is beginning in Lansing.
The Legislature has repeatedly asked for officials with experience working in and overseeing the courts to come up with a plan to fund local trial courts, and they have been answered. However, it seems the Legislature has generally not liked the answer.
It is unclear if this latest round will end any differently. Local governments and key lawmakers are already signaling opposition.
It all goes back to 2014, when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled trial courts do not have independent authority to set costs.
In response, the Legislature amended the law to give courts authority to set “reasonable” costs with a major caveat: a sunset of the law. They have repeated that process multiple times since 2014 and will do so again.
As part of extending the sunset, the Legislature has twice asked a body of experts to provide recommendations on how to fund the courts.
The first in 2017, when it created the Trial Court Funding Commission, and again last year, when it charged the State Court Administrative Office with analyzing trial court costs, revenue sources and developing a legislative proposal to change trial court funding.
The answers are not that far apart with both bodies seeking to move away from judges and local courts imposing costs on defendants to keep their courthouses up and running.
Earlier this month, the Michigan Judicial Council released its recommendations – which are more detailed than the 2019 report from a legislatively created commission – and lawmakers will now begin mulling that over.
Lawmakers received an introduction to the report during a joint hearing of the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee from State Court Administrator Tom Boyd and Mike Bosanac, chief financial officer of Monroe County.
The proposal would mean a huge change if implemented with a statewide trial court fund that removes the responsibility and pressure for judges and other court officials to set and collect certain fees and ensure some uniformity across the state.
It would also mean more funding is required from the state.
“We’re all excited to continue digging into it,” Sen. Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit, chair of the Senate committee, said after hearing the first run down of the plan.
Rep. Sarah Lightner, R-Springport, chair of the House committee, noted the sunset, which is set to expire at the end of 2026, will have to be extended again even if lawmakers move toward the Judicial Council’s plan.
And she has concerns.
“It’s a big, huge lift, and it’s been years and years and years,” Lightner said, asking for robust discussion on the proposal.
Still, she noted with longer term limits, lawmakers who have been through this before will remain in office to confront the issue again.
Even with interested lawmakers, it will be a heavy lift. Already local governments and law enforcement are expressing concerns about the plan. And Rep. Jay DeBoyer, R-Clay, blasted the plan in a statement Friday.
In an interview last week, Boyd said he is not going into this next phase trying to convince the Legislature. The proposal is simply answering questions they asked through PA 47 of 2024, he said.
As to whether the Legislature could simply continue extending the sunset for eternity, Boyd said there are lawmakers who make the argument to simply remove the sunset and allow courts to levy the costs.
He said they haven’t had the votes to do that.
Lawmakers have another year before they face the latest sunset.
Gongwer News Service
Another round of debate on trial court funding is beginning in Lansing.
The Legislature has repeatedly asked for officials with experience working in and overseeing the courts to come up with a plan to fund local trial courts, and they have been answered. However, it seems the Legislature has generally not liked the answer.
It is unclear if this latest round will end any differently. Local governments and key lawmakers are already signaling opposition.
It all goes back to 2014, when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled trial courts do not have independent authority to set costs.
In response, the Legislature amended the law to give courts authority to set “reasonable” costs with a major caveat: a sunset of the law. They have repeated that process multiple times since 2014 and will do so again.
As part of extending the sunset, the Legislature has twice asked a body of experts to provide recommendations on how to fund the courts.
The first in 2017, when it created the Trial Court Funding Commission, and again last year, when it charged the State Court Administrative Office with analyzing trial court costs, revenue sources and developing a legislative proposal to change trial court funding.
The answers are not that far apart with both bodies seeking to move away from judges and local courts imposing costs on defendants to keep their courthouses up and running.
Earlier this month, the Michigan Judicial Council released its recommendations – which are more detailed than the 2019 report from a legislatively created commission – and lawmakers will now begin mulling that over.
Lawmakers received an introduction to the report during a joint hearing of the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee from State Court Administrator Tom Boyd and Mike Bosanac, chief financial officer of Monroe County.
The proposal would mean a huge change if implemented with a statewide trial court fund that removes the responsibility and pressure for judges and other court officials to set and collect certain fees and ensure some uniformity across the state.
It would also mean more funding is required from the state.
“We’re all excited to continue digging into it,” Sen. Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit, chair of the Senate committee, said after hearing the first run down of the plan.
Rep. Sarah Lightner, R-Springport, chair of the House committee, noted the sunset, which is set to expire at the end of 2026, will have to be extended again even if lawmakers move toward the Judicial Council’s plan.
And she has concerns.
“It’s a big, huge lift, and it’s been years and years and years,” Lightner said, asking for robust discussion on the proposal.
Still, she noted with longer term limits, lawmakers who have been through this before will remain in office to confront the issue again.
Even with interested lawmakers, it will be a heavy lift. Already local governments and law enforcement are expressing concerns about the plan. And Rep. Jay DeBoyer, R-Clay, blasted the plan in a statement Friday.
In an interview last week, Boyd said he is not going into this next phase trying to convince the Legislature. The proposal is simply answering questions they asked through PA 47 of 2024, he said.
As to whether the Legislature could simply continue extending the sunset for eternity, Boyd said there are lawmakers who make the argument to simply remove the sunset and allow courts to levy the costs.
He said they haven’t had the votes to do that.
Lawmakers have another year before they face the latest sunset.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
