Michigan Supreme Court

Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court
Eight-Year Term — Vote for Two (2)

Q1) Do you support public financing for judicial campaigns? Explain.
Q2) What do you perceive as the greatest obstacles to justice, if any? Please explain.
Q3) What is your vision for the future of our judicial system? What changes would you advocate and why?

Marilyn Kelly
Justice Marilyn Kelly served eight years on the Michigan Supreme Court, also eight years as a Court of Appeals Judge; seventeen years as a practicing attorney; earlier taught French in Grosse Pointe Schools, Albion College and EMU; served two terms on the Michigan State Board of Education, ultimately as its president. She has a B.A. from EMU; M.A. from Middlebury College, Vermont and La Sorbonne, Paris, France; and a J.D. with honors from WSU.

1) Yes. A major drawback to electing state judges is that it obliges candidates to raise money to run. Usually, those who contribute are affiliated with the legal profession. Sometimes, these people or organizations have litigation before the courts. Few members of the general public contribute money. Adequately funded public financing for judicial campaigns could eliminate the problem presented when judicial candidates take contributions from people and organizations that have lawsuits before them.

2) One obstacle is access to justice. The system has become too expensive for persons even of moderate means to get their day in court. A second obstacle is delay. “Justice delayed is justice denied” remains true today. A third obstacle is discrimination. Failure to equip courtrooms so people in wheelchairs can reach the witness stand is discriminatory. A fourth obstacle is inadequate funding. Government services are reduced in a recession. The courts are no exception.

3) I envision a judicial system (1) where the increased use of alternative dispute resolution and increased funding for legal services makes the courts available to all equally, (2) where better use of technology speeds court decisions, reducing delay, (3) where discrimination of all types is eliminated and (4) where judges apply the law accurately and render decisions fairly. I will continue to work to make the courts worthy of the public’s trust and confidence.

Stephen J. Markman
I have been a Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court since 1999. Before that, I served as Judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals for five years; as the United States Attorney (or federal prosecutor) in Michigan for four years; and as Assistant Attorney General of the United States for four years. I have also served as Chief Counsel of the US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, and now teach constitutional law at Hillsdale College.

1) I do not support taxpayer financing of judicial campaigns. Although increasingly expensive campaigns threaten to undermine the appearance of integrity and fairness of the judicial process, the sounder approach to addressing this problem, in my judgment, is to move toward a system, already adopted by many states, in which there are ‘retention’ elections, in which the people vote whether to retain individual judges, rather than deciding among competing political party-nominated candidates.

2) The indispensable elements of any fair and even-handed system of appellate justice are judges who understand that their constitutional duty is to say what the law “is,” rather than what they may think it “ought” to be. This principle defines the rule of law. Although they are elected, judges must never represent special interests, or engage in political decisionmaking, but must faithfully and consistently interpret the law and the Constitution.

3) My vision is of a legal system in which the law is stable and predictable, so that individuals and businesses can understand as clearly as possible their legal rights and responsibilities. It is of a system in which the legal process moves forward as quickly as reasonably possible, and in which criminal trials are focused as straightforwardedly as possible, consistent with the Constitution, upon determining the truth of a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Leonard Schwartz
Born 1945 in Detroit. Mumford High School. U. of Chicago, BA, history & philosophy. Johns Hopkins U., MA, economics. Wayne State U. Law School, JD. Retired professor of law & economics. Author of many scholarly articles, listed at www.Schwartz45.com/bio.php.

1) Using taxes to pay for judicial or nonjudicial campaigns is immoral. Governments should not force citizens to finance campaigns. Candidates should raise campaign funds voluntarily. Elected officials should realize that taxes are paid involuntarily and that tax revenue is other people’s money, which should be spent wisely for the public good.

2) [1] Asset forfeiture laws that allow confiscation of your property without even accusing you of committing a crime. See www.Schwartz45.com/asset.php. [2] Repetitive litigation. See www.Schwartz45.com/multi.php. [3] Unjustified claims and defenses. See www.Schwartz45.com/unjustifiable.php. [4] Abuse of traffic laws to raise revenue. See www.Schwartz45.com/unfair.php.

3) [1] Repeal immoral laws that allow confiscation of property from persons who haven’t been convicted of a crime. [2] Reduce repetitive litigation, which is unfair and expensive. [3] Reduce unjustifiable claims & defenses by changing procedural rules. [4] Stop abusing traffic laws to raise revenue. [5] Repeal immoral laws that impose collective guilt. See www.Schwartz45.com/CollectiveGuilt.php. [6] Get government busybodies off your back. See www.Schwartz45.com/constitution.php.

Deborah Thomas
Judge Deborah Thomas, currently serving her 10th year on Wayne County Circuit Court following sixteen years as attorney, is a graduate of Cass Tech. Her degrees include: B.A., WMU; M.A., U of D; J.D., Valparaiso University, and Fellowship, Howard University School of Law. Thomas’ community activities include Elks, Black Women Lawyers, and Y.W.C.A board of trustees. She has been honored for outstanding service by American Bar Association, Michigan Women Foundation, and Michigan Bar Association.

1) I support public financing for judicial campaigns. Public financing provides each candidate with identical funding thus eliminates campaigns whereby wealthier candidates can purchase a victory. Currently judicial candidates are heavily dependent on personal wealth and donations of attorneys. While attorneys are most likely to know the skills and knowledge of judicial candidates better than members of the general public, their spending choices can be impacted by concern not to offend a particular candidate.

2) The greatest obstacle to justice is poverty. Those individuals lacking funding often cannot afford the cost of litigation. The number of attorneys working for free legal service organizations has been reduced by cuts in governmental financing of such programs. In addition, funding to the courts has been reduced to the point that administrators are pressuring courts to expedite the handing of cases. While justice delayed is justice denied, justice rushed is not justice at all.

3) The future of the judicial system rests in the hands of the voters. Citizens must take a personal interest in how appellate judges interpret the law for their decisions’ impact the rights of every citizen, not just the litigants in a single case. Voters must learn to applaud the rulings of judges which are balanced, legal and fair although unpopular, with special interest groups. Understand the Governor can appoint judges under certain circumstances...

Brian Keith Zahra
Born in Detroit, the child of Maltese immigrants, my parents taught me that America was the land of opportunity. I worked my way through WSU (1984) and U of D law (1987), and practiced law until becoming a Wayne County Circuit Judge in 1995. I have been a Judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals since 1999. I reside in Northville with my wife, Suzanne, and son, Kevin. We are expecting a daughter in November.

1) No. The amount of money needed to finance all judicial campaigns would be staggering and an undue burden on taxpayers. The state lacks the resources to adequately fund judicial campaigns. Any appearance of impropriety arising from the current fund raising system could be eliminated if we selected judges through a merit based appointment process. A Bar Commission could reduce the field of candidates, from which the Governor would appoint, subject to legislative confirmation.

2) Reducing the amount of time required to resolve litigation is the greatest obstacle in our justice system. Our justice system succeeds only because of the public’s faith and confidence in it. However, confidence in the judicial system is eroded when litigants believe they have been denied a timely resolution of their case before an impartial arbitrator of law. All courts, trial and appellate, must exercise greater effort to reduce delay inherent in the litigation process.

3) I would like to see our judicial selection method change to a merit based appointment process. Unlike Legislators, judges do not represent the interests of their constituents. Rather, judges represent the interests of justice as dictated by the rule of law. At times, these interests fly in the face of popular opinion. Our judicial system is irreparably harmed whenever a judge is influenced by popular opinion rather than the rule of law.

VOTE TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2, 2004