Now, she has decided she’d like to stay for another term. And that’s giving many of her fellow Republicans fits.
But there is little they can do about it. If this doesn’t make much sense, that’s because at some level, the system is crazy.
Let me explain. We like to think that partisan politics shouldn’t have anything to do with justice. But in Michigan, it does -- at the highest levels, anyway. We are one of only seven states where the parties get directly involved in selecting Supreme Court justices.
Here’s how it works. There are seven members of our state supreme court, each of whom are elected for eight-year terms.
Every two years, the major parties nominate candidates for the state supreme court at their late-summer political conventions.
Sixteen years ago, the GOP nominated Elizabeth Weaver, whose friends call her Betty. She had a long background as a judge in probate and juvenile court, and then the Michigan Court of Appeals. That was a big Republican year, and she won. Eight years later, the Republicans nominated her for re-election.
She won again, easily. Michigan Supreme Court justices almost never lose. This is for at least two reasons. People like continuity in the courtroom, and tend to reelect sitting judges at all levels.
Plus, when a Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court runs for re-election, their title is printed on the ballot next to their name.
That gives them an enormous advantage. However, as time went on, Justice Weaver’s relations with the other Republicans on the court began to fray. Her enemies started sniping at her in public.
She talked about retiring, but changed her mind. And, not surprisingly Justice Weaver became more and more of an independent swing vote in tough-to-decide cases.
This became very important when Chief Justice Cliff Taylor was defeated for re-election two years ago.
Suddenly, that meant there were three Democrats on the court, three Republicans - and Betty Weaver. To nobody‘s great surprise, she voted with the Democrats to install Marilyn Kelly as chief justice.
Now Weaver’s term is ending. She now wants to run for re-election after all, but knew her chance of being renominated by the GOP were nonexistent. But she doesn’t really need them.
If you are already on the high court you can just file to run without seeking a party nomination - and that’s what she did. Her name will appear on the ballot in November with her title.
And she’s likely to win, unless the GOP spends millions to discredit her. Odds are also strong that the Democrats won’t nominate anyone to run against Justice Weaver. They will concentrate their fire on trying to beat Justice Robert Young, Jr.
There’s a deeper question here, though. Should our highest administrators of justice owe their jobs to partisan politics, especially since the parties themselves have become so polarized?
My guess is that most of us aren’t comfortable with this.
But it would take a state constitutional amendment to change it.
So - how should we select our justices instead?
I have some thoughts, but am far from a legal expert. If anyone has a really bright idea, I’d appreciate hearing from you.
Several years ago, while serving as a volunteer at the National Governors Conference held in Traverse City, I had the profound pleasure of hearing Sandra Day O'Connor speak on the power and the need for An Independent Judiciary.
http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentD
isplay.cfm&CONTENTID=10515
Clearly Justice O'Connor is a woman of integrity and profound wisdom -- may we have the wisdom to learn from her.
Posted by: Kathleen Russell | July 06, 2010 at 04:24 PM