Jack Lessenberry Essays and Interviews

Essay: Reforming Our Courts: Betty Weaver Speaks Out - 1.25.11

Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver voluntarily left the court last August after almost 16 years on the bench. Michigan Radio’s Political Analyst Jack Lessenberry says she thinks it needs major reform.

Hear Audio Story   

Yesterday I talked about a conversation I had with former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver.

Some of Justice Weaver’s views and actions have long been controversial. After she voluntarily left the court last summer, she made headlines when she revealed that she had secretly taped some of the court’s deliberations, and released transcripts of them.

That earned her a vote of censure from her former colleagues, but she said that didn’t bother her. Weaver says the state’s highest court is doing the people’s business, and so should be open to public scrutiny. That particular opinion may not be widely shared. But Betty Weaver is far from alone in thinking Michigan’s Supreme Court needs to be reformed. The University of Chicago law school ranked it as the worst state supreme court in the nation.

Last year, then-Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly told me she had real concerns about the politicization of the court. Now, she is co-chairing of a task force that plans to take a year-long look at possible reforms.

Betty Weaver says she welcomes the task force, because it will keep focus on the issue. But she also has her own six-point plan for how to fix the court, ideas which I think are worth hearing.

First of all, she’d do away with the current system where candidates for the court are placed on the ballot by the major political parties. She thinks they should earn a spot on the ballot by petition, which is what all other Michigan judges have to do.

She’d like to see justices elected by district, to allow some geographic diversity.

Currently, all seven justices live in only three counties, Wayne, Oakland and Ingham.

That’s why she was so keen on Judge Alton Davis of Gaylord being named to replace her. His defeat meant, she said, that two-thirds of us have no justice from our immediate geographical area.

Weaver also thinks we need to move to a system of public fiunding for judicial campaigns, and until we are fully there, she would require transparency and accountability in campaign finance reporting. That means knowing who is giving which candidate how much money, and being able to find out within two days. “We should allow absolutely no secret or unnamed contributors,” she said.

She’d also like term limits for justices -- perhaps a single term of fourteen years. I’m not sure why she thinks that’s a good idea.

But her last idea, involving what happens when a justice dies or resigns while in office, is hard to fault. Currently, the governor can name anyone he or she likes to the post. Former Justice Weaver would establish a broad-based Qualifications Commission.

They would provide the governor with two recommendations, and the governor would be free to pick one -- or pick someone else if they explained why. But in any event, the appointment would be subject to a public hearing, and then confirmation by the Senate.

You don’t have to always agree with former Justice Weaver, or even admire her style, to admit these are ideas worth considering. She told me she intends to continue to campaign for court reform, and may write a book about the subject.

I hope she does both.

Essay: Betty Weaver Speaks Out - 1.24.11

Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Betty Weaver was censured by her colleagues for revealing what went on during the court’s deliberations. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry talked to her about why.

Hear Audio Story

Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver was, it seems fair to say, controversial.

Though elected as a Republican in 1994, she became increasingly critical of her fellow Republicans on the state’s highest court. Within the last few years she was openly feuding with them. Late last summer, Weaver abruptly resigned from the court, under an arrangement where the governor appointed Judge Alton Davis to replace her. Davis, however lost the November election.

That wasn’t the end of the controversy, however. Last fall, former Justice Weaver then released transcripts of court deliberations she secretly recorded, saying the public had every right to know how the court went about making its decisions. That horrified most of her former colleagues, who resented being taped without their knowledge. Five voted to censure Weaver. But in a long conversation yesterday, she told me she couldn’t care less.

“We need openness in government,” she said.

“That’s what this is all about. We need reforms, yes. Reforms in the way justices are selected and elected.”

But she said any reforms “will have little effect unless we can open the inner workings of our Supreme Court to public scrutiny.” She called what we have now a politicized disgrace.

“We need transparency. Not a secret club of seven justices from the Detroit-Lansing beltway, joining together to promote agendas of partisan or special interests,” and deciding cases in ways that fit their own personal agendas, or biases and prejudices.

Now, as a journalist, I am in favor of as much openness in government as possible. But I asked former Justice Weaver, aren’t there times when the business of the court has to be done behind closed doors? Of course, she said.

“Employee issues, for one thing. But there are far fewer things that need to be done in secret than those currently in charge would like. Look,” she told me. “The Michigan Supreme Court does not deal with treason or sedition or national defense. Its docket covers people issues from A to Z -- adoption to zoning, crime, contracts, et cetera. This is the people’s business.

“The public‘s business should be conducted in public. Needless secrecy on the court not only allows, but encourages the abuse of judicial powers.”

None of this will come as a big surprise to those who have followed the Michigan Supreme Court in recent years. In fact, Betty Weaver has been so outspoken that four of her fellow justices tried to clamp a gag order on her four years ago. She ignored it.

“But my position has been misconstrued,” she told me. “I never talked about a case that was pending. But the public needs to know how and why justices make their decisions.

“The business of the court,” she told me, “is to be just and fair, objective, impartial, dignified and dedicated to the rule of law and common sense. The only way that will happen,“ she argued. “is with direct and unhindered public oversight.“

But while openness is her big cause, there are a lot of other things about the Michigan Supreme Court that former Justice Weaver doesn’t like. And she has some interesting ideas about the way to change that. Later this week, I’ll tell you more about our conversation, and share those ideas with you.

Essay: John Dingell, Running Again - 1.21.11

John Dingell, the longest-serving member of the U.S. House in history, announced yesterday that he would run for another term next year. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry reflects on that.

Hear Audio Story

He was a young man when he first came to Congress, tall, gangly, and with questionable taste in haircuts and ties.

Owlish old Sam Rayburn swore him in on a chill December day, saying something, no doubt, about his father, who had held the seat before him, and who had died just months before.

That was more than fifty-five years ago. General Motors, the world’s richest corporation was putting ever bigger tail fins on their cars, and consumers were just starting to wonder if they’d ever be able to afford one of those sensational new color TVs.

That was the world when John Dingell Jr. arrived in Washington at the end of 1955, the country‘s newest and youngest congressman. He was twenty-nine then. This summer he will be eighty-five. Everybody else who was in Congress when he arrived is gone. Most are dead.

When he arrived, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin were years away from being born. He’s stayed in the House longer than anyone in history. Two men have stayed in Congress longer, when you combine time in both chambers. John Dingell will pass one of them soon. But to beat the other, West Virginia’s Robert Byrd, Dingell has get reelected one more time, next year.

This week, the man they used to call the truck announced that he intended to try to do just that. He’s running again.

That didn’t especially surprise me, although the timing did at first. The next election is not till November 2012. Big John has had knee problems, heart problems, and a hip replacement.

Shouldn’t he wait? Then I remembered: This is a redistricting year. Michigan is going to lose a seat in Congress, and someone’s district is going to disappear. Dingell is telling the legislature not to make it his. Oh, the boundaries will change, but he wants a district he can run in, and win. It won’t be called the fifteenth district anymore. Michigan is only going to have fourteen. It may have more Republicans in it. And he’s likely to have a race on his hands.

Last year, a cardiologist named Rob Steele gave Dingell the first real general election challenge he’s ever had. Steele even led on election night, till Dearborn and Ann Arbor checked in and wiped the challenger out. But Dingell had a scare.

Or I should say, his friends did. Nothing seems to scare, or stop, Big John. They took his committee chairmanship away two years ago, and his party is back in the minority.

But he’s keeping on. Next year’s election will come exactly eighty years after Michigan first sent a John Dingell to Congress, to fill what was then the brand new fifteenth district.

That was his daddy. Last year John Dingell, who first stepped onto the floor of Congress at age six, saw his father’s dream of national health care finally fulfilled.

Next year, he’s hoping the voters give him one last hurrah. You can say he should retire. Dingell thinks otherwise. He thinks he‘s still the best man for the job, and intends to leave it up to the voters to decide. And even his Tea Party critics have to admit this much; It is his perfect constitutional right to do so.

Essay: The Statesman and the State - 1.20.11

The governors’ annual State of the State speeches, are often forgotten soon after they are delivered. But Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry thinks the one last night may be a little different.

Hear Audio Story

When it comes to speeches, Rick Snyder cannot begin to touch Jennifer Granholm in terms of style.

At no time during his State of the State speech last night did he come close to matching her perfectly modulated tones. He’s getting better, but the governor still sounds much of the time like a college student making a speech in a class he’s required to take.

But when it comes to substance and leadership, he blew her out of the park. He took one of the most divisive issues in the state, made it his own, worked out an astonishing deal with the federal government, and happily co-opted both his friends and enemies.

Nobody had a clue before last night what the new governor would do about the proposed new bridge over the Detroit River.

For years, Matty Moroun, the billionaire trucking magnate who owns the Ambassador Bridge, has managed to block construction of a new internationally owned bridge.

Last December, Moroun’s allies in the state senate blocked a vote on the bridge, which virtually every other interest group in the state has wanted for years.

During last year’s election cycle the Ambassador Bridge’s owner donated more than half a million dollars to candidates and their committees, with the clear expectation they‘d continue to protect his interests. Nobody knew how Snyder stood on the issue, but supporters of the new bridge had little reason to be optimistic.

But then Snyder stunned the state.

“It’s time to build the new Detroit River International Crossing Bridge,” he said flatly. And then he added a bigger surprise. He’d gone to Washington and negotiated a deal.

The federal government would allow the $550 million dollar loan Canada had offered Michigan to get the bridge deal done to count as matching funds for federal highway dollars.

That’s not only a good deal for Michigan, it offers Republicans who had opposed the bridge a face-saving way to change their minds.

“Forget everything you heard in last year’s debate,” the new governor told them. After all, this wasn’t the bill they rejected last year, but a new and better deal for Michigan.

There are some who are saying the new governor was backing the bridge to please the Democrats, to win bipartisan support. Well, it may have that effect, but some of the strongest backers of the DRIC bridge have been Republicans outside the legislature, like former Governor John Engler and Oakland County’s Brooks Patterson.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce wants the bridge, as do all the auto companies. Snyder decided to try to end the logjam saying he was tired of “rhetoric and paralysis. It’s time to solve problems.” Now, the bridge isn’t a done deal yet.

Nor did the governor explain how he proposes to close the massive budget deficit. That’ll come with his budget, next month.

But everything he said indicated he is a man of rational, commonsense solutions. He wants full funding of the successful Pure Michigan ad campaign. Most of all, he wants anything and everything that will create jobs. Ironically, by the end of the night, his somewhat wooden delivery had accomplished something his predecessor never did. He really did blow people away.

And I have a sneaking suspicion we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Essay: And as for the Democrats … - 1.19.11

The state’s attention will be focused tonight on Governor Snyder’s first State of the State address. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry thinks the Democratic response may also be worth attention.

Hear Audio Story

There’s a lot of speculation today as to what Governor Snyder will say when he makes his first State of the State speech tonight.

Well, we’ll find out soon enough. However, I’m also interested in what the Democrats are going to say in response. Now, there are a lot of people who think whatever they say won’t matter much.

After all, the Dems were pounded into the ground in the last election. They lost a record twenty seats in the House, where the Republicans have a sixty-three to forty-seven seat edge.

And they are in a lot worse shape in the state senate, where they now hold only a dozen seats out of thirty-eight. That‘s the weakest position they’ve been in since 1954.

Nevertheless, what goes around does tend to come around. Nobody thinks Governor Snyder‘s honeymoon with the voters will last forever. Nor is it likely that all of his fellow Republicans in the legislature are always going to support what he wants to do.

These are also not normal times. Michigan has lost nearly a million jobs in the last decade, and has the highest unemployment rate of any major state in the nation. Additionally, it’s clear that our method of funding state government is broken.

Every year, the system automatically produces huge budget deficits that have to be closed, in large part because the state has more funding commitments than it is generating revenue to cover.

So Michigan face major economic challenges at many levels, troubles so serious that wiser heads in both parties recognize that they can no longer play the same old partisan games.

The voters clearly don’t want that. They want everybody working together to try to fix things and revive the Michigan economy.

That’s what any number of surveys have shown, as well as a series of Community Conversations conducted over the past few years by the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Michigan.

Unfortunately, there are any number of career politicians on both sides who don’t get it. Within minutes after Governor Snyder delivered a fairly nonpartisan, inspiring inaugural address, longtime state party chair Mark Brewer was issuing a boilerplate press release denouncing the governor’s address; he did much the same when the governor filled a Supreme Court vacancy days later, in language that made the Democratic leader sound like just one more, out-of-touch political hack.

That’s not what the voters have indicated they want. This time, the Democratic response will come from Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, who may well be the new face of the party.

Though still in her thirties, Whitmer is a seasoned politician who has been in the legislature for more than a decade. She is also a highly regarded attorney and a stunningly attractive person who once told me she sees her charisma as a two-edged sword.

One of her big fears, she once told me, was that people would see her as either another Sarah Palin or Jennifer Granholm.

She’s more than smart enough to know the times are changing, and her challenge will be to see if her tiny band of Democrats can manage to make a difference and be relevant in a positive way.

We may see if she starts them off in the right direction tonight.

Essay: State of the State History - 1.18.11

Governor Rick Snyder delivers his first state of the state speech tomorrow night… but who was the first governor to give one? Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry goes in search of a mystery.

Hear Audio Story

Tomorrow Gov. Rick Snyder will deliver his first state of the state speech to a joint session of the legislature and a statewide television audience. I’ve seen a lot of these speeches, and believe this may be the most eagerly anticipated one ever.

Michigan is stuck in twin enormous economic crises, one affecting state government, which has a perennial massive deficit, and the other affecting hundreds of thousands without jobs.

Governor Snyder is brand new, and we are still getting to know him. We want to have a better sense of who he is, and, especially, how he plans to get us out of the mess we’re in.

But all this got me wondering: Who was the first governor ever to give a state-of-the state speech? The first I remember was Governor Milliken, but how far back did the tradition go before him?

I knew that in the old days, governors just sent an annual written message to the legislature. U.S. Presidents used to do the same, until Woodrow Wilson started the tradition of showing up at the capitol and delivering a speech in person.

Since then, almost every president has done so. But who was the first governor to do so? I asked Bill Ballenger, the publisher of Inside Michigan Politics. “Wow,” he said. “I don’t know.”

Neither did State Senator Steve Bieda, maybe the legislature’s biggest state history buff. So I left a message for former Governor Jim Blanchard, who delivered eight State of the State speeches. He texted back that he hadn’t a clue.

I called Governor Milliken, who delivered more State of the State speeches than anyone in Michigan history.

“I just don’t know when they started,” he told me. “You’d think I should know, but I don’t,” he said, laughing.

So who did start the custom? I was pretty sure it wasn’t my favorite governor, Epaphroditus Ransom. He served only two years, from 1848 to 1850, and once sent this crusty message to the legislature: “It seems best to dispense with all unnecessary and useless communications.” He then took off to run an Indian land office in Kansas, where he died. Actually, he isn’t my favorite governor at all. I just always wanted to say Epaphroditus on the radio. Next I called George Weeks, author of the only definitive book on all of Michigan’s governors, Stewards of the State, which actually has the only picture I’ve ever seen of Epaphroditus Ransom.

George sheepishly told me he didn’t know either, though he was sure that Milliken’s were the first to be delivered in the evening and televised. Next, I picked on Dennis Cawthorne.

Now a top Lansing lobbyist, Cawthorne is a former Republican leader of the House, and a well-known expert on Michigan political history. “I can’t believe it, but I just don’t know when the first state of the state speech was,” Cawthorne told me.

He said he remembers at least one Soapy Williams state of the state, and he is pretty sure the custom started in the 20th century.

So there you have it; an authentic Michigan historical mystery . If anyone knows definitively when the first state of the state speech was, please let me know. On behalf of old Epaphroditus …

I’ll be grateful.

Essay: Waiting For the Governor - 1.13.11

The new legislature met for the first time yesterday. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry says the next step will be a signal from the governor.

Hear Audio Story

The new legislature convened for the first time yesterday, nearly two weeks after their terms began. They posed for pictures and elected officers. They officially announced who would have what positions on which committees.

These are all things that had been worked out days or weeks before. What then followed was sort of the equivalent of lining up their pencils and making sure they are sharpened.

To a great extent, they are waiting for the governor. That is to say, they are waiting for Rick Snyder to set forth his program and put forward his proposals for balancing the state budget.

That doesn’t mean the lawmakers will necessarily agree with him, even his fellow Republicans. e hungry for leadership.

There hasn’t really been any in a long time, just quarreling factions. Now, it is up to the Republicans to try to fix the mess that Michigan is in, both in terms of the state budget and the economy of the state as a whole. That’s because they control all three branches of government for the first time since the nineties.

None of this will be easy.

Officially, job one is going to be balancing a state budget which now has an estimated deficit of $1.8 billion dollars, mostly in the $7 billion or so general fund. That‘s a tremendous gap to close.

Actually, if recent history is any clue, the real deficit will probably end up being even larger than that, maybe, two billion.

Anyone who tells you this can largely be made up by cracking down on frivolous expenditures, or eliminating waste, fraud and abuse doesn’t know what they are talking about.

The easy cuts were made long ago. Now for the hard and painful part. What’s encouraging is that our new governor seems to be treating the other players as intelligent partners.

Yesterday, he met with the presidents of Michigan’s fifteen public universities, and took along John Nixon, the new budget director he hired from Utah. Afterwards, some of those present indicated the governor had indicated tough times lay ahead. It is hard to see how the budget can be balanced without cutting university appropriations. Unfortunately, it is also hard to see how this state can ever experience an economic revival unless we spend more on higher and advanced education of all kinds. The governor did do something that pleased the college presidents. He indicated he would consult them on who to appoint to their governing boards. The trustees of MSU, the U of M and Wayne State are elected by the people, but everywhere else -- at Western Michigan, say, they are run by a board appointed by the governor. Jennifer Granholm, so far as anyone knows, never consulted the presidents before appointing board members.

Within a very few days, the governor will start signaling his direction. He needs to do that soon, or restless lawmakers may start off on tangents of their own. The state has been drifting for a decade, and everyone has been waiting for leadership and vision.

Last November, we elected a new leader. Hopefully when he makes his first State of the State speech Wednesday, we should get at least some very strong clues about where he proposes to take us, and how he plans to get us there.

Essay: The Governor and the Auto Show - 1.12.11

Governor Rick Snyder visited the auto show yesterday. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry thinks his visit may provide some clues as to how he might govern.

Hear Audio Story

Governor Rick Snyder visited the Detroit auto show yesterday, something governors traditionally do. They greet the CEOs, make nice comments about the new models, and disappear.

I can’t recall a single thing any politician has said at the auto show that was worth remembering. But this year is a little different. Two years ago, it was highly uncertain whether there would be either an domestic auto industry or an auto show in 2011.

What’s more, almost nobody in the industry or the state had ever heard of Rick Snyder, and nobody imagined he’d be governor.

Well, the auto industry is a good bit healthier today, and the state is getting used to a governor who doesn’t like to wear a tie, and doesn’t mind being called a nerd. Like other governors before him, Snyder didn’t say anything especially stirring at the auto show. But he did a few things worth noting. He didn’t just visit what we might now call the not-so-big three, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. He stopped by Kia and Hyundai and Toyota too.

The governor seems to have spent a fair amount of time with Sergio Marchionne, who is head of Chrysler, but also runs what is now its parent company, the Italian automaker Fiat.

And perhaps most remarkably, Snyder met with a number of alternative and renewable energy companies at a private reception yesterday before giving his formal remarks at the auto show.

His message seemed to be this: His administration is all about bringing the jobs of the future to Michigan, wherever they are to be found and whatever it takes to create them here. To quote our new governor, “It is companies, it is innovators, it is entrepreneurs who are going to create a better future for Michigan.”

As he sees it, his job is to make sure they find a fertile seed bed. Or as he put it, “We are committed to creating the very best environment in the world to create that formula for success.”

Next week, when he makes his state of the state speech, and next month, when he unveils his first budget, we’ll get a better idea how he intends to make that come about. My guess is that his approach will completely please neither Republicans nor Democrats. Governor Snyder wants to lessen the tax burden on business, and do so without raising taxes. That’s going to mean massive sacrifices across the board, unless someone repeals the laws of mathematics. Yet Rick Snyder also has signaled a commitment to common sense over ideology.

And that may force some revenue increases out of sheer necessity. The governor knows that nobody is about to bring new high-tech industry to a state where the infrastructure is falling apart and where the public schools have failed. He owes his success in part to the three degrees he’s earned from the University of Michigan, and I assume he values public higher education as well.

Yesterday, the governor praised the spirit that brought the auto industry back from its near-death experience.

He’s clearly hoping to do the same as well, with the business he’s running these days, an outfit called the state of Michigan.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Essay: Rule of Law - 1.11.11

This is supposed to be a society where everybody lives under the rule of law. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry says that three people got that message yesterday, the hard way.

Hear Audio Story

It’s sometimes easy to be cynical about what we used to call “the system” back in the days when bell-bottom jeans were common.

Too often, it appears that society at all levels still functions under the golden rule, as in, he who has the gold, makes the rules.

Ideally, things are supposed to work according to the words engraved on the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington: Equal Justice Under Law.” But in practice, it too often seems that things are more like the famous New Yorker cartoon in which a judge peers down at a defendant, and asks:

“So, how much justice can you afford?“

However, three things happened yesterday that may restore a little faith in the rule of law. One was national; former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a man who once took the word “arrogant,” to new heights, was sentenced to three years in prison.

But the other two took place in Michigan. As mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick too often acted as if the laws didn’t apply to him. He kept on behaving that way, even after he was convicted of two felonies.

He’s in prison now, but yesterday, he, his father and three cohorts were back in town again, in federal court this time, pleading not guilty to charges from bribery to extortion to tax evasion.

What was interesting this time, however, was that the media and public scarcely paid attention. Once, we clamored for every detail about the self-styled hip-hop mayor’s outrageous lifestyle.

Yesterday, however, there was far less interest than before. Ten years after he burst on the scene as one of the nation’s youngest mayors, the convict Kilpatrick’s appearances in court have become so commonplace they’ve lost all power to shock.

Three years ago a top political consultant told me that no matter what, Kwame would always manage to get away with it.

Nobody’s saying that any more. The third thing affirming the rule of law also happened in a Detroit courtroom yesterday.

This time, it was in state court. The Detroit International Bridge Company has long behaved as though it were a law unto itself as well. The company, owned by billionaire trucking magnate Matty Moroun, has declared that it intends to build a second bridge next to the Ambassador Bridge, which it owns.

The government of Canada has said, no way. Various governments in the United States have refused permission as well, but the bridge company paid no attention.

It seized portions of a city park, and constructed illegal toll booths, fuel pumps and other structures. For a year, courts have been ordering the company to remove these, and to live up to its contract with the Michigan Department of Transportation.

They steadily refused to do so. But yesterday, Dan Stamper, president of the bridge company, got a nasty shock. Wayne County Circuit Judge Prentis Edwards threw him in jail and fined him for contempt for refusing to obey a court order.

Later in the day, Stamper was released, and again ordered to comply. What happens next is unclear. But he was put on notice.

For democracy to really work, nobody can be above the law.

Yesterday, three men who sometimes acted as though the laws didn’t apply to them, got that message, the hard way.

Essay: The Importance of Being Kelly - 1.7.11

Michigan now has two state Supreme Court Justices with the name Kelly, and there is a chance there may soon be a third. Michigan Radio’s Political Analyst Jack Lessenberry takes a look at the Kelly escalation.

Hear Audio Story   

On election day last year, I talked to a senior citizen who is a proud, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. I wondered how she had voted for state supreme court. “For the Democrats, of course,” she said.

“I voted for Kelly and Davis,” she said, meaning newly appointed justice Alton Davis. You voted for a Republican, I said.

Alton Davis is indeed a Democrat, but Mary Beth Kelly is a Republican. “No, I didn’t,” the lady said. “I voted for Marilyn Kelly, the chief justice. You wrote about her in a magazine article I read.

“She is a Democrat. You said so.“

Yes, she is, I said. But you voted for MARY BETH Kelly. She is a Republican. Her party nominated her partly because she is named Kelly, and they were hoping a lot of people might do what you did.

Well, guess what. I don’t know how many other people were confused, but Mary Beth Kelly won by a landslide, beating poor Alton Davis, who gave up a secure judgeship for less than six months on the state’s highest court.

Mary Beth Kelly then voted with her fellow Republicans to oust Marilyn Kelly as chief justice and replace her with a Republican named Robert Young. So much for any notion of pan-Kelly solidarity.

But things may be about to get even more complicated. Another Republican Supreme Court justice, Maura Corrigan, is voluntarily leaving the court to become head of Michigan’s Department of Human Services. That means Governor Rick Snyder gets to choose someone to fill her seat.

Late yesterday, I was told that one of the people he was strongly considering was an appeals court judge named, you guessed it, Kelly. Kirsten Frank Kelly.

If he does appoint her, three of Michigan’s seven supreme court justices will be blonde women named Kelly. My guess is that this would be certain to escalate the Kelly war. Kirsten Frank Kelly would have to run for reelection next year, and the Democrats would have little choice but to find another Kelly to run against her.

Incidentally, you might wonder why Judge Kirsten Kelly’s middle name is Frank. I would tell you the answer, but I don’t know. For years, people have told me it was some kind of homage to one of Michigan’s greatest political figures, former Attorney General Frank Kelley. But that’s unlikely. Kirsten Kelly was born in Illinois, five years before the attorney general took office.

So, what about bringing Frank Kelley back to run against Kirsten Frank Kelley next year? Alas, that would be against the law. You can’t run for any Michigan judicial position after you turn seventy and Frank is eighty-six. He told me he wasn’t upset by this, by the way. “I’m thinking of running for attorney general again when I’m 90,” he said. He was kidding, but legally, he could do just that.

But I do think we need to amend the state constitution. If we have term limits, we need to have Kelly limits.

I believe, in the interest of surname diversity, that no group of elected officials should be permitted to be more than 25 percent Kelly. Otherwise, there may come a day when a child named Murphy or Cavanagh will no longer feel they have any chance.