Question 1): Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer last week appointed state Rep. Kyra Harris Bolden (D-Southfield) to the Michigan Supreme Court, making her the first Black woman to serve on the court.
Bolden, 34, will succeed Justice Bridget McCormack, a Democratic justice who will retire from the bench maybe this week, or at least by Dec. 31. Bolden’s appointment will maintain Democrats’ 4-3 majority on the bench.
Asked about the process of choosing Bolden, Whitmer said that, when making appointments to the court, “we’re looking for high caliber, intellect, fidelity to the law, and the rule of law. Also, I think lived experience is [an] important part of that assessment, as well as ensuring that we’ve got a bench that reflects the population of the state of Michigan. I think that…what did we say, ‘185 years we’ve never had an African American woman on the state’s highest court?’ she added. It’s about damn time.”
So, how important is this appointment, anyway? Is Bolden taking over for McCormack on a 4-3 Democratic majority court for at least the next two years significant?
Answer 1): Bolden, who will be by far the youngest justice on the high bench but the ONLY justice with any experience in the state Legislature, will certainly be no McCormack, at least right away. Time will tell how and/or whether she can match McCormack’s accomplishments and political sagacity. Bolden’s first test, and the test of the court as a whole, will be how they vote on choosing a new chief justice beginning in January for the next two years. Is this a Hobson’s Choice? (see below). Will it be Beth Clement, a Republican who was just selected by her current colleagues (including McCormack but not yet Bolden) to be the interim Chief Justice between the date McCormack resigns and the start of the year? Or will the Democrats with their majority select somebody else for the 2023-24 term? Democrat Ricard Bernstein would seem to be the logical alternative to Clement, since he’s the incumbent with by far the most seniority — he was first elected in 2014 and re-elected earlier this month, whereas the other three Democrats have been on the court for less than four years. Who knows? This is real “inside baseball” high court drama. Stay tuned, and the answer will come in a matter of a few weeks, if not days.
*****************************************
Question 2): Nobody in the news media appears to have focused on what is one of the most important questions of the day — how long will the new lawmakers just elected to the state Senate and state House of Representatives serve? Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot just passed overwhelmingly, and it means that 15 brand-new state senators can serve three four-year terms (for a total of 12 years), and 59 state reps can serve successively as many as six two-year terms for a total of 12 years in the House if they can all get re-elected going forward. Or the Rep could serve a few terms in the House, and then switch over to the Senate and serve there, so long as their total service in both chambers doesn’t exceed a dozen years. For that matter, Senators can switch over after a term or two in the Senate and serve in the House (three of them just did that this year) so long as their total service in both chambers doesn’t exceed 12 years. Moreover, some 400 term-limited ex-legislators are eligible to run again, and some current lawmakers who were re-elected in November can extend their careers in the Legislature. What does all this mean?
Answer 2): For starters, every one should realize that all the new legislators’ possible length of service will extend past the 2030 census and a new apportionment of seats beginning with the election of 2032. The district lines of whoever is in place in 2031-32 will change. How does that effect their re-election chances? Ideally, somebody just elected Nov. 8 could serve through 2034, if they get re-elected continuously no matter what their districts look like. So, what does this mean for the composition of successive Legislatures over the next decade? How will it effect things like leadership (Speaker and Majority Leader) or committee chairmanships in the two chambers? Or whether someone in the House might decide to give up his or her seat for a crack at the state Senate? You can expect to see increasing speculation in the news media, when they get around to it, about what this means for Michigan government, and whether the new modus operandi is a good thing or a bad thing.
************************************************
Question 3): What is a Hobson’s Choice? It’s a choice which is really no choice at all. It gives the illusion of a number of options, but in reality it pits one certain option against another option that appears to be a non-starter. So the “chooser” has to fall back on the one certain choice — take it or leave it. So, in the race for the next chairman of the beleaguered Michigan Republican Party, is that what we’ve got?
Answer 3): The Republicans’ choice, to be made by the dysfunctional Michigan GOP early next year, depends on who the delegates are, and where they line up. As of now, do they choose the party’s recently defeated Attorney General nominee, Matt DePerno, who represents the so-called “grassroots,” pro-Trump faction of the GOP? If so, he’s the ‘take it” choice for at least half the delegates, by default. Or do they choose former U.S. Rep./2010 gubernatorial candidate/recent U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Pete Hoekstra? Hoekstra was appointed to his diplomatic post by former President Donald J. Trump, but he is seen as the ‘establishment’ traditional conservative Republican candidate for the GOP’s top leadership post. For this Republican faction, he has to be the default choice simply because Trump acolyte DePerno is the alternative. Of course, there is some time to go until the convention nearly three months away, so maybe other candidates will emerge and possibly DePerno or Hoekstra will drop out. And what about Tudor Dixon? The GOP’s gubernatorial nominee says she, too, is interested, although it’s unlikely she would run if Hoekstra also does. If they’re both in the race, that might boost DePerno’s chances if he’s in the contest for the long haul.
************************************************************
Bill; This is solely my opinion as a Republican Woman who previously ran for the State House. Huge challenges lie ahead for Michigan’s future.
Q1. The MI Supreme Court Chief Justice and any appointment to the Court is so important. I feel experience comes with time actively working effectively in Public Service. I was a friend and supporter of the work of Maura Corrigan. We should all be watching how this important position will play out.
Q2. A great concern. I feel people don’t understand the challenges on this. Time will tell.
Q3. Hoekstra would be great. Seasoned in his knowledge and service to MI. DePerno is the biggest mistake and I believe he announced his run right after losing the AG race. He is not the answer to the GOP division and my feeling is that he would make it a lot worse. I have some questions about his past and did from the very start of him becoming the “AG Party Pick.” I can think of a few other great people that should run for this position. We need to bring the GOP back and stop the mistakes made by the failed GOP picks. We are so divided in the GOP and we desperately need the right person to lead!
Billy Putnam of Tuscola County is seeking the GOP chairmanship, per reports.
Mark Forton is also being encouraged to seek the chairmanship. Both are outsider activists.
Matt DePerno would be an excellent outsider candidate choice if he were not under current investigation. The last thing the GOP want to see is a sitting GOP chair facing a possible criminal charge.
Pete Hoekstra’s closeness to the DeVos camp will harm his chances.at getting delegates to vote for him at an upcoming state convention.
It is anyone’s guess who may emerge to win the GOP state chairmanship.
I’m not sure the interpretation of the term limits change is correct. Wouldn’t everyone who previously served and termed out now get 12 more years? In 1992 when term limits were first adopted, everyone got an additional 6 years and 8 years in the Senate even if they had served the old (pre-Proposal 1) limit of 14 years. Does that make sense?
Bill. I am thankful that someone with your credibility has used the word dysfunctional to describe the Michigan GOP. Lots of haters out there think an outsider saying it can’t be right.
Remember when the Michigan GOP represented growth, solid management, and personal freedom? Before the became captive to the so-called Right-to-Life nuts.
No doubt the Democrats will mess things up on their own. Well, unless the GOP continues down the losing Dixon-Babies First nonsense that has driven down the quality of their nominees.
Engler and other establishment nominees were solidly pro-life. They also knew a thing or two about governance. Remember that GOP? They won a few elections.
Oh Bill,
“Beleaguered, dysfunctional Michigan Republican Party.” That’s what I have been a longtime member of. I’ll support Peter Hoekstra’s intellect for GOP Party Chair. He talks about a public GOP Party Primary, wherein he lost to Rick Snyder in 2010. Republicans will NOT ever win STATEWIDE until we deal with the women’s vote in Oakland and Wayne County ! Enlightened men arise !
Tudor Dixon’s 54%-44% loss to the incumbent Governor Gretchen Whitmer is actually the best showing by a GOP nominee against a Democratic gubernatorial incumbent during the last forty years in Michigan.
Compare the following:
1986: James Blanchard 68%-William Lucas 32%
2006: Jennifer Granholm 56%-Richard DeVos 42%
Same story with the Secretary of State’s race when Kristina Karamo lost by a 14%-point margin to incumbent Jocelyn Benson, this replicated the 14%-point loss that Democratic Party nominee Carmella Sabaugh sustained when she faced GOP incumbent Terri Lynn Land in 2006.
The incumbency factor beat the Republican statewide nominees in 2022 – this is time-tested and predictable. Karamo and Dixon may not have been great candidates but their losses were expected by those who analyze Michigan election trends.
Note:
I should have qualified the analysis to “first-term Democratic incumbent governor” as John Engler clearly upset second-term Dem incumbent James Blanchard in 1990.
Although Engler as a second-term incumbent clearly won a landslide victory against Democrat Geoffrey Fieger in 1998.