Independent Supreme Court

In last Sunday's Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson explains more about the Michigan Supreme Court elections. I already know the candidates are nominated by the parties (even though they are listed on the ballot in the "non-partisan" section) and have to schmooze to get that nomination.

Dickerson says that is only the beginning. The actual campaign is financed and run by the parties. By "run" he means this:

The parties decide how many TV spots and direct mailings there'll be, where and when the ads run, and what they'll say.

Now add huge amounts of undocumented money to the mix.

Every election cycle, candidates complain that their campaigns are being promoted, or their opponents vilified, in ads they have never seen that are financed by people they don't know.

Sometimes, I think they're lying. Sometimes, I suspect they're telling the truth. I haven't decided which possibility is scarier.

Which means Justices of the Supreme Court of Michigan completely owe their job to the party.

At least through the first eight year term.

Then the Michigan constitution says a justice can simply tell the Secretary of State they are seeking reelection. When they do, they're on the ballot complete with designation of "incumbent" which gives them a 250,000 vote base. If they wanted to they could run independent of the party and be an obvious independent justice.

The Free Press also listed its endorsements for the Supremes. They like two of my choices, but select Brian Zahra over Shelia Johnson.

Zahra's command of the legal and managerial issues confronting the court far outstrips that of his Democratic opponent, Southfield District Judge Shelia Johnson.

The Free Press staff insists Zahra "has been more than an GOP apparatchik" and thus deserves our vote.

But with the GOP controlling his campaign (I've even seen billboards), he's already too much of a GOP apparatchik.