Michigan House Bill HCR0008

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/25/23
• Refer: 10/25/23

Caption

A concurrent resolution to urge the Michigan Supreme Court to amend the Code of Judicial Conduct to require Michigan judges to make broader financial disclosures.

Impact

The proposed changes would ensure that judges, including the Supreme Court justices and judges of the Court of Appeals, are subject to the same rigorous financial disclosure standards that are currently imposed on members of the Legislature and other state officials. This would involve disclosing existing assets, sources of unearned income, and other financial liabilities. Such disclosures would not only benefit the public's right to know but also serve to mitigate potential conflicts of interest that judges might have when ruling on cases.

Summary

HCR0008 is a concurrent resolution introduced to urge the Michigan Supreme Court to amend the Code of Judicial Conduct. The resolution calls for Michigan judges to make broader financial disclosures akin to those required from state legislative and executive officials under Proposal 1, which was ratified by voters in 2022. The motivation behind this resolution stems from a perceived need for greater transparency among judicial officers, who play a critical role in making decisions that impact the state and its citizens.

Conclusion

Overall, HCR0008 seeks to align the financial disclosure obligations of Michigan's judiciary with those of other state officials, emphasizing transparency and accountability as crucial components of public trust in the judicial system. The resolution highlights an ongoing discussion about the balance between judicial independence and the public's right to transparency concerning potential conflicts of interest.

Contention

While the Code of Judicial Conduct does require some financial disclosures from judges, advocates of HCR0008 argue that these requirements are insufficient. The current system does not mandate the level of detail or public accessibility that is mandated by Proposal 1, which raises concerns about the ability of voters and litigants to understand judges' financial backgrounds. Opponents of the bill may argue that the existing standards are adequate and that imposing more stringent rules could hinder judicial independence or create unnecessary barriers for judges.