LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The deadline for a sunset law that would affect how trial courts receive some revenue is fast approaching as April 30 looms and there has not been legislative movement.
Where do things stand?
In a memo sent from the State Court Administrative Office, it reminded trial courts that without an extension, imposing costs in criminal cases will end on May 1.
The office warned that without an extension of the law, courts would no longer be able to impose court costs on defendants which in part fund “salaries and benefits for court personnel; goods and services necessary for the operation of the court; and necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of court buildings and facilities.”
“Please begin preparing for implementation of this change and discussing potential financial impacts with your funding units,” the memo suggested.
Legislators contend over the best approach to adjusting the trial court costs.
State Representative Sarah Lightner (R-Springport) introduced legislation in early January that would extend the sunset until December 31, 2026, and recently received a House Judiciary Committee hearing in March. During the meeting, the committee voted to tie bar a newer bill sponsored by State Representative Kelly Breen (D-Novi), which would change how the funding was distributed among the courts and require a study to be conducted about court costs.
Rep. Breen defended HB 5534 bill because it would gather data needed to support recommendations from the State Court Administrative Office to the legislature.
“That’s what this bill is doing, is gathering the data so that we can then later on down the road, the legislature, can then act on those recommendations,” she said during committee.
Minority Leader Hall criticizes the tie bar in a letter.
In the letter, Representative Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) called Rep. Breen’s tiebarring of her bill to Rep. Lightner’s an “unnecessary risk to the continuation of a vital function of public safety and the rule of law in our state.”
“HB 5534 is a rushed attempt at fixing the court funding issue and could have several unintended consequences,” the letter said. “Chief among them is the loss of resources for law enforcement officers that are aided by this revenue. Sadly and ironically, your bill would divert that money to jurisdictions that are more likely to waive court costs for convicted criminals.”
Rep. Graham Filler (R-St Johns) also shared with Michigan News Source the importance of extending the sunset.
“If we don’t pass his trial court funding extension bill, the hit to local courts is pretty massive,” he said, adding, “We’re talking in the tens and tens of millions of dollars.”
Supporters of tiebarred bills say there is no opposition to the package.
Rep. Breen, also the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said that there is no opposition to her bill “other than the ones Minority Leader Hall has fabricated,” according to the Detroit News.
“There is a real and also perceived conflict of interest between a judge’s impartiality and their responsibility to raise operating revenue for the courts,” said Breen, according to the Detroit News. “And we just can’t have that.”
Future of the bills in the legislature.
Both HB 5534 and HB 5392 passed from committee and headed to the Michigan House for further consideration. The House is currently on spring break and is expected to reconvene at 1:30 pm on April 9.
Leave a Comment
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.