Michigan courts are making a U-turn on disclosure – in a positive sense

The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday released a slate of proposed changes to the Judiciary’s financial disclosure requirements that, if implemented, would significantly improve accountability in the Great Lakes State.

No longer would judicial officials Disclosure be limited to a single page with sparse information—namely, only additional income, campaign contributions, and gifts over $375.

The amendments propose adding a number of additional categories of disclosure that are missing in Michigan but are already included in court disclosures in many other states.

These include:
– The source of Spouse income
— A list of all Positions which the judge held as an official, director or trustee of a non-governmental organisation, institution or association
– Any passive income A judge received (e.g. a pension, a lottery win, etc.) over $10,000
– Any Debts over 10,000 US dollars
– Each person Stocks or bonds Value over $10,000
– Any Mixed funds such as mutual funds or ETFs valued at more than $100,000
– Any Property the judge owns items valued at more than $50,000 and the district in which he is located
— More information about the gifts a judge has received, including whether a gift was given to the judge himself or to a family member, and the relationship between the giver and the recipient

Finally, instead of simply signing a disclosure, a judge would have to sign the following Certification: “I certify that the information I have provided in this report is true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have not moved any assets during the reporting period to avoid disclosure under Canon 6 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.”

However, there is not only good news.

Unfortunately, the reporting threshold for gifts has been raised from $375 to $1,000*. We would prefer to lower it to $50.

There is no guarantee that future disclosures will be posted online, as 24 states, not including Michigan, do so. The proposed changes only say about public access that the reports “will be made available upon request by the Michigan Supreme Court.” Finally, the category of outside compensation has been regrettably increased; there is now a $10,000 reporting threshold, when currently it should be $0.

Michigan finished 47th in our report the state Supreme Court’s financial disclosures released earlier this year.

We would like to thank Eric Heisig of Bloomberg Law for first alerting us to the proposal.

*These season tickets for Michigan (660 $) and Michigan State ($343That football games in 2024 (plus a contribution to a scholarship fund averaging over $100) will cost more than the previous threshold and less than the new one is quite a coincidence; or is it?