HB 5785 was proposed on September 9, 2014, and it is expected to pass as early as next Tuesday. This legislation is being rushed through the process without any media exposure. It proposes to "fix" the Michigan Supreme Court decision in People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (2014) which held that court costs could not be imposed for general court funding. This is bad legislation that stands to erode confidence in the judiciary, jeopardizing the presumption of innocence to generate government revenue.
I vehemently and adamantly oppose HB 5785 and its Senate counterpart that was only proposed yesterday (SB 1054). This law will pressure judges to find a person guilty in order to fund the courts. The presumption of innocence is sacrosanct, and this bill is antithetical to that principle. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer" is central to our nation's libertarian spirit. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, and it was never intended to provide easy or expedient answers, especially for revenue-funding dilemmas. Imagine if jurors were instructed that they would only receive payment for serving if the defendant was found guilty.
The independence and integrity of the judiciary should be given the highest priority. As one Michigan court has famously held, "Courts are not tax-gatherers." People v Barber, 14 Mich App 395, 405 (1968). I suspect that the current proposal violates our Constitution Art. 8, § 9 which holds that all fines assessed for the breach of Michigan penal laws be exclusively applied to the support of designated libraries. But more importantly, I view the current bill as an assault on the integrity of our legal system, trading liberty for financial security. I will not dwell on the practical problems that this plan entails, such as forcing the courts to become collection agencies chasing the poor and often times incarcerated, but this political solution is no solution at all.
The District Court Judge's Association also oppose this legislation, although they were willing to accept it temporarily with a sunset provision to avoid funding problems over the next 15 months. The judges who stand to profit from this bill oppose it. This should have raised several red flags and killed the bill in its tracks, but the sunset provision that was pragmatically supported by the District Court Judge's Association was defeated on September 11th. Symbolically, the defeat of the sunset provision could not have fallen on a better day. Clearly this bill is viewed by the Legislature as a permanent solution to court funding.
Please reach out to your local State House Representative http://house.michigan.gov/mhrpublic/ and State Senator http://www.senate.michigan.gov/fysbyaddress.html and talk to them about this legislation. As individuals, we stand little chance of challenging this proposal, but together we can have a huge impact. Turn to Facebook, Twitter and local media sources. Explain to the press and anyone willing to listen that this is important and give them my cell phone number if they need more information regarding this legislation: (734) 740-1900. The presumption of innocence cannot be sacrificed for a quick revenue generating device.
Link to HB 5785: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2014-HB-5785
SB 1054, which mirrors HB 5785, was proposed yesterday. Link:http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2014-SB-1054