Michigan lawmakers OK bill extending court funding, delay study of court costs

Lansing — Michigan lawmakers on Wednesday voted to extend funding for state courts by severing the tie bar between a bill authorizing the funding and another that would authorize a study to look for new ways to fund trial courts.

The passage of the funding bill came six days before the sunset or expiration of a law that enables courts to collect costs from criminal defendants at sentencing — a revenue source that makes up an estimated 2% of trial court budgets.

“Somebody’s got to be the adult in the room and, apparently, it’s the House Democrats,” state Rep. Kelly Breen, D-Novi, said Wednesday of the concession allowing a delay to the court cost study.

House Republicans said Wednesday the bill package had been sidelined by “left-wing politics” that sought a study that would ultimately lead to funding decreases for local trial courts.

“Republicans stuck together and rejected that nonsense by the House Democrats, and that is why this bill passed clean today,” House Republican Leader Matt said in a statement.

The court funding authorization had become snarled in a debate between Republicans and Democrats over a tie-barred bill that authorized a study of court costs, revenue and potential changes to how courts are funded.

Republicans opposed the last-minute linking of the two bills, argued it was largely authored by the State Court Administrative Office and expressed concerns over the authority the study could place in the hands of the unelected court administrators.

Breen denied the administrative office would have any undue influence under the study, and noted the Legislature would ultimately retain the authority to reject or accept any data and accompanying proposals brought to them at the conclusion of the study. Breen chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

Democrats were eventually able to get the tie-barred bills through the House last week with a tweak that required law enforcement to be consulted during the study of court costs. A tie-bar links two bills together, requiring passage of both pieces of legislation in order each bill to become law upon signature of the governor.

But the bills ran into trouble again in the Senate Wednesday, when Republicans refused to give immediate effect to either bill so long as they were tie-barred.

The Senate broke the tie bar Thursday to allow the funding bill, at the very least, to make it through with immediate effect. The bill authorizing a study of court costs passed, but was not given immediate effect, meaning the State Court Administrative Office likely won’t be able to begin its court costs study until March of next year.

“It is a shame that they can’t see this,” Breen said of the need for the court costs study. “We do need to move forward. The practical effect is that SCAO is now going to have only about half of the time that they requested to do this.”

The fairness of state court costs has been a subject of debate for nearly a decade. Opponents argue it presents a conflict of interest for judges, who have to balance funding with decisions on the justice of fees applied to defendants. And supporters have argued the revenue is essential to running courts and reflects the cost of committing a crime.

The Legislature passed a law in 2014 cementing the practice into statute, but also limited the timeframe of the law's effectiveness in order to force the exploration and potential adoption of new court-funding mechanisms. None have been adopted and, instead, the sunset has simply been extended in recent years.

The extension bill obtaining immediate effect Wednesday, House Bill 5292, would extend trial courts’ ability to assess and collect court costs at sentencing from April 30 to Dec. 31, 2026 and forestall the end of funding during that time.

The court cost study legislation, House Bill 5534, would task the State Court Administrative Office with gathering data, preparing a report and making legislative recommendations by May 2026 on the way the state’s current defendant costs are structure.

The bill also tasks the State Court Administrative Office and Department of Treasury with developing a proposal to consolidate court costs in a statewide fund that then would be distributed to each court. It tasks the State Court Administrative Office and treasury with helping to develop funding proposals for capital improvement costs courts may face down the road.

eleblanc@detroitnews.com