Elections: scheduling; reference to August primary election in the revised judicature act of 1961; revise to May primary election. Amends secs. 550, 550a, 805, 8175 & 8176 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.550 et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0691'25
Summary
SB 694 amends several provisions of the Revised Judicature Act to replace references to the August primary with the May primary for purposes of filling newly authorized or restored judicial seats. The bill updates filing deadlines and election timing rules for additional circuit judgeships, new judicial circuits, additional probate judgeships, additional district judgeships, and new judicial districts so that county or district approval resolutions must be filed by the revised May-primary-based deadline. It also makes conforming changes to the notice duties of the state court administrator and preserves existing rules that certain circuit and district reorganizations do not require local approval.
The bill does not itself create new judgeships or districts. Instead, it clarifies the procedural conditions under which future judicial expansions or restorations may be placed on the ballot and filled by election, while keeping the existing framework that local governments must approve most new judicial positions and accept associated local costs. It also retains the standard six-year term for these elected judicial offices unless another law provides otherwise. The bill is tied to SB 691 and is set to take effect January 1, 2028 if that companion bill becomes law.
Impact
SB 694 would amend MCL 600.550, 600.550a, 600.805, 600.8175, and 600.8176 to conform judicial-election deadlines in the Revised Judicature Act to the May primary instead of the August primary. This affects counties, district control units, the state court administrator, and the Department of State by changing when approval resolutions must be filed and when election officials must be notified for new or restored circuit, probate, and district judgeships and judicial districts. The bill is procedural in nature and does not alter the underlying requirement for local approval or the state-local cost-sharing structure for judicial offices.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received favorably and without recorded opposition in committee, passing the Senate committee 6-0 and then the full Senate 28-5. The available voting history suggests broad support for the technical election-calendar update, with the measure advancing as a substitute version. No committee transcript was provided, so the recorded sentiment is based primarily on the favorable votes and the lack of documented dissent in committee.
Contention
The main issue is not whether judicial seats should be created, but how and when local approval and election deadlines should be measured after the state’s primary election schedule changes. Any contention would likely center on the administrative burden of revising filing deadlines, the coordination required among county boards, district control units, and election officials, and the bill’s tie-bar to SB 691, which means SB 694 depends on companion legislation. The bill also preserves the long-standing policy that local governments must approve most new judgeships and accept associated expenses, which could remain a point of concern for counties and district control units if future judicial expansions are proposed.
Same As
Elections: scheduling; August primary election date; eliminate, move primary election date to May, and add the February regular election date. Amends (See bill).