10/08/2006

Election 2006

Five are vying for two seats

Two justices and three challengers on ballot

LANSING (AP) — Three non-judges who say they have the experience to sit on the Michigan Supreme Court will have a tough time persuading voters to unseat Justices Michael Cavanagh and Maura Corrigan, who are up for re-election.

Incumbents rarely fail to keep their spots on the high court. And in the Nov. 7 election, both incumbents are past chief justices who have a combined 32 years on the court.

One of the challengers, former state Rep. Marc Shulman, acknowledges the slim likelihood of knocking off an incumbent.

"You have to swing the bat," he says. "If it's not this time, who knows, it could be another time."

The race is nonpartisan on the ballot, but political parties nominate the candidates. The current court is split 5-2 between justices nominated by the GOP and those picked by Democrats. The same seven justices have served together for seven terms.

The 2006 candidates include Democrats Cavanagh and Grand Rapids attorney Jane Beckering; Republicans Corrigan and Shulman; and Libertarian Kerry Morgan, an attorney from Wayne County's Redford Township.

Supreme Court justices are generalists, ruling on everything from arrest warrants to zoning disputes. Big rulings in recent years have supported people's ability to walk along private Great Lakes beaches and stopped governments from seizing land for economic development projects.

So far, the race for two eight-year terms has been quiet, with candidates politely citing their qualifications and stating their judicial philosophies.

Corrigan, a nationally recognized advocate for foster children, says the court has been "transformed" since Republicans took control in 1999. She was elected in 1998.

"The citizens can be proud of their Supreme Court," says Corrigan, 58, of Grosse Pointe Park. "I have a philosophy of judicial restraint, of hands off. Let the people solve their problems through their elected representatives, not through the judiciary."

But Cavanagh, 65, says majority members are going beyond the plain language of statutes and, when the words are ambiguous, substituting their personal beliefs for the Legislature's intent — creating illogical results.

"To focus your determination on whether the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed ... does a disservice to the process," says Cavanagh, who was first elected in 1982.

Critics have charged the court with favoring businesses and insurers while keeping plaintiffs' lawsuits from juries.

Beckering, 41, who specializes in medical malpractice cases, says the majority has increasingly made it harder for patients or their families to sue doctors.

But Shulman, 54, an admirer of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, is critical of judges whose opinions he believes go beyond a strict reading of the law and into the realm of policy. Supporters have applauded the court for returning more state law to where it was before liberal courts of the 1970s and 1980s.

Morgan, an attorney from Wayne County's Redford Township, is among the court's admirers but not of every decision. He opposes the majority's 4-3 ruling to reprimand outspoken trial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger for vulgar comments on the radio against appellate judges.

The 51-year-old criticizes the ruling as "enforcing political correctness on the legal profession."