Summary#
SB-1195 would amend Michigan’s 1923 law on filling vacancies in public offices, changing who appoints someone to certain vacant county offices. Its stated purpose is to modify county vacancy appointments; that is a goal, not a guaranteed result. The bill is introduced and would not take effect unless SB-1196 is also enacted.
- For a vacancy in a county office other than county clerk or prosecuting attorney, a county with an elected county executive would have the county executive, county clerk, and prosecuting attorney appoint a suitable person.
- In a county without an elected county executive, the presiding or senior probate judge, county clerk, and prosecuting attorney would appoint someone to those vacancies.
- Vacancies in county clerk or prosecuting attorney offices would still be filled by appointment of the judge or judges of the judicial circuit.
- An appointee would serve for the rest of the unexpired term, except where Michigan Election Law section 209 provides otherwise.
What it means for you#
- People in counties with an elected county executive: For a vacancy in another county office, the county executive would join the county clerk and prosecuting attorney in choosing the appointee. The bill does not specify how they would make that choice.
- People in counties without an elected county executive: The presiding or senior probate judge would remain part of the appointing group for those vacancies.
- County residents: The bill changes who appoints someone to fill certain vacancies. It does not itself change voting rights or set out a new election process; the appointment is subject to section 209 of Michigan Election Law.
- County employees: Despite the title’s reference to employees, the supplied bill text changes appointments to vacant county offices. It does not set rules for county employment generally.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill assigns appointment duties to county officials but gives no cost estimate or funding amount.
What is unclear#
- The parent Act and Michigan Election Law section 209 were not supplied, so their current rules and how section 209 affects the length of an appointment could not be independently verified.
- The bill does not explain how the appointing officials would choose a person, what “suitable” means, or what happens if they cannot agree.
- The bill gives no start date. It would not take effect unless SB-1196 is enacted, but the supplied material does not explain that bill’s provisions.
- The text does not describe any notice, application, appeal, or reporting process.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that, in counties with an elected county executive, the executive should have a role in filling vacancies in county offices.
- The bill keeps county clerks and prosecuting attorneys involved in those appointments, while changing which third official participates in counties with an elected county executive.
- The bill preserves a different appointment arrangement for county clerk and prosecuting attorney vacancies.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill does not explain how the three appointing officials should decide who is suitable or resolve a disagreement.
- In counties with an elected county executive, the probate judge would no longer be part of the appointing group for other county-office vacancies.
- The bill’s effect depends on SB-1196 also becoming law, and the supplied material does not explain how the two bills fit together.