Getty Images
The latest report in an ongoing investigation into the state’s judicial oversight board over the racial composition of judges receiving complaints was released to the public August 1, with the report probing deeper into previous disparities identified in the board’s process.
Michigan’s Judicial Tenure commission is a nine member board tasked with investigating complaints and potential misconduct from judges. While the body cannot impose sanctions or discipline judges, they can take confidential action by issuing a letter of explanation, admonition or caution, or recommend a public complaint, including sanctions like suspension or dismissal.
In 2023, the Association of Black Judges of Michigan announced it was seeking an independent audit of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, noting that 52% of the judges charged by the commission between 2008 and 2022 were Black, while 48% were white. This request was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, who noted the “confidentiality of the Commission’s records and the general inaccessibility of the body’s proceedings make it difficult for concerned individuals and organizations like ours to verify or investigate the allegations that we receive.”
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The State Court Administrative Office and the commission in 2024 contracted with the National Center for State Courts to produce a racial equity analysis of how the Judicial Tenure Commission reviews grievances, releasing Phase I of its analysis in 2024.
The initial review pointed to several disparities. Black judicial officers faced a significantly higher number of grievances on average than white officers, grievances against Black judicial officers were more likely to proceed into a full investigation and Black officers were more likely than white officers to have a grievance resolved in public censure.
In light of these findings, Phase II of the analysis set out to look at the factors that could result in the disparities between outcomes.
While the analysis found that members of the commission believed their process to be fair, without bias and based on clear standards of conduct, responding judges and their attorneys did not agree. Interviews conducted as part of the analysis found individuals on the receiving end of a complaint “largely thought that the process was not clearly communicated and options for a negotiated resolution were not equally available or known to everyone.”
The analysis notes that Black judges responding to a complaint were the most likely to state in their interviews that the complaint process is racially biased.
Further analysis found that Black respondents were 57% more likely to see a grievance escalate into a full investigation when additional evidence gathering is approved, even if that request is only for a transcript of court proceedings. However, when requests for transcripts were omitted, race was not a statistically significant factor in determining if a grievance would escalate.
When considering the severity of a grievance’s outcome, Black respondents were also more likely to receive a public outcome than to have a grievance dismissed or dismissed with a confidential discussion. Men were also more likely to face more severe sanctions.
However, further analysis found there was not a statistically significant relationship between race and severity when cases included individuals who were likely to receive a public sanction, but left the position before receiving a final outcome.
In reviewing their findings, the National Center for State Courts concluded there must be some mechanism tied to the inclusion of a transcript in the initial request for investigation or the transcript evidence-gathering recommendation or approval process that contributes to the relationship between race and a grievance proceeding to full investigation.
The report suggested that grievants could be less likely to include transcripts in requests for investigation filed against Black respondents, requiring them to be requested.
It’s also possible that the commission is more likely to request — or the commissioners are more likely to approve — transcript-only requests for Black respondents, the report noted, recommending further data collection and analysis to help pinpoint contributing factors.
“While nothing in the qualitative or quantitative analysis suggests explicit discriminatory practices by the JTC, the apparent lack of standardized definitions, criteria, and processes contributes to real or perceived unfair treatment based on race,” the report noted.
Comments