Court Opinion

ID: 9503055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:36:47.548822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:17.434710
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(concurring). I concur in the majority result dismissing the complaint for quo warranto, but only because I believe that there is no conflict between the statutes authorizing “holdovers” for district court judges and the Michigan Constitution. Specifically, MCL 168.467m(1) provides that “[i]f a vacancy occurs in the office of district judge, the governor shall appoint a successor to fill the vacancy” who “shall hold office until 12 noon of January 1 following the next general November election at which a successor is elected and qualified.” Additionally, MCL 168.467i provides that the term of office for a district judge “shall be 6 years” and “shall continue until a successor is elected and qualified.” These statutes clearly authorize holdovers for district judges and do not conflict with Const 1963, art *666, § 23. Therefore, defendant is entitled to hold office until noon on January 1, 2013.
Marilyn Kelly, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.