Current condition of the courts in Michigan
In recent years, the influence of special interests has seriously weakened the public’s perception of the integrity of the Michigan judicial system. “The costs of Michigan Supreme Court campaigns have increased dramatically since 2000 as has the caustic and negative tone of many judicial elections. Campaign conduct problems and the frequency with which contributors to Supreme Court justices’ campaigns litigate before the Court have raised questions about the judiciary’s impartiality and independence.” (Rich Robinson, Michigan Campaign Finance Network, August 2006)
Michigan's system for nominating Supreme Court candidates is both unusual and confusing. Incumbents may file an affidavit to be on the ballot but usually follow the normal nomination process, which is to be chosen by the major parties at a late August political party state convention. They then appear on the November ballot without party designation and are not included with the candidates that can be voted altogether with a "straight party vote." However, they may appear with other candidates on party "slate cards" or other information that political parties provide to voters, as though they were partisan candidates.
Minor parties often also nominate Supreme Court candidates at conventions so there may be 8 candidates for a seat on the ballot and an incumbent gets a designation as such on the ballot.
The late date of major party nominations means there is less time for people to learn about the candidates and for the candidates to campaign. Hence the TV ad takes on an even bigger role in determining outcomes without other available information.
Even though local district and circuit court candidates, as well as those for the Court of Appeals, follow a nonpartisan primary and general election pattern, the news media focus on the more interesting "horse race" partisan candidates and not on the courts.