In November, Michigan voters will choose two justices to serve on the state Supreme Court. Michigan Public's Morning Edition is featuring interviews with the four candidates. There are two candidates running for a partial four-year term. There are also two candidates running for a full eight-year seat on the court.
Current Supreme Court Justice Kyra Harris Bolden will be on the ballot this fall. Bolden has served on the court since 2023. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer appointed her to fill the seat left open when former Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack stepped down. Bolden is running to finish the remaining four years of the original eight-year term.
Bolden spoke with Michigan Public's Morning Edition host Doug Tribou.
Doug Tribou: I’ll start by noting that judicial candidates in Michigan are listed without any party affiliation on the ballot. However, parties do nominate candidates for the court and the Michigan Democratic Party selected you as one its nominees. Democratic nominees currently hold a 4-3 majority on the court, but balance could shift with this election.
You worked as an attorney on both criminal and civil cases in Michigan’s court system. You were also elected to the Michigan House of Representatives. Now that you’ve been on the Supreme Court for nearly two years, what has stood out to you about the legal process from your perspective as a justice?
Kyra Harris Bolden: You know, the interesting thing about being on the Michigan Supreme Court, it's really kind of the back end, right? We're the last resort for so many people in the state of Michigan, whereas lawmaking is the front end. And we're getting a lot of perspectives and opinions to try to, you know, get it right.
But this is a really unique position to be in, to be the last decision for a lot of cases of how Michiganders will live their lives for generations to come. I take that very seriously. And it is an honor to to serve in this capacity and to see the law from this lens.
DT: Would you describe your legal philosophy and the approach you take to cases that come before the court?
KHB: How I describe my legal or judicial philosophy is I simply don't have one. So let me explain.
I really think it does Michiganders a disservice when a judge or justice says, "I'm going to look at every single case through the same lens and the same way." We have to be flexible enough to take in new information. We have to be flexible enough to talk to our other justices and maybe, you know, a piece of information or a thought process changes our mind of how we look at things.
How I approach cases is: I take in all the information that I can through briefs, through oral arguments, through talking to my clerks, through talking to the other justices, and evaluating that with my experiences in the legal field, and trying to get to the right decision of what the legislature intended.
DT: Well, you mentioned the interactions you have with other justices. You are the first Black woman to sit on the state’s highest court. And you’re the only candidate of color in this year’s field of Supreme Court candidates. How does having a range of backgrounds factor into the court’s work — and is the current mix working?
KHB: Our laws are comprised of people voting from all across the state of Michigan in two separate chambers, plus the executive branch. And so I think it would do a disservice to Michigan to not have the Michigan Supreme Court reflect that diversity. I think it's important to have those voices at the table in order to get the answer right of what the Legislature intended and what Michiganders were thinking when they selected their leaders.
"I believe very strongly in the separation of powers and not legislating from the bench."Michigan Supreme Court Justice Kyra Harris Bolden
DT: Before you were appointed to the partial term you’re serving now, you ran for the court in 2022 and finished third in a race for two seats. We also interviewed you, during that campaign. And at the time, you were a sitting state representative. You told me that you had a deep appreciation for the importance of the separation of powers. Here's a bit of what you said:
"I think I know, maybe more than anyone, how important separation of powers are. As a lawmaker, we want to make sure that we're writing laws as clearly as possible so that our judicial branch can interpret them appropriately. And I actually think that's an important perspective to bring to the highest court in Michigan. We don't want the judicial branch to make laws. And I can say that definitively as a lawmaker."
DT: In your time on the court, how much of a challenge has it been to find that clarity in the Michigan laws that factor into the cases you’ve heard?
KHB: As a lawmaker, you can't contemplate every single situation that will occur when you're making a law. And so that's where the judiciary branch steps in to try to, you know, understand and interpret and fill those gaps. I think my statements then ring true now.
I take it very seriously when there are questions that require, I believe, a legislative fix. I will write separately on those issues when I believe that, you know, the issue is better suited for the legislature because I believe very strongly in the separation of powers and not legislating from the bench. But obviously we have a role to play. We are a check and balance on the executive branch and in the legislative branch.
Democratic nominees currently hold a 4-3 majority on the Michigan Supreme Court.
DT: Well, right along those lines, I want to ask you about a recent split decision that the court issued. The case is known as “Mothering Justice v. Attorney General” and it revolves around a ballot initiative regarding the state’s minimum wage.
In 2018, the Legislature adopted a citizen-initiated ballot measure about changing the minimum wage. The Republican-controlled legislature approved it rather than putting it to voters in a general election, which the Legislature has the authority to do. But legislators then gutted the language in the same session. Some groups then sued. In a 4-3 ruling this summer, the court found that the so-called 'adopt and amend' strategy was unconstitutional.
You wrote a concurring opinion in support of the majority opinion. Could you explain a bit more about what the majority found and why you added your concurrent opinion?
KHB: Our constitution is very clear that when this situation occurs that it has to be on the ballot in the same general election, right? That was not resolved in the same general election. It just came to the court. And so my concurrence was just basically pointing out the fact that while I believe the best way to resolve the issue was for it to go to the ballot for Michiganders to ultimately vote on according to the language of the statute, that wasn't a feasible remedy.
There were people during oral arguments that asked, "Why can't we just send it back to the ballot?" And so my concurrence was an effort to clarify, from my perspective, why that was not a feasible plan.
DT: The Republican nominees on the court were in the minority in that case and argued that what the legislature did — adopting a measure and then changing it through the legislative process — is a constitutionally protected power. Why did you see that differently?
KHB: Well, I think it was, you know, a very long opinion. And I took the opportunity to write separately. And, you know, that's just a part of the process. We disagree on how we see the law. And that's why there are seven of us, because there is room for us to disagree. But the rules say the majority rules in our cases. And that's what happened here.
Editor's note: Quotes in this article have been edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the full interview near the top of this page.
