The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday released a slate of proposed amendments to judicial financial disclosure requirements, which, if implemented, would significantly improve accountability in the Great Lakes State.

No longer would judicial officers’ disclosures be limited to a single page comprising scant information — namely just outside income, campaign contributions and gifts over $375.

The amendments propose including a host of other disclosure categories missing in Michigan but already include in many other states’ judicial disclosures.

These include:
— The source of spousal income
— A list of all positions that the judge held as an officer, director, or trustee of any non-governmental organization, institution or  association
— Any passive income a judge received (e.g., a pension, a winning lottery ticket, etc.) over $10,000
— Any debts over $10,000
— Any individual stocks or bonds valued at greater than $10,000
— Any blended funds like mutual funds or ETFs valued at greater than $100,000
— Any property the judge owns valued at greater than $50,000 and the county in which it’s located
— Greater detail on the gifts a judge has received, including if a gift was given to the judge themselves or to a family member and the relationship between the gift-giver and the recipient

Finally, instead of simply signing a disclosure, a judge would have to sign the following certification: “I certify that the statements I have made in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have not moved assets during the reporting period for the purpose of avoiding disclosure under Canon 6 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.”

It’s not all good news, though.

Unfortunately, the threshold for gift-reporting has increased from $375 to $1,000*; we’d rather see it drop to $50.

There’s no guarantee that future disclosures would be posted online, as they are in 24 states, Michigan not included. All the proposed amendments say about public access is that the reports “will be made available by the Michigan Supreme Court upon request.” Finally, the outside compensation category got an unfortunate bump; there’s now a $10,000 threshold for reporting, when that should be $0, as it is currently.

Michigan ranked 47th in our report of state supreme court financial disclosures released earlier this year.

Our thanks to Bloomberg Law’s Eric Heisig for first bringing the proposal to our attention.

*That season tickets to Michigan ($660) and Michigan State ($343, plus a contribution to a scholarship fund averaging more than $100) football games in 2024 will cost more than the earlier threshold and less than the new one is quite the coincidence; or is it?