April 28, 2004



ADM File No. 2004-04

Administrative Order No. 2004-2

Approval of the Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction
Plans for Barry, Berrien, Isabella, Lake, and Washtenaw
Counties, and for the 46th Circuit Consisting of 
Crawford, Kalkaska, and Otsego Counties
________________________________________
          
     Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 [et seq.] authorize
Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial
circuit, subject to approval of the Court. 
          
     The Court hereby approves adoption of concurrent jurisdiction plans for the
following trial courts effective August 1, 2004:
          
          BARRY COUNTY 
          5th Circuit Court
          56B District Court
          Barry County Probate Court
          
          BERRIEN COUNTY 
          2nd Circuit Court
          5th District Court
          Berrien County Probate Court
          
          ISABELLA COUNTY 
          21st Circuit Court
          76th District Court
          Isabella County Probate Court
          
          LAKE COUNTY 
          51st Circuit Court
          79th District Court
          Lake County Probate Court          WASHTENAW COUNTY 
          22nd Circuit Court
          14A, 14B, & 15th District Courts
          Washtenaw County Probate Court
          
          CRAWFORD, KALKASKA, AND OTSEGO COUNTIES 
          46th Circuit Court
          87th District Court
          Crawford County Probate Court
          Kalkaska County Probate Court
          Otsego County Probate Court
          
     The plans shall remain on file with the state court administrator.  
               
     Amendments to concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local
administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112.  Plan amendments shall conform to the
requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 [et seq].
          
     The Court also rescinds Administrative Order Nos. 1993-3, 1996-1, 1996-2, 1996-
5, 1996-6, 1996-7, 1996-9, and 1997-12, effective August 1, 2004.
               Markman, J. ([concurring]).  On March 7, 2002, this Court wrote to the
Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Governor, and recommended the
enactment of legislation "that would permit, consistent with the constitution, concurrent
jurisdiction among the trial courts on a local option basis."
  In light of this correspondence, I wrote separately to these same persons, setting forth a
series of constitutional inquiries that I thought would be helpful to the Legislature and
the Governor in evaluating court reform proposals, including the proposal of this Court,
and in determining whether such proposals were "consistent with the constitution."
  
     When the House of Representatives subsequently enacted 2002 PA 678, a proposal
restructuring the courts of this state, it apparently did so in light of at least some
constitutional reservation because the House simultaneously requested an advisory opinion
from this Court concerning the constitutionality of this enactment.  Const 1963, art 3, § 8. 
Over my dissent, this Court denied the House of Representatives' request without
explanation. [In re 2002 PA 678], 468 Mich 1213 (2003).  
     Having first recommended a course of action to the Legislature, and then denied the
House of Representatives' request for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of
legislation enacted in response to this recommendation, this Court is now being asked to
approve court reorganization plans adopted pursuant to this legislation.  Because I see
nothing inconsistent between this legislation and these reorganization plans, I concur in their
approval.  However, I reiterate what I stated in my dissent in [In re 2002 PA 678],
[supra ]at 1216, "Before the highest court of this state exercises this newly
authorized power [to approve court reorganization plans], it would be especially prudent for
it first to evaluate whether it is exercising a power that is compatible with the constitution
. . ."  I continue to hold this view, and to believe that we erred in failing to grant the House
of Representatives' request for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of 2002 PA 678.
     As this Court is increasingly called upon to approve court reorganization plans, and
as our imprimatur is increasingly placed upon such plans, as it is today, it will prove
increasingly difficult for us to evaluate the constitutionality of 2002 PA 678 with the
requisite detachment.  The more this Court becomes a participant in the process of court
reorganization, the more difficult it will become for us to resolve the constitutional issues
inherent in the transformation of Michigan's judicial system effected by 2002 PA 678.
     It is my purpose neither to suggest that 2002 PA 678 is poorly advised nor that it is
constitutionally infirm.  It is merely to suggest that this Court erred in failing to address the
constitutional concerns of the House of Representatives at a time when such concerns could
have been addressed before this Court itself became a participant in the process of court
reorganization.  Rather than "demonstrating comity with the people's representatives in the
Legislature," [id]. at 1216, we did nothing and thereby left "critical constitutional
questions in limbo." [Id. ]at 1215.  This Court can be assured, just as it could have
been assured at the moment of enactment of 2002 PA 678, that constitutional challenges to
this legislation will be forthcoming.  Rather than resolving these challenges in a timely and
orderly fashion, we have unwisely postponed their resolution and assured ourselves that the
actions of this Court itself will be implicated in these challenges.