A few months ago, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor chimed in on the topic. She explained that “judicial elections are becoming political prize fights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution.”

O’Connor’s comments definitely apply here in Michigan. The Michigan Campaign Finance Network, or MCFN, a nonpartisan, non-ideological institution, has been keeping track of judicial campaign contributions for years now. The MCFN says that $23 million has been spent on Michigan Supreme Court elections since 2000.

Special interest groups make up a large proportion of those donations. Of all cases heard by the Michigan Supreme Court during the 1990s, 86 percent had at least one participant who had contributed to one of the judges hearing the case. Further, in Michigan we have no standards for self-disqualification or recusal. This means that when a Supreme Court justice is involved in a case with a major campaign contributor, there is no process to, requirement, or expectation that the judge not take part in the case.

The stakes are high for the special interest groups that take part in Michigan Supreme Court battles.

Even further complicating matters in Michigan is the fact that the Supreme Court is dominated by four jurists who were never elected. This “gang of four” were appointed during the John Engler administration and generally follow the “textualist” style of judicial interpretation. These justices are Clifford Taylor, Robert Young, Stephen Markman and Maura Corrigan.

This means that they will read the constitution closely in an attempt to minimize judicial activism and render text-based rulings that do not amount to policy. In reality, many commentators have viewed rulings coming from this court as activist and rewriting precedent and statutes in favor of corporate interests.

Another Republican judge, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver, has become openly critical in her recent published dissents about this proclivity of the court to rule largely on the behalf of the business and insurance industries and to change precedent. She has accused her “gang of four” Republican benchmates of abusing their power and acting with bias in their decisions. Justice Weaver was elected to the probate court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court by voters.

Michigan Supreme Court rulings have a direct impact upon all of us as citizens. An independent and fair judiciary is a critical element to a functioning democracy, as any scholar who has studied democracy development will tell you.

Several groups have recommended that public funding of Michigan Supreme Court election campaigns be given, with reasonable limits; that public record identification of contributors to candidate-focused television “issue ads” be supplied; and that there be published standards for self-disqualification, or recusal, for Michigan Supreme Court justices when a case involves a contributor to his or her election campaign.

These are all good suggestions, although there is another option: the Missouri Plan. Back in the early 20th century, the popular election of judges began raising concerns about judicial independence. In the Missouri Plan for merit selection, a nonpartisan commission of attorneys nominate a group of qualified individuals from which the governor selects appointees to the court.

This plan was developed in 1913 and enacted in 1940, since then 24 states have adopted a system somewhat similar to the Missouri Plan.

All of these may or not be good options for Michigan, and a more public dialogue about this issue will lead to more proper consideration. My biggest fear is that this issue will fall deaf on the ears of many because of the focus on more palatable political news. We cannot let our judicial process slowly fall by the wayside in the dead of night.

Eric Gregory is a State News columnist. Reach him at ericwgregory@gmail.com .