Here.
An excerpt:
Judge Timothy Connors is a trial court judge in Washtenaw County. His project, a peacemaking court, was also chosen for funding. It will use Native American principles to resolve disputes.
“This commitment by the Michigan Supreme Court is another important step in improving outcomes for children, families, and communities in our state courts,” Connors said.
Native peoples and cultures are an integral part of the mosaic of our country. Native American Heritage Month, which by proclamation will officially begin November 1, offers a time when we, as a nation, stop to recognize and celebrate the significant contributions Native American communities have made to the establishment and growth of our great nation.
But this month is not just about celebrating. It is an opportunity also to broaden awareness of and respect for Native American culture, traditions, and the important issues and concerns that affect Native American communities.
One of the most important ways to ensure all Michiganders understand the importance of tribal communities in our state is by showing up to the polls to vote this November. On November 6, Michigan voters will do more than help select the next President. We will also decide the makeup of our State’s Supreme Court. Although we don’t always realize it, the Michigan Supreme Court affects all of our lives and livelihood. The Michigan Supreme Court regularly makes decisions that directly impact Native American communities, including decisions about the Indian Child Welfare Act, land and water rights, voting rights, and education. It is the last resort for many people seeking justice, and it is charged with upholding our Constitution and our laws.
Yet, each election year an alarming number of Michiganders fail to complete their ballots. In past years, a third of voters left the Michigan Supreme court section completely blank, many of them not even realizing they were skipping it.
Because the integrity and efficiency of our State’s highest court depends on all communities making their voices heard, it is imperative to get informed about the Supreme Court candidates this year and vote in this part of the ballot. By showing up to the polls on November 6, we can ensure our courts as well as our communities understand the importance of Native American communities in Michigan. Remember, no matter who you vote for, the most important thing is making your voice heard by voting for the Michigan Supreme Court in the non-partisan section of your ballot.
Bridget Mary McCormack is a Law Professor at the University of Michigan, an award-winning attorney, and a candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court
Introducing Michigan Supreme Court Candidate Bridget Mary McCormack
Bridget Mary McCormack is a candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court. She says she is running because she believes our judicial system should give everyone a fair shake, and that she aims to restore public confidence in the Michigan Supreme Court. She appears on the non-partisan section of the November 6 ballot.
By way of background, Bridget spent her early legal career trying cases the Legal Aid Society and with New York’s Office of the Appellate Defender, handling over 1,000 cases for individual clients in the trial and appellate courts. In 1996, she became a faculty fellow at the Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut. In 1998, she joined the University of Michigan Law School faculty and made Michigan her permanent home. For the past 14 years McCormack has conducted and supervised many types of litigation, at all levels of state and federal courts in Michigan. She has also created and expanded the Law School’s legal clinics, including clinics for victims of domestic violence, for children with health problems, and a clinic to assist victims of human trafficking, among others.
McCormack has been widely recognized for her commitment to justice for everyone. In 2010, she won the prestigious Justice for All Award, and in 2011, the Washtenaw County Bar Association recognized her with its Patriot Award. Most recently, she has been named the recipient of Thomas M. Cooley Law School Review 2012 Distinguished Brief Award.
She is nominated by the Michigan Democratic Party, and has been endorsed by many organizations and individuals, including both the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press. She received the “highest rating” by the Lansing Association for Human Rights. Her many supporters include Judge Tim Connors and Chairman (Ret.) Derek Bailey. McCormack has a special interest in tribal issues, and her candidacy was recently covered in the Win Awenen Nisitotong. In the words of Judge Connors, one of her mentors: “Bridget Mary McCormack will continue the advocacy of Justice Michael Cavanagh’s respect for tribal sovereignty, self determination, and state court compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.”
According to McCormack’s campaign, she is guided by a view of the judicial branch once articulated by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who said that the courtroom is one place where fairness should trump strength, and where being right should matter more than being popular or powerful. More information about her candidacy can be found at www.mccormackforjustice.com and www.facebook.com/mccormackforjustice.
Bridget Mary McCormack, in addition to having this fantastic West Wing reunion video, is also committed to maintaining and improving the relationship between the state Supreme Court and tribes in Michigan.
The case is Citizens for More Michigan Jobs v. Secretary of State:
Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Intervening Defendant Protect MI Constitution’s Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Attorney General Bill Schuette’s Amicus Curiae Brief>>
William Birdseye and The Police Officers Association of Michigan’s Amici Curiae Brief>>
Here is the opinion in In re Budd:
Here:
The Michigan SCT decision instructing lower courts on ICWA notice violations and adopting the “conditional reversal” requirement is here.
An excerpt from Justice Cavanagh’s unanimous opinion:
While it is impossible to articulate a precise rule that will encompass every possible factual situation, in light of the interests protected by ICWA, the potentially high costs of erroneously concluding that notice need not be sent, and the relatively low burden of erring in favor of requiring notice, we think the standard for triggering the notice requirement of 25 USC 1912(a) must be a cautionary one. Therefore, we hold first that sufficiently reliable information of virtually any criteria on which tribal membership might be based suffices to trigger the notice requirement. We hold also that a parent of an Indian child cannot waive the separate and independent ICWA rights of an Indian child’s tribe and that the trial court must maintain a documentary record including, at minimum, (1) the original or a copy of each actual notice personally served or sent via registered mail pursuant to 25 USC 1912(a) and (2) the original or a legible copy of the return receipt or other proof of service showing delivery of the notice.1 Finally, we hold that the proper remedy for an ICWA-notice violation is to conditionally reverse the trial court and remand for resolution of the ICWA-notice issue.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.