Michigan’s Trial Court Funding Recommendations Threaten Vital Support Earmarked for Libraries

Dillon Geshel, Interim Executive Director

In 2017, the Michigan Legislature created the Trial Court Funding Commission, which spent several years developing recommendations to help stabilize the court’s funding system. In 2023, the Michigan Judicial Council formed the Alternative Funding for Trial Courts Workgroup (AFTCW) to review those recommendations and develop a plan for implementation. Why is this of interest to libraries? A familiar funding source for libraries, penal and civil fines, is at risk of capture under the workgroup’s recommendations. The workgroup’s final concept paper proposes that all revenue from penal fines and civil infractions is redirected to trial courts, which would have a disastrous impact on Michigan’s public libraries.

Why Penal and Civil Fines Matter to Michigan Libraries

Since 1835, the people of the State of Michigan constitutionally mandated that penal fines be allocated to libraries. Article VIII, section 9 of the Michigan Constitution states:

All fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws shall be exclusively applied to the support of such public libraries, and county law libraries as provided by law.

Further, MCL 600.8831 provides that non-criminal-code fines – levied for violations of certain state laws – are designated as civil infractions that also go to public libraries. These include most traffic fines. Penal and civil fines provide nearly as much support for public libraries as the Michigan legislature does annually.

What Libraries Stand to Lose

At the Michigan Library Association, we are deeply concerned about the negative impact that the implementation recommendations would have on public libraries. The Library of Michigan reported that total penal fines distributed to libraries in 2024 amounted to approximately $16.8 million. In many libraries — particularly smaller and rural systems — penal fines make up a higher share of operating budgets. Changes to the flow of penal fines and civil-infraction revenues would disproportionately affect these small, rural, and underfunded libraries.

MLA Responds

Over the summer, MLA and the Library of Michigan formally responded to the recommendations in separate letters to the workgroup. MLA requested that the workgroup seek other funding options that do not include capturing penal and civil fines already earmarked for libraries. While we sympathize with the need to address challenges with trial court funding, we shared with the workgroup that siphoning those revenues away from libraries creates yet another funding crisis.

Last month, Michigan’s House and Senate Judiciary Committees held a joint hearing to learn more about the recommendations in a presentation from the AFTC Workgroup Chair. MLA submitted a card of opposition at the hearing, indicating our disagreement with the workgroup’s recommendations. Several other organizations submitted letters expressing similar concerns, including the Michigan Association of Counties, the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Townships Association, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, among others. In a follow-up communication to all House and Senate Judiciary members, MLA expressed deep concern for a model that captures penal and civil fines without a plan for replacement funding that keeps libraries whole.

Connecting with your Legislators on the Issue

Behind the scenes, MLA is monitoring the proposals and engaging with legislators and stakeholders to protect this vital library funding from capture. In conversations with your local representatives and senators, it’s important to share information with them about the recommendations and the constitutional and statutory protections that ensure these dollars support meaningful work in public libraries. Considering this funding threat, legislators and stakeholders need to know that libraries are essential to Michigan residents and communities. Remind them that your libraries provide access to early-literacy programs, digital resources, broadband and technology, workforce and small-business assistance, after-school learning, and trusted support in navigating government and health information. For many residents, public libraries are the only place they can freely access those services. Redirecting these funds without a plan for stable replacement revenue would severely undermine the ability of public libraries to deliver these critical services and would harm the individuals and communities who rely on them most. As this issue develops, MLA will continue to share information and guidance on next steps. If you have questions about trial court funding reform and how the current proposals would impact libraries, please don’t hesitate to reach out.