Michigan voters elect a judge who is under a suspension order, barring her from serving in judicial office for three more years

You think we have problems in Cook County? Well, of course, we do... but I respectfully suggest that Michigan has us beat on this one.

Meet once and future Judge Khalilia Davis. She was elected as a judge of Michigan's 36th District Court in 2016, according to Ballotpedia. To remain on the bench, Ballotpedia notes, she would have had to run in a contested election in 2022. But she never made it to the ballot that year; she was removed from the ballot "because she incorrectly stated on her [required] affidavit of identity that she had paid all outstanding late fees," In re Davis, 511 Mich. 1003, n.1; 991 N.W.2d 212 (2023). (Pin cites are a little iffy here - Fastcase puts all footnotes at the end of the opinion - the Michigan cite I've linked to is official, but it is to a Michigan Supreme Court slip opinion linked from the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission website - you don't ever get this kind of careful hemming and hawing from AI, do you?)

Judge Davis was already being investigated for improper conduct before her first term expired. She really had a problem with a particular process server, and she had a contentious relationship with her colleagues as well. Footnote 3 provides a couple of examples of rather strongly-worded Bible passages she quoted in emails to "supervisors and colleagues," passages that her supervisors and colleagues believed, in context, to be downright threatening, adding that, when the Regional Court Administrator met with Davis and her attorney "and asked that she stop sending these messages, she sent him an e-mail that stated, in part, 'You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?'"

You can read the linked opinion if you wish to know all the precise bases for the discipline imposed. What is relevant to our story is the actual holding of the Michigan Supreme Court and the sanction it issued (991 N.W.2d at 216) (emphasis mine):

[W]e conclude that respondent engaged in repeated, deliberate misconduct that besmirched the judiciary's reputation and prejudiced the administration of justice. The nature and pervasiveness of respondent's misconduct requires the highest condemnation and harshest sanction. Given respondent is no longer on the bench, we hold that a six-year conditional suspension without pay is an appropriate sanction, with the suspension barring respondent from serving in a judicial office during that period.

Despite her apparent problems with "supervisors and colleagues," and despite the scathing review of her judicial performance issued by the Michigan Supreme Court, Davis must have really, really liked being a judge. Why else would she have filed to run for another 36th District seat in 2024?

But Davis did not make it on the ballot in 2024. The following facts are taken from the August 21, 2026 Opinion and Order issued by Judge Michael J. Riordan, in the case of Robert Davis v. Benson, Case No. 26-000147-MB: Robert Davis, the unrelated objector in the linked case, objected to Khalilia Davis' candidacy in 2004, too. He argued that the unpaid late fees that knocked her off the ballot in 2022 had not yet been cleaned up by 2024. According to the linked case (p. 3), "In a June 3, 2024, opinion, Court of Claims Judge Christopher P. Yates ultimately entered a declaratory judgment that K. Davis was disqualified from running as a judicial candidate and a writ of mandamus compelling the SOS to decertify her candidacy but on an alternate ground: our Supreme Court had suspended K. Davis from serving as a judge."

Former Judge Davis did not appeal the order in 2024. But she did file to run again, this year. R. Davis objected, again asserting inaccuracies and misreprentations in her latest Affidavit of Identity. But, apparently, he had only seven days to interpose his objections; he failed to meet the deadline. Moreover, the regulation specifying the filing deadline had been amended to remove a 'good faith' exception for late filings.

I don't pretend to know if the delay could have been attributed, at least in part, to reliance on the Secretary of State refusing to certify Davis on the 2026 ballot. But, if that was the case, the reliance proved mistaken.

Oh, the Michigan Secretary of State did promptly reject Davis' 2026 filing, citing the 2024 Court of Claims order. But former Judge Davis promptly sued. The case was Khalilia Davis v Benson, Court of Claims Docket No. 26-000091-MB. I might have thought such a suit would constitute a prohibited collateral attack on a long-final order, but what do I know? Certainly, the Michigan courts thought differently. Quoting, now, from p. 4 of the linked Court of Claims Opinion:

On June 11, 2026, Judge James Robert Redford entered an Opinion and Order ruling that no controlling legal precedent prevented K. Davis from running for office. Judge Redford directed the SOS to canvass the signatures on K.cDavis’s nominating petitions, review her candidacy documents, and certify her candidacy if she met all statutory requirements. The SOS has since certified K. Davis’s candidacy for the November 2026 General Election and indicated that her name will appear on the ballot.

You can read as much as you want about Robert Davis' ultimately futile efforts to keep Khalilia Davis off the 2026 ballot in the linked Opinion. The bottom line is that former Judge Khalilia Davis did appear on the ballot, apparently winning a 36th District seat that she cannot fill before 2029.

According to this post from a Detroit TV station, some voters were surprised that they'd voted for a candidate who was barred from taking the job (the article quotes a Detroit voter as saying, "They didn’t advertise that"). You'd think the unusual facts of this case might have gotten some publicity before the election -- especially with all the very public litigation ongoing right up until the end as was apparently the case here. But... apparently not.

The Detroit TV station quotes this statement from the 36th District's chief judge: "We will be contacting the State Court Administrative Office to seek guidance regarding the election of Kahlilia Davis and will follow up as appropriate once we have received direction."