The Michigan House Judiciary Committee on a voice and roll call adopted substitute language to Senate Bill 82, the Judicial Protection Act, and to House Bill 4397, an elected‑officials privacy measure, after more than an hour of public testimony both opposing and supporting the changes.

Supporters told the committee the legislation is intended to protect judges and other public officeholders and their household members from doxxing and violent threats. Alan Heintz, chief of staff for Sen. Stephanie Chang, described SB 82 as a reintroduction of prior law developed “in collaboration with a work group of state and federal judges as well as the State Bar of Michigan” and said the substitute is tie‑barred to related legislation by Rep. Leitner. The committee adopted SB 82’s H‑3 substitute and later reported the bill out of committee with recommendation.

Opponents, including multiple witnesses who said they or family members had experienced alleged abuse or misconduct in probate proceedings, urged the committee to reject the bills or narrow them. Jody White, who identified herself as from Livonia and a victim‑in‑probate advocate, said the bills would “shield judges” and could conceal allegedly harmful judicial actions in probate and guardianship cases. Tom Howe and Cynthia Mifsud testified that broad redaction authority in court records could block public access to information needed to detect conflicts of interest or misconduct.

Committee members emphasized the bills are limited to personal identifying information and do not eliminate financial disclosure or other accountability mechanisms already in statute. Rep. Kelly Breen said protections sought by the legislation are intended to protect judges and their families from threats; she also reiterated that separate guardianship and probate reforms are being considered outside this measure. Rep. Johnson told public commenters the committee heard their concerns and that other reforms remain under consideration.

Clerks’ roll calls recorded the committee’s adoption of substitutes and their reporting to the next stage. The clerk announced the H‑3 substitute to SB 82 was adopted and SB 82 was reported with recommendation as substitute H‑3; the committee later adopted the H‑6 substitute to HB 4397 and reported that bill with recommendation. No amendments that narrowed the scope were adopted on the record during the committee session.

What the bills do and next steps
SB 82’s substitute and HB 4397’s substitute create administrative paths for court or executive branch records to have certain personal identifying information restricted from public posting and publication for judges and specified elected officials and their household members. Committee members said the departments responsible for records (county clerks, state administrative offices) would implement the redaction process and that trailer bills or implementing language likely would be needed to align campaign‑disclosure and other election laws with the new rules.

The bills proceed with the committee’s positive recommendation; remaining technical conflicts and implementing details were discussed but not resolved at the hearing. The bills will move to the next legislative steps for consideration by the full House and, as the sponsors noted, could require additional implementing language to reconcile disclosure laws.

Quotes
"This legislation was developed in collaboration with the work group of state and federal judges as well as the State Bar of Michigan to address the deeply concerning uptick in threats against judges," Alan Heintz, chief of staff for Sen. Stephanie Chang, told the committee.

"Why should judges be shielded while probate courts destroy families?" asked Jody White, a public commenter, criticizing the bills as creating secrecy that could hide wrongdoing in probate cases.

Details and context
- Committee adoption: Clerk recorded adoption and reporting of SB 82 (sub H‑3) and HB 4397 (sub H‑6) during the session.
- Public testimony: Multiple witnesses opposed the bills, citing experiences in probate and guardianship cases; supporters framed the bills as safety measures for public officials and their families.
- Implementation questions: Committee members noted implementation would involve the Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) and the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) and that trailer language may be required to harmonize other disclosure statutes.

Next steps: Both bills were reported by the committee with recommendation and will proceed to subsequent legislative consideration.