Michigan’s First Black Woman Justice on Why She’s Seeking a 2nd Term

The 2022 appointment of Kyra Harris Bolden to the Michigan Supreme Court, which earned her the distinction of becoming the state’s first Black woman on the bench, was met with great fanfare. “It’s about damn time,” retiring Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack said on X, seemingly passing the baton.

But for Bolden, 36 and also the youngest person ever to serve on the court, the appointment was about more than making history. It was about bringing a different perspective to the state’s highest court, which is intended to work for all Michiganders regardless of its political makeup. The court currently has a 4-3 Democratic majority that the party hopes to maintain. 

It was also about honoring the people who made her appointment possible, like Shelia Johnson, the first Black woman to serve as a judge in the state’s 46th District Court. Bolden worked on Johnson’s 2012 campaign for the Michigan Supreme Court. “I was in the suite with her when the final numbers came in,” Bolden said, “and she ultimately lost that election. But we stayed very close.” A decade later Bolden ran her own court campaign. She also lost. But what followed was Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s first supreme court appointment.

In November, Bolden will face off against 15th Circuit Court Judge Patrick O’Grady, a longtime jurist endorsed this month by former President Donald Trump, who called O’Grady a “strong Rule of Law Judge.” In an interview with Democracy Docket, Bolden explains why she believes she’s most qualified.

Why are you running for the Michigan Supreme Court and what are you hoping to accomplish in another term?

In this year-and-a-half that I’ve been on the court, I have been able to author eight majority opinions, which I’m very proud of. A lot of people may not know that I’m also a liaison to our treatment courts, which is our alternative to incarceration, making sure that they have the resources necessary in order to function and be successful.

I also sit on the child welfare task force for the Michigan Supreme Court, and we try to make sure we have our ear to the ground of what’s happening with our children in our foster care system, and making sure that they have adequate representation. So a lot of things happen at the court, and I wish to continue to do the great work that I’ve been doing for the last year and a half, and keep making great decisions for Michiganders, and it’s been quite the wonderful experience. And I hope that Michiganders will see the hard work that I’m putting into this job and retain me for the seat.

As a judge, it seems like you’re intentional about engaging with Michiganders about the court. Now that you’re running a campaign, how are you talking about the race with voters? Do you find that they understand the judiciary?

I was a state representative before, and people pretty much know if they’re going to vote (and who they’re voting for). It’s a bit more difficult with the judiciary, because we don’t have any issues that we really stand on. Most of us just say we want justice and integrity in our courts, right? But that might be true or not true, depending upon who’s running.

I get a lot of questions about issues, and I respectfully let people know that it is not my job to make the law. I interpret the law, and I’m actually prohibited from talking about issues by our judicial canon. So that has been an educational opportunity. 

The other educational opportunity that we have really been pushing is voting down-ballot. In Michigan we have the opportunity to vote straight ticket. People will vote straight ticket, turn in their ballot, and they’re done, and they missed the nonpartisan section of the ballot, which is where our judiciary happens to be. And so we’ve really been telling people, if you want to vote for me, if you want to vote for your judges, the third co-equal branch of government, you have to vote in the nonpartisan section of the ballot.

Because I will say, in 2022, there are so many people that thought I was captured by straight-ticket voting, and so there are so many people that thought they were voting for me and they weren’t. And that’s even more crushing, right? So we’re really having to push that message of voting in the nonpartisan section of the ballot.

Given your legislative background, was it a difficult adjustment to run a campaign where you aren’t able to make certain promises you would as a candidate for the Legislature?

I don’t know if it was difficult for me, rather than for people to understand that I’m in a different position. People had been used to me being more vocal, maybe doing certain events or promoting a business of the month, or being at a ribbon cutting, things like that. Those are things that we cannot do as judges. 

So I understand the confusion, particularly when it comes to me, because people have seen me in a very different role. And so it has been a little difficult for people to kind of make the switch in their mind from, ‘well, you were just doing all these things and now you’re not,’ or ‘now you can’t.’ Explaining that to people has been more difficult than me accepting that I can’t do certain things. 

Earlier you mentioned the opinions you’ve authored. I wanted to ask about a specific one we covered at Democracy Docket about Secretary Benson and her rules for partisan election challengers. How would you describe the role of the Michigan Supreme Court in ensuring that elections are fair and secure?

That’s a great question, because a lot of people think the Michigan Supreme Court may focus [only] on criminal law or on constitutional issues. And I tell people, we don’t focus on [just] one thing. We hear everything, literally every single aspect of Michigan law that can be challenged in a state court, we can hear at the Michigan Supreme Court.

Now, obviously we’re very selective in what cases we take up, but election cases in Michigan are going to be resolved by the Michigan Supreme Court, ultimately, for the most part. And so we’ve had several cases that have come up; one is the opinion that you just referred to. I think it’s important that people understand that when it comes to election law, when it comes to interpreting constitutional amendments, who or what gets on the ballot sometimes is challenged at the Michigan Supreme Court level. Whether someone is entitled to a new trial, whether someone’s children are taken away in a termination of parental rights case, that is all taken up at the Michigan Supreme Court.

There are certainly things that I have made decisions on, and election law is a critical piece of that. But we really determine how Michiganders will live their lives today and for generations to come. Because our decisions today set a precedent for how people will live their lives. And that will affect not only the people now, but will also affect our children. It will affect my child that’s two years old now, and probably her children, too.

Since Dobbs, it seems like more eyes are turning to state supreme courts to establish or uphold federal protections stripped by the courts. In Michigan, Democrats and Republicans are eager to secure a majority on the high court. How should people view the court in light of these partisan conversations about control of the bench?

The most important thing is the lived experiences that you are bringing to the table. We all follow the rule of law, but there are different interpretations based upon your lived experience. That’s why all decisions are not unanimous, but they’re not meant to be. That’s why there’s seven people in the court, so that you can have a majority in certain cases.

But I will say that there have been times where I have voted with the moderate, conservative justices. There have been times where I disagreed with everyone I’ve just written separately. And so I think that’s the important part. Are you open to new information? Are you willing to stand alone and say what you have to say? What is your background and experience? And do you believe that the court should reflect the diversity of the lived experiences and perspective of Michiganders?

I think that’s probably the most important difference, not necessarily political views or affiliation, because that’s not really a role that plays directly into our thought processes. But, value-wise, do you believe that diversity matters? Do you believe in equal justice for everyone? Those things are important.