If you have ever paid a speeding ticket in the state of Michigan, you have also donated to your local public library. Michigan, along with 13 other states,¹ provide funding to public libraries through revenue collected from penal fines and civil infractions. Michigan differs from the other 13 states in that it is the only one with a constitutional provision mandating that public libraries receive the money collected from penal fines.² So, by law, funds collected from speeding tickets must be given to public libraries.

Article 8, Section 9 of the Michigan Constitution states that “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.”³ MCL 600.8831 expands upon this constitutional provision by mandating that fines collected from civil infractions also go to public libraries.⁴

It is not entirely clear why this funding source was originally enshrined in the Michigan Constitution, but the provision has proven to be enduring.⁵ Since its creation in 1835, this constitutional provision has survived — relatively unchanged — through Michigan’s four constitutional conventions.⁶

Due in part to this stability, penal fines have become an important component of public library budgets in the state. While it was never intended to be the sole funding source for libraries, penal fines make up a significant portion of libraries’ budgets — anywhere from 3-70% according to the Michigan Library Association.⁷ Generally, rural and smaller libraries have a greater budgetary dependence on penal fines. Since roughly 70% of Michigan libraries fall into the rural category, penal fines⁸ are a crucial funding source for the majority of public libraries in the state.⁹ Without the money from penal fines, most Michigan libraries would likely be forced to significantly cut resources.

THE ROLE OF ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES IN LIBRARY FUNDING

Lawyers and judges can have a significant impact on how penal fines are used in legal proceedings. Through charging decisions and plea deals, prosecutors, in particular, have a great deal of discretion in deciding how penal fines are used. Statutes might dictate caps or monetary ranges for applicable fines, but prosecutors and judges have the discretion to select the exact amount of a fine for a given offense.¹⁰ As long as prosecutors or judges do not exceed the cap or range, they are provided a wide latitude to decide on the exact amount to be fined.¹¹

In rural jurisdictions where public library budgets can be particularly dependent on penal fines, the actions of prosecutors and judges can have an even greater effect. For example, a local library would have a more robust budget in a jurisdiction where the judge enforces higher fines. Conversely, in a jurisdiction where the local prosecutor disfavors using fines in plea deals, the local library’s budget would be diminished.

It would be improper for judges and prosecutors to consider their local library’s budget when deciding punishment in a given case. But due to the peculiarity of Michigan’s funding structure of public libraries, their decisions nonetheless greatly impact the public library’s budget. Some of the most important actors in providing funding for the local libraries do it indirectly, and these actors are unable to consider the needs of the library when deciding on actions that affect its budget.

A COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP

There are clear benefits to having a constitutionally protected funding source. Barring a constitutional amendment, the funding source is guaranteed. The legislature cannot directly alter or change this revenue source, and the Michigan Supreme Court has protected libraries’ access to penal fines.¹² The courts have explicitly stated that libraries are entitled to penal fines and that the “entitlement is not dependent upon the discretionary act of any other official.”¹³ As long as fines are collected for criminal actions, this source of library funds is secure.

That is not to say penal funding is impervious to change. Due in part to criminal justice reform — the legalization of recreational marijuana, for example — libraries have seed funding from penal fines drop from $32 million in 2008 to $24 million in 2020.¹⁴ Funding is also subject to the willingness of the local prosecutors and judges to impose discretionary fines as punishment, and there can also be a natural fluctuation from year to year in the number of crimes committed in a given county.

Even with the decrease in funding from penal fines, it is rare for libraries to have such a secure source of funding.¹⁵ As was stated previously, Michigan is the only state to have a constitutionally mandated source of library funding.¹⁶ Especially in light of how much rural libraries’ budgets depend on penal fines, having this guaranteed source of funding is crucial to their operations from year to year.

Unfortunately, this secure source of funding can conflict with one of the foundational identities of public libraries. Modern libraries are seen by both the public and libraries themselves as crucial public spaces that allow people from all walks of life to exist without judgment.¹⁷ As such, libraries spend time and resources building programs that help and support people experiencing poverty.¹⁸ However, individuals experiencing poverty are also disproportionately affected by the financial burdens of penal fines.¹⁹ Thus, a conflict arises between the public library’s ideals and its funding source.

CONCLUSION

Until libraries are granted a traditional funding source that does not rely on penal fines, courts and prosecutors will continue to be put in the odd position of being indirect influencers on library budgets. Libraries, meanwhile, will continue to rely on funding sources that are counterintuitive to their mission.