In Washington, there are sharp partisan divides in the decades-old debate about health care.

In Lansing, politicians – thanks to a bipartisan compromise – just took a healthy and long overdue step to make Michigan the 38th state where public places and workplaces will be smoke-free, except for portions of casinos and other limited exceptions.

Senator Tom George (RKalamazoo), a physician who is making a long shot bid to replace term-limited Governor Jennifer Granholm, should be hailed and heeded for his assertion that curbing smoking is “probably the biggest thing we can do to become a healthier state.”

Of negative note for campaign 2010 – should he succeed in becoming the GOP nominee for attorney general next year – is this comment by Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop of Rochester: He called the bill a “blatant overreach by government into the private business environment.”

It is, in fact, a private environment where smoking poses a public hazard.

Granholm called the bill “a terrific gift to Michigan” – a more than slight clue that she would sign the bill that as of May 1 will apply to all bars, restaurants, and work places, except for gambling areas of the Detroit casinos, cigar bars, tobacco specialty stores, home offices, and motor vehicles.

A House Fiscal Agency analysis indicates the ban will reduce smoking by 5% to 20%, and the state could lose up to about $27.5 million in tobacco tax revenue from smokers who quit because of the ban.

But, the agency said, the ban will save $6.4 million for every percentage point in Medicaid costs that are reduced as a result of the curb.

The budget figures are not critical. Nor are the poll figures; Senator Ron Jelinek (R-Three Oaks) says 70% of residents support the ban.

What really counts, as noted by Senator George, is that the bill means a healthier Michigan.

“It’s just something that makes sense for Michigan," said Susan Schechter of the Michigan chapter of the American Lung Association.

President Chris Kolb of the Michigan Environmental Council, a former state representative who supported smoking bans introduced during his tenure, said: “This is a long overdue, common-sense protection for patrons and employees of Michigan’s bars and restaurants.”

Court Cleans Its Act

The Michigan Supreme Court also has taken a long overdue, common sense action.

Thanks to its three Democratic justices and rogue Republican Betty Weaver, it adopted a rule, long advocated by Weaver, which specifies grounds and procedures for disqualification of a justice whose impartiality in a case is in question.

The full court, not just the individual justice, can decide on disqualification.

The decision was hailed last week by Executive Director Rich Robinson of the nonpartisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network, but he correctly said more must be done to assure full disclosure:

“In Michigan and a number of states across the country, interest groups and wealthy individuals have spent extraordinary amounts in an effort to elect judges whom they believe will be sympathetic to their interests. Then, these same interest groups and individuals appear in court before the judge they supported, looking for a favorable ruling.”

He cited as an example a West Virginia case where the CEO of a coal company contributed $3 million to an “issue” campaign that helped elect a Supreme Court justice who later cast the deciding vote that overturned a $50 million damage judgment against the executive’s company.

The justice’s refusal to disqualify himself from the case, known as Caperton v. Massey Coal Company, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that the justice’s participation in the case deprived Massey’s legal opponent of his due process right to an impartial court hearing.

While the Michigan high court’s new rules give the full court power to disqualify an individual member, Robinson said, “As positive a development as this new Supreme Court disqualification rule is,” more must be done “to address concerns about impartiality caused by judicial campaign finances. That is because Michigan does not require the interest groups and individuals who finance the majority of judicial campaign advertising to disclose their activity.

“We have a bizarre ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding contributors to candidate-focused issue advertising. If advertisements merely define a candidate’s suitability for office but don’t exhort a vote, the sponsoring organization doesn’t have to report whose money is being spent. In the $7.5 million Supreme Court campaign of 2008, $3.8 million bought television issue ads. We know the aggregators of that money, but not the contributors. With this being the case, we can’t know when a justice legitimately should be asked to recuse himself from a case.”

That is astounding. To this day we don’t know who bought $3.8 million in 2008 TV ads. Cheers to Robinson for pushing for transparency, as well as to Weaver, whose occasional independent streak may cost her the Republican nomination for the “nonpartisan” ballot for re-election next year. (But as incumbent she can file on her own for the ballot if her party is so foolish as to disown her.)

Robinson says what is going on “is a cue for the legislature to act to bring full disclosure and integrity to our political campaigns. Transparency and accountability are conservative values, and they are progressive values. Campaign accountability is good for democracy and good for impartial justice.”

Robinson is a wise watchdog, and a nonpartisan voice of reason in rocky times.

George Weeks retired in 2006 after 22 years as political columnist for The Detroit News. His weekly Michigan Politics column is syndicated by Superior Features.