Eli Savit’s Attorney General Run Raises Questions About Prosecutors and Political Power

Last week, Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit officially entered the race for Michigan Attorney General, joining a growing list of prosecutors across the country trading courtrooms for campaign trails.

While Savit has branded himself as a progressive reformer, his run raises a broader and more troubling issue: prosecutors using their power to score political points rather than pursue meaningful justice.

The Dual Role of Prosecutors: Public Servants or Political Climbers?

Prosecutors hold one of the most powerful roles in the justice system. They decide who gets charged, what charges to file, and whether to offer a plea deal or push for prison.

As most prosecutors are elected officials, that means their decisions are often shaped less by fairness and more by what will look good in a campaign ad.

From harsh sentencing practices to selective reform, prosecutorial behavior is too often guided by political strategy rather than principle.

When Reform Is a Brand, Not a Belief

Eli Savit’s campaign highlights his progressive record, including support for bail reform and treatment over punishment for certain offenses. But critics say many prosecutors across the country use “reform” language while continuing to uphold carceral systems behind the scenes.

Just like tough-on-crime rhetoric used to win over voters in the 1990s, “smart reform” is now a political brand; one that doesn’t always align with actions taken in office.

The Incentive to Do What Polls Well, Not What’s Just

This isn’t unique to Savit. Across the U.S., prosecutors are:

• Declining to charge police officers, fearing backlash from unions.
• Charging children as adults, despite research showing long-term harm.
• Blocking innocence claims or resentencing motions, to avoid appearing “soft.”

Why? Because the public responds to fear-based messaging. And many prosecutors, even those claiming a reform mantle, are unwilling to jeopardize their electability by doing the right thing when it might be unpopular.

Running for Higher Office from a Pile of Case Files

One of the greatest dangers of prosecutors running for higher office is that ongoing cases get entangled with political ambitions. Tough decisions may be delayed, reversed, or overruled in favor of optics.

And it’s not just about one office. If every decision is made with a potential future campaign in mind, real people will suffer; those stuck in jail awaiting trial, those denied fair plea offers, those left without accountability after wrongful convictions.

Allegan County voters watched this play out in recent years, as law enforcement over-policed and the now former prosecutor overcharged. These collective efforts culminated in an almost $8 million addition to the court house, and a new judge seat where an assistance prosecutor and friend to the Prosecutor, ran for the position (they both lost their election bids).

We don’t just need prosecutors who claim to be reformers; we need ones willing to stand up to pressure, even when it costs them politically.

That means:

• Releasing office data on charging, diversion, and racial disparities.
• Committing to decarceral policies, regardless of political fallout.
• Refusing to use fear or victims’ stories as campaign bait.

Justice shouldn’t hinge on whether it polls well. And no prosecutor should use lives and liberties as a stepping stone to higher office.

Your Justice System Is On the Ballot—But So Is Integrity

Eli Savit’s announcement is a reminder: prosecutors are politicians, but they don’t have to act like it. If we want a fair and compassionate justice system, we must hold them to a higher standard—one rooted in principle, not political calculus.

Michigan voters, and voters everywhere for that matter, should ask every prosecutor running for office:

Are you doing what’s right, or what will get you elected?

Why This Pattern Matters

This isn’t about one prosecutor or one campaign cycle. It’s about structure.

When the same office controls charging decisions, plea negotiations, and sentencing recommendations while also operating within an election cycle, a conflict is built in. Not theoretical. Structural.

Discretion becomes leverage. Timing becomes strategy. Outcomes become optics.

What gets charged, what gets dismissed, what gets delayed, and what gets emphasized can all shift depending on what serves a future campaign narrative. And because most of that decision-making happens behind closed doors, the public rarely sees how those choices are made.

The shift from “tough on crime” to “smart reform” didn’t remove that incentive. It just changed the language. Where prosecutors once built careers on harsh sentencing, some now build them on selective reform; highlighting certain policies while maintaining the same underlying power structures.

The result is inconsistency that isn’t random. It’s responsive to pressure.

And when discretion is shaped by electability rather than principle, the people most affected are the ones with the least power to challenge it. Defendants waiting on charging decisions. Families navigating plea offers. Individuals seeking resentencing or relief.

They don’t experience the system as policy. They experience it as timing, delay, and outcome.

If we want a justice system that operates on fairness rather than strategy, this is the pressure point. Not just who prosecutors say they are, but how they use their power when no one is watching.

Additional Reading:

• Citizens Only Voting: Inside the Campaign Pushing a Michigan Constitutional Amendment
• Michigan Courts Are Blocking Public Access—Dr. Samantha Hallman Is Challenging That in Court
• Talkwalker: The “Listening” Tool That Marketers Use to Game Google
• Keefe Replaced Maruchan With Twisted Noodles and Incarcerated People Are Furious
• Michigan’s 2026 Constitutional Convention Question: A Rare Opportunity to Rethink Our Courts