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

Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit officially entered the race for Michigan Attorney General in May 2025, 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 structural concern: the way prosecutorial power and political ambition intersect — and what that means for the people whose liberty depends on the decisions made inside that intersection.

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 pursue incarceration. Because most prosecutors are elected officials, those decisions are often shaped less by fairness and more by what will look compelling in a campaign context. From harsh sentencing practices to selective reform, prosecutorial behavior is too often guided by political strategy rather than principle. That is not an aberration. It is the structural consequence of asking people to exercise enormous unchecked discretion while also running for office.

When Reform Is a Brand, Not a Belief

Savit’s campaign highlights his progressive record, including support for bail reform and treatment-first responses for certain offenses. But critics across the country argue that many prosecutors use reform language while upholding carceral systems behind the scenes. Just as tough-on-crime rhetoric built prosecutorial careers in the 1990s, “smart reform” is now the competitive political brand — one that doesn’t always align with the decisions an office makes when those decisions are hard, unpopular, or politically costly.

The shift from one brand to the other didn’t remove the underlying structural incentive. It 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 same resistance to accountability, and the same deference to institutional and political pressure.

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

This is not unique to Savit. Across the country, prosecutors decline to charge police officers because of political backlash from law enforcement unions. They charge children as adults despite research documenting long-term harm. They block innocence claims or resentencing motions to avoid being characterized as soft. These decisions reflect electability calculations. The public responds to fear-based messaging, and many prosecutors — including those claiming a reform identity — are unwilling to jeopardize their electoral viability by doing the right thing when it might be unpopular.

Running for Higher Office from a Pile of Case Files

One of the clearest dangers of prosecutors running for higher office is that ongoing cases become entangled with political ambitions. Tough decisions may be delayed, reversed, or overruled based on how they will play in a campaign. And it is not hypothetical. Allegan County voters saw the dynamics play out directly, as law enforcement over-policed and the then-prosecutor overcharged, culminating in a nearly $8 million courthouse expansion and a judicial seat pursued by a close associate of the prosecutor — both of whom ultimately lost their elections.

Real people bear the cost of these dynamics: defendants waiting on charging decisions, families navigating plea offers, individuals seeking resentencing or relief from wrongful convictions. They don’t experience the system as policy language or campaign platform. They experience it as timing, delay, and outcome.

What Genuine Reform Looks Like

The standard cannot be which prosecutors say they are reformers. It has to be what they do with their power when no one is watching — and what they’re willing to risk when the right decision is unpopular.

Michigan voters — and voters everywhere — should ask every prosecutor running for office a simple question: Are you doing what’s right, or what will get you elected? The answer to that question, not the branding on the campaign website, is what determines whether justice is being served.