(1) Concurrent jurisdiction plans shall be designed to benefit the citizens utilizing the courts involved rather than the courts themselves or any judge or judges.

    (2) A judge voting not to have a plan of concurrent jurisdiction under this chapter may file an objection with the state court administrator. An objection must specifically state the reasons for the objection and may include, but not be limited to, objections based on insufficient allocation of staff or resources, inadequate training for any judge or staff, excessive assignments outside of a judge’s election district, or retaliation for any action, including failing to vote for a concurrent jurisdiction plan.

    (3) Subject to approval of the supreme court, before the supreme court approves a concurrent jurisdiction plan under this chapter, the state court administrator shall review objections under this section and report the substance of the objections and the administrator’s findings about the objections’ validity to the supreme court. Subject to approval of the supreme court, the state court administrator shall forward a proposed concurrent jurisdiction plan to the supreme court for review after affirmatively finding that the proposed concurrent jurisdiction plan is in compliance with this chapter and the best interests of the people of the communities being served.