Summary of Issues and ABA Policies
Issues
State court budgets are perceived by many in the courts and the legal profession to be vulnerable, particularly during times of budget crises. The possibility of reductions in court funding in response to unpopular judicial decisions also raises concerns about the impact of legislative appropriations on the independence of courts and judges. Court budgets also are strained when new actions (such as the hiring of additional police and prosecutors without a concomitant increase in judicial staffing) create higher caseloads and additional adjudicative and administrative responsibilities for the courts.
Status
During the current economic downturn, court budgets have been dramatically reduced in several states. It is not clear, however, whether an improved economic climate will ameliorate current court funding problems, since both economic and political factors impact court budgets. For example,
- In Alabama, jury trials were temporarily suspended in 2002 due to lack of funds, although emergency funds were made available to resume trials.
- In California, courtrooms and courthouses are being closed and staff layoffs continue, as an additional $7 million was cut from the Los Angeles County Superior Court alone.
- In Kansas, budget cuts forced the Supreme Court to take the unusual step of imposing a $5 emergency surcharge on all case filings to prevent the courts from shutting down altogether.
- In Massachusetts, the judicial branch experienced a $40 million deficit in 2002, with additional cuts anticipated in 2003. The courts have lost over 1,000 employees through attrition and layoffs.
- In Oregon, which is experiencing perhaps the most severe state budget crisis, all courts are closed to the public on Fridays and state courts are not hearing any nonviolent misdemeanor or small claims cases.
- A partisan conflict over court rulings on legislative redistricting in North Carolina contributed to threatened cuts in court funding that were widely perceived to be retaliatory. The intervention of the judiciary and bar helped to restore some funding to the courts, but continued state budget woes are likely to result in future cuts.
- Many other states report decreases in funds for alternative dispute resolution and pro se assistance programs, judicial education, court staff, interpreters, technology, and security.
ABA Position
The 1988 Dash report on "Criminal Justice in Crisis" noted the need for increased resources, and the Special Committee on Funding the Justice System published four reports on funding in the states from 1992 through 1996. The ABA also co-sponsored the 1995 National Interbranch Conference on Funding the Courts. All of these reports express strong support for adequate funding of state court systems, and consider issues such as court unification and less reliance on purely local funding as means to ensure more reliable and consistent funding.
Most recently, in 2003, the ABA Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary released its report, Justice in Jeopardy, a wide-ranging study of the future of the judiciary that explains why it is important to preserve the judiciary's institutional legitimacy. The report makes recommendations on court funding, continuing the ABA's support for dedicated court resources. These recommendations are:
- Establishing minimum funding standards for judicial systems. Rather than set a minimum dollar amount for state appropriations to courts, these standards could isolate the core functions that a judicial system must perform and the critical services it must provide, which states can then use as a guide when determining funding allocations.
- Segregating the judiciary's budget from that of the political branches and presenting it to the legislature for approval with a minimum of non-transferable line itemization;
- Creating independent commissions to establish judicial salaries;
- Promoting inter-branch communication as a means to avoid unnecessary
controversies over court funding and structural reform of courts.
