Pattern Speech
Pattern Remarks
The remarks below are intended for modification and use by those speaking on state court funding.
Today, I would like to talk to you about the funding crisis facing our state courts. Like so many of our counterparts in other states, we here in _______________ opened the door to the 21st century and found a wolf lying in wait. Our state government is experiencing perhaps its worst budget crisis since the Depression.
Right now, deep cuts are being made in public education, law enforcement and health care budgets - areas once considered sacrosanct. We all can understand the pain and suffering when we see a senior citizen forced to choose between food and medicine because a beleaguered state government has cut medical benefits. And we easily understand something is seriously amiss when schools are forced to close early for summer because state government is no longer providing its appropriate share of funding.
By comparison, though, victims of an unfair or inaccessible justice system are harder to locate. And that is why the legal profession plays such an important role in defending the judicial branch during these tough economic times in government.
We must continually remind public officials, opinion leaders and yes, citizens, that in our American democracy the judicial branch of government is co-equal with the executive and legislative branches. Courts are not just another state agency.
Courts must administer justice regardless of how many people walk through the courthouse door. Our system of government guarantees Americans that they are innocent until proven guilty; provides Americans access to a fair and impartial judge who can resolve disputes; and protects the rights of individuals against a tyranny of the majority. Without access to the courts, the rule of law is threatened.
State courts of course share in the responsibility of maintaining fiscal integrity in challenging economic times, but reductions can go too far and threaten basic constitutional rights.
<Name of state here> state government has already undertaken a variety of cost-cutting attempts. We have <Give three or so examples of cuts made to state courts>. More may be coming.
Our high-volume courts-those that hear family and juvenile matters, misdemeanors and quality-of-life issues-are feeling the brunt of these budget cuts. It is these courts that, more often than not help the most vulnerable in our communities: battered women seeking protection orders, abused and neglected children, and victims of vandalism and theft. And there are courts that have an important economic impact on individuals and small businesses — courts that handle probate, landlord-tenant disputes and small claims.
Many of you here in this room have witnessed first-hand the result of these reductions: restricted access to justice. Each day, families, businesses and individuals turn to our overloaded courts to resolve civil disputes, provide a forum for criminal complaints and settle matters with important financial ramifications. Increasingly, however, their reward is not timely resolution of issues, but the frustration of having to wait-and wait, and wait-because access to our courts has been significantly diminished. This diminishing return, if you will, is a direct cost of funding losses. As we all are aware, too often justice delayed is justice denied.
Under speedy trial rules-a right, by the way, which is increasingly threatened by our current funding crisis, as dockets are getting longer and available resources are getting smaller-courts that are forced to hear criminal cases before civil matters may never get to the civil matters, or not any time soon. Such a breakdown in the civil justice system harms all of us.
Consider, please, that people in <give name of city, county or state, as most effective/appropriate here> who have suffered discrimination in housing or employment must be able to look to the courts for redress and for their civil rights to be upheld. Corporations and small businesses in all of our communities must be able to enforce contracts and defend themselves against lawsuits. Economic growth and stable business relationships are endangered when the civil justice system is not working at its best.
When access to the justice system is severely diminished, then we lawyers, as guardians of justice, have failed in our mission. Justice, after all, is a promise to all, one that all officers of the court are sworn to uphold. But when courts are unable to hear civil cases in a timely fashion, only those with the most resources are able to afford justice through private dispute resolution and not through publicly funded courts-a service to which all of us, rich or poor, contribute.
Everyday liberties and freedoms, which are the definition of American life, are jeopardized when a robust, fair and independent judiciary is in peril. In our present financial state, this peril is all too real.
The fact is that the current funding crisis exerts a disproportionate impact on the judicial system. Justice in Jeopardy, the new report by the American Bar Association Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary, reports that nationally court systems on average receive only about 1.5 percent of states' budget allocations. Any reduction is, clearly, immediately felt.
The report is a wide-ranging study of the future of the judiciary that explains why it is important to preserve the judiciary's institutional legitimacy. I will mention a few of the recommendations that apply to our financial crisis:
- 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.
I, too, urge us here in the <state/local Bar Association> to press our state legislature to adopt similar minimum funding standards. Adoption of such standards not only serves to protect the work and independence of our courts; it also can assist our legislature in assessing whether and how deeply the judiciary's budget can be cut without impeding the state's responsibility to administer justice.
All of us here-whether as members of the <insert state/local bar name here> or as people concerned about the quality of life in our communities-are joined in a common purpose: equal access to justice by all, via an independent judiciary. I encourage each of you be a part of the process that can help make that goal a reality, by committing to supporting the adoption of minimum funding standards by our state's legislature.
Thank you, very much, for your time and attention today.
