Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislature restores $3 million to Supreme Court for problem-solving courts
Summary
The Nebraska Legislature on a 26-17 vote adopted AM 13‑79, restoring $3 million to the Supreme Court budget to fund problem‑solving courts and probation services after floor debate about budget tradeoffs and public‑safety impacts.
The Nebraska Legislature on May 20 adopted an amendment to the mainline budget that restores $3 million in general funds to the Nebraska Supreme Court to support problem‑solving courts and probation services. The amendment, AM 13‑79, was offered by Senator Holcroft and passed on a 26‑17 roll call vote.
Lawmakers said the restored funding will preserve courts that handle mental‑health, veterans, DUI and drug cases with the goal of reducing recidivism and redirecting people into treatment rather than jail. “This amendment is about preserving public safety, fiscal responsibility, and core judicial services that are delivering results,” Senator Holcroft said when she introduced the amendment.
Supporters — including senators who described conversations with county attorneys, judges and practitioners — emphasized cost and outcome data presented during debate. Senator Holcroft cited reduced recidivism and cost savings, saying graduates of Nebraska’s problem‑solving courts have a recidivism rate of “19 percent,” and that program participation costs “$4,400 per participant annually compared to $41,000 for incarceration.” Senator John Kavanaugh and Senator Duncan described the courts as evidence‑based alternatives that lower reoffending and reduce corrections spending.
Opponents on the Appropriations Committee argued the Supreme Court has sufficient cash balances to operate through the current fiscal year and can request additional funds in January if needed. Senator Clements, speaking in opposition, said his information indicated the court “has enough funding in the first year to maintain these programs and that they might run short in the second year” and urged the court to request deficit spending later if required.
Debate also touched on larger budget pressures that framed the amendment: a forecasting board revenue revision, a multi‑hundred‑million dollar shortfall addressed with a mix of cash fund transfers and spending adjustments elsewhere in LB 261 and LB 264, and pending capital plans that senators said could increase future costs.
After the roll call the clerk recorded “26 a, 17 nays” and the presiding officer declared AM 13‑79 adopted. The amendment restored the $3 million reduction that had been included in the Appropriations Committee amendment to LB 261; the bill remains in the select file process with other pending modifications.
Supporters said the restoration reduces the risk that ongoing participants will be removed from long‑term programs that require months to years of supervision and services; opponents said the court can reallocate cash funds or seek relief later. The budget debate will continue as senators consider remaining amendments and the overall biennial funding plan.
