Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supreme Court outlines judiciary budget needs and technology grants as part of HB 96 hearing
Summary
Robert Horner, administrative director of the Supreme Court of Ohio, told the Senate Finance Committee on April 8 that 72% of the court’s FY26–27 budget request is statutorily required for judicial and appellate compensation, leaving a smaller portion for technology, education and access initiatives.
Robert Horner, administrative director of the Supreme Court of Ohio, told the Ohio Senate Finance Committee on April 8 that the largest portion of the court’s proposed FY26–27 biennium budget is statutorily required pay for judges and appellate employees.
"54% of the budget ... is compensation that is already statutorily required with respect to the payment of Ohio's judges," Horner said. "[An] additional 18% of the budget is required with respect to the courts of appeals employees. That brings us to a total of 72% of this budget [that] is statutorily mandated."
That framing was Horner’s lede to a broader presentation about the court’s request in House Bill 96 and how the court plans to use the remainder of discretionary funding. He identified three priorities the non‑mandated portion supports: modernizing Ohio’s courts, strengthening the judiciary through education, and expanding access to legal services.
On technology, Horner and court staff described the Ohio Courts Network (OCN) as a statewide case data hub that already connects about 99% of courts and helps share case data with justice partners. The court administers technology grants, which the witnesses said have funded more than 77 projects over the last two years and have been prioritized this biennium for e‑filing and case‑management systems that enable e‑filing. "We get anywhere from $8 to $12,000,000 in requests for technology grant funding and we can fund only about 25% of that," Chief Financial Officer Rhonda Carver said; she added the court typically funds about $2.8–$3.0 million from the tech grant each year after a roughly $800,000 OCN maintenance allocation.
Horner and Stephanie Nelson, director of court services, also described judicial education and case‑management assistance: the court’s judicial college offers nearly 400 judicial‑branch programs and its case‑management unit helps local courts shorten time to decision. Horner highlighted civic‑education efforts, including off‑site oral arguments in rural counties and a planned women‑in‑the‑law exhibit at the court.
Committee members questioned the court about judge pay comparisons, the process for assigning visiting judges and possible redistricting of appellate districts. Carver said Ohio common‑pleas judges ranked 44th of 50 states by nominal pay as of January 1, but after cost‑of‑living adjustments the state is nearer 29th. On judicial assignments, Horner said the chief justice makes assignment decisions and that the court’s process emphasizes geography, time and case characteristics; he said he was unaware that party affiliation is used as a criterion.
Senators also raised e‑filing access for local courts. Nelson and Carver said many courts still lack e‑filing portals and that demand for grants to build e‑filing remains higher than available funds. Horner said the court conducts webinars and designates grant funds to help courts comply with recently enacted e‑filing requirements (cited in testimony as SB94).
The hearing was informational; no committee votes were taken on the court’s budget during the session.
