Judiciary priorities: committee weighs judges’ pay, courtroom audio upgrades and new treatment courts

The Appropriations — Education and Environment Division reviewed the Judicial Branch budget (Senate Bill 2002), with Representative Hansen outlining the branch’s priority list and committee members probing salary comparisons, operational needs and new positions.

Hansen said the branch requested funds to raise judges’ compensation to the national midpoint; doing so would cost about $2.1 million, and the Senate’s version fell roughly $236,000 short of that figure. Members asked whether comparisons to other states included benefits; staff said the branch’s worksheet suggested fringe was included but committed to confirm the basis of the national comparison.

Committee members discussed a requested 3% pay‑plan adjustment to the judicial compensation grid (about $2,000,000) and a range of operational items the judiciary listed as high priorities. Representative Hansen flagged courtroom audio and video systems (the judiciary asked about $1.6 million and the Senate funded roughly half), credit card processing and bank fees (a $293,000 request; Senate funded $200,000), and interpreter funding (requested $125,000, Senate funded $60,000) as items to consider restoring in full.

Lawmakers also discussed programmatic priorities the judiciary listed as medium or lower priorities: adding three new treatment courts (about $373,000), expanding family mediation capacity, and increasing Guardian ad Litem funding (the branch requested $935,000; the Senate provided $470,000). Committee members said treatment courts and family mediation may produce return on investment by reducing recidivism and trial costs.

The judiciary also requested multiple new FTEs. Members expressed particular interest in juvenile court positions and administrative support staff; staff put each administrative assistant’s full biennium cost (salary plus benefits and fringe) at about $182,000. The allied legal professional program and court navigator positions were discussed as longer‑term projects that could improve access to services but would require multi‑year development.

Representative Hansen asked staff to compile a prioritized list of items for possible amendment; members agreed to consider restoring some partially funded items and to take a closer look at judicial pay and selected FTEs. No final votes or formal amendments were recorded in the provided transcript excerpt.

Ending: The committee asked for follow‑up on benefit‑inclusion for the national salary comparison, confirmation of precise cost estimates for FTEs and a list of priority items for amendment drafting before the committee’s next action on SB 2002.