The Alaska Senate Finance Judiciary Budget Subcommittee on March 5 received an FY26 budget overview from the Alaska Court System and its independent judicial agencies and was told that pending criminal caseloads have returned to pre‑pandemic levels but that delays measured by time to disposition and continuances remain concerns.

The presentation, led by Noah Klein, associate counsel for the Alaska Court System, covered the judiciary's FY25 spending breakdown, a correction to a fund source error, and the court's FY26 continuation requests. Klein told the committee that “the word backlog is a bit of a misnomer. We are currently at pre pandemic levels in terms of cases waiting for disposition,” while also acknowledging ongoing time‑to‑disposition issues. Senators pressed the court for more data about continuances, how often they are granted or denied, and how many involve defendants detained pretrial.

Why it matters: Senators framed the inquiry as a performance and cost question. Continuances can lengthen cases, affecting victims’ expectations, agency workloads and the operations of prosecutors, public defenders and corrections. Committee members sought data the court system does not currently maintain in readily extractable fields and asked the court to follow up in writing.

Budget and fund‑source items
Noah Klein said the judiciary’s total FY26 request is roughly $159 million, which includes the Judicial Council and the Commission on Judicial Conduct. He described the Alaska Court System’s portion at about $157 million and said the court system represents roughly 1.5% of statewide unrestricted general fund (UGF) spending.

Klein identified a technical correction in supplemental bill language: approximately $10,000,000 of the court system’s base budget had been incorrectly attributed to American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for FY25. He described the requested change as a fund‑source correction from UGF to UGF, which the Office of Management and Budget and Legislative Finance called deficit neutral.

Continuing operating increments the court requested include:
- $534,300 (facility cost increases — utilities, janitorial and maintenance charges; this amount would need to be added by the Legislature),
- $365,000 (to align statutory‑mandated court visitor program staffing and hours after the program moved from the Office of Public Advocacy in FY23),
- $170,000 (to cover pay increases for executive‑branch employees who work with therapeutic courts), and
- $92,000 (to cover the balance of two therapeutic‑courts competency calendar positions as mental health trust funding has not kept pace with total cost).

Non‑UGF requests include $158,300 (majority funding for the two therapeutic‑court positions noted above) and receipt authority for $200,000 from the Child Support Division to fund an additional early resolution project position in the Family Law Self‑Help Center.

Discussion on backlog, continuances and data gaps
Senators — including Senator Myers and Senator Klayman — pressed court staff for data about continuances and time to disposition. Senator Myers asked several specific data questions: “approximately what percentage of continuances involve defendants that are still in jail awaiting trial?” and whether the court could provide the average number of continuances per case by offense level and denial rates for continuance requests over the last five fiscal years.

Court staff repeatedly said some of the requested statistics are not maintained in discrete, readily extractable fields. Noah Klein and Nancy Mead told the committee CourtView, the case management system, records continuance requests and outcomes, but the court does not maintain a single database tracking pretrial detention status, bail outcomes or detailed, cross‑agency cost estimates tied to continuances. Mead said the court “does not keep bail information, specifics that were ordered in a particular case in a data field.”

Mead and Klein described steps taken or under consideration to reduce delays: presiding judges’ orders limiting continuances, trailing calendars, and discussion of a possible criminal rule change to give judges more authority to manage dockets. Senator Klayman said he “applaud[s] the court on that effort,” referring to potential rule changes and presiding judge orders.

Training and outside reviews
Committee members noted repeated external reviews and assistance on caseflow management. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) provided training and technical assistance; court officials said recent NCSC work (including assistance in October 2024 and related reports) had raised awareness and the court had seen improvement in recent months. The committee also discussed prior reviews referenced in the record from 2009–2011. Klein and Mead cautioned that training alone cannot resolve systemic delays given increasing discovery complexity, technology‑heavy evidence and varying agency resources.

Follow up and next steps
Senators asked the court to supply written responses and any available data. Mead agreed to look for or compile additional information where feasible and to provide written answers to the committee’s questions. Senator Myers said he would forward relevant NCSC reports to legislative staff for distribution. The court did not request additional UGF program expansions beyond the increments listed; senators indicated they would consider adding the facility increment during budget deliberations.

No formal votes were taken during the session. Committee members closed the meeting after asking staff to transmit follow‑up questions and materials.

Sources and attribution: The article summarizes testimony and exchanges on March 5 before the Senate Finance Judiciary Budget Subcommittee. Direct quotes are attributed to Noah Klein, associate counsel, Alaska Court System; Nancy Mead, court system staff; and Senator Myers and Senator Klayman, both members of the subcommittee.