Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary And Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves pay increase for Idaho judges after floor debate
Summary
The Idaho House passed House Bill 3-22 to raise judicial salaries; sponsors framed the change as needed to retain and recruit judges, while supporters called it a step that keeps judicial compensation more competitive with neighboring states.
The Idaho House on March 3 passed House Bill 3-22, a pay increase for state judges intended to improve recruitment and retention.
The bill sponsor described judges leaving the bench and returning to private practice because of comparatively low pay, saying the proposal raises judges’ salaries by about $17,000 each (roughly a 10–11% increase depending on level) while preserving existing pay differentials across court levels. "We must support an independent judiciary by at least bringing the pay up," the sponsor said on the floor, adding the increase is scaled to be achievable in the current session.
Several members spoke in favor of the bill on the floor, saying a better salary range is needed to attract attorneys from private practice and to prevent mid-career departures. Representative, District 26 and Representative, District 25 spoke as cosponsors and supporters, describing statewide recruitment and retention concerns and noting Idaho’s comparative rank near the bottom for judicial pay among neighboring states.
The House recorded a roll-call vote and the measure passed by a clear majority (57 ayes, 13 nays). The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
Supporters said the bill keeps judicial differentials intact and provides targeted increases intended to stop a trend of judges leaving the bench early. Opponents on the floor offered no chained amendments; floor debate emphasized job market comparisons and public-service considerations rather than programmatic costs.
If enacted, the change would adjust salary schedules set in statute; the bill text preserves existing differential relationships among judicial levels.
