Judiciary committee to send Appropriations memo prioritizing pre‑charge diversion, transport deputies and victim services

Committee members discussed a draft memo to the Appropriations Committee that would present the Judiciary Committee's priorities for supplemental budget requests, with a focus on reducing the court backlog and strengthening victim services.

The committee chair (name not specified) opened by saying the purpose of the memo was to identify “what our priorities are for the budget,” and noted committee liaison Trevor Swirl had provided a list of requests beyond the governor’s recommendation that the committee needed to prioritize.

Members coalesced around three top priorities for the memo: funding pre‑charge diversion programs, adding state transport deputies, and increased support for victims’ services, though they disagreed about the order and whether to fully fund any single item.

Committee debate centered on how to present priorities to Appropriations — the chair proposed ranked 1 through 9, while several members suggested a three‑tier approach (top, middle, bottom) so Appropriations could see which items the Judiciary Committee considered most urgent. The chair said the top two items were the clearest in terms of immediate impact on case movement: pre‑charge diversion and transport deputies, because both affect how quickly matters reach court and therefore the clearance rate.

Several members urged clearer metrics and consequences for each tier. Barbara asked that tier placement be grounded in consequences: “what will happen if this isn't funded, what will be worse than now? What will happen if you get the money? What will be better that you can guarantee will happen as a result of getting the funding?” Kent urged that some items could reduce long‑term costs, saying, “I think what we're trying to do with that is it's going to cut costs, not not cost more.”

Members also discussed components of the state's attorneys' requests. Committee members noted there were items tied to converting limited‑term positions to permanent ones and adding paralegals, administrative support and deputy state's attorneys; the transcript indicates the state's attorneys asked to convert or fill multiple positions but that the committee lacked a full prioritized list from that office. Committee members asked Trevor Swirl to obtain clearer prioritization from the state's attorneys and from the Attorney General's Office before finalizing the memo; the Attorney General's additional request was discussed as a late submission and several members recommended removing or placing it in a lower tier because the committee had not yet received answers about its purpose.

Members repeatedly returned to the court backlog: they cited recently added judges and other tools provided in prior sessions, but said it remained uncertain how much additional funding for prosecutors, defenders or court staff would improve the clearance rate without seeing the initial effects of last year's investments. Some members argued for fully funding a single top priority rather than spreading limited resources thinly across many requests; others preferred to present a tiered list and leave proportional decisions to Appropriations.

The committee discussed specific quantitative items referenced in testimony: a pre‑charge diversion estimate that could divert roughly 600 cases from prosecution if funded; a request to fund 12 transport deputies; a contingency fund request (the draft memo lists a $4,100,000 contingency figure) and a request to convert or fill several deputy state's attorney positions (members referenced four deputies tied to prior approvals and up to 10 conversion requests). Committee members stressed they would not order where funded positions must be deployed but asked the state's attorneys to explain priorities for staffing and support roles.

No formal votes were taken at the meeting. The committee agreed to refine the memo — likely adopting a tiered presentation and removing the Attorney General's item from the top list until additional information is provided — and to ask staff (Trevor Swirl) to secure clarifying prioritization and cost totals from agencies before the memo is finalized for Appropriations, with committee members noting a March timeline for budget activity.

Ending: The Judiciary Committee plans to finalize and transmit a prioritized memo to the Appropriations Committee after staff gather additional prioritization and cost information from the state's attorneys and the Attorney General's Office. The committee emphasized the urgency of addressing the backlog and supporting victim services while acknowledging constrained fiscal resources and that Appropriations and broader budget negotiations will determine final allocations.