Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Advocates press for civil legal aid, restorative‑justice funding and elimination of court security fee
Loading...
Summary
Community legal aid providers, restorative‑justice groups and public commenters urged the Joint Finance Committee to fund civil legal services, expand restorative justice programs and move court security fees to the General Fund, citing access to counsel and equity concerns.
During public comment at the Joint Finance Committee hearing, legal‑aid and community organizations urged lawmakers to increase funding for civil indigent legal services and restorative justice programs and to consider eliminating court fees that are levied only on convicted defendants.
Dan Atkins, executive director of Community Legal Aid Society (CLASI), asked the committee to fund civil legal services at a higher level than the longstanding $600,000 state allocation. Atkins said the Joint Finance Committee had recommended $1 million in the governor’s supplemental proposal for FY26, and explained that without increased state support CLASI must close intake in key programs because of limited funds: “Due to funding limitations though, we have to close intake for our public benefits unit after the first week of each month,” Atkins said.
Representatives of restorative justice programs and victim‑offender mediation (VOMP) asked for more operating support. Amy Sheres of People’s Place and other mediators said demand for restorative programs has grown and that wait lists are impairing the programs’ ability to resolve low‑level offenses before they clog courts. “We currently have a wait list for all family‑court related programs,” People’s Place said in testimony shared with the committee. One presenter cited national research, saying restorative justice programs reduce recidivism, and urged continued funding to maintain mediation capacity.
Several speakers called for eliminating the court security fee, a surcharge imposed when a defendant is convicted. Advocates said relying on conviction‑based fees creates inequities and a perverse revenue stream; witnesses urged the legislature to move that revenue to the General Fund or otherwise replace it so public safety functions are not tied to conviction rates. Lynn Kielhorn and other advocates asked the committee to reintroduce and act on legislation modeled on last year’s fee‑elimination proposals (mentioned in testimony as HB 391).
The topic of expulsions and second‑chance relief also arose in multiple presentations. Kevin O'Connell, chief defender at the Office of Defense Services, described ODS’s second‑chance and expungement work: in 2024 the office reviewed roughly 2,400 records through intake and assisted on discretionary and mandatory expungements, pardons and juvenile relief. He said staff time for that work often comes from small, dedicated teams who support attorneys preparing petitions and records.
Commenters said investments in civil legal services, restorative programs and fairer fee structures would reduce downstream costs: advocates argued that preventing evictions, restoring benefits and resolving low‑level disputes out of court leads to better social and fiscal outcomes.
Committee members asked for data on program results and recidivism where available; presenters said quarterly and national data exist for mediation programs and that CLASI and People’s Place can provide more detailed program metrics to the committee during markup.
