Senate panel advances judges bill after trimming public‑defender and Bridges funding

Senate Appropriations Committee members voted to advance Senate Bill 24, a measure to add judicial officers and related court resources, after adopting several amendments that changed how some downstream agency funding is handled.

The committee adopted L001 and J002 to the bill and later approved J004, an amendment that removes the bill’s appropriations for the Office of the State Public Defender and the Bridges of Colorado program. The committee recorded a 5‑to‑2 vote on the amendment and a final 5‑to‑2 vote to advance the bill out of committee.

The dispute centered on whether the fiscal impacts for public defenders and Bridges of Colorado should be packaged with the judge additions or handled separately through the regular budget (the long bill) and joint budget committee (JBC) processes. Senator Kirkmeyer, who moved J004, said he wanted those agencies to present their staffing and funding requests through the budget process rather than have them “baked in” to this bill. He told the committee: “I just wanna make sure that it is very clear that the out years are subject to available appropriation.”

Alfredo Kim, Joint Budget Committee staff, explained the budget mechanics: “This general assembly cannot bind future general assemblies on appropriations.” Kim said the fiscal note reflects what departments estimate they will need to implement the bill, but that future legislatures can unwind those appropriations in statute if funds are not available.

Senator Roberts, one of the bill sponsors, pressed for keeping downstream costs tied to the judge additions. “We have a constitutional obligation to provide representation to indigent defendants,” Roberts said, saying increases in judges logically require corresponding public‑defender resources based on historical docket workloads.

Senator Bridges and others expressed concern about the size of the public‑defender and Bridges requests in a constrained budget year. Bridges said the committee had been told the bill was principally about judges and that the additional agency costs were not part of earlier conversations. “We don’t have a constitutional obligation to fund Bridges,” Bridges said in opposition to including that program’s appropriation in the bill itself.

Committee staff and several senators also discussed procedural options to flag multi‑year costs for the long bill process, including adding a footnote or JBC flag to ensure future figure setting does not miss the appropriations implied by the bill. Kim said he would flag the item for next year’s budget work if the committee requests it.

J004, described by its sponsor as deleting appropriations, was explained in committee testimony as removing an initial $475,405 in FY 2025–26 for the state public defender that proponents said grows to nearly $6 million and about 55 FTE by FY 2027–28, and removing roughly $80,000 in FY 2025–26 for Bridges of Colorado that proponents said grows to about $725,000 and nearly 6 FTE by FY 2027–28. (Those numbers were presented orally to the committee as part of amendment debate.)

Several senators urged caution about the downstream costs of adding judges, including impacts on criminal, juvenile and family dockets and on competency restoration and associated fines. Supporters of including the fiscal impacts argued the full costs give legislators the information needed to decide whether to add judges.

Votes at committee: • J004 (amendment to remove appropriations to the state public defender and Bridges of Colorado): adopted, 5‑2. • L001 and J002 (appropriation and legislative changes tied to the judges bill): adopted (committee recorded L001 passed; J002 passed; roll‑call tallies for those committee votes were not recorded in the transcript beyond the chair’s announcement). • Final committee action to advance Senate Bill 24: passed, 5‑2.

The committee recorded named yes/no responses during roll calls (using the transcript’s recorded names) when available. Several senators urged that affected agencies present detailed budget requests to the joint budget committee during long‑bill figure setting if the bill moves forward.

If enacted, proponents said the measure aims to reduce court backlogs and improve access across criminal, juvenile and family dockets; opponents said the Legislature should review and approve the downstream staffing and operating costs through the normal budget process.

The committee moved the bill to the next stage; additional floor‑level debate and votes are expected if the bill advances.