Mohave County judges tell supervisors workload study shows county needs more judges, staff and courtroom space

Presiding Judge Moss told the Mohave County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 3 that a workload assessment by the National Center for State Courts found the county’s superior court bench and its support staff are significantly under-resourced.

The report, which used an NCSC methodology and sampled case work across 2021–2023, concluded Mohave County needs roughly 13.66 judges based on a three‑year average and as many as 16.17 judges under current caseload trends. The court now has about 11.1 judges, Moss said, and the gap drives delays and heavier workloads for judges, court reporters, probation officers and clerks.

Why this matters: The judges’ workload affects how quickly criminal and civil cases move through the system, influences jail and probation pressures, and creates downstream demands for prosecutors, public defenders and detention staff. The study frames a multi‑year staffing and facilities ask the court says is needed to meet constitutional and statutory timelines for processing cases.

Judge Moss said the study used a 12‑week sampling window (longer than the six weeks many similar studies use) and a nationwide NCSC algorithm to translate activity into staffing units. He told the board the study shows Mohave judges and their staff are doing “40 to 50% more” work than comparable superior courts the NCSC surveyed and that the county’s per‑capita criminal jury trial rate is among the highest in the state.

Key findings and price tag - Judges: the study’s three‑year average (2021–2023) produced a need for 13.66 judges; using the most recent data point the court estimated a need for 16.17 judges. Moss noted the lower three‑year average partly reflects a COVID‑era dip in filings. - Staffing and support: the court needs additional judicial assistants, court reporters, mediators, probation officers and a law clerk position the court has not historically funded. The report singled out a small mediation unit and chronic shortfalls in court reporters and bailiffs. - Costs: Moss described about $4.3 million in recurring annual costs and roughly $6.3 million in one‑time costs tied largely to courthouse infrastructure (Phase 2b of a historic courthouse project) and one‑time IT and equipment needs.

Moss framed those sums as the resources required to “right‑size” the court over time and cautioned the board that even fully funding the court now would likely require further requests in a few years as population and filings grow.

Questions from supervisors focused on recruitment and retention, local competition, juvenile caseloads and whether the county could phase increases. Supervisor Leppman asked whether Clark County was a recruiting competitor; Moss agreed that Nevada jurisdictions are part of the competitive market for court and public‑sector employees. Supervisor Martin pressed for a short briefing on juvenile caseload trends; Moss said dependency cases have fallen (which he attributed in part to local programs steering children to relatives) while delinquency and juvenile gun incidents have increased and are driving detention and probation demand.

Clerk, probation and detention needs Moss and court administrators told the board the clerk’s office is understaffed and that minimum market starting wages lag recommended benchmarks; the court package requested wage adjustments that it estimates would require a multi‑hundred‑thousand dollar investment. Probation staffing needs are “statutorily driven,” Moss said, and the county’s juvenile detention staffing remains vulnerable to short‑term illnesses and leave because of longstanding vacancies.

Night court feasibility The presentation included a feasibility review of evening ("night") court. Moss said night court has not succeeded in every Arizona jurisdiction and that attorney availability is a major barrier because county attorneys and defense providers are already overworked during daytime hours. Moss proposed a targeted model that would prioritize initial hearings for guardianships, orders of protection and certain family‑law matters where attorneys are not routinely required, and suggested part‑time scheduling might allow the county to expand access without building new courtrooms.

Board reaction and next steps Supervisors thanked the court for the analysis and asked staff to consider phased options. County Manager Andrea Alters said county staff would continue to monitor fiscal impacts and return with information if further action is needed. Moss closed by warning that, even if the board funded an immediate increase, population trends would likely require more judges and staff within a few years.

Quotes “Without these sort of studies, we would come to the board and say we need more or less staff because we have a feeling,” Presiding Judge Moss said. “This gives us some objective data.”

Ending The board did not take a funding vote on Feb. 3. The presentation gives supervisors a data‑driven starting point for budget deliberations and for conversations about courthouse space, recruitment and multi‑year planning; county staff and court officials said they will return with additional budget scenarios and implementation details as requested.