Judicial branch asks for judges, court reporters and continued court-technology funding; court technology modernization ongoing

Keith Bybee, Division Manager of Budget and Policy Analysis, opened the court-operations budget review and said the Judicial Branch’s court operations budget is divided into seven programs and that the Court Technology Fund is primarily supported by filing fees. "Year over year collections in that area are up by 29% for the core technology fund," he said, noting fund balance and ARPA-funded work on court technology.

Sarah Omanson, administrative director of the courts, told the Joint Finance Preparation Committee that the courts have been implementing a multi-year technology and cybersecurity modernization that moves court email, document processing and other systems into cloud-hosted services and improves network security in courthouses. "We started really focusing on cybersecurity," Omanson said, describing measures including multi-factor authentication, an Idaho-specific state court network in each courthouse and Office 365 rollout for court business.

Why it matters: the budget request affects how quickly cases can be processed, whether counties and the Judicial Branch can sustain cybersecurity protections, and whether courts have the judicial capacity to handle caseloads driven by population growth.

Requested judges and reporters

- Judicial compensation: The governor’s budget included a 5% placeholder for judicial compensation; the judiciary’s requested amount for judicial compensation is larger and requires statutory action. Bybee noted the judiciary’s larger request and that any compensation change will need parallel action by the judiciary and the relevant policy committees.

- Judges and magistrates: The Judicial Branch requested a first-district district judge and court reporter (Coeur d’Alene), a seventh-district district judge and court reporter (Idaho Falls), plus two magistrate judges — one in the fifth judicial district (Twin Falls) and one in the seventh district (Bonneville/Idaho Falls) — to address caseloads. Bybee said those judges and two court reporters together comprise the branch’s resource request for judicial additions and associated reporters.

Court technology program and ARPA funding

Omanson explained that the courts began technology upgrades in 2020 with a focus on cybersecurity after observing attacks on courts in other states. Work has included moving the case-management system to the cloud, implementing Office 365 for court business, introducing two-factor authentication and planning a statewide secure network in courthouses. She said most ARPA (State Fiscal Recovery Fund) dollars for court technology are obligated to contracts and that the courts are preparing to execute the physical installations in courthouses.

Local impacts and staffing

Omanson and Bybee emphasized pressures from caseload growth and from an applicant pool that the courts view as narrower than in past years. Omanson said magistrates in Twin Falls open roughly 1,773 cases each during a 249-workday year and that Twin Falls has not received a new magistrate in 35 years; she said the Seventh Judicial District covers a large, sparsely populated area that creates significant travel time and judicial time losses when judges must travel between counties. Omanson said adding magistrates both increases judicial days available and reduces travel-related lost time.

Process notes

Bybee and Omanson described the internal process for judicial requests: trial court administrators across the seven judicial districts collect district requests, the districts and administrative office prioritize requests through the administrative conference, and the Supreme Court justices approve the final judiciary budget submission. County commissions provide facility and support commitments for new judges once the judiciary requests new judges.

Nut graf: The Judicial Branch’s court-operations presentation combined an ongoing court-technology modernization (partly ARPA-funded) and requests for additional judicial officers and court reporters to address caseload pressures. Technology work requires continuing maintenance and rollout costs, and new judges typically require separate statutory or policy action and county facility commitments.

What’s next: Committee members asked for more detail on procurement, vendor options for case-management software, ARPA obligations, and what it would take to recruit and hire targeted staff; the administrative office agreed to provide further information, including an RFI the office plans to issue and a breakdown of outstanding ARPA obligations.

Ending: Omanson closed by emphasizing the courts’ need for a balanced bench and the recruitment challenges the branch faces, noting multiple judge retirements and a decline in applicants with private practice experience.