Judicial branch requests $251.1 million for FY2026; court leaders warn cuts would hinder services and cybersecurity work

The Kansas Judicial Branch presented a fiscal 2026 budget request of $251,100,000 to the Committee on General Government Budget, with judicial leaders warning that reductions would hamper court operations, cybersecurity work and access-to-justice programs.

Molly Pratt, a fiscal analyst with the Legislative Research Department, told the committee that the branch’s FY2026 request is being compared to an approved FY2025 base of about $222.2 million and that the first seven items in the FY2026 request were enhancement requests later deleted by the Legislative Budget Committee (LBC). She outlined multiple requested enhancements, including a $6.5 million state general fund (SGF) request to raise nonjudicial employee salaries 5%; $3.0 million for specialty treatment courts; $3.7 million one‑time to create a student‑focused Judicial Learning Center in the Kansas Judicial Center; and $1.7 million for IT development projects.

Chief Justice Marla Lukert told the committee the branch remains overwhelmingly salary driven, with "approximately 90% of the budget" dedicated to judges’ and employees’ pay and benefits. She said House Bill 207 would cut resources the branch relies on and listed several specific concerns: a $3.0 million reduction in the nonjudge salary base, an $840,853 reappropriation that LBC deleted, and the removal of enhancement requests that she characterized as core work necessary to implement cybersecurity and continuity requirements from prior legislation. "House Bill 207 seriously jeopardizes our ability to meet even the bare minimum," Lukert said, pointing to the combined effects of cuts and deleted enhancements.

Pratt and Lukert described cybersecurity and IT spending as a major driver of the FY2026 request. The branch’s revised FY2025 estimate included additional all‑funds amounts for information services and security: Pratt said the estimate "adds $3,000,000 to monitor and protect against external threats," with $2,400,000 planned for information‑systems consulting and computer software. FY2026 enhancement requests included $1,700,000 (about $1,600,000 SGF) for projects such as a credentialing database, a digital evidence platform and an employee management system; $841,000 SGF for software and training; and additional funding for eCourt services to improve public e‑filing and case access.

Lukert highlighted six requests she described as core court services totaling roughly $1.8 million: a secure jury management system, an upgraded Kansas District Court Public Access Portal, a statewide speech‑to‑text program to supplement a shortage of certified court reporters, a uniform digital evidence solution, expanded municipal court training, and a human resources system for performance, learning and evaluations. She detailed the reporter shortage: "The Kansas Judicial Branch now finds itself that statewide, it has only 73 certified court reporters," a shortfall she said affects timely production of transcripts.

On access to justice, the branch requested $800,000 SGF for grants and services to help self‑represented litigants and to translate court forms. Pratt said the request would include $350,000 to move filing portals to new interfaces and $50,000 to translate forms, with the remainder to increase access‑to‑justice grants and create a competitive grant for "innovative resolution of criminal issues." Representative questions and subsequent committee discussion noted that the Legislative Budget Committee’s motion had deleted the $200,000 referenced by some speakers for a competitive expungement grant; Pratt confirmed that the item had been captured by the LBC motion and was not included in the bill the committee was reviewing.

Representatives asked whether eCourt improvements would change revenue from filing fees. Pratt and Lukert said some filing fees are deposited to the state general fund, but neither could provide data showing whether easier self‑filing would materially increase net SGF receipts. Lukert said increased access might raise filings but added, "I don't have the data to back that."

Kansas Legal Services (KLS) Executive Director Keenan addressed the committee after the judiciary presentation and urged restoration and renewal of expungement clinic funding. Keenan said KLS represented about 23,000 Kansans last year and that expungement clinics are a "crown jewel" of their work. He told the committee the $200,000 appropriated previously should be renewed and proposed increasing the line to $300,000 to fund driver’s‑license restoration and expungement clinics in more counties. Keenan said some funding for KLS expungement work had passed through the Office of Judicial Administration in prior years but noted the court’s current budget did not include the KLS request.

Committee members and agency staff provided operational clarifications throughout. Stephanie Smith, Judicial Administrator for the Judicial Branch, supplied data on the credit‑monitoring reappropriation tied to a prior security incident: she said about 31,100 people enrolled in monitoring and the branch spent about $157,000 to date, with $129,000 in the prior fiscal year and $28,000 so far in the current fiscal year. Smith said the credit‑monitoring signup window would remain open through the end of FY2025.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the Judicial Branch request during the hearing. The LBC deletions of enhancement requests and the reappropriation item were described by presenters as decisions already made by the Legislative Budget Committee and therefore reflected in the materials under consideration.

What happens next: Judiciary staff said they will stand for follow‑up questions and provide additional details at the committee’s next meeting; committee leadership announced it would continue recommendations on a later date.

Ending: The Judicial Branch presentation closed after a question period and the committee moved to other agency presentations. The budget requests and LBC deletions the committee heard will be part of the committee’s deliberations and recommendations at subsequent sessions.