Judicial branch presses Joint Budget Committee for 29 new judges, courthouse and IT funding

Chief Justice Ronda Marquez told the Joint Budget Committee that the judicial department is requesting resources to reduce an acute workload problem, including a judge bill seeking 29 new judges over two years and ongoing funding for information technology and collections programs.

The chief justice said Colorado’s courts employ about 4,000 people, including roughly 400 judges and magistrates, handle “well over half a million cases” each year, and supervise about 65,000 people on probation. She said judges are working “relentless hours,” and the judge request is geared toward providing relief in districts with the greatest needs rather than fully staffing every court.

The department’s top priorities include additional judges, investment in critical IT infrastructure (including a new virtual court system and replacement of an aging case-management system), and funding to sustain the collections program that returned more than $120 million to victims and programs in fiscal 2024. Steve Vasconcellos, state court administrator’s office, told the committee the department was careful with ARPA dollars and that its only request that partially replaces one‑time funding with ongoing dollars is for the Adult Diversion Grant program created by House Bill 131156.

On the judge bill specifics, Marquez and staff said the request would add a mix of district and county court judges plus one panel for the Court of Appeals. Vasconcellos estimated year‑one costs for the introduced bill at roughly $13 million; the second year would add roughly $9 million for a multi‑year total above $20 million. Chief Judge Michelle Amico of the 18th Judicial District described courthouse caseloads in detail, including increases in emergency family and protection hearings, greater time to process evidence such as body‑worn camera footage, and delays that hurt litigants and children.

Committee members pressed for details on fiscal impact to related offices: public defenders, district attorneys, and county facilities. Vasconcellos said OSPD and the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council have been contacted to allow those offices to plan for any staffing and space needs, and that the judicial branch has reached out to chief judges and county officials about courthouse capacity and space. He said some counties have space or are designing new space, while others will require assistance.

Members also discussed programs that help rural counties: the Courthouse Security Grant and the Underfunded Courthouse Facilities cash fund. The chief justice and Vasconcellos described recent examples where grant funds bought courthouse screening equipment and supported temporary relocation after a courthouse fire. They warned that cutting those grants would cause disproportionate harm in poorer counties that cannot otherwise fund required improvements.

Committee questions also covered offender fees and private probation. Vasconcellos described statutory fee structures (probation supervision fees of $50 per month) and said fees and fee waivers vary by statute and judicial discretion; Chief Justice Marquez cited Chief Justice Directive 85‑31 (guidance on waivers for indigency) as the framework judges use. On the Adult Diversion Grant program (created by House Bill 131156), Vasconcellos said twelve to thirteen programs receive funding and ARPA lifted funding temporarily; the department seeks to restore the line to historic levels (about $400,000 plus modest limited growth).

The department also discussed several smaller grant programs that the committee asked staff about during reductions review, including family violence justice grants, eviction legal defense, and courthouse facility grants. Vasconcellos flagged two possibilities to ease budget pressure: (1) temporary reductions where statutory design allows, and (2) consideration of moving some programs into the Equal Justice special purpose authority created by the General Assembly last year.

Vasconcellos and Chief Justice Marquez closed by urging the committee to weigh the branch’s request in the context of increased workload created by legislative reforms, virtual proceedings, and changes in evidence handling that have lengthened case processing times. They said the judge bill is targeted and measured but will not eliminate all unmet need.

Ending: The committee asked follow‑up questions about fiscal notes, county space, and the ability of other agencies to absorb downstream costs if new judges are approved. The judicial leaders said they would provide location‑level details and public defender/DA capacity information to assist the committee’s fiscal review.