Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supreme Court proposes wide court‑fee increases; committee pauses for rewrite
Summary
State court administrator presented a broad package (SB 2057) to raise multiple civil and criminal court fees, including filing fees and administrative fees; the Judiciary Committee closed the hearing but did not act pending a reorganization and language clean-up and further review of fiscal impacts.
The State Court Administrator presented Senate Bill 2057, a bill that would increase a wide range of civil and criminal court fees, and the Senate Judiciary Committee closed the hearing without taking action so staff could prepare a clarified, reorganized draft.
Sally Halema, introduced as the state court administrator, told the committee that many filing and administrative fees have not changed since the mid‑1990s and that fee amounts have not kept pace with inflation and rising court-administration costs. "Every service has a cost," Halema said, arguing that some fees should be increased to shift more of the direct service cost from general taxpayers to users of court services.
Key proposals in testimony included raising the Supreme Court filing fee (from $125 to $250); doubling civil filing and family case filing fees (civil filing from $80 to $160; family case filing from $80 to $160 with adjusted splits to raise funding for civil legal services and displaced‑homemaker/adult‑learning funds); raising small‑claims and other clerks’ fees (small claims $10 to $20); and increasing certain criminal fees, including the criminal court administration fee, the court administration/indigent defense court facility fee, and a community service supervision fee.
Halema said civil legal services funding (currently $15 per civil filing fee up to a capped fund) would be increased to $30 per fee and she recommended raising the fund cap. She also explained that some fees vary by whether a clerk is a county or state employee; fees deposited in county general funds would remain local while state clerk fees would go to the state's general fund.
Senators asked for clarification and suggested the bill's structure be improved; several committee members said the draft was disorganized, with related fees scattered. Senator Castaneda asked whether the fiscal-note revenue increases (quoted as over $6 million) require referral to Appropriations; the chair said she would check before any committee action. The committee agreed to allow the court administrator to return with an amended, better-ordered bill and the Judiciary Committee took no vote on SB 2057 at this session.
What happened: testimony closed with no opposition recorded and the committee postponed action so staff could prepare a clearer amendment and verify any referrals required by fiscal thresholds.
What to watch: the committee asked the sponsor to return with an amendment that reorganizes the fee changes and clarifies which funds receive the increases, and to confirm whether the estimated revenue triggers an Appropriations referral.
