Judicial Branch seeks judges and completes multi‑year court technology upgrade; ARPA funds obligated, counties weigh implementation

The Idaho Judicial Branch told the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee on Jan. 23 that a multi‑year court technology modernization project is largely contracted and underway, and that the branch is requesting additional judicial positions to address rising caseloads and travel burdens in several districts.

Keith Bybee, Division Manager of Budget Policy Analysis, summarized the Court Operations budget and highlighted two central items in the FY2026 request: judicial compensation (a governor's placeholder of a 5% increase appears in the budget) and several new judges/magistrates and court reporters the courts asked the Legislature to authorize. Sarah Omanson, administrative director of courts, and judges and staff accompanied the presentation and fielded committee questions.

Why it matters: The courts said they are implementing a significant cybersecurity and infrastructure upgrade — moving court email and case work to controlled, court‑managed systems and deploying multi‑factor authentication and a state court network in county courthouses — to protect sensitive records. The branch also argued a shortage of judges in some counties is creating lengthy travel and case delays.

Court technology, ARPA funding and county rollout - ARPA funding and obligations: The Judicial Branch received about $19.9 million from the American Rescue Plan Act (State Fiscal Recovery Fund) for court technology work. The branch reported it has contracted and obligated the ARPA dollars and is in the process of executing the remaining work; the agency asked the committee to reappropriate approximately $16 million to carry the multiyear contracts forward. - Objectives and status: Omanson described a multi‑year program to harden cybersecurity and create a state court network, roll out Office 365 for court business and centralize court records and email to protect sensitive data. "We don't anticipate being done with that entire project until the end of 2026," Omanson said. The branch indicated Office 365 rollout is approximately 80% complete and two‑factor authentication is preparing to roll out. - County implementation approach: The courts are installing state‑managed networks and offering counties two options: use state‑managed equipment on the state network or keep county desktops but access court systems via a state‑hosted (cloud) desktop; Omanson said the branch is trying to balance cybersecurity requirements and county preferences while minimizing county costs.

Judicial staffing and caseloads - Judges and reporters requested: The judiciary's FY2026 request included two district judges (First Judicial District/Coeur d'Alene and Seventh Judicial District/Idaho Falls) with court reporters, plus two magistrate judges (Twin Falls in Fifth Judicial District and a magistrate in Bonneville County in the Seventh Judicial District). The governor's recommended budget included a 5% judicial compensation placeholder while the judiciary has requested a larger amount; both compensation and creation of judges would require statutory action. - Caseload data and rationale: Omanson provided workload figures to justify magistrate requests: magistrates generally have 249 workdays annually; magistrates in Twin Falls average 1,773 case openings per year and the county has not received a new magistrate in 35 years. In Bonneville County (Seventh District) magistrates average about 1,539 openings and judges lose an estimated 67.5 judicial days annually to travel when judges are brought in from other counties. - Recruitment and retention: The judiciary reported a decrease in applicants for judgeships and several recent retirements. Omanson said seven judges announced retirements since July 1 and that fewer applicants have private‑practice civil experience than in previous years, complicating bench replacement and speed of case resolution.

Other budget context - Court Technology Fund: The fund collects fees, including filing fees in district and magistrate courts. Bybee said year‑over‑year collections for the core technology fund rose from about $2.9 million (FY2023) to $3.4 million (FY2024), driven in part by increased filings. The branch projects $21.5 million in receipts for FY2026 and carries a fund balance it intends to spend down as technology work continues.

Committee questions and follow ups Committee members asked for: (1) an itemized spending breakdown of the court technology program and ARPA obligations; (2) progress and county reception to the network and Office 365 rollout (Omanson said counties have been given implementation options and some counties have concerns); and (3) estimates of salary or classification adjustments required to hire IT and other technical positions the branch has not been able to fill at current appropriation levels (Omanson said she would provide cost estimates). No statutory bills were presented to the committee during the hearing; bills addressing judicial compensation and creation of judges would be considered in substantive policy committees.

Background and limits of authority Omanson reminded the committee that judicial compensation and creation of judges require separate statutory action and that this committee's role is budgetary; requests for judges typically come from the districts and are prioritized through the administrative conference and the justices before being submitted to the Legislature.

What remains unresolved The committee asked for written follow‑up documents: a full accounting of ARPA and technology expenditures, details on county implementation plans and further recruitment/compensation analyses to explain unfilled IT positions and potential market adjustments needed to hire qualified staff. No appropriations or policy decisions were made at the hearing.