Judiciary asks for more judges, court technology maintenance and cybersecurity funding; committee hears progress on ARPA‑funded upgrades

The Idaho Judicial Branch briefed the Joint Finance Preparation Committee on Jan. 23 about court operations, the status of a multi‑year court technology upgrade funded in part with ARPA State Fiscal Recovery Funds, and requests for additional judges to address rising caseloads and travel‑related lost judicial time.

Keith Bybee, division manager for budget and policy analysis, reviewed fiscal trends and told the committee that the Court Technology Fund—driven primarily by filing fees—has seen actual collections grow from about $2.9 million in FY2023 to $3.4 million in FY2024, and that year‑over‑year filings were up roughly 29%. Bybee said the court system’s working cash is projected at about $21.5 million for FY2026 and a carryforward fund balance was about $18.8 million.

Why it matters: The judiciary is asking for additional judicial resources to address caseload pressures and to limit travel by judges who are currently covering neighboring counties. The courts also are in the middle of a large technology and cybersecurity push, funded largely with ARPA appropriations, to modernize infrastructure and centralize protections across counties.

Administrative director Sarah Omanson told lawmakers that the core technology and cyber work began in 2020 in response to rising cyber threats to court systems nationwide. The project includes multi‑factor authentication, a dedicated state court network in each courthouse, migration to Office 365 for court business, and other infrastructure upgrades. Omanson said the courts have contracted and obligated ARPA funds and that rollout of Office 365 is roughly 80% complete; full project work and hardware installation across courthouses is expected to continue through the end of 2026.

Judicial resource requests: The Judicial Branch’s FY2026 asks include: - Judicial compensation: the branch requested $10.2 million for judicial compensation increases; the governor’s budget included a 5% placeholder recommended adjustment instead of the full request. - Judicial resources: requests for judges and reporters totaling about $1.2 million in annual costs. Specifically, the branch asked for a district judge and court reporter in the First Judicial District (Coeur d’Alene), a district judge and court reporter in the Seventh Judicial District, and two magistrate judges—one in the Fifth Judicial District (Twin Falls) and one in the Seventh Judicial District (Idaho Falls).

Omanson and Bybee explained the magistrate requests with caseload measures: Twin Falls magistrates opened an average of 1,773 cases per judge per year and magistrates there sometimes handle up to 24 hearings a week; the Twin Falls bench has not received a new magistrate in 35 years, the administrative director said. Bonneville County (Seventh Judicial District) covers a large geographic area—about 20,000 square miles in the district described on the record—and the branch estimates judges lose about 67.5 judicial workdays per year to travel from outlying counties to Bonneville.

Vendor, security and county impacts: Omanson said the court system selected Tyler as its case management vendor after an RFP in 2013 and has since moved the system into the cloud. She said the court system will issue a request for information (RFI) in the coming months to survey the current marketplace and options for case management systems at the end of the current multi‑year contract lifecycle. Omanson reiterated that some counties have resisted change but that the court office has offered implementation options—either state‑managed desktops on a court network or county‑managed desktops that access court systems via a cloud-hosted desktop to protect court data.

ARPA funding: Bybee described a one‑time ARPA appropriation of about $19.9 million used to strengthen court technology and infrastructure, with roughly $16 million requested for re‑appropriation to carry remaining contracted work forward into the next fiscal year. Omanson said the courts have obligated ARPA funds to contracts and are preparing for the large phase of in‑place hardware and wiring work in courthouses.

Hiring and salary effects: Omanson said the judiciary has had difficulty filling some technical and managerial positions at the appropriation levels granted previously and asked to provide the committee with updated estimates for market‑competitive salaries needed to recruit IT and HR staff. She also reported that several judges have announced retirements and that the pool of applicants for judicial openings has shrunk, with fewer applicants having private civil practice experience than in past years.

Process notes: Omanson described the internal process for prioritizing judge requests: trial court administrators and district administrators collect district requests, regional trial court administrators meet to prioritize statewide needs, and the administrative conference makes recommendations that go to the justices for final decisions about what the branch requests in its budget submission. She also said the courts typically secure letters of county support for requested judgeships because counties provide facilities and support staff.

Committee questions and follow up: Committee members asked for a report on the ARPA‑funded technology upgrade detailing expenditures, county impacts and the remaining schedule for installations; the judiciary agreed to provide that information. Members also asked about contract terms and the planned RFI for case management systems; Omanson confirmed the RFI will go out in the coming months and emphasized the branch remains in an early phase of market review and is not committing to vendor changes at this time.

Closing: Omanson thanked the committee and emphasized that magistrate requests are carefully considered and submitted only when districts document sustained need. The judiciary’s FY2026 requests remain subject to committee review and to any separate statutory bills that would be required to create judgeships or change judicial compensation.