Judiciary requests magistrates, continues court-technology overhaul funded by ARPA

The Judicial Branch told the Joint Finance Preparation Committee on Thursday, Jan. 23, that it is continuing a multi-year court-technology overhaul funded largely by ARPA State Fiscal Recovery funds, and is seeking new judicial resources — including magistrates in Twin Falls and Bonneville counties — to address rising caseloads and travel-related lost judicial time.

The matter is central to court operations statewide: the Administrative Office of the Courts described cybersecurity risks that prompted infrastructure upgrades, ARPA-funded work that remains under contract and not yet paid out, and an ongoing need for judges in specific districts to reduce delays and travel burdens.

Keith Bybee, Division Manager of Budget Policy Analysis, reviewed court appropriations and said the Court Technology Fund — primarily financed by court filing fees — showed a 29% year-over-year increase in collections tied to higher filings, including forfeitures and civil actions. Bybee also noted the courts received roughly $19.9 million in ARPA State Fiscal Recovery Fund appropriations in prior biennia to modernize technology, and that about 50.75 FTP supporting court technology were shifted from the Court Technology Fund to the general fund in a prior funding action.

Sarah Omanson, administrative director of courts, described the modernization and cybersecurity rationale, and the approach to rolling out new protections. “We started really focusing on cybersecurity,” Omanson said, noting the courts hold a large volume of personally identifying and other sensitive records and that other states' courts have been targeted. She said work so far includes multi-factor authentication, migrating to Office 365 for court email and document work, and preparing to install a statewide state-managed court network in county courthouses. Omanson told the committee the courts have obligated the ARPA funds and expect the technical rollout to continue into 2026.

Omanson said the courts have offered counties options to accommodate local needs: counties may host court work on county-managed machines if they implement required protections, or they can use a state-provided desktop-in-the-cloud to access protected court systems. She acknowledged counties find the change difficult but defended the protections as necessary to secure court records.

Bybee and Omanson described requests in the FY2026 package for judicial positions. The judiciary's internal request for judicial compensation totals about $10.2 million, while the governor's budget included a 5% placeholder for judicial compensation. Requests for judicial resources highlighted in the presentation include two district judges (including a first-district seat and a seventh-district seat), two magistrate judges (one in Twin Falls and one in Bonneville County/Idaho Falls), and two court reporters. Bybee described the full build-out of those judicial resources as roughly $1.2 million in the budget book. He also explained that statutory changes would be required for judicial-compensation legislation and that such bills had not yet been introduced.

On caseloads and workload, Omanson described the magistrate requests in geographic and operational context: Twin Falls had not received a new magistrate in 35 years and magistrates there were opening about 1,773 cases per judge annually; Bonneville County's judges serve a large geographic seventh district and “we lose currently 67 and a half days of work, judicial work, every year by judges traveling in from Salmon, from Challis, down to Bonneville County to hear cases.” Omanson said travel time and hearings by judges from other counties reduces effective judicial time and that adding magistrates reduces travel burden and improves case resolution time.

The judiciary also briefed the committee on case-management software and vendor planning. Omanson said the state implemented a Tyler case-management system in 2014 and moved to a cloud-hosted environment since then. She said the Idaho Supreme Court intends to publish a request for information (RFI) to review the current market and options, noting the RFI is meant to be exploratory and not a commitment to replace the current system. Omanson also said an attorney portal (attorney-of-record portal) built by the courts is expected to be live within about 30 days and would provide licensed attorneys and their delegates access to case records, including certain exempt records with appropriate permissions.

Committee members pressed the judiciary on implementation details and staffing. Omanson acknowledged the courts had difficulty filling several IT positions at the appropriated salary levels and that three of five data analysts left for higher-paying jobs. She said the office would provide estimates of what salary adjustments would be required to fill those vacancies. The administrative director also noted a drop in the number and breadth of applicants for judicial openings, and that several judges had announced retirements; she said fewer applicants now have private civil-practice experience compared with five years ago.

No formal committee votes were taken at the hearing. Committee members asked for follow-up documentation on ARPA obligations and a clearer breakdown of technology contract spending; Omanson and Bybee said contracted obligations are in place and the courts will provide additional detail on expenditures and timelines.