Judicial Branch requests new judges, magistrates and compensation adjustments to address caseloads

The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee on Jan. 23 heard the Judicial Branch’s request for new judges and judicial compensation to address rising caseloads and staffing shortfalls in several districts.

Keith Bybee, the branch’s budget analyst, outlined the request that includes two district judges (one in the First Judicial District in Coeur d’Alene and one in the Seventh Judicial District in Idaho Falls), two magistrate judges (a magistrate in Twin Falls and a magistrate in Bonneville County/Idaho Falls), and two court reporters. Bybee said the governor’s budget includes a placeholder 5% judicial compensation increase, while the judiciary’s request for judicial compensation totaled about $10.2 million; those compensation changes require statutory action.

Why it matters: the branch said judicial vacancies, retirements and rising caseloads are lengthening delays and reducing judicial time available for cases. The requests would add bench capacity where workload metrics indicate need.

Magistrate need and workload data

Administrative Director Sarah Omanson told the committee the magistrates requested for Twin Falls and Bonneville are driven by heavy statewide population growth and local caseload pressure. She supplied county-level workload figures to explain the requests: in Twin Falls County, magistrates open about 1,773 cases per judge in a calendar year and judges sometimes hold as many as 24 hearings in a week; the county has not received a new magistrate in 35 years, she said.

Bonneville County (Seventh Judicial District) presents different challenges: the district covers 10 counties across nearly 20,000 square miles, Omanson said, and judges traveling from remote counties to chamber in Bonneville lose judicial work time. She said the district currently loses roughly 67.5 judicial workdays annually to travel from outlying counties; adding a magistrate would reduce travel-related lost time and increase local judicial capacity.

Judicial compensation and statutory requirements

Bybee and Omanson told the committee judicial compensation and authorizing new district judges require statutory changes and, therefore, policy bills. Bybee said the judiciary’s compensation request is substantially larger than the governor’s placeholder; the committee noted compensation decisions typically move through policy committees.

Recruitment and retention concerns

Omanson said the branch is seeing retention and pipeline problems: seven judges announced retirement since July 1, and she said applications for judicial vacancies have dropped substantially compared with five years ago. “We have less than half the number of people applying for our judgeships than we had 5 years ago,” Omanson said. She added that only about one in five applicants currently have private civil-practice experience — a skill set she said helps speed judicial handling of certain civil matters.

What’s next

The branch said it had letters of county support for the proposed judges and that the administrative conference (trial court administrators, magistrate leadership and the Supreme Court) prioritized the requests after district-level submissions. Committee members were reminded that compensation changes require separate policy action; the judiciary and interested legislators are expected to pursue those bills through the relevant policy committees.

Ending note

Omanson asked the committee to consider bench capacity and the quality of applicants as the session advances: “We’re in trouble. That's reality of it,” she said, urging support for measures to stabilize staffing and reduce delays for litigants.