Judiciary seeks magistrates, continues court technology build‑out with ARPA funds; governor proposes 5% judicial compensation placeholder

The Joint Finance Preparation Committee on Jan. 23 heard the Judicial Branch’s Court Operations budget presentation, where court leaders described an ongoing multi‑year technology modernization funded with ARPA appropriations, recent growth in filing fees in the Court Technology Fund and requests for additional judges to address rising caseloads.

Why it matters: Court technology upgrades, staffing and judicial resources affect case timeliness statewide, the security of party and witness data, and county court operations. The judiciary’s FY26 request also includes judges and a judicial compensation bill that would require statutory or separate policy action.

Keith Bybee, Division Manager of Budget Policy Analysis, told the committee the Judicial Department is a unified court system administered by the Idaho Supreme Court. The Court Operations budget divides into programs including the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, district and magistrate courts, the Water Adjudication Division, Community Based Substance Abuse Treatment and senior judges. Bybee said the courts average about 372 authorized full‑time positions and historically spend roughly 90–93% of personnel appropriations.

Bybee highlighted the Court Technology Fund, which is primarily financed by district and magistrate filing fees, and reported that collections grew from about $2.9 million in FY23 to about $3.4 million in FY24 (a ~29% increase). He said the courts carry a fund balance (about $18.8 million) and project working cash receipts of about $21.5 million in FY26, and several ARPA‑funded technology contracts (roughly $19.9 million originally appropriated) remain in progress with $16 million requested for reappropriation.

Sarah Omanson, administrative director of the courts, told the committee the modernization was driven by cybersecurity concerns and the need to centralize and secure court data. Omanson said the courts are rolling out multi‑factor authentication and Office 365 and are implementing a state court network in county courthouses to isolate court systems from county networks when necessary. "We realized that our infrastructure was preventing us from adequately securing the information that we thought we needed to secure," she said, and noted the project is obligated under ARPA standards and is expected to continue into late 2026.

Omanson acknowledged the changes are disruptive to some counties and court clerks because counties have different preferences and local systems. She described options counties will have: use a county computer that accesses a court‑hosted desktop in the cloud for court work, or accept state‑provided computers on the state court network. Omanson said the courtrooms and employees who do state court work must be on the state network for security reasons.

Bybee and Omanson also described judicial requests for FY26. The judiciary requested judicial compensation changes (the judiciary’s internal request was larger; the governor included a placeholder 5% increase in the executive budget) and sought new judicial resources: two district judges (first judicial district and seventh judicial district) each with a court reporter, plus two magistrate judges (Twin Falls in the fifth judicial district and Bonneville/Idaho Falls in the seventh). Bybee reported the judge and court reporter build‑out would total approximately $1.2 million in the requested budget; the full judicial compensation request was described as roughly $10.2 million and would require statutory change or separate policy legislation.

Omanson explained the process for new judges: districts compile requests through trial court administrators, the administrative conference prioritizes requests and the five justices make final decisions before submission. She said the districts requesting magistrates had letters of county support. Omanson gave data to justify the magistrate requests: Twin Falls magistrates opened an average of 1,773 cases per judge in a 249‑workday year; Twin Falls has not received a new magistrate in 35 years, she said. Bonneville County’s magistrates average about 1,539 openings per judge; the seventh district covers 10 counties and judges lose judicial time to travel (Omanson said judges lose about 67.5 days per year to travel from remote counties to Bonneville), which reduces available judicial labor.

Committee members asked operational questions: Representative Manwaring requested updates on the case‑management vendor landscape and the courts’ planned RFI; Omanson said Tyler was selected after a 2013 RFP and the court plans to issue a request for information (RFI) to survey current vendor options but is in the early stages (the current Tyler/cloud contract is in year 2 of a five‑year cycle). Senator Cook requested an update on the software/cloud transition and whether counties were satisfied; Omanson said about 80% of Office 365 rollout is complete and multi‑factor authentication is rolling out, but not all counties are fully comfortable with the change.

On hiring, Omanson said the courts have had mixed success filling positions and that some IT and data analyst roles remain vacant; she said three of five data analysts left for higher paying jobs and that hiring for cloud architecture skills at available salary levels has been difficult. The courts have hired some staff at the amounts appropriated and used internal reallocations (for example, shifting assistant funding to create an HR manager after failing to fill the manager post at the original appropriation level).

Omanson framed the judges’ request as a response to caseload and travel inefficiencies and raised workforce concerns: she said seven judges announced retirements since July and that fewer applicants overall are applying for judicial positions than five years ago; she warned of a declining applicant pool with less private‑practice civil experience among applicants, which can reduce bench efficiency in civil matters.

The governor’s budget includes a 5% judicial compensation placeholder; the judiciary has requested a larger compensation package and separate policy committees (rules/judiciary) typically consider judicial compensation changes. Bybee noted that judicial compensation and creation of district judges require statutory changes and pending policy bills will determine final funding.

Ending note: Omanson asked the committee to consider magistrate and judge requests as part of statewide case‑load management. She and Bybee volunteered to provide additional information on vendor costs, ARPA obligations, unfilled IT positions and estimates to close hiring gaps.