Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courts And Judiciary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conference report for House Bill 11-44 would add 8 courts, remove 9 in bid to rebalance state judicial resources
Summary
A conference committee report on House Bill 11-44 would add eight new judicial positions while removing nine elsewhere, a net change of minus one, based on Supreme Court weighted caseload metrics and a new emphasis on one‑for‑one adjustments when adding courts.
House Bill 11-44, considered today by the Indiana House Rules Committee, would add eight new judicial posts and subtract nine others under a conference committee agreement that aims to shift courts to areas shown by the Supreme Court’s weighted caseload metrics to need them.
Representative Clay Jeter, sponsor of the bill, told the committee the changes reflect a new approach of pairing additions with subtractions where caseloads and county populations no longer justify an existing court. “This conference committee on House Bill 11-44 adds 8 new courts and subtracts 9,” Jeter said, adding that the change produces “a total net 1” and that stakeholders — including county officials and bar and judge associations — have been engaged in the work.
Jeter said the policy grew from scrutiny over continually adding courts without also evaluating whether some courts should be removed. He said the interim committee recommended a one-for-one approach and that the report uses the Supreme Court metrics “to add courts that have been used over the decades to add,” while noting the need for a more formal process going forward.
Committee members asked about how much of the reduction language originated in the Senate and how the conference committee reconciled differences. Representative Jeter said the reductions were not in the House-passed bills and that Senate appropriations had proposed larger cuts; the House and Senate negotiators scaled those numbers back in conference discussions.
The committee adopted a procedural motion to allow the conference committee report to be considered after April 15, 2025. Representative Slager moved the motion; the roll call recorded the motion passing, “Passes 70.” The chairman then moved to the next item.
The sponsor and several members emphasized that additional work remains to formalize the new process and to consult stakeholders about how to place judicial officers. Jeter acknowledged retirements and vacant seats among courts being removed and said the committee took “a light hand” on the initial changes. He also said the committee expects to continue work between now and the next budget year to refine a permanent method for aligning court resources with caseloads.
The conference committee report and the committee’s procedural vote do not themselves appoint judges or change sitting judges’ assignments; the report modifies the number and location of judicial officers as part of the upcoming budget and judiciary appropriations process.
The bill record before the committee shows bipartisan support on the conference committee report and follow-up staff work to develop a more formal, taxpayer-focused methodology for future changes.
