Judicial branch: committee adds funds for Judicial Council; approves fee changes and a back-of-budget cut

A House subcommittee unanimously approved an amended Judicial Council allocation after lawmakers were told a likely clerical discrepancy left the public defender program underfunded by roughly $1.77 million.

Representative Ebel and Judicial Council representatives told the subcommittee that the governor's proposed HB 1 figures did not incorporate all HB 2 and HB 1 funding sources when calculating the intended increase for public defenders, creating a shortfall. "I really wanna bring the committee's attention to that discrepancy because it's a large discrepancy for the public defender moving forward," a Judicial Council representative said, noting the shortfall could increase more costly assigned-counsel expenditures if not addressed. That representative added the shortfall was approximately $1,770,000.

After discussion, the subcommittee agreed to add about $1,792,796 to fiscal 2027 and to insert a footnote asking the Judicial Council to use a portion of funds to reestablish a clinical program with Franklin Pierce University that had previously used ARPA funds. The motion to add the funds and the footnote was seconded and approved unanimously.

Separately, the committee considered broader judicial-branch changes. Members approved an amendment (12-45-H) that increased the back-of-the-budget cut to the judicial branch; the subcommittee recorded that amendment as passing on a 5-4 tally. Committee staff said the package combined a statutory-cut approach with certain fee increases that the judicial branch will set by rule. The subcommittee also voted to remove a $25 surcharge from statute and shift it into rulemaking authority; that specific change and a set of judicial fee increases were approved unanimously, and staff said the fee changes will be reflected as new general fund revenue when implemented.

Committee members said the Judicial Council funding addition aimed to avoid costlier assigned-counsel spending by preserving public defender capacity. Lawmakers and Judicial Council staff also discussed the use of a small clinical program that had cleared hundreds of cases when run with ARPA funding and recommended that the program be continued if possible.

The subcommittee recorded the vote on the Judicial Council funding and footnote as unanimous; the judicial-branch back-of-budget cut passed 5-4; the surcharge removal and fee increases passed unanimously.