Judiciary outlines court technology overhaul, ARPA obligations and requests for new judges and magistrates

The Judicial Branch told the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee on Jan. 23 it is continuing a multi‑year court technology modernization project funded in part with ARPA State Fiscal Recovery funds, while seeking new judges and magistrates to address growing caseloads and judicial travel burdens.

Keith Bybee, Division Manager of Budget Policy Analysis, summarized court operations and finances and said the Court Technology Fund—largely supported by filing fees—showed a 29% collection increase from fiscal 2023 to 2024. Bybee said the fund's working cash projection for FY2026 is about $21.5 million and the courts plan to spend down a portion of an $18.8 million fund balance as they complete technology work funded with ARPA appropriations.

Why it matters: the courts are shifting many technology position costs and projects from the Court Technology Fund to the general fund and are asking for a mix of personnel and statutory changes to respond to population growth and caseload pressure. The branch also presented requests that require separate policy legislation, including judicial compensation and the addition of judges.

Court technology and ARPA funding. Sarah Omanson, administrative director of courts, told the committee the modernization effort began in 2020 with a focus on cybersecurity and infrastructure and that the branch is rolling out Office 365 and multifactor authentication to better secure court data. “We started really focusing on cybersecurity,” Omanson said. She described options for counties to use a cloud‑hosted court desktop or a state‑provided machine so that court work is performed on systems the Judicial Branch can manage and protect.

Omanson said the ARPA‑funded work is largely contracted and obligated; about $16 million of ARPA money has been requested for reappropriation. She said Office 365 rollout is about 80% complete and two‑factor authentication is about to roll out. The branch does not expect the entire modernization work to be complete until the end of FY2026.

Case management and vendor review. The branch continues to use Tyler Systems (Odyssey) for case management. Omanson said the courts will issue a request for information (RFI) “in the next couple of months” to evaluate the vendor landscape and options at the end of a five‑year contract window.

Judicial staffing requests and compensation. Bybee outlined the branch’s request for new judicial resources: two district judges (a first‑district district judge in Coeur d’Alene and a seventh‑district district judge in Idaho Falls), two magistrate judges (one in Twin Falls and one in Idaho Falls), and two court reporters, representing the branch’s prioritized needs. The chief justice and judicial leaders would need statutory authority to add district judges and to implement judicial compensation changes.

Bybee noted the governor’s budget included a placeholder 5% judicial compensation increase, while the judiciary’s full compensation request totals about $10.2 million. He said the magistrate requests were among items the courts can ask the committee to consider without separate legislative policy changes; judicial compensation and district judge additions require separate bills.

Need for magistrates in Twin Falls and Bonneville counties. Omanson described the magistrate request in detail and explained the operational impact: there are 249 workdays per year, and magistrates in Twin Falls open about 1,773 cases per judge in that period; the comparable figure in Bonneville County is 1,539 cases per magistrate. She said Twin Falls has not received a new magistrate in 35 years and that judges from outside counties often travel in to hear local cases, which reduces judicial workdays. “Adding a magistrate in Bonneville County will not only get us those additional magistrate days for that judge, it will save us on the travel days,” she said, noting the size of the seventh district and travel losses estimated at about 67.5 judicial days per year.

Recruitment and retirements. Omanson said judicial recruitment is weakening: since July 1 the courts have had seven judges announce retirement and the pool of applicants for judgeships has shrunk. She said fewer applicants have private civil litigation experience than in prior years, which can affect the bench’s overall efficiency and the speed at which civil cases are resolved.

Committee follow‑up. Committee members requested more detail on ARPA‑funded contracts, the remaining ARPA balance and timing of obligations, the technology vendor RFI timeline, and what it would cost to close hiring gaps so the courts can fill IT and other authorized positions. The courts agreed to provide requested breakdowns and estimates. The court’s administrative team also emphasized that many of the staffing requests are prioritized by trial court administrators and by the court’s administrative conference before being transmitted to the Supreme Court for the branch’s budget submission.

The Judiciary’s presentation and committee questions framed the budget review as an intersection of technology modernization, cybersecurity, county implementation choices, and long‑term staffing needs for judges to match caseload growth.