Budget committee advances bill to extend court surcharge authority to 2030

The Committee on General Government Budget on Wednesday voted to pass House Bill 2393 out of committee, extending the temporary authority that allows the Supreme Court to impose additional docket and filing surcharges to fund nonjudicial personnel through 2030.

Jesse Pringle, the Revisor, told the committee: "This hearing is going to be on House Bill 2,393. What this bill does, it amends multiple statutes on the allowance for the Supreme Court to impose an additional charge to fund the cost of non judicial personnel." Pringle said the authority first took effect in 2019 and the bill would extend the sunset from 2025 to 2030.

Why it matters: The surcharge authority affects many routine court fees, including docket fees, appeals, petitions for expungement, marriage licenses, certain criminal filings, petitions for modification of child custody, and juvenile proceedings. Because surcharge revenue is deposited into the State General Fund, continuing the authority preserves a revenue stream available for appropriation rather than creating a new, segregated account.

Marissa Bayless, special counsel to Chief Justice Lugert, described the history: "At the time of 2019 and at the time of 2018, roughly 1 fourth of the judicial branch budget was reliant on docket fines and fees. And then in 2022, the legislature passed HB 2351 that moved us, from that portion of fines and fees, to SGF so that the majority of our budget is SGF." Bayless said the bill before the committee would preserve the ability to collect the surcharge while the branch remains largely funded from the State General Fund.

Amy Decker, chief financial officer for the judicial branch, said how the money is handled: "Per statute, the funds collected from the surcharge as well as docket fees are deposited directly into the state general fund by the state treasurer. So those go into the big pot of, state general fund monies once they're deposited and they're not segregated out." She added the funds do not retain a statutory tie to their source after deposit.

Committee members pressed witnesses on oversight and limits. Representative Hubert asked whether there is "a cap on the total amount that the courts can raise," and was told that "each section, for that additional fee has a dollar amount that caps it," but that there is not an overall cap across all fees. Hubert urged consideration of an overall statutory limit and greater transparency about the nonjudicial personnel costs the surcharges are intended to meet.

Committee members also asked whether fee amounts have changed since 2019; Bayless replied that the amounts have "remained unchanged since 2019." Questions about indigency procedures prompted Bayless to explain the poverty affidavit process: a defendant claiming indigence "would fill out a poverty affidavit and, with the judge and the court to determine that" status; practices vary by judge and court.

Vice Chair Pickert moved that the committee "pass House Bill 2393 out of committee favorably without amendments." The motion was seconded by Representative Houghton. The chair called the vote and the motion passed; the transcript records the result as unanimous but does not include a roll-call tally. The committee chair said she would follow up with the bill sponsor for additional information.

The bill does not increase any of the existing per-fee caps, according to testimony; it would extend the sunset so the Supreme Court can continue to impose the existing surcharge amounts that help offset a portion of judicial-branch staffing costs while the branch is primarily funded through the State General Fund.

The hearing record contains committee concerns about transparency and the lack of an overall cap on surcharge revenue. Witnesses described statutory and practical limits: each surchargeable fee has a statutory cap, and collected funds are deposited to the State General Fund rather than into a separate judiciary account.