ILNews

4 Indiana justices testify on state budget

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Four of the Indiana Supreme Court justices testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee Monday night, talking to lawmakers specifically about the need for an appellate case management system, more funding for public defense, and continued fairness in how judicial officers and prosecutors are paid throughout the state.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has been traveling the state and wasn’t able to attend the committee hearing, but his four colleagues on the court – Justices Steven David, Brent Dickson, Robert Rucker, and Frank Sullivan – made statements and answered questions from lawmakers, following up on a budget proposal submitted to the State Budget Director in October.

No committee decisions were made, but the justices offered sympathy for the state’s tough fiscal situation. They gave an overview of the court’s operations and areas that need legislative attention, according to court public information officer Kathryn Dolan.

Justice Sullivan told lawmakers that the judiciary’s portion is only about 1 percent of the state’s total $14.1 billion budget per year, but that the court has mostly straight-lined its monetary requests from the current two-year budget. Specifically, the justices mentioned the need for a new appellate case management system, increased funding for Indiana public defenders, and asked for lawmakers to respect the current model for how judicial officers and prosecutors are paid.

On the appellate CMS, Justice Sullivan told lawmakers that the state’s highest courts need to enter the 21st century rather than using a case management system from the 1980s that still has an “old, green screen.” Paying for that new system requires about $3 million in new funding for the two-year period, according to Justice Sullivan’s testimony, with that breaking down to about $1.9 million the first year and $1.1 the second year. As a result of a new system, he told lawmakers the courts expect to save on personnel for three full-time positions and three part-time staff in the clerk’s office in 2014 and two additional full-time positions starting in 2019.

Justice David spoke about the salaries, which account for about $97 million in the state budget. He told lawmakers how the recently passed Ways and Means Committee budget prohibits judges, prosecutors, state-funded magistrates and deputy prosecutors from receiving any pay adjustments for two years regardless of whether state employees get an increase – a move that specifically reverses a 2005 statutory change to how trial judge compensation is tied to those state worker hikes.

“We seek no special treatment for the men and women who serve as judicial officers and prosecutors across this great state and who administer the people’s business in the local courthouses,” he said. “We only ask that they be treated in the upcoming biennium in the same way that the legislature and governor intended and agreed that they would be treated in the 2005 legislation.”

Justice Rucker testified about the public defense funding, which accounts for about $13 million currently. In the budget proposal submitted last fall, the court asked for a $3.15 million annual increase in public defense funding because of five additional counties – Delaware, Hamilton, Huntington, Lawrence, and Marshall – that will qualify for reimbursement at the start of the next biennium.  The state reimburses some of the defense costs for counties meeting certain standards, and the court says the general fund appropriation needed is $16 million rather than $12.85 million included in the budget passed by the House Ways and Means Committee.

“We were told they would do their best with us,” Dolan said.

The justices’ testimony came just as a 35-day walkout by Indiana House Democrats ended, leaving five weeks left for lawmakers to not only craft a budget but also address legislative redistricting and hundreds of other pending bills. Approximately 334 amendments had been filed by Tuesday morning on the massive budget bill, House Bill 1001, and an initial review didn’t clearly pinpoint any specific court-focused changes that might be considered.

Lawmakers face an April 29 deadline, and if they aren’t able to agree on a budget they could return for a special session.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT