ILNews

Blomquist: Funding our Guarantors of Democracy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerryWelcome to the world of federal “sequestration.”

Wait, stay with me. I know. There are as many opinions about this as there are shoes in my mother’s closet, but one thing seems clear: what began with the enactment of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act in 19851 and its call for mandatory budget cuts if Congress failed to meet its budget reduction deadlines has now resulted in just that. As of this writing, “sequestrations” began just a week ago and although the total impact has yet to be either fully explained or experienced, changes are occurring, cuts are being realized, and programs are being affected as we speak.

This column is not a review of our nation’s budgetary woes, nor is it a referendum on how or indeed whether we balance the federal checkbook. Those discussions are being held, blogged, tweeted and broadcast everywhere and anywhere by people who seem convinced that they know best. The First Amendment is a beautiful thing.

This column is a loud and clear request to keep access to justice issues in the front of our cost cutting brains, because it is worth the underline to say that our third branch of government is what guarantees this democracy. Our local, state and national courts cannot suffer further funding cuts and come out of this unscathed.

Although it’s a challenge to separate the reality from the hype when discussing impact of sequestration on our court system, it is a necessary dialogue, and numbers and potential impact must be shared. It is undisputable that federal courts, many of which have had to cut spending in recent years, are bracing for further reductions as federal sequestration kicks in. Numbers suggest that federal court funding will drop another five percent in 2013 as a result. That is cutting past sinew and into bone say most experts, and because some expenditures such as judicial pay are untouchable, what is touchable is being touched with a sledgehammer.

This has translated into forced layoffs resulting in understaffed courts, failure to modernize computers and necessary software, the inability to provide even basic administrative services to citizens and practitioners,2 delayed civil trials and even limited hours and days of court accessibility. (#justice-delayed-is-justice-denied)

In response, the American Bar Association recognized inadequate court funding as a priority issue in 2012 and again this year in 2013. At the ABA Midyear meeting in Dallas last month the ABA Board of Governors passed a series of resolutions including the following:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal elected officials, as they consider deficit reduction for fiscal year 2013 and beyond, to maintain the ability of individuals, as well as business and other organizations, to have access to justice by assuring that…the federal courts receive funding adequate to permit them to perform their constitutional functions effectively and efficiently...

Lets face it, when our rights are infringed upon, our one place to go is the courts. They protect us from abuses of power by corporations or government officials, and protect our most basic Constitutional rights. When access to justice is being compromised because of continued funding cuts, our very liberties are at stake.

So what can we, as members of one of the strongest metropolitan bar associations in this country, do?

First of all, recognize that the funding crisis in our courts does not discriminate. It is an issue to be sure on local, state and national levels.

Secondly, know and communicate that there are very real effects from lack of funding that translate into our citizens and our business owners not being able to rely on our courts for timely relief. That most certainly negatively impacts our economy.

Connect the dots and make the argument that although we are truly blessed with high quality judicial officers who thankfully have chosen public service, they are too often forced to swim upstream in an underfunded court system. We must give our judges the tools they need to do their jobs or you can be sure that our best and our brightest will choose other paths.

Finally, given government spending is now trending wildly unpopular and that too often the general public sees the courts as “just another agency,” remind those that will listen that indeed it is not. Flashback to effective civics classes that underline that pesky separation of powers, and recognize and communicate that only an independent judiciary with predictable and sustainable funding truly fulfills its constitutional obligation. After all, a well-functioning judicial branch is a constitutional imperative, not an optional luxury.
__________

1 Yes, that was 1985 when many of our young lawyers now were being happily conceived, probably during the congressional debate itself.

2 Indeed, bring your own paper if you want copies and be prepared to be invoiced every time you fax the court a pleading.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT