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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.