CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS

COSCA Resolution I

State Judicial Branch Budgets in Times of Fiscal Crisis 

WHEREAS, state governments are currently experiencing the worst fiscal crisis in decades and many state courts are facing deep budget cuts, court closures, suspended jury trials, layoffs and hiring freezes, among others; 

WHEREAS, many state judicial systems are particularly vulnerable to this fiscal crisis as they have found it difficult to secure adequate resources even in good economic times;  

WHEREAS, state courts need to operate from a position of strength in the budget process in order to avoid unreasonable budget cuts and external micro management that undermine the system’s ability to carry out its mission during difficult fiscal times;  

WHEREAS, the judiciary, as a responsible partner in government, has an obligation to share in the sacrifices being made by state government during a fiscal crisis;  

WHEREAS, the judicial branch’s obligation to be a good partner in government in no way detracts from the absolute necessity and importance of providing the courts with adequate funding given the judiciary’s constitutional status as a separate and coequal branch of government responsible for upholding the rule of law and performing certain core functions at the heart of democratic government:   

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that COSCA endorses the principles and practical strategies set forth in the White Paper on State Judicial Budgets in Times of Fiscal Crisis, including:

1.      An important determinant of success in obtaining adequate judicial resources in difficult fiscal times is the judicial branch’s store of interbranch and public credibility built up during good economic times based on a track record of good governance, including:

  • consistent submission over time of prudent, transparent judicial budget requests that provide clear justification for the resources requested, and judicial budget priorities that are consistent from year to year

  • sound financial management systemwide and among individual courts 

  • taking steps to measure and report on the courts’ management performance

  • operating under self-imposed austerity measures during difficult budget times

2.      The Chief Justice is the inspirational leader of the courts and should be a strong, visible advocate for their needs and priorities. The strength and quality of the Chief Justice’s leadership and skills in administering the third branch during good economic times carry over into tough economic times. 

3.     The State Court Administrator (SCA) bears major responsibility for how the other branches and public perceive the courts’ management and fiscal performance. The SCA must be perceived as credible and highly knowledgeable on budget matters and as a strong internal leader capable of making tough budget decisions.

4.      The constitutional and statutory status of the courts in the state’s overall budget process can greatly exacerbate or minimize the impact of a state’s fiscal crisis on the judiciary.

  • Certain structural conditions, such as permitting the Executive to alter the judiciary’s budget request prior to submission to the legislature, undermine judicial independence and effective self-governance.

  • Court budgets should be a single line item; fixing individual line item restrictions on judicial branch spending precludes courts from making the most efficient possible use of limited resources during a fiscal crisis.

  • State unification of budgeting and finance through an administrative office promotes the judicial branch’s ability to speak with one voice and pursue its budget goals. 

5.      Courts can respond to a state budget crisis in one or more ways: cutting costs and services, increasing revenues, negotiating budget cuts, and standing up for their constitutional prerogatives.

  • Cuts in costs/services cannot rise to the level where courts become mere “case processing centers.”

  • Sharing in across-the-board cuts hurts the judiciary disproportionately because they are personnel-heavy and have very little spending flexibility. 

  • Where austerity measures are taken, courts should publicize their sacrifices early and often to build public support and strengthen their budget position. 

  • Courts should consider whether to raise revenues by increasing fees and fines but must avoid sending the message that they are somehow responsible for funding themselves.

  • Courts should have significant input concerning their response to a budget crisis, rather than others managing a crisis for the courts.

  • Budget crises may well present opportunities for reform that could not be pursued in more favorable economic times.

  • Firm insistence that the judiciary be treated as a coequal branch of government in the context of court funding is both appropriate and necessary.

Adopted by the Conference of State Court Administrators at their 2003 Midyear Meeting December 12, 2003.

 

top of page