Note: This year IFF rated maintenance bills according to a more refined system. This is an enhancement bill, and will be rated as a standalone bill. IFF will only consider enhancement line items in these ratings. This means that FTP reductions passed in maintenance legislation will not be evaluated here, among other things.

Bill Description: House Bill 925 is an enhancement of $4,066,000 and an additional 0.00 full-time positions for the Judicial Branch for fiscal year 2027. This legislation appropriates a total of $104,568,600 and 411.00 full-time positions to the agency.

Rating: -2

Is the continuation or growth in ongoing spending, if any, inappropriate for the changes in circumstances, scope of the agency, or current economic environment? Conversely, is the continuation or growth in ongoing spending appropriate given any change in circumstances or economic pressures?

This legislation authorizes an ongoing spending enhancement for the Judicial Branch of $2,077,900, adding onto last year’s (FY26) ongoing spending increase of $5,190,300. FY26’s ongoing spending is wrapped into FY27’s base increase, making ongoing spending especially important to scrutinize. Volatility in these increases (or decreases) is to be expected, and makes discernment on the propriety of new spending imperative.

The increase in ongoing spending consists of  Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Program Support ($77,900 GF) and an increase in spending authority from the Court Technology Fund ($2,000,000 DF). A recent surge in court filings has led to additional revenue in the Court Technology Fund. The Courts also received ARPA money to overhaul their technology and services. It is unclear why the Court needs additional ongoing spending authority. Fees could instead be lowered. Accordingly, these expenditures are unwarranted, especially in a deficit year.

(-1)

Does this budget incur any wasteful spending among discretionary funds, including new line items? Conversely, does this budget contain any provisions that serve to reduce spending where possible (i.e. base reductions, debt reconciliation, etc.)?

This legislation authorizes onetime spending for the Judicial Branch of $1,987,400, adding additional expenditures after last year’s (FY26) onetime spending of $21,000. Onetime spending is often even more volatile than ongoing spending, which is to be expected due to these onetime expenses generally being utilized for projects or capital outlay. This also calls for special scrutiny and discernment.

The onetime expenditures consist of the Senior Magistrate Judges Fund ($800,700 DF), Drug, Mental Health, and Family Court Services ($700,000 DF), the Substance Abuse Treatment Fund ($400,000 DF), and restoration of the 3% recissions to the GAL Program ($87,400 GF).

Funding for the Senior Magistrates is used for retirement bonuses and PERSI purchase of services and are required by law. However, additional dedicated fund authority for the Courts and the Substance Abuse fund were not requested by the agency and are being used to reduce the impact of recissions. Further, the legislation explicitly restores funding to the GAL Program, which does a disservice to other agencies who have taken the full 5% cut.  

(-1)