The Idaho Spending Index serves to provide a fiscally conservative perspective on state budgeting while providing an unbiased measurement of how Idaho lawmakers apply these values to their voting behavior on appropriations bills. Each bill is analyzed within the context of the metrics below. They receive one (+1) point for each metric that is satisfied by freedom-focused policymaking and lose one (-1) point for each instance in which the inverse is true. The sum of these points composes the score for the bill.

Rating: (-2)

Bill Description: S1185 is an enhancement of $5,190,300 and 6.00 new full-time positions for the Judicial Branch for fiscal year 2026. This legislation appropriates a total of $103,594,800 and 418.00 full-time positions to the agency.

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.)? 

S1185 appropriates $1,242,400 for additional resources for the Judicial Branch in the form of new district judges and their staff, as provided by Senate bills 1028 and 1029, passed earlier this legislative session. Though supporting the judicial system is not inherently wasteful since elements of it are within the proper role of government, this request reveals legislators were misled by the true impact of this expansion. The fiscal notes accompanying these bills reported a combined cost of $816,200 — that is $426,200, or 52%, less than the request — to support the new judges and all other costs. It appears the legislation only contemplated another 4.00 FTPs, but this item appropriates 6.00 FTPs. This likely explains the discrepancy, but it grows the size of the Judicial Branch more than what Legislators were led to believe. This line item is oversized and should be reduced to the value marketed to the Legislature when it approved the increase.

(-1)

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 funds ongoing spending for the Judicial Branch at over $100 million, growing from the base by over 32% in the last three years. This rate is nearly 18 points faster than what would be prescribed by inflationary pressures and growth.

Because of the accelerated growth in this budget the last three years, a truly fiscally responsible enhancement budget for FY2026 would reverse the growth with a negative appropriation — a reduction to the base budget.

(-1)