Lawmakers mull implications of state takeover of county courts

Listen to this article

Minnesota has been examining the option of a state-funded takeover of county-run courts for the past decade. In fact, court-related costs in four of the state’s 10 judicial districts have already been transferred to state control — and a bill sponsored by Rep. Ron Abrams, R-Minnetonka, would continue the process.

Under the bill, which has been approved by the House Finance Committee and the House Civil Law Committee, costs in all 10 districts would be transferred to the state by 2005. The measure now moves to the House Tax Committee, which Abrams chairs. The final version of the bill may be included in the omnibus tax measure for 2001.

“We are one state, we ought to have one judicial system,” said Abrams. Minnesota needs “equality of justice and equality of the administration of justice,” he added.

Although the judges, lawyers and court administrators contacted by Minnesota Lawyer generally support the bill, there is considerable concern that inadequate funding will continue to plague the court system.

“From a judicial standpoint, the key issue is not whether there is state or county funding but rather whether there is adequate and stable funding,” said Hennepin County Chief Judge Kevin Burke.

Hennepin County Bar Association (HCBA) President Aaron Biber pointed out that there is reason for concern — even though it is difficult to foresee the impact of a move to a state-funded court system and the bill would likely be merely administrative in its effect.

“All attorneys in the state should be interested in making sure that if the costs of the courts are transferred to the state budget that the excellence of our state’s court system and the services it provides to the public are not in any way sacrificed,” said Biber.

According to Hennepin County District Court Administrator Mark S. Thompson, state funding would benefit the courts in outstate areas by allowing them to provide more and better services. Since courts in heavily populated urban districts already provide the services lacking in some less-populated rural districts, a state-funded court system would not significantly affect the daily operations of metro-area courts, Thompson predicted.

However, Thompson does see some benefits for urban courts in a move to a state-funded court system.

“The Legislature believes that there is a great property tax relief to be gained over time by transferring to a state-funded court system,” said Thompson. “State funding of the courts is a nationwide trend that shouldn’t be a surprise. [However], everyone should be concerned if there are inadequate funds to handle and resolve the concerns of [Minnesota’s] citizens.”

Minnesota State Bar Association President Kent Gernander agreed. “My only concern is that adequate funding comes with the shift of responsibility for funding the courts. I’m not sure that the districts [for which the state has already assumed funding responsibility] have yet received adequate funding,” he said, adding that the MSBA has not taken an official position on the legislation.

The bill

Four districts in western Minnesota (districts 5, 7, 8 and 9) are currently funded by the state. The proposed legislation would provide for the state takeover of districts 2 and 4 (Ramsey and Hennepin counties) in 2003, districts 1 and 3 (southeastern and south central Minnesota) in 2004, and districts 6 and 10 (northeastern and east central Minnesota) in 2005.

The bill contemplates a reduction in a county’s Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) in exchange for the state taking responsibility for funding the courts. The Minnesota Supreme Court, which oversees court administration, would determine the county’s cost savings while taking into account the transfer of certain court fines and fees to the state. The county’s HACA payment would be initially reduced by 50 percent of the net cost, with the remaining HACA payment reduced in the second calendar year following the state takeover.

While Abrams recognizes that some counties might not be completely satisfied with the solution initially, he encourages Minnesotans to look at the long-term benefits of a state-funded court system.

Following the trend

State Court Administrator Sue Dosal pointed out that a state-funded court system is not a new idea — more than 30 states currently fund their court systems at the state level. In the late 1980s, the Minnesota Legislature asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to examine ways of financing the trial courts. In 1989, a broad-based task force concluded that it would be appropriate for Minnesota’s court system to be funded by the state.

In 1990, the Legislature authorized state-funding of the 8th Judicial District as a pilot project, adding three other districts in western Minnesota in July of 2000. Dosal believes that the current bill would provide Minnesota with enough momentum to complete the process.

“The counties support a state takeover of funding and actually asked that the process be accelerated,” said Dosal.

According to Dosal, the goals of the current bill mirror the goals set forth by the original Supreme Court task force. It is hoped that a state-funded court system would alleviate many of the problems with the current county-funded court system.

A state-funded court system would allow Minnesota to provide uniform and equitable court services, regardless of geographical location, would consolidate policy-making and funding responsibilities and would allow for uniformity of policy, explained Dosal.

The current system, which depends on the county tax base, results in inequities in the level of services provided depending on geographical area, said Dosal. “Justice is a state-wide concern. Crime doesn’t follow the county tax base or the population,” she added.

“Because of the nature of what the judiciary does, it is during times of economic downturn that the [judiciary has] the greatest need,” observed Burke. “There tends to be more crime and more businesses in trouble.”

Burke said that using funds from property taxes is not the most rational way to fund the courts.

“It makes sense to use property taxes to fund the fire and police [departments] and the sewer system. But why should divorces, [for example], be financed by the property tax?” asked Burke.

Burke pointed out that under the current system, residents in county-funded districts such as Hennepin County pay for their own courts as well as the courts in state-funded districts.

“If [the bill is passed] the state will be responsible for funding the third branch of government. … From a tax fairness standpoint the bill makes sense,” said Burke.

Another problem with the current system is that it forces the judiciary to seek funding from each county separately.

“The judiciary is the only branch of government that is required to go to 87 places for funding,” observed Dosal. “[The county-funded system prevents] uniformity of funding. It’s impossible administratively to achieve statewide coherence.”

Ramsey County District Chief Judge Lawrence Cohen said that it is appropriate that each of Minnesota’s 10 judicial districts operate under one system funded by the state. State funding for the courts would benefit Minnesota’s judicial sy
stem by allowing the courts to operate more efficiently, more economically and more uniformly, he observed.

Certain outstate counties lack adequate funding to provide certain necessary services, Dosal observed. “Forty percent of kids have no guardian ad litem, even though the policy is that every child [in child protection cases] should have one,” said Dosal. “We need to bring together policy and responsibility for funding. … Virtually no policy is made at the county level. If legislation is going to be enacted that affects the judiciary there should be a tie-in [between policy and funding].”

“The state sets the policy and passes laws which have a huge impact on the budget of the court,” observed 1st Judicial District Chief Judge Leslie Metzen. The state’s judicial system would likely run more smoothly if the courts were funded by the same body that creates the law and policy, she added.

Concerns about funding

While there is widespread support behind a move to a state-funded court system in theory, there is considerable concern that the transition would not be smooth and that the courts would remain underfunded.

“The whole intention of state funding of trial courts is to secure adequate resources for the trial courts and to make sure that all districts have equitable funding,” said Ramsey County Civil Court Administrator Michael Moriarity. “The main issue is that there is adequate funding.”

Metzen, who also chairs the Conference of Chief Judges, said that the state is not adequately funding the districts whose costs were transferred to the state last July.

The state should concentrate on adequately funding the districts for which it has already assumed responsibility before attempting to fund the remaining six districts, said Metzen.

“[The judiciary currently has its] most ambitious agenda ever. We are asking for $86 million in our budget, which includes funding for those districts that have already gone over to state funding,” said Metzen.

According to Metzen, funding for the four state-funded districts is inadequate because the state did not recognize the magnitude of the infrastructure needed to run courts effectively, specifically in the areas of human resources and financial and accounting systems. Although the state is now aware of the problem, Metzen is concerned that inadequate funding will continue to be an issue and will lead to a delay in processing both criminal and civil cases.

“If the courts are not adequately funded, not only judges and lawyers but the people who use our services — the people in Minnesota — will be affected,” said Metzen.

Cohen is also concerned that the level of support may be inadequate. “Minnesota judges are very effective, but the courts are way understaffed,” observed Cohen, adding that the state needs to invest more money in the judicial system in order to make the transition to state funding of the courts effective.

There is also concern that the formula for reducing state aid in exchange for the state taking responsibility for funding the courts could do more harm than good. Metzen pointed out that it is in the counties’ best interests to continue to receive as much HACA funds as possible, which could result in “starving” the courts.

Optimism

While recognizing that adequate funding for the court system will remain an issue in Minnesota, supporters of the bill encourage optimism.

Dosal pointed out that the three districts that switched to state funding last July had been underfunded for some time, and added that nine months is not enough time to bring those counties up to speed. “A significant goal is adequate and stable funding. We are making our case with the Legislature right now,” said Dosal.

Ramsey County District Court Administrator Lawrence Dease observed: “Once the courts are transferred to the state, the Legislature will have the responsibility of making sure that the courts are adequately funded. The legislation currently being considered looks at the transition period, as well as the time before the transition, to make sure the infrastructure is in place. I am optimistic that the transition will be smooth.”