[B]udget cuts to the state judiciary branch, already plagued by a case backlog, could make it harder for Vermonters to have their day in court, lawyers and court officials say.
The governor’s proposed 2016 budget includes a $1.8 million increase for the judiciary branch, a 5 percent hike over last year’s budget.
However, the appropriation does not factor in about $2 million in reductions caused by cuts under the Pay Act, underfunding for current operational expenditures and a request to trim an additional $500,000 from an unspecified source.
The problem, according to Patricia Gabel, court administrator for the Vermont Supreme Court, is that the judiciary does not have fat to trim.
For now, the branch will continue to keep several vacant jobs, including four judge positions, unfilled. Coupled with budget cuts and potential layoffs under the governor’s proposed $5 million in labor savings, courts could become even more backed up.
Supreme Court members held a meeting with representatives from across Vermont’s judicial system last month to consider suggestions on how to generate savings, including, at lawmakers’ recommendation, considering closing courthouses.
Abuse and neglect cases, which require a large amount of court resources, take priority over other types of cases. So, Gabel said, a recent spike in the number of abuse and neglect filings has left cases of lower priority on the waiting list.
“Of course the Supreme Court and judiciary are very concerned about access to justice,” Gabel said. “All parties are entitled to a timely hearing for their cases.”
‘Civil matters suffer disproportionately’
The court delays prompted the Vermont Association of Justice (VTAJ) to send a letter last month to lawmakers articulating concerns that the cuts will further beleaguer a system already plagued with backlog.
“As a result of increasing caseloads in all courts, civil matters suffer disproportionately.”
“As a result of increasing caseloads in all courts, civil matters suffer disproportionately,” the letter states.
While abuse and other cases take priority, civil cases remain unresolved. Under the current conditions, the association says, attorneys warn clients that it will likely take 18 to 26 months before a judge hears a two-day civil jury trial. It may take as long as four months to schedule a three-hour-long case.
“That’s a real problem for people who’ve been injured, who need a divorce, or need to modify a custody arrangement with their kids,” said Christopher Larson, Vermont Association of Justice president.
If an injured person is pursuing a case against a national insurance company, Larson offered as an example, the insurance company can afford to wait. The injured person, however, is more likely to need the money sooner to pay for medical bills or other expenses. Instead of waiting for a court time, the insured person may agree to settle for less than their claim is worth.
Criminal cases are less likely to be hit by the delays. In those cases, both sides have legal representation to review the issues, so they often resolve through negotiated plea bargains or dismissals. Not so in family or civil court, says Dan Richardson, president of the Vermont Bar Association and a lawyer in Montpelier.
In those cases, when one side might not have legal representation, the case almost always needs to go before a judge, and the backlog is already causing problems. He is still awaiting a verdict from a judge about a child custody case that he argued in November.
“Families are living in limbo,” Richardson said.
The reductions in the governor’s 2016 budget proposal are further hits to a judiciary that is already underfunded, Richardson said.
A slow judiciary, Richardson said, could dissuade businesses from headquartering here because businesses look to work in states with an efficient legal system. Unlike agencies within the government, the judicial system has a constitutional obligation to fulfill.
“It’s frightening that legislators don’t understand that we’re not talking about an agency,” Richardson said, referring to a commentary in the Brattleboro Reformer written by Sen. Becca Balint, D-Windham, in which she said some elected officials don’t understand the role of the courts. “We’re talking about a branch of government.”
Finding ways to pitch in
But, when faced with a budget deficit that rings in at more than $110 million, lawmakers are looking to find savings wherever they can.
“Whenever judiciary finances are involved, access to justice has to be considered and valued, but in order to close the over $100 million budget gap, all aspects of state government have to evaluate their operations and expenses and find ways to pitch in,” Scott Coriell, a spokesperson for Shumlin, said in an email statement on Monday.
Rep. Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, said Wednesday that the budget restraints on the judiciary are a big concern for the House Appropriations Committee, which she chairs, especially in light of the high rate of opiate use in child-related cases.
Johnson said that the committee is careful to weigh the proposals from the judicial branch with those from the executive branch — not to treat the judicial branch as an arm of the executive.
She is optimistic that the judiciary will be able to make reductions in ways that are efficient to the system, and her committee will take input from the judicial branch into account.
“They do have to be part of a balanced budget somehow,” Johnson said.
The Appropriations Committee will continue to work on the budget with the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Maxine Grad, D-Moretown, when legislators return to Montpelier next week.
“We need to find a way that our courts can continue to provide services and judges can hear cases in a way that doesn’t create delays and burdens,” Grad said.
Defender General Matt Valerio, who heads the state office that provides legal representation to anyone charged with a serious crime, said he expects the budget restraints will cause some delays. Statewide, the office handles upward of 20,000 cases a year.
Valerio says that under budgetary struggles in the past, the state has not seen many cases being thrown out because of lack of access to a speedy trial.
“I guess I’ve been around long enough now that I don’t get overly worked up about the fact that we go through tough times,” Valerio said.
Correction: The article originally stated that criminal cases could be settled through arbitration, rather than negotiated plea bargains.
