Budget cuts to state courts threaten justice, public safety

As a special session of the Legislature approaches, lawmakers must again cut deeply into state services. We know that Washington residents and lawmakers are hearing laments from all corners, but judicial branch leaders would be derelict in our duty not to explain the impacts of ongoing, deep budget cuts to the courts of our state.

The Declaration of Rights in our state constitution guarantees civil rights to our state’s citizens and directs our courts to protect these rights. But the painful process of budget cuts raises a troubling question: At what point is the due process of law compromised for Washington residents, and at what point do growing delays deny justice?

Judges, lawyers and everyday people across the state, as well as a survey on budget-cut impacts, tell us that delays, understaffing and the specter of darkened courtrooms are growing concerns. These funding issues are not administrative problems; they affect thousands of residents coming to the courts with serious problems involving their livelihoods, personal safety, and business and family relationships.

Some courts report civil cases taking longer than a year to be heard. Imagine waiting to enforce a child support order after a divorce, or collecting on a debt if you’re a struggling business owner, or solving an eviction dispute with a bank and being told you have to wait – maybe more than a year.

Other courts report growing mistakes in processing cases because of understaffing and higher caseloads, significant increases in persons coming to court without attorneys trying to address serious civil conflicts, reduced accountability for offenders because of cuts to probation departments, loss of access to national criminal databases for reviewing criminal backgrounds, and many more impacts.

In a September 2010 survey on funding impacts, Pierce County courts reported cutting several weeks of jury trials. That resulted in a growing backlog of criminal cases, increases in case file delays and errors, a loss of advocates for children involved in court cases, reduction in staff and pro tem judge hours which added to case delays, significant increases in self-represented persons struggling through serious cases without attorneys, increased strains on public defenders, and more.

Many trial courts report budget cuts of more than 20 percent from 2009 funding levels, while state-level judicial branch funding (such as the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Office of Public Defense and other state judicial entities) has decreased more than 13 percent overall. One judicial agency has been cut more than 36 percent; another has been cut nearly 25 percent.

The courts cannot close, cannot cut enrollment, and cannot put off civil and criminal cases to a better budget year. We accept all comers and we always will; it is a constitutional guarantee. But even though the courts will never completely close, deep budget cuts are putting justice out of reach for many people.

As the Legislature and local county governments cut funding to the courts, the consequences are real. Public safety is at risk when criminal cases are delayed and sentences reduced on potentially dangerous offenders. Vulnerable populations like children and the elderly are hurt when resolution of health benefits or domestic conflicts are delayed.

Ongoing cuts damage our system of government by weakening the courts, a separate and co-equal branch that has the responsibility for judging government actions that impact individual liberties.

Alexander Hamilton described the judicial branch as the “weakest department of power,” with “no influence over either the sword or the purse ... but merely judgment.”

During this time of unprecedented economic challenge, the judicial branch will continue to work with the Legislature and the executive branch to address the state’s fiscal crisis, while striving to preserve the branch’s ability to meet its constitutional responsibilities. We will continue to assess essential functions and make the difficult distinctions between services we should provide to better meet our justice mandate and services we must provide.

We accept that reductions must be made, but we must not rob Washingtonians of access to equal justice, which undermines public confidence in the courts and the government as a whole.

Barbara Madsen of Fircrest is chief justice of the Washington Supreme Court.