Court Finance and Unitary Budgeting

Abstract

Among the difficulties besetting the courts today is lack of money. In this respect, they share adversity with most public and charitable institutions such as schools, universities, hospitals, parks and libraries. But the fiscal dilemma of the courts is unique in certain respects. They constitute an independent branch of government, critically necessary to the balance of our constitutional system. Yet they are expected to eschew the normal political process and, unlike other competitors for public resources, are prohibited from cultivating their own constituencies and utilizing lobbyists. Furthermore, the judicial systems of most states are heavily dependent on local government for their finance.' In these states, the courts must join the unhappy competition for the inadequate revenues of local property taxes. While available fiscal support is limited, the judicial workload often appears boundless. The squeeze, discernible everywhere, has reached crisis proportions in some localities, resulting in substantial backlogs, frustrated litigants, and demoralized court staffs. Money alone will not solve all of these problems; nevertheless, in many areas, particularly the large cities, more money is plainly essential. The task of providing the judiciary with adequate funding is first one of problem-recognition and exhortation. This stage is now well advanced.2 Next, it involves devising better methods for identifying