Editor’s Note: The following editorial was published by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and reprinted here with permission from the NCSC, the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA).
Williamsburg, VA (May 22, 2014) — National Public Radio’s series “Guilty and Charged,” on the harmful impact that court fees and fines can have on the poor, shines considerable light on a problem that courts themselves have recognized since the 1970s. Regrettably, much of the reporting in the series implies that courts have full control over which fees and fines to charge or waive, when in fact those fees and fines most often are mandated by the state or local legislative body, and courts merely serve as collectors of revenue. Funds raised through court fees and fines are often returned to a state or local general fund and then sometimes used for purposes other than the administration of justice. Due to the devastating budget cuts to state court systems from the Great Recession, many court systems find themselves at a crisis point and are only now beginning a recovery. Almost nowhere do court budgets exceed three percent of a state’s overall budget.
Since the 1970s, the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ)—the association of top judges from the 50 states, DC and the territories—has maintained the position that court functions should be funded from the general operating fund of the states in order that the judiciary can fulfill its obligation of upholding the Constitution and protecting the individual rights of all citizens by providing access to justice for all.
In 2012, the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA)—the association of management executives that oversee judicial administration in the state courts—produced a position paper entitled “Courts are Not Revenue Centers.” The policy paper outlines a series of principles, including:
- Courts should be substantially funded from general governmental revenue sources, enabling them to fulfill their constitutional mandates
- Neither courts nor specific court functions should be expected to operate exclusively from proceeds produced by fees and miscellaneous charges
- Optional local fees or miscellaneous charges should not be established
Further, both CCJ and COSCA have adopted the “Principles of Judicial Administration” developed by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). This includes the principle that “Court fees should not be set so high as to deny reasonable access to dispute resolution services provided by the courts. Courts should establish a method to waive or reduce fees when needed to allow access.”
No one should be imprisoned for an inability to pay fines, fees and costs. Our state court systems recognize that this serious issue must be effectively addressed. The Great Recession has severely impacted the ability of state and local legislatures around the country to raise sufficient revenue to support a strong judiciary as a core government function. Sadly, in too many instances, legislative leaders have focused on the courts as a revenue center often to pay for a myriad of things unrelated to the courts themselves, rather than as a forum for justice for all our citizens.
The National Center for State Courts provides executive secretariat services to CCJ and COSCA. NCSC, headquartered in Williamsburg, Va., is a nonprofit court organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice by providing leadership and service to the state courts. Founded in 1971 by the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger, NCSC provides education, training, technology, management, and research services to the nation’s state courts.
Contact:
Jesse Rutledge
Vice President External Affairs
National Center for State Courts
757.259.1505
[email protected]