Court proposals would build more efficient system

’Tis the season when state agencies queue up at the Legislature to ask for changes in state law. And, of course, for more money.

The judiciary is no exception — but its ambitious legislative package of proposed constitutional amendments and statutory changes tilts much more heavily in favor of structural changes that would make the court system more efficient, and deliver better value for citizens and taxpayers.

Yes, lawmakers will be asked to come up with money for a judicial branch that has never been adequately funded. But the salary increase requests for judges — who are among the lowest paid in the nation — are not put forth by the courts, but by an independent Judicial Compensation Commission.

Our District Court judges rank 50th nationally in pay. Our Court of Appeals judges are dead last. Our Supreme Court justices make less than the average New Mexico lawyer. To attract qualified candidates to positions that make incredibly important decisions affecting all of us, this needs to change.

The judiciary itself is asking for a modest $650,000 appropriation for judicial education, $550,000 for a program in which court employees would screen defendants before they are released from jail pending a court date, $1.8 million for software to redcact personal identifying information from court records so they can be posted online and $450,000 to expand a voluntary online dispute resolution program initially developed by eBay and Pay Pal to resolve customer disputes.

All of these are smart, economical investments that save taxpayers money in the long run and make the system work better for the public. Why trudge down to court to get a record, or fight over a $500 alleged debt, if you can resolve it online?

The courts also are pushing for a constitutional amendment — which unlike a change in statute is subject to voter approval — that would require a judge appointed through the Judicial Nominating Commission process to serve at least one year before having to stand for a partisan election (it would be even better to get rid of the partisan election entirely). The current system keeps down the number of applicants — only one or two people were applying for openings in 2018. Why would a competent and successful lawyer apply, get appointed and close down his or her practice knowing an election that could send them back to square one is just months away?

And the current system is vulnerable to political chicanery. A political party’s central committee in some cases has the option of not even including a newly appointed judge on the ballot. Another proposed constitutional amendment would allow counties the OPTION of closing their probate courts at the end of the current probate judge’s term if those cases could be moved to other state courts, and a proposed statutory change would allow municipalities the option to transfer Municipal Court operations to state courts — typically magistrate. Why? As it stands, we are spending a significant amount of resources on courts with overlapping jurisdiction in the same locations. For example, Clayton, with a population of 2,980 residents, has district, magistrate, municipal and probate courts, and a caseload that could be handled by a single judge. The proposed changes simply give local government an option to allocate resources more efficiently.

Chief Justice Judith Nakamura, who served as a district judge in Albuquerque and chief judge in Metropolitan Court, says many problems in the judiciary are organizational and it makes no sense to throw money at them.

These proposals, she said, would allow the courts to have less duplication and “build a better system with fewer bodies.” That’s something that should resonate with taxpayers and legislators.