State panel recommends judicial reallocation from low- to high-need counties
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Some Indiana counties have more than double the judicial officers needed to handle court cases, while others are understaffed, according to the state’s most recent weighted caseload report.
A lawmaker-run interim panel on Thursday recommended that the state optimize the caseload-to-staff figure. That’s “even if it means re-allocating judges from lower utilized counties to those in need,” per the unanimously approved final report.
Rep. Chris Jeter, R-Fishers, the body’s chair, said lawmakers “owe it to taxpayers” to get “right-sized, as a state.”
“We’re going to have to shift our mindset a little bit from the addition of courts all the time to reallocation of courts,” he said.
Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, took a brusque stance.
Courts with lower caseloads and higher staffing “are a burden on the taxpayers and also the local community,” she said.
In an earlier meeting she questioned the number of 213 working days used in the report for judges, noting that would mean a high amount of vacation or time off.
There are 260 work days in a year after weekends are removed.
Indiana compares trial court caseloads statewide using a weighted system that began development in 1993, according to the Indiana Judicial Branch website.
Since different types of cases require different time commitments, researchers collect time data from court staff and find the average number of minutes each case type takes. That’s used to establish the “weight” each type carries, according to the website.
A utilization of 1 means the jurisdiction has the exact number of judicial officers needed to handle the filings received in that year.
A score below that means staff is underused, while a score above that means staff members are handling heavy caseloads.
The report used time data from between Feb. 5, 2024 and March 1, 2024, with 98% of Hoosier judicial officers participating: commissioners, referees, magistrates, circuit court judges and superior court judges. Their data was annualized.
The state, as a whole, has 488.61 judicial officers available but needs 480.55, leading to a utilization rate of 0.98.
Four counties were double-staffed or more, with utilization rates below 0.50, according to the report: Blackford, Franklin, Brown and Union counties. Union, for example, had one judicial officer but only needed about a third of that person’s time.
Several counties, meanwhile, were about a third short.
Hamilton and Shelby counties were identified as having the most severe needs, each with utilization rates of 1.34. Hamilton had 11.60 judicial officers but had caseloads that warranted 15.54, while Shelby had 3.90 but needed 5.24.
Vigo, Whitley and Allen rounded out the top five, with Allen needing just over six more judicial officers.
Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, said he wanted the state to move away from “arbitrary” population parameters in determining when to authorize new judicial officers and toward “need.”
The interim panel also recommended the General Assembly authorize new judicial officers for Elkhart, Hamilton, Lawrence and Vigo counties. State government pays the salaries of judges.
Rep. Victoria Garcia Wilburn, D-Fishers, said Hamilton County’s request for two elected judges and two magistrates was “reasonable” considering the county’s recent and projected population growth.
But discussion pressed on sore spots for two lawmakers representing counties forced to move from elected judges to state-appointed ones.
Senate Minority Leader Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, noted that population size was a “significant” reason lawmakers removed local choice in Marion County judges.
Rep. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, added, “There’s no good reason why we should be treated differently from any other counties in Indiana.” He wanted lawmakers to “seriously consider” that topic.
The interim panel also declined to recommend Spencer County’s request, citing low need and the county’s admission in a previous meeting that its data may contain inaccuracies.
ICC: The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.