Access to Justice and Funding for the Courts
| Publication year | 2003 |
| Pages | 25 |
| Citation | Vol. 32 No. 1 Pg. 25 |
2003, January, Pg. 25. Access to Justice and Funding for the Courts
Vol. 32, No. 1, Pg. 25
The Colorado Lawyer
January 2003
Vol. 32, No. 1 [Page 25]
January 2003
Vol. 32, No. 1 [Page 25]
Features
CBA President's Message to Members
Access to Justice and Funding for the Courts
by John E. Moye
CBA President's Message to Members
Access to Justice and Funding for the Courts
by John E. Moye
We are always trying to improve the justice system and to
make it more responsive and available to all of the citizens
of the state of Colorado. We have studied it, debated it
lobbied for it, organized conferences about it,1 and
developed some very creative ideas about how to improve
access to justice for our underserved litigants
Have we ever considered the possibility that we could design
a justice system that responds to all of the public's
needs, but may never be able to afford to implement it? In
many respects, our judicial system is running out of money
precisely at a time when we are making real progress to
improve access to justice for the poor and indigent and
otherwise unrepresented members of our society
Recently, I met with Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey of the
Colorado Supreme Court to discuss the severe financial issues
that are facing the Court. In the same week, I asked ten
prominent members of our bar association2 to become charter
members of a statewide Access to Justice Commission that
promises to coordinate and improve the opportunities for
Colorado citizens to use our court system. Ironically, just
when we are directing our efforts toward opening the court
system to all who need it, the court system is having to cut
back its services and its capacity.
It is time to consider a different approach to funding for
the courts.
The Current Budget Issues
The State Judicial Department in Colorado has a current
budget of approximately $177 million, after required
reductions last year. Following the elections in November
2002, it became apparent that the judiciary needs to plan for
a significant further reduction of its budget. The courts
have imposed a hiring freeze, which has been in effect since
September 1, 2002. Laudably, district court judges have
contributed personal funds to mitigate lost income for their
staffs who have been ordered to take an unpaid furlough for
at least three days. Near the turn of the last century, some
of the wealthy railroad moguls were urged by the unions to do
the same thing for railroad workers, but our district court
judges are not moguls - and even the moguls said that was no
way to run a railroad.
It is not hard to understand why the Judicial Department has
been the target of substantial budget cuts in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial