If you serve as a judge in a court system that is under funded nothing in  this new Associated Press piece, is new but if your court is still adequately funded but simply threatened then there are lessons from the Associated Press article:

Prosecutors are forced to ignore misdemeanor violations to pursue more serious crimes. Judges are delaying trials to cope with layoffs and strained staffing levels.  And in some cases, those charged with violent crimes, even murder, are set free because caseloads are too heavy to ensure they receive a speedy trial.

Deep budget cuts to courts, public defenders, district attorney’s and attorney general offices are testing the criminal justice system across the country.  In the most extreme cases, public defenders are questioning whether their clients are getting a fair shake.

Exact figures on the extent of the cuts are hard to come by, but an American Bar Association report in August found that most states cut court funding 10 percent to 15 percent within the past three years.  At least 26 states delayed filling open judgeships, while courts in 14 states were forced to lay off staff, said the report.

The National District Attorneys Association estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars in criminal justice funding and scores of positions have been cut amid the economic downturn, hampering the ability of authorities to investigate and prosecute cases.

“It’s extremely frustrating. Frankly, the people that do these jobs have a lot of passion. They don’t do these jobs for the money.  They are in America’s courtrooms every day to protect victims and do justice,” said Scott Burns of the National District Attorneys Association.  “And they’re rewarded with terminations, furloughs and cuts in pay.”

The ripple effects have spread far beyond criminal cases to even the most mundane court tasks, such as traffic violations and child custody petitions.  The wait to process an uncontested divorce in San Francisco, for example, is expected to double to six months as the system struggles to absorb state budget cuts that have led to layoffs of 40 percent of the court’s work force and the closing of 25 of 63 courtrooms.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                

So what should courts do to advocate for adequate and stable funding? There are no simple answers but there are likely some principles that are at the forefront. first courts that are perceived to be dynamic and well run get funded the rest are told to do more with less. There is a danger in tough economic times that court leader hunker down but the problem with that approach is it feeds into less funding. What are your thoughts?