The Indiana Law Blog passes along an article in the Logansport Pharos Tribune. The story doesn’t justify my headline — I just have a thing for alliteration. But, it’s budget season, and during lean times, county budgets get pared down. This includes the county courts. In Cass County, one of the Superior Court judges spoke to the County Council and alluded to the mandate power.
Unlike other county departments, because the department head of the court is the judge, the court can mandate itself additional resources. Other county departments have to go without if the county council does not appropriate money. Fortunately, with the exception of maybe one incident, I have not seen a judge that has used this authority frivolously. That said, it strikes me as a structural imbalance which makes me wonder if courts should be funded at the state level rather than the county level — the judges are state officers, spending much of their time adjudicating laws enacted by the state, sentencing criminals under state statutes for charges brought by the Prosecutor – another state officer, etc. So much of the court budget is just out of the county council’s control.
In Tippecanoe County, coming up, we have the possibility of five murder trials where the county is going to have to pick up a lot of the tab for prosecution, public defender, and judicial expenses. Almost none of those expenses are driven by county level policy making. As a general rule, it seems like the expense should be borne at the same level as the policy making.
Interesting idea. I agree that there is an imbalance regarding judges having the mandate power. I would be very interested in learning more about how often they use it.
Regarding the situation in Tippecanoe, the Prosecutor serves the County, and he/she is the person making the (signficant) decision regarding (1) the death penalty, and (2) plea bargaining? So it would seem to me that the county does have some policy decisions to make in that regard. Still, I understand your point that there is little a county can do about such a situation.
The answer on the Prosecutor is “sort of.” It’s a county guy with the county’s best interests at heart; no doubt. But, the Prosecutor, like the judges, is regarded at law as a state official. Now, the public defenders are all county employees; but the need for them is a state (and federal) mandate. Not that I’m advocating it, but if the county wanted to decline to provide a publicly funded defense, it could not cut the budget in that fashion.
Fortunately, judges seem very restrained in how they use the mandate. But, everyone involved knows that the power is in the judge’s hip pocket if necessary.