Should states guarantee or “benchmark” a minimum amount of general funds go to their judiciaries? As I discussed here, the topic has been debated since at least the 1970s as a way to keep court funding out of the political arena and help provide a (more) stable source of revenue for the branch. The debate is now being renewed in modified forms in New Mexico and South Carolina in 2017.
The New Mexico House Judiciary committee voted 10-3 yesterday to approve HB 81 as amended. Rather than a guarantee the bill as introduced “benchmarked” at least 3% of the state’s general fund after various payments were made. The amended version removed the various other payments and now reads in operative part.
Appropriations to the judiciary shall be benchmarked at not less than three percent of the recurring general fund appropriation for the next fiscal year. The provisions of this act apply to fiscal year 2018 and succeeding fiscal years.
HB 81 now goes to the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.
In South Carolina for the 4th year in a row a member of the Senate has proposed a constitutional amendment to provide 1% of general fund for the judiciary, this year as SJR 69 of 2017.
The General Assembly, in the annual general appropriations act, shall appropriate, out of the estimated revenue of the general fund for the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made, to the Judicial Department an amount equal to one percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year.