Supreme Court budget cuts limited by Constitution

The Nevada Supreme Court is facing the same pressure to cut spending as every other agency in the state.

But, in the court's case, the ability to reduce budgets by the 10 percent requested by the governor is limited by the fact that salaries of district and Supreme Court judges cannot be reduced during their elected term in office. Nevada's Constitution prohibits either raising or lowering an elected official's salary during their term to protect them from punitive salary changes by lawmakers.

"All salaries of judges in the state were set by the 2007 Legislature," said Justice Jim Hardesty.

And nearly every one of the state's more than 75 district judges was elected the following year in 2008. Their salaries - $165,000 - can't be changed until those terms expire at the end of 2012.

"That's been in our Constitution since the beginning of statehood," said Hardesty.

Those and Supreme Court salaries account for about a third of the judicial branch's spending each biennium.

Budget Director Andrew Clinger agreed those salaries are off the table when making cuts.

The judicial budgets, however, don't include operating costs of the district court system. Local government bears those costs.

Despite that limitation, Hardesty said the court either reverted or cut

$19.9 million in 2008 and $2.5 million in 2009.

But the court has basically exempted itself from taking furloughs.

"The Legislature took the full amount for furloughs off the top," he said "If we imposed furloughs, the court would have had a double cut."

Hardesty said with less money, the court has made significant changes to reduce costs including reducing overtime by more than

75 percent.

He said the Supreme Court cut more than $1.9 million from salary spending.

Despite the cuts, he said the court will resolve a record 2,500 cases this year.

"Not only was there a significant reduction in dollars, staff has responded with increased production," he said.

Overall, the judiciary's current budget is just under $60 million in general fund money, augmented by

$34 million in administrative assessment funding. Administrative assessments are collected from fees attached primarily to misdemeanor charges such as traffic tickets.

He said the judiciary's problem with reducing the general fund appropriation is that administrative assessments are the first revenue source the courts calculate in building the budget and those amounts are down because of the recession as well. Latest projections put assessment revenue $5.5 million under the projections used to build the current biennial budget.

Hardesty and Chief Justice Ron Parraguirre pointed out the system is further complicated by the fact the court system has no control over its caseload.

They said one place they think the court should be allowed to save money is in what they pay to Buildings and Grounds for rent and maintenance on the Supreme Court building.

"One third of the law library budget is our rent obligation to B&G," or $30,000 a month, he said.

Ron Titus, head of the Administrative Office of the Courts, said total rent for the building is close to $1 million a year.

Other officials also have suggested lowering their B&G payments to meet their budget targets but maintenance, repairs and janitorial services through B&G are "cost allocated" among all agencies based on square footage. The rate is set according to the total amount needed to do the job. Budget officials say reducing those charges would leave B&G without the money to do its job.

Hardesty said more could be saved if the court were given more freedom to change how it pays for certain services. He said when the court dropped the capitol police in Southern Nevada in favor of Clark County court bailiffs and marshals, they saved more than $58,000.

"The more flexibility the court is given in making budget decisions, the more efficient we'll be," he said.

How to handle the judiciary's budget isn't up to the governor or his budget office. The Judiciary is a separate branch of government. However, the Legislature does set what the courts are allowed to spend each budget cycle.