Nevada Judiciary

The Nevada Supreme Court has released the report (Part 1 | Part 2) of its landmark Court Funding Commission, which for the first time took an in-depth look at how the courts in Nevada are funded and whether the needs of the public are being met.

"This Commission's work is extremely important," said Chief Justice Nancy Becker. "Courts need adequate funds to operate, but if funding is inconsistent or inequitable it affects the abilities of the courts to provide the equal services and justice our citizens deserve."

What the Commission found was a system that is dependent in part on an unstable source of income based on fines, fees and assessments levied against those who must use the courts, although the majority of court operating funds come from city, county or state dollars - depending on the court level.

Yet it appears even those governmental dollars are not allotted through uniform methods.

The 18-member Commission, chaired by former Justice Deborah A. Agosti, concluded that court funding "evolved piecemeal over time" and is a "collection of funding sources that is seemingly random and neither rational nor consistent."

The Commission included members of the judiciary along with state legislators and representatives of the private sector and local governments.

The Commission, which began its work in November 2003, estimated that the cost to operate the Nevada Judiciary during fiscal year 2003 was a minimum of $184 million and likely much higher. Most of the cost is born by local governments. Only $16.4 million came from the state General Fund - less than one percent of the entire state budget.

The 75-page report noted that the State General Fund dollars pay for only about half of the Supreme Court's operation. The rest comes from administrative assessments collected by Justice and Municipal Courts on misdemeanor and traffic cases.

Justice Agosti, who retired in January and is now a senior justice, stated the Commission's work is "an important first step in gaining information about the comparative financial health and condition of all Nevada Courts."

She emphasized that the task of government now moves to the "policy determinations about how best to fund Nevada's courts."

The Report noted a disparity in the funding between urban and rural courts and a corresponding disparity in the types of services available to citizens. "Courts that are not well funded lack the resources to operate as smoothly (as well funded courts), and struggle to guarantee safety, security, and the same services," the Report stated.

The Commission's first recommendation is that the Supreme Court "define the role of courts and identify what programs, services and service levels are essential for the minimum acceptable level of justice equally accessible to everyone in Nevada."

The Commission also recommended that the Supreme Court direct the Judicial Council of the State of Nevada to develop standards for such matters as case processing and waiting times, security, court facilities, staffing, and "appropriate" budgets.

Some other recommendations include:

• The sharing of programs and services regionally.
• Joint funding of services and programs to ensure their availability to all citizens within geographic areas.
• Resolving the conflict in courts with overlapping jurisdiction to issue temporary protective orders and clarifying to the public how to obtain such orders in domestic violence cases.