Rural judges fear court consolidation

Dec. 15, 2004

Rachel Davis

Harris News Service

The idea of consolidating the district court system in Kansas has been debated for nearly 15 years, and it still makes some people hot under the collar.

Hamilton County Sheriff Mike Keating, for one.

Keating adamantly opposes district court consolidation, saying it would drive up costs for small counties.

"The state needs to leave this service alone," he said.

He isn't the only southwest Kansan to feel that way.

 

History lesson

Kansas has 105 counties, 160 district court judges and 76 magistrate judges.

Ron Keefover, spokesman for the state Office of Judicial Administration, said state law requires at least one judge for every county in Kansas.

"Attempts were made to repeal the statute," Keefover said. "The Legislature thought it would save money."

That's when Kansans began to debate the merits of court consolidation.

Rural vs. urban

Consolidation in southwest Kansas would mean doing away with courts that have low caseloads, said 25th Judicial District Court Judge Philip Vieux of Garden City.

"Consolidation takes away a real local government control," he said.

Consolidation would also mean fewer judges, Vieux said. And that, in turn, would mean higher caseloads.

"Finney County uses district magistrates from outside counties for help with cases," Vieux said. "If we lose those positions to consolidation, we would be overloaded with cases."

But some urban lawmakers, such as Rep. Marti Crow, D-Leavenworth, favor court consolidation.

"I'm all for judicial branches managing their own districts," she said. "But I am not for uneven distribution of caseloads and burdening some courts."

Crow said consolidation would eliminate judgeships in western Kansas and create new posts in more populous areas with case backlogs.

Consolidation concerns

In western Kansas, Keating believes that cutting corners - and court services - causes problems and financial burdens.

"The state says it we'll save money, but it will cost the counties more than we can afford," he said.

Keating estimates that court consolidation would cost Hamilton County at least $100,000. That includes the cost of transportation and the expense of paying two officers to escort each prisoner to court dates in Finney County, nearly an hour's drive from Syracuse.

"It would make obtaining search and arrest warrants more difficult ... because the documents must be delivered physically in hand to a judge for it to be legal," Keating said.

Vieux argued that consolidation would make the courts harder to access for rural Kansans.

Crow agreed that accessibility is an issue, but she said it could be solved by consolidation.

"If we balanced the caseloads, then we will allow all Kansans the same level of access and justice," she said.

 

Continuing debate

Keating worries that the Legislature will approve court consolidation at some point.

"The idea goes before the House Judicial Committee every year, and the vote keeps getting closer in favor of consolidation," he said. "Basically, it's people from high populations who don't really care about the situation out here."

Rep. Ward Loyd, R-Garden City, said court consolidation is seen as the last resort for solving judicial funding issues.

"Part of the agreement for funding was the suggestion that we would not pursue consolidation if an appropriations bill was passed to renew funding of the judicial branch," Loyd said.

The bill passed, and the judicial branch received $90.8 million this year, Keefover said.

But Crow said the Legislature is moving closer to a compromise on court consolidation.

"When the court system is no longer strangled by underfunding," she said, "then it can administer the courts without the Legislature developing the solution to the problem."