Audit, reports on lavish spending put justices’ fiscal independence at stake

We make few endorsements of candidates or anything else during the primary election.
As a rule, we only make endorsements in nonpartisan races. However, we’re almost ready to make an exception.
No, not for a candidate. Rather for a constitutional amendment that will not be on the ballot until Nov. 6.
That is, the Judicial Budget Oversight Amendment, which would make the state Supreme Court’s budget subject to legislative oversight.
This amendment was unanimously approved by the Legislature this year but still needs the voters OK to become law.
No we have not come to a conclusion about this amendment. Truth is we have wrestled with this idea of removing this court’s financial independence.
For good reason, the idea of the separation of powers embedded in the executive, legislative and judicial branches is a cornerstone of our government. In instances of disagreement a system of checks and balances prevents one or two branches from retaliating against the others.
For instance, if the high court’s justices overrule legislation there might be a potential for retaliation without the court’s financial independence.
Yet, this proposed amendment on November’s ballot goes far to prevent that possibility.
This amendment prohibits lawmakers from reducing the appropriation to an amount less than 85 percent of the most recently enacted budget.
This limit serves to curb against any sort of fiscal retaliation by over zealous lawmakers.
But it also bars the court from artificially raising its budget request in anticipation of lawmakers lowering it by a certain percentage.
The jury is still out here on this amendment. However, some reports on all five of the state’s justices are good reason to favor this amendment.
Last week, it was a litany of abuses of vehicle use by two justices that only piled on to other reports of questionable spending by the court.
Lavish furnishings, costly office renovations, abusing exclusive access to cushy state sedans, racking up nearly 3,000 additional miles on rental cars and so on smacks of malfeasance.
This coming fiscal year, about $139 million is appropriated for the court’s use. Admittedly, that’s not a big slice of overall state spending. But when it’s spent on $32,000 couches, $28,000 in rugs, a $500,000 office renovation and an additional 600 miles cruising Montreal, that’s too much.
We look forward to the campaign for and against this amendment.
Clearly, no crimes were committed but there’s a preponderance of evidence for this amendment.