New York State courts will have to cut, too

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo spoke softly recently in chiding the state's top judge about his budget, but his message was hard-edged. Get with the program.

The court system, an independent branch of government, has long stood above the fray in Albany's annual budget brawls. Not this time.

Cuomo has a $10-billion budget crater to fill, and he is seeking to actually cut state spending by 2.7 percent. That's extraordinary for Albany, which usually argues only about the rate of increase. Schools, hospitals and nursing homes are staring at multibillion-dollar cuts, and state agencies have been ordered to slash spending by 10 percent.

If his determination to balance the budget without new taxes or borrowing is going to work, no portion of the government can be spared. "I respectfully ask the judicial branch to reduce its spending while continuing to serve those who seek justice," Cuomo said in his Feb. 2 budget message.

That was his pointed reaction to the $2.7-billion budget that Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman presented that, depending on how you parse the numbers, is either a slight reduction from last year, or a slight increase. Either way, it doesn't matter. Lippman isn't spoiling for a fight. He said he supports Cuomo's efforts to balance the books and gets it that everyone has to sacrifice.

Still, with the courts, it's complicated. The judiciary has a constitutional responsibility to ensure access to justice. Nine of every 10 dollars it spends pays for the 1,267 judges and more than 15,000 employees in 300 courthouses from one end of the state to the other. Deep budget cuts would mean cutting jobs, and officials insist that would mean shutting down courts, something they don't want to do. "We do not have the option of picking and choosing which cases we will hear, or of turning people away," Lippman said Tuesday in his State of the Judiciary address.

Cuomo wants the courts to match the 10 percent cuts he's ordered for state agencies under his direct control. That $270 million would be too much too abruptly for the courts, which do have to keep courthouse doors open to the public. A reasonable target is to match Cuomo's 2.7 percent reduction in overall state spending - a $75-million cut for the courts.

With caseloads rising, Lippman's proposed budget includes no new hiring, despite vacancies approaching 10 percent. Slashing deeper won't be painless. But cuts of the magnitude Cuomo must make won't be painless for anyone dependent on state funds. Still they have to be done.

The court system will have to drive a hard bargain with its major employee union, the Civil Service Employees Association, when its contract expires this spring. Any case for avoiding significant cuts is a hard sell. And it doesn't help that apartments are being renovated in Albany for Court of Appeals judges to use when they're in Albany.

Never mind that the seven 400-square-foot units occupy a small portion of a building that Albany city officials asked the state to take over and rehabilitate. Or that the $23 million renovation is practically finished and won't require any money in this year's budget. Appearances matter, and fancy new apartments are an indulgence. But when it comes to savings, they're a distraction.

This isn't the first time a governor and chief judge have squared off over spending. In 1991 then-Gov. Mario Cuomo unilaterally slashed the court's budget. Chief Judge Sol Wachtler sued, arguing the constitution required Cuomo to submit the court budget intact to the legislature.

The suit was settled, the court got its money, and no governor since has tried to impose cuts on the judiciary. The new Gov. Cuomo isn't doing that now. He made his feelings known, but left the slicing and dicing to court officials and the legislature.

But the challenge isn't just to trim next year's spending. With deficits projected for years to come, shaving a million here and a million there won't be enough for the long haul.

The time is right to unearth a plan from 2007 to reorganize the state's convoluted court structure. Officials pushed for years for authorization to collapse the nine trial courts into a simpler two-tiered structure. That would better serve the public, for instance, sparing families the hassle and expense of going from Family Court to Supreme Court to criminal court for separate adjudication of matrimonial, custody and domestic violence matters. While it would take years to fully implement, officials said it would save hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

That rational plan has languished for want of legislative consent to pursue a constitutional amendment. But it's just the sort of root-and-branch reinvention Albany needs to consider throughout state government.

Albany has to cut spending. And Lippman should seize the moment to reorganize the court system into a more efficient, user-friendly branch of government.