Higher court fees criticized; firefighters' work comp battle continues

A proposed increase in fees for traffic tickets, divorces and lawsuits is stirring controversy in the Legislature. And wrangling continues over workers compensation benefits for firefighters.

Toward the end of his State of the Judiciary speech to the Legislature Thursday, Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke referred to Gov. Jim Pillen’s budget proposal, as it relates to the courts.

“We have worked extensively with the governor's budget office. We trust that the proposed legislation to increase filing fees and reduce general fund appropriations is a reasonable method to ensure all services are not sacrificed and public safety is not compromised,” Funke said.

Legislation introduced for Pillen (LB1228) would add a $61 “state docket fee” to the cost of a traffic ticket. Divorces would go up $111. Civil lawsuits would go up $70 in county court and $116 in district courts or the Supreme Court. And small claims cases would go up $38.

Sen. Rob Clements, chair of the Appropriations Committee, said the proposed fees would replace $11.4 million that would otherwise come from the state’s general fund.

Sen. Danielle Conrad said the proposal reflects the state’s budget problems. She criticized both Pillen’s idea and Funke’s apparent endorsement of it.

“The chief justice has lifted up a huge hike in court fees to fill those budget gaps and carry out operations in the courts. And this should grab everybody's attention. This should have robust debate. It is well established that court fees are one of the most regressive fees, regressive taxes that government has available,” Conrad said.

“Regressive” refers to taxes or fees that disproportionately affect lower-income people.

Sen. Rick Holdcroft, chair of the Legislature’s General Affairs Committee who introduced the bill increasing fees for the governor, defended the idea as a way of saving taxpayers money.

“The main goal is to reduce property taxes. So instead of making everyone pay for the court fees, then we make the individuals who are having to appear in court do those fees. So that's the breakdown. It's a tradeoff between fees versus property taxes,” Holdcroft said.

Holdcroft acknowledged that state government doesn’t collect or spend property taxes, which are the province of schools and local governments. But the state spends billions of dollars each year, largely from income and sales taxes, on expenditures like school aid and property tax credits, to offset expenses that would otherwise fall to property taxpayers.

Holdcroft said the proposed fees would help indirectly, by freeing up state general funds for those efforts.

“Yeah, we don't collect property taxes, we don't assess or spend property taxes, but we do contribute to pieces that do overall reduce property tax. And this is one way of unburdening your typical person who's paying property taxes by making those who are having to appear in court to pay these fees,” he said.

But Conrad vowed to form a coalition to fight the proposed increases.

“It's just really inappropriate, I think, that the chief justice is asking low-income Nebraskans to pay more to fill budget gaps, and just last year, we saw massive increases for judges salaries, and now they're some of the most highly paid judges in the country. So that that really is not appropriate from a public policy standpoint, and these are some of the issues that I and other senators are going to bring forward and really fight hard to make sure that we can have access to justice, including for those who can least afford it,” she said.

Last year, the Legislature approved increasing Supreme Court Judges salaries to $228,000, a 1.5 percent increase, with another 1.5 percent due this year. Lower court judges are paid 90 to 95 percent as much and received proportionate raises. Judges pay in Nebraska last year ranked 18th highest among the states, according to the National Center for State Courts.

In other developments Thursday, senators continued debate on a proposal (LB400) to make it easier for firefighters with cancer to collect workers compensation payments. The bill would do that by shifting the burden of proof, currently on the firefighter, to show the cancer was work-related. Instead, it would be up to the employer to show that it was not.

The League of Nebraska Muncipalities opposes the bill, arguing it would increase cities’ costs and property taxes. Sen. Mike Jacobson, speaking in opposition to the bill, said firefighters already have good salary, retirement, health and disability insurance.

“What are we missing? What is the missing link here that we're trying to solve for with this bill? I have not heard that. No one will tell me what that is. No one will tell the League what this is. It's just a money grab,” Jacobson said.

Sen. George Dungan, speaking in favor of the bill supported by firefighters and their unions, strongly disagreed.

“These people are fighting for their lives because they've put their lives on the line, and they're trying to make sure that the courts appropriately… compensate them for the work that they've done based on workers' compensation, which is designed to do this,” Dungan said.

Debate on the bill has now consumed five hours over three days, meaning the eight-hour limit before a motion to cut off debate and vote could be reached Friday.

Correction: The audio version of this story, and an earlier text version, misstated the committee chaired by Sen. Holdcroft. It is the General Affairs Committee.