Backlog is rising.
Alaska’s Courts in a Pinch: Why Chief Justice Susan Carney Wants a New Judge and Building Repairs Now
Backlog is rising.
Chief Justice Susan Carney told lawmakers that the Alaska Supreme Court and lower courts are strained, and she asked for funding for a new judge and courthouse maintenance to reduce case delays, improve access to justice, and address long-running facility problems that slow docket processing and threaten public safety.
Who will pay?
Key Takeaways:
- Chief Justice Susan Carney requested funding to add a new judge and to pay for courthouse maintenance to reduce the backlog and improve court functioning.
- The move ties to broader policy and budget choices, and it pits the court’s operational needs against other state spending priorities.
- There are practical risks in the current setup: delayed rulings, overloaded judges, and aging physical infrastructure that increases long-term costs.
What is Chief Justice Susan Carney asking for?
Short answer first.
Susan Carney, the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, asked the Alaska Legislature for funds to hire an additional judge and to increase spending on courthouse maintenance and repairs, arguing that these measures would reduce case backlogs, shorten wait times for litigants, and preserve court facilities that have deteriorated over years of deferred maintenance, which in turn increases operational costs and jeopardizes public access.
Is the request reasonable?
This request is part raise-for-resources, part policy pitch, and part practical triage.
When I looked at the numbers and the testimony transcripts, I saw a consistent pattern: rising filings in some divisions, stagnant staffing levels, and deferred capital repairs turning into urgent safety and efficiency problems—so the ask is a pragmatic one rather than ideological posturing.
What many stories miss is that the court’s pitch is both legal and civic.
Here’s the plain truth.
If you value timely rulings, respect for the dignity of work by judges and court staff, and stewardship of public resources, this request deserves careful consideration—because a decaying courthouse and an overburdened docket do real harm to people who need justice now.
Core Details and Context
Small facts matter.
The Alaska court system has reported backlogs in several divisions, with particular pressure on trial courts in urban and rural circuits where caseloads outpaced staffing, and where building maintenance was deferred for years, and the result is longer waits for hearings, fewer available courtrooms, and more ad hoc scheduling that eats hours of judicial time.
How did this happen?
Start with funding patterns, then add demographics and case types, and you get the picture.
State budgets tightened after commodity-price swings and pandemic-era pressures, meaning the Government prioritized some programs over others, leading to deferred maintenance, wage stagnation for court staff, and hiring freezes that left vacancies unfilled while filings slowly climbed in areas like family law, criminal dockets, and probate; combined with aging courthouses—some built decades ago—this produced operational strain.
What matters is the detail.
I’ve covered court budgets before, and what makes this request persuasive is the mix: an operational ask (a new judge), a capital ask (courthouse maintenance), and a pitch about efficiency gains that could save public funds over time.
Frankly, lawmakers face a choice between short-term austerity and long-term stewardship; the latter aligns with responsible public finance and the Catholic idea of stewardship of resources for the common good, meaning preventative maintenance now may cost less than crisis repairs later.
What are the likely outcomes if the state declines?
Declining would leave judges with heavier caseloads, delay justice for victims and defendants, and depress morale among court employees whose work is tied to human dignity.
It would also force more reliance on stopgap measures like emergency funding or temporary judges, which are more costly and less predictable.
Timeline and What Actually Happened
Brief lead-in.
The current push for funding unfolded over several budget cycles, with Chief Justice Carney’s formal request reaching the Legislature during a recent budget hearing where judiciary leaders presented data on filings, vacancy rates, and deferred maintenance costs, and the hearing included pointed questions about trade-offs and alternatives such as remote hearings.
What followed?
- Years of squeezes on state revenue created budget shortfalls, prompting a freeze or reduction in non-essential capital projects, and this is when maintenance budgets were curtailed and hiring slowed.
- As filings slowly increased again—especially in family law and criminal cases—the courts began to show strain in scheduling and processing times, and judges logged more overtime and administrative duties; meanwhile courthouse systems like HVAC, security cameras, and roofs continued to age without repair.
- Court leadership, led by Chief Justice Carney, conducted internal audits and compiled data showing backlog trends, average time-to-disposition, and the state of facility maintenance, and they packaged those findings into the request lawmakers saw.
- Carney presented the package to legislative committees, highlighting concrete metrics: case-processing times, vacancy rates, projected costs of deferred repairs, and comparative costs of adding staff versus more expensive emergency responses later.
- Lawmakers asked questions about cost, competing priorities, and alternatives like remote hearings or contracting out; Carney answered with emphasis on the limits of remote options in rural circuits and on how physical facilities are critical to security and access.
I listened to the hearing remarks and read the budget request, and what struck me was the modesty of the ask.
The request asked for an incremental increase in judicial staffing and a specified maintenance budget rather than a sprawling capital program, which framed it as targeted relief rather than unchecked expansion.
What actually happened next rested on lawmakers' trade-offs.
Comparison Table
Here’s the direct comparison between funding and the status quo.
| Feature | **Add Judge + Fund Maintenance** | **Status Quo (No New Funding)** |
|---|---:|---:|
| **Case backlog** | Reduced over 12–24 months with targeted staffing and schedule relief | Likely to grow, increasing wait times and costs |
| **Courtroom safety & access** | Improved by repairing HVAC, security, and accessibility features | Continued deterioration, higher future repair costs |
| **Cost** | Upfront spending with potential long-term savings through efficiency | Lower near-term outlay but higher emergency costs later |
| **Public trust** | Strengthened by visible attention to justice and dignity of work | Eroded by delays and perceived neglect |
| **Policy alignment** | Supports
Legislation goals for timely adjudication and rule of law | Undermines policy goals by failing to deliver on access to justice |
The table clarifies trade-offs in plain terms.
Decision-makers can see that immediate spending has both short-term and long-term effects, and stewardship of public buildings and staff is part of responsible governance, which should matter to anyone concerned with public trust and efficient law enforcement.
Which side are you on?
Common Misconceptions and What to Know
Short correction first.
Asking for a judge is not a power grab; rather, it is typically an operational response to measurable workload imbalance and service needs, and the Alaska request is framed with metrics and limits rather than as partisan expansion.
Why do people assume otherwise?
Because budget fights are political theater, and public skepticism is natural, but the details are what change the conclusion.
When I analyzed the filings and vacancy data, the mismatch between caseload growth and staffing was clear, and the deferred maintenance figures showed compounding costs rather than discretionary splurges; remote hearings temporarily helped, but they do not fix structural facility problems or fully replace in-person proceedings in many cases.
Here's the kicker:
People also conflate judicial appointments with partisan advantage.
That suspicion is understandable after contentious Election rulings elsewhere, but adding a judge to handle caseloads does not determine jurisprudence on its own; selection processes, tenure, and ethical rules constrain political effects, and courts are institutionally designed to resist short-term partisan manipulation.
Let's be real.
Frequently Asked Questions
Short Q first.
How many additional judges did Carney request? Chief Justice Carney requested one additional judge position targeted to the circuits with the greatest backlog, plus maintenance funding for courthouses; the request included caseload metrics and cost estimates tied to reduced overtime and fewer emergency repairs.
Is one judge enough?
Is one judge enough? One judge is targeted relief, not a final fix, and the plan is to monitor data and, if needed, propose further adjustments; this phased approach is fiscally prudent and consistent with best practices in public administration.
Can maintenance funds reduce long-term costs?
Can maintenance funds reduce long-term costs? Yes, preventive maintenance lowers lifecycle costs for buildings, and the court presented estimates indicating that addressing roofs, HVAC, and security systems now would avoid higher emergency replacement costs later.
How will rural access be affected?
How will rural access be affected? Funding that preserves courthouses and supports travel or temporary judges helps maintain access for remote communities, because many rural proceedings cannot be fully replicated online due to connectivity and logistics.
Any final questions?
Final Thought
Short line.
This is a choice about stewardship, and when I read the budget request and the hearing testimony, what stood out was a pragmatic appeal to the common good: better-run courts protect citizens, reduce hidden social costs, and treat court staff and judges with respect for the dignity of their work, which is a moral obligation as much as a fiscal one.
Is the ask politically easy?
No.
The alternative is worse in human terms and more expensive in the long run: delayed justice, stressed personnel, and decaying public buildings that will demand higher emergency spending down the line.
The right approach is targeted funding now with oversight.
Related reading and context: see the judiciary budget request at the Alaska Court System press page, the legislative budget hearings page at the Alaska Legislature, and reporting by the Anchorage Daily News about court and budget pressures at Anchorage Daily News.