Funding Justice:
Messages for Restoring Court Funding
Research Overview
Six focus groups of registered voters – February 2012
– Richmond, VA
• Non-college women, 35-55
• College-educated men, 30-50
– Milwaukee, WI
• Served jury duty in last 18 months, mixed gender and education
• Non-college men, 40-59
– Phoenix, AZ
• College-educated women, 25-44
• Direct experience within courts in last 18 months, mixed gender / education
Representative national survey of 1,000 registered voters
– Conducted April 2-5, 2012
– Mix of landline and cell phone interviews
2
Key Findings
Current political environment
represents tremendous
challenge for advocates of
increased court funding
Voters show some support for
increased funding, but not at
expense of other budget
priorities, i.e. courts cannot
win a spending debate against
education, health care, etc.
No natural constituency for the
courts within the electorate
Need to focus on Constitutional
rights, security, and protecting
taxpayers/small businesses
Research calls for two-tiered
approach with different
strategies and messages for
(1) policymakers and
(2) general public
3
Public Perception of the Courts
4
Limited Confidence in Public Institutions
Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one – a great deal of confidence,
some confidence, not very much confidence, or no confidence at all.
The United States Supreme Court
18
The United States federal court system
12
(STATE) judges
12
The (STATE) court system
73
73
71
13
(GOVERNOR)
67
17
The (STATE) state legislature
59
6
59
President Barack Obama
28
The United States Congress
53
3
0
A Great Deal of Confidence
37
10
20
30
40
50
60
Total Great Deal / Some Confidence
70
80
5
Supreme Court Favorability at 25-yr Low
6
Weak Numbers on Key Principles of Court System
Key Principles of Court System? Weak Nos.
Thinking about the (STATE) court system, please tell me whether, in your opinion, each of the following words or
phrases describes the state’s courts very well, well, not very well, or not well at all.
Fair and impartial
18
Provide equal justice to all
19
A good investment of taxpayer dollars
13
Provide good customer service to people dealing
with the courts
12
57
54
49
44
Overwhelmed
28
Inefficient
Very Well
19
Underfunded
16
Intimidating
17
Total Very Well / Well
59
0
10
47
45
39
20
30
40
50
60
70
7
80
A Challenging Political Environment
8
Economic Concerns Dominate Public Priorities
Please tell me which one of these you think the Governor and state legislature should make their first priority… And
which do you think should be the next priority for the Governor and state legislature?
Jobs and economic growth
39
Education
19
Government spending
Crime and drugs
33
11
Taxes
Immigration
39
18
Health care
4
3
60
28
15
9
32 7
Strengthening the court system 0
0
10
First Choice
20
30
40
50
Total First & Second Choice
60
70
80
9
Spending Concerns Trump ‘Fair and Impartial’
Please tell me whether the first statement or the second statement comes closer to your own view, even
if neither is exactly right.
80
-33
First Statement: Legislators seeking to balance the
budget by slashing funding for (STATE) courts are
threatening the balance of power in state
government. In order to protect access to justice
for all and our rights under the Constitution, we
must defend fair and impartial courts from this
type of political interference.
70
64
60
50
46
40
30
Second Statement: (STATE) government must live
within its means, and the state’s court system is no
exception. They must review their spending to find
new efficiencies or cost savings. Just like (STATE)
taxpayers, our court system must tighten its belt
and figure out how to do more with less in these
difficult times.
31
20
19
10
0
First statement
Strongly
Total
Second statement
Strongly
Total
10
Diagnosing the Problem
11
Blame for Court Delays Placed on Issues
Unrelated to Funding
As you may know, state court systems face record levels of delays and backlogs today. Which two of the following do you feel are most
responsible for the delays facing our court system today?
Too many unnecessary lawsuits
41
Legal maneuvering by lawyers that drags out cases
35
Bureaucratic inefficiency
33
Not enough judges to hear cases
17
More people who can’t afford lawyers, slowing down the
system
17
An increase in cases that slows down the system
17
Not enough staff to maintain courthouse hours and
services
16
Judges not working enough hours
12
Outdated technology
9
Other
3
0
10
20
30
40
12
50
Belief that Restoring Court Funding Won’t
Address Problems
Please tell me whether the first statement or the second statement comes closer to your own view, even if
neither is exactly right.
80
First Statement:
Restoring funding for state courts will
make the court system more efficient
and help ensure that justice is provided
for all citizens.
70
60
50
40
Second Statement:
Restoring funding for state courts will
just pour more money into a broken
system and will not really improve the
court system.
-12
53
41
37
30
20
25
10
0
First statement
Strongly
Total
Second statement
Strongly
Total
13
Obstacles
Supportfor
forIncreased
Increased
Funding
Obstacles to
to Support
Funding
1. Voters are not focused on the court system and its needs
•
•
•
Ranks well below economic development, education, taxes, etc.
Fail to differentiate courts from other aspects of ‘government’
No longer see courts upholding many core principles
2. Demand for fiscal austerity trumps traditional arguments
•
•
When it comes to balancing budgets, priorities that are low on voters’
lists become politically viable areas to make cuts.
3-in-4 believe courts in their state receive too much or right amount of
funding – far higher than any other budget priority tested
3. Courts’ challenges not viewed as result of funding cuts
•
•
Blame falls on unnecessary lawsuits, lawyers, bureaucracy
Majority of voters believe more funding will “just pour more money
into a broken system and not really improve the court system”
14
Reshaping
Attitudes About
on thethe
Courts
Reshaping Public
Public Attitudes
Courts
Step One: Focus on harm to taxpayers, not the courts
It’s not about you. It’s about THEM.
Communications Goal:
Shift the terms of this debate from government spending to
individual rights, economic impact
“Delays raise incarceration costs.”
“Effective and efficient courts save taxpayers money.”
“Backlogs hurt small business owners and the economy.”
“Cuts in courthouse security could put people in harm’s way.”
15
Reshaping
Public
Attitudes
on
the
Courts
Reshaping Public Attitudes About the Courts
Step Two: Acknowledge existing shortcomings
Trumpeting the courts in the face of public disillusionment creates a
dissonance that undermines credibility
Voters know the courts have problems but don’t know the causes or
the consequences
Communications Goal:
Establish credibility
16
Reshaping
Attitudes About
on thethe
Courts
Reshaping Public Attitudes
Courts
Step Three: Give Taxpayers Confidence in their Investment
Show that new funding will improve courts, but keep the focus on
the taxpayers, not the courts themselves
Communications Goal:
Meet the Austerity Argument Head On
“[STATE] courts must change the way we do business to better
meet the needs of citizens & employers across our state. That’s
why we’re investing in [SPECIFIC EXAMPLE] to save taxpayers
money and provide better customer service to those in our
courts.”
17
Reshaping
Attitudes About
on thethe
Courts
Reshaping Public
Public Attitudes
Courts
Step Four: Use Detailed Stories
1. Use narratives wherever possible to humanize impact of courts
2. Start with economic benefits and consequences
“When courts are able to process criminal cases speedily, it saves
taxpayers money by reducing the time that defendants spend in jail
awaiting trial. Cutting court funding costs taxpayers money by increasing
jail time before trial.”
18
Reshaping
Attitudes About
on thethe
Courts
Reshaping Public
Public Attitudes
Courts
Step Four: Use Detailed Stories
3. Shift to security consequence for entire community
“Because of funding cuts, some state courts can no longer pay for adequate
security, putting judges, court employees, jurors, and the public in increased
danger. People in a courtroom should not fear for their own safety.”
Communications Goal:
Humanize the consequences
of budget cuts
19
Reshaping Public Attitudes
Courts
Reshaping
Attitudes About
on thethe
Courts
Step Five: Remember the justice mission
“Our courts are the final line of protection for individual rights. They provide access
to justice, protect us from abuses of power by corporations or government officials,
and protect our most basic Constitutional rights”
Communications Goal:
After demonstrating credibility
and reassuring voters
concerned about austerity,
close on “first principles.”
20
Reshaping Public Attitudes
Courts
Reshaping
Attitudes About
on thethe
Courts
Step Six: Avoid messages that will backfire
Communications Goal:
Don’t Step in It!
DO NOT SAY “Separate and co-equal branch of government”
DO NOT SAY “We need more money for staff”
DO NOT ASSUME only conservatives think the legal system is broken
21
Making
the Case:
New Mexico
Messaging
in Action:
New Mexico
22
MakingMessaging
the Case: in
Illinois
Action: Illinois
23
Making
the Case:in
Oregon
Messaging
Action: Oregon
24
Making
the Case:in
Massachusetts
Messaging
Action: Oregon
25
Making
the Case:
Chief Justice
Messaging
in Action:
Justice Roberts
Roberts
26
Making
the Case:
Washington
Messaging
in Action:
JusticeState
Roberts
I recently learned that the Chinese symbol for crises is
a combination of two concepts—opportunity and
danger. The opportunity is to redefine how we deliver
services to the public. The danger is in failing to adapt.
. . . The extensive budget cuts of the past four years
have required the courts to become creative and to be
innovators—and we’re committed to continue looking
for new, efficient processes to help us fulfill our
responsibility to deliver justice.
—State of the Judiciary Address, Washington State
Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, January 23, 2013
27
Making
the Case:
HawaiiJustice Roberts
Messaging
in Action:
The portion of the state’s budget attributable to the
judiciary has declined. . . . and is now only about 2.3%.
. . . Yet we’ve been able to accomplish results beyond
what might be expected. We’ve done that through
two main strategies: first, by innovating to find new
solutions to long-standing challenges, and second, by
bringing people together to address those challenges
collaboratively.
—State of the Judiciary Address, Hawaii Chief Justice
Mark E. Recktenwald, February 2013
28