By Marilyn Odendahl for The Indiana Citizen.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Indiana Citizen-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration.

One Indiana lawmaker is expecting the Indiana General Assembly to step back this coming session from continually approving requests for more trial court judges and, instead, start shifting judicial resources from slower courts to busier courts.

Rep. Chris Jeter, R-Fishers, said he anticipates legislators will insert language into the biennial budget that will mandate that the Statehouse take a look at the Indiana court system as a whole when considering bills for new judges and magistrate judges. The new language, he said, will probably require a judgeship to be closed somewhere in the state, before a new judgeship is opened.

“I do think that we have gotten in the habit of adding,” Jeter said. “All we’ve done over the last decade is add judges, add judges, but nobody’s ever looked to see are there some counties that maybe we should take them away from?”

The Fishers Republican, who chaired the Interim Study Committee on the Courts and the Judiciary, and will chair the House Judiciary Committee, said the data provided in the Indiana Trial Courts Weighted Caseload Report supports reallocation of existing resources.

According to the 2023 weighted caseload report, the most recent analysis available, Indiana has enough trial court judges, overall, to handle the demands of the docket, but the problem seems to be the distribution of those judicial resources. Identifying a utilization rate of 1.0 as indicating a county has enough judicial officers to meet its needs, the 2023 report calculated Indiana’s utilization rate at 0.98. However, a closer look at the individual counties shows utilization rate swings between Hamilton County’s 1.34 – the most severe in the state – and Union County’s 0.35 – the lowest in the state.

Jeter said he does not believe judges in the state are “sitting around twiddling their thumbs doing nothing” and he realizes that judges in some rural counties are presiding over a wide range of cases from criminal and family to probate and commercial. Yet, he said the legislature has to look at the data.

“I think that what we’ve decided is we don’t need to create any more new judges,” Jeter said. “We have the right number of judges in the state. We just need to get them in the areas that are growing or get them in the areas where the population is.”

Rep. Victoria Garcia Wilburn, D-Fishers, who served on the interim study committee and will be the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, pointed out in a statement to The Indiana Citizen that the members of the interim committee did recommend that judgeships from less busy county trial courts be moved to counties with busier trial courts. However, she noted the General Assembly might need to do more to address the issue.

“It’s critical that we make sure we are maximizing the working time of judges and relieve the burden on high-need counties like Hamilton County,” Garcia Wilburn said in her statement. “At the same time, we need to consider that reallocation may not be a long-term solution and start to explore other thoughtful solutions.”

Cannot continue adding judges

Along with recommending reallocation, the interim study committee advised the legislature to provide additional judges and magistrate judges to Elkhart, Hamilton, Lawrence and Vigo county courts. They rejected a request from Spencer County for a magistrate judge, because that court had a low weighted caseload utilization rate of 0.64.

Hamilton County requested two new Superior Courts, two new judges and two new magistrate judges. Jeter said he plans to carry the bill that would give Hamilton County the additional judicial resources it wants.

Any judgeship approved by the legislature in the 2025 session will probably not be new, Jeter said, but, rather, be created by closing a judgeship in another county. The reallocation will be done in a “fair and humane manner,” he said, by allowing judges in positions or courts targeted for elimination to finish their elected terms before being removed. Consequently, the state’s overall utilization rate could increase because of that lag, but the rate will self-correct as sitting judges in the less busy counties end their tenures on the bench and the judgeships are closed, he said.

The cost of each new judgeship approved by the legislature is covered by taxpayers. A fiscal analysis by the Legislative Services Agency estimated the yearly salary and benefits for a judge and a magistrate judge in 2024 totaled $230,961 and $187,759, respectively.

Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush served on the interim study committee and, according to a spokeswoman, will work with lawmakers on a possible reallocation of trial court judges. However, Kathryn Dolan, Indiana Supreme Court chief public information officer, said Rush does not support reducing the number of judges statewide.

“Chief Justice Rush is supportive of working with the legislature on the best way to allocate judges to meet judicial needs throughout the state,” Dolan said. “A weighted caseload study has been conducted and it shows that Indiana has about the right number of judges, but not necessarily in the right location. Population shifts and caseload changes affect the need for judicial officers in specific areas of the state.”

Although some counties may lose judges and courts through reallocation, Jeter does not anticipate lawmakers will fight hard against it. He acknowledged some legislators might need some convincing, but the idea of shifting judicial resources to the high-need counties has been “floating out there” for some time.

“I think there has been an acknowledgement from both chambers that this is a change we need to make,” Jeter said. “It’s not going to be easy, but I think everybody acknowledges that we need to take the tough medicine and we need to start looking harder and not just keep adding, adding, adding, adding, adding.”


Marilyn Odendahl wrote this article for The Indiana Citizen.


get more stories like this via email

Criminal-justice experts say Mississippi's parole and probation systems, designed as alternatives to incarceration, are instead functioning as pipelines back to prison. The state's high revocation rates mirror national trends, where minor technical violations - such as missed appointments or unpaid fees - land thousands under supervision back behind bars each year.

Jonathan Simon, professor of law at University of California, is a national expert on parole and probation. He describes these systems as inherently flawed, offering incarcerated people the illusion of a second chance and being able to move on with their lives.

"There's many, many booby traps that can send a person spiraling, first to jail and then usually back to prison if it's for a longer period of time that makes the sentence that started all of that in some ways a never ending sentence, which is very questionable from a justice point of view," he explained.

While some advocates say parole is vital for Mississippi families and communities. Simon's assessment aligns with Mississippi's own struggles with probation and parole. The state's 2024 corrections report shows 46% of prison admissions come from revoked releases. The racial gap is stark - while Black Mississippians make up 38% of the population, they account for 63% of probation revocations and 60% of parole revocations.

Simon said this happens because a single parole caseworker - with almost no accountability - can decide for something as simple as a missed appointment.

"Should we begin the process of starting a revocation decision against them, which would keep them in jail or prison? That's often made at the level of the front-line worker, which has its advantages in terms of knowledge, but it means that these decisions are being made at a very invisible level and tend not to be subject to much review of any kind," he continued.

Simon pointed to states such as California, where limiting revocations for minor violations helped reduce incarceration, an approach aligned with Mississippi's own 2024 reforms. The state Department of Corrections' 2024 task force report shows the state has reduced technical violation revocations by 18% since 2022, although they still account for 62% of cases.


get more stories like this via email

On the heels of courtroom victories, some Minnesota prosecutors say they'll try to replicate the success in going after more businesses suspected of wage theft.

After the state bolstered its wage-theft laws, Minnesota's two biggest counties became more active with investigations.

Last week, Hennepin County announced the first criminal conviction for wage theft in state history.

Earlier this year, Ramsey County secured a guilty plea in a case filed after accusations that a contractor was failing to pay wages on time.

Anoka County Attorney Brad Johnson said he's encouraging local investigators to "train up" on this type of enforcement.

"Wage theft has impacts that trickle out into the community, in ways that are maybe not as apparent," said Johnson. "In many situations, people aren't being paid a living wage."

He suggested not being able to provide for their families hurts local economies. Other experts note the fallout strains community resources.

Labor organizations say wage theft is a common problem in construction trades, where immigrant workers are often exploited.

Johnson said preparing his team before diving into investigations is important, given the complex nature of these cases.

In these situations, Johnson said landing a successful criminal conviction is no small feat.

He said on the surface, the business activity might appear legitimate, and law enforcement has to dig deep to prove that something "fishy" is going on.

"And we're trying to show a jury and a court that it wasn't legitimate," said Johnson. "So, that's a difficulty with fraud cases - they're not like murder cases."

Meaning, the clues don't jump out at police.

Johnson added law enforcement agencies still face pressure to prioritize violent crime. So he said he's eager to steer them toward resources that'll make any wage-theft investigations run smoothly.

So they don't feel like they are putting all their time and effort that might drag out.

get more stories like this via email

By Rachel Dissell and The Marshall Project for Signal Cleveland.
Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Signal Ohio-Public News Service Collaboration

A new Ohio law will lift driver’s license suspensions for people with unpaid court fines and fees, some of which stretch back years.

Along with the new law — which takes effect April 9 — come several steps that the state and local courts, and some drivers, must follow to make it all work. 

Going forward, courts can no longer issue immediate license suspensions when drivers don’t pay a court fine or fee.

People who have their suspensions removed under the new law will not have to pay the state fees to get their licenses back. Blocks on vehicle registrations related to these suspensions will also be dropped.

The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the courts have until May 9 to lift the driver’s license suspensions.

State officials don’t have an estimate of how many active suspensions will be wiped away. Lawmakers estimated the bill would help hundreds of thousands of Ohio drivers. Advocates who pushed for the changes estimated as many as 600,000 Ohio drivers had debt-related suspensions involving unpaid fines and fees. 

The BMV is dealing with one wrinkle in the process: Local court orders sent to the state don’t always give a specific reason for a suspension. That means the bureau has to reach out to local courts to request the reason for the suspensions, spokesperson Lindsey Bohrer told The Marshall Project – Cleveland. Local courts will have to tell the state which of those suspensions should be removed. 

Courts can still issue an arrest warrant or summons if a person fails to show up to court or sign a guilty plea waiver and pay fines and fees for a minor traffic charge. But first, the court has to issue a new citation and then wait for 30 days before it can suspend a driver’s license.

I have a driver’s license suspension. How do I know if it will be removed?

There are many reasons a person’s driver’s license can be suspended. This new law eliminates suspensions for people unable to pay fines and fees. 

The BMV will mail letters to drivers with details of any suspensions being removed. 

In cases where BMV records might have an old address, drivers can update with a current address online.

Drivers can also:

• Look up their unofficial driving record online. 


• Call 614-752-7600 or 844-644-6268 to have the information mailed.


• Contact the local court where a license was suspended.

Once my suspension is removed, how do I get my license back?


Letters mailed by the state will include the steps drivers need to follow to restore their licenses. For suspensions removed by the new law, the normal fees to reinstate a license should not be charged. If a license is suspended and has expired for more than six months, they may have to retake the driver’s test. 


If a person has additional suspensions for reasons not covered under the new law, such as a DUI, the letter should list which suspensions are being removed and which ones remain.


I’m already on a payment plan to reinstate my license. Should I keep sending money?


Do not stop making payments until you get a notice from the BMV. If you fail to pay, your license could go back under suspension. After the law takes effect, the fees related to debt-related suspensions should be automatically removed within 30 days. 


If you are paying reinstatement fees related to multiple types of suspensions, your balance may be lowered to remove some fees. 


What’s a registration block and will those be dropped?


Local courts can block a driver’s ability to update a vehicle registration and get license plate stickers. Under the new law, courts will no longer be able to do that when a driver fails to pay fines or fees. Blocks on vehicle registrations related to those reasons will also be dropped. 


I have an old suspension for not responding to a “proof of insurance letter.” Does this new law cover that?


In 2019, Ohio did away with a state program that sent letters to random drivers requesting proof of insurance or financial responsibility. Drivers who didn’t respond faced license suspensions. None of those suspensions are active, state officials said. If a driver is still paying fees to get a license reinstated based on one of those suspensions, those fees should be removed. 


Licenses can still be suspended if a person has an accident or gets pulled over and does not have insurance.


What else does the new law change?


Starting April 9, when the law takes effect: 

• Courts will no longer suspend driver’s licenses for drug abuse, which is a minor offense, unless the person is also convicted of making or selling drugs, and they used a vehicle as part of that crime. 


• Driver’s licenses will no longer be denied or suspended if a student is truant, meaning they miss a significant amount of school. 


• People who have suspensions for not paying child support can ask local courts for driving privileges by filing a motion. 


• The “lookback” period for penalties for driving with no vehicle insurance or proof of financial responsibility (sometimes called an SR-22) will change from five years to one year. What’s not clear is whether people currently in the longer lookback period will have that requirement dropped. 


• The state will no longer block the ability to register a vehicle when a driver lacks insurance.

Rachel Dissell and The Marshall Project wrote this article for Signal Cleveland. This story was produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email