If the public wants to know how much the governor’s office or the Legislature spends on ink toner or Post-it notes, they can probably find that out.

But good luck obtaining information on how much money the state spends on court cases.

That’s because the state’s judicial branch is not subject to open records laws. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers is hoping to change that.

Three lawmakers held a Capitol press conference Tuesday to announce their plans to introduce a bill next year aimed at providing the public with more access to financial and personnel records of the Judicial Department.

“This bill, plain and simple, is about transparency,” said Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora.

The proposed bill, which is still in the early drafting phase, would require the judicial branch to adhere to the Colorado Open Records Act, which makes most state records available to the public.

The executive and legislative branches of government are required to comply with CORA. But a 1999 Supreme Court decision exempts the judicial branch from open records rules. A Court of Appeals case from 2012 resulted in a similar decision.

Public information requests made to the Judicial Department are routinely denied. That has frustrated lawmakers who want to know whether state dollars are being spent wisely, including inside the state’s public defender’s office.

Fields used the recent Aurora theater shooting trial as an example. James Holmes received free legal representation from a public defender for his death penalty case. Holmes was convicted on several counts of murder and will be spending the rest of his life in prison.

“I’d like to know how much that trial cost the taxpayers,” Fields said.

Fields was asked about her personal connection to this issue. Her son was murdered in 2005 and his killer was represented by public defenders. Fields suspects the public defender’s office had more resources available at that trial than the prosecution but admits she “can’t validate that because I don’t have access to that information.”

A judicial panel is currently in the process of crafting its own set of rules regarding open records policy. But some are skeptical of that process.

“The legislative branch is tasked with crafting legislation, and it’s the duty of the judicial branch to interpret those laws, not create their own,” said Rep. Polly Lawrence, R-Roxborough Park, who plans to co-sponsor the legislation with Fields.

Many court records are protected from public view in part because of confidentiality concerns. Lawrence said her legislation would protect privileged information from being released.

“We understand the need to protect confidential and protected information and recognize the judicial branch has circumstances that may warrant greater protections,” she said. “However, these circumstances should not give the judicial branch blanket confidentiality over all of its operations, and we need to correct this imbalance in the upcoming session.”

Lawrence and Fields co-sponsored legislation last year that would have made records from the public defender’s office and the alternative defense counsel office subject to CORA. That measure died following a House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year.

“(Next) year, we are looking at the entire judicial branch to make sure the custodian of any personnel records has clear direction on what can and cannot be released,” Lawrence said.

It’s important for lawmakers to know how each state department spends money, Fields said. She said after the press conference that if resources are not being spent wisely by one department, they could be better spent in other areas, like education.

Rep. Yeulin Willett, R-Grand Junction, who will also help introduce the bill, said greater access to judicial records can help lawmakers determine which areas need to be addressed during the budget process.

“There is a financial tsunami, if you will, in the state,” Willett said. “There’s a number of ways to deal with that and certainly, as a fiscal conservative, a key one is to look at are areas where there’s perhaps not the most efficient spending and where we might be able to trim the budget to help with other programs. We can’t do so without more information.”

A public comment hearing on the judiciary branch’s proposed open records rules is scheduled for Oct. 1 inside Supreme Court chambers.

The Colorado Press Association, Colorado Broadcasters Association and the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition have expressed concerns that whatever rules the judicial panel comes up with might not satisfy the public’s right to know.

“We have been monitoring the situation carefully and have serious concerns that the proposed rules do not provide the public with adequate access to information the public deserves to examine,” a CPA letter to its members reads.

— Twitter: @VicVela1