One of the fastest-growing departments in state government is priming the pump for another massive increase in funding. In a manner befitting Henny Penny, the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) is again claiming budget poverty impacting their ability to defend the poor from allegations of criminal conduct.

Don’t fall for it.

As justification, Megan Ring, the state’s head public defender, claims the number of cases closed by her office doubled from 2003 to 2023. That sounds like a lot — until it is compared to the growth in the public defender budget and staff. In 2003, the office’s budget was about $31 million. Last year, it was $178 million. Using my public-school math skills, that’s 575% more money to handle 200% more cases — a heckuva deal.

The public defender office’s budget is not driven by caseload. It is driven by who is in power. Most of the undeniable acceleration of that budget has been as a result of Democrats taking over all of state government.

In just the past five years, the public defender’s budget has exploded 65%, including an increase in staff of more than 250 employees — a 28% increase. Last year alone, the office received funding for an additional 103 employees, including 50 additional attorneys, more new attorneys than at all 22 district attorney offices across the state. Remember, public defenders represent criminal defendants in around 60-ish% of criminal cases. Prosecutors represent the government in 100% of criminal cases.

The public defender’s budget has outpaced the growth in the following: population, every category of crime (except car theft), the rate of incarceration (which has decreased), the rate of felony case filing (which has only increased about 25%) and the growth in DA budgets statewide.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Like a tax money addict at a safe legislation site, the public defender office is coming back for another massive infusion of our money. Prior to this year’s massive appropriation, and citing a study by the defense-heavy American Bar Association, the office declared it was in need of 700 additional staff, including 230 more attorneys.

We need to re-evaluate how we view the public defender. Public defenders exist solely to provide 6th Amendment counsel to the indigent. In Colorado, that mission has been expanded to cover so many more individuals, it artificially inflates their caseload.

For instance, when non-indigent parents simply “refuse” to get an attorney for their delinquent child, you and I foot the bill for their kid’s defense. Public defenders are not prohibited from advising parents — even middle- and upper middle-class parents — to say they will not hire an attorney for their kids. Presto — the court orders you and me to pick up the tab. Well-to-do parents who have raised a juvenile murderer or rapist can have the bottomless pit of the public defender’s resources available at our expense. One change in the law that would address this abuse is for non-indigent parents who refuse to provide a defense for their delinquent child to be billed back the cost of representation as measured by the average cost of a private attorney in that region for that type of case.

We should not pay to defend the children of those who are not indigent. They should.

Likewise, the number of cases handled is disconnected from the actual effort put into them. For instance, the public defender office includes appearances on all cases with in-jail defendants, regardless of indigency. If uber-rich Gov. Polis were to be arrested and jailed, he could qualify for taxpayer-funded attorneys until and unless he posted bond. Once that defendant posts bond — and no longer qualifies for a public defender — that case is closed and counted as a case handled. The same is true for the many smaller criminal charges resolved on the first couple of appearances in court. Total cases alone is a poor measure of workload.

A more accurate measure of workload would be to track the time spent handling each individual case. In fact, the state auditor recommended that last month. But Ring rejected the suggestion, voicing concerns “requiring attorneys to report work hours could be burdensome for its staff,” and that, “It stifles creative practice, professional independence, defenders helping each other and co-chairing cases.” Here’s the thing: the 6th Amendment guarantees competent representation, not better representation than we could afford. If you or I wanted two defense attorneys to defend us — a routine occurrence on nearly every public defender case, we would be required to pay for two attorneys, which likely means we could not afford them both (unless we had Polis’ money).

Because the public defender office is hidden from Colorado’s Open Records Act by its placement within the judicial branch, there are so many unanswered questions. For instance, since 2019, Ring has provided massive raises to her large administrative posse. Why? Supervisors in rural jurisdictions in Colorado make significantly more money than the elected DAs they oppose. Why? Cases with public defenders take much longer to resolve than with private counsel. Why? There are more public defenders than is statistically justifiable in many jurisdictions. For example, there are at least 78 public defenders in El Paso County covering about 60% of the criminal cases filed by a DAs office that only has 92 prosecutors. Why?

The Joint Budget Committee must demand transparency from the the State Public Defender before giving it one more nickel.

George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District and is a candidate for district attorney in the newly created 23rd Judicial District. He has served as an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute. Follow him on Twitter(X): @GeorgeBrauchler.