Colorado’s Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill to create roughly two dozen new judgeships by a vote of 5-2 on Friday, in a slightly scaled-back effort to address high judicial workloads in many areas of the state.

However, with the legislation now heading to the full Senate, one of its sponsors intends to propose cutting the number of judgeships in half to address lawmakers’ concerns about the budget.

As introduced, Senate Bill 24 would have created 26 new trial court judgeships and three new slots on the Court of Appeals over a two-year period. The request from the Judicial Department comes in the wake of multiple workload studies, finalized in 2023 and 2024, confirming the state’s court system is understaffed. Based on the time required to process cases, the studies estimated Colorado needs approximately 43 more district judges, 20 more county judges and six appellate judges.

“We cannot ask our judges, day in and day out, to make consequential decisions impacting people’s lives when they are running on empty tanks,” Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez told the General Assembly last month. “This request is ultimately about ensuring that the people of Colorado receive timely, fair and wise resolution of their cases.”

In January, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced SB 24 by a vote of 6-1, with both proponents and opponents emphasizing their position could change based on the availability of money. With a budget deficit sitting at an estimated $1 billion, one member of the committee asked Márquez if she would consider prioritizing certain judgeships over others and extending the rollout period from two years to something longer.

As amended by the appropriations committee on Feb. 14, SB 24 would now establish some judgeships in 2027, one year beyond the original schedule. The bill also eliminates some new judgeships entirely, including for the Court of Appeals and Denver Probate Court.

“Having heard the testimony of judges, having heard — certainly Supreme Court Justice Márquez’s State of the Judiciary Address at the beginning of the legislative session,” said Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, “even this ask is narrowed from, I think, what the original, actually identified need was.”

As amended, SB 24 passed out of committee, with Sen. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, joining the four Democratic members in voting yes. Sens. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, and Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, voted against it.

However, more drastic modifications may occur on Wednesday, when the bill is scheduled for consideration by the full Senate.

Members of the Joint Budget Committee, particularly Kirkmeyer, have criticized the Judicial Department for seeking increased funding at a time of significant financial stress on the state government. To that end, Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Summit County, told Colorado Politics he plans to introduce a compromise amendment to scale back the bill.

Roberts, who is sponsoring SB 24 with Sen. Lisa Frizell, R-Castle Rock, said his intended amendment will eliminate all of the judgeships that would now be established in 2027. If adopted, the revised bill would create 14 judgeships over two years, down from the original 29.

Through a spokesperson, the Judicial Department declined to comment on the pending legislation.

Roberts also said his amendment would address another change made in the appropriations committee. Members discussed at length the inclusion of funding for additional public defenders and for the Bridges of Colorado program, which assists criminal defendants with significant mental health needs.

By a 5-2 vote, the appropriations committee eliminated the added funding for those offices. Kirkmeyer, who introduced the amendment, said she recognized the argument for additional staff in the event that new judges are added for criminal dockets. But she believed the public defender’s office and Bridges of Colorado should separately make their pitch to the Joint Budget Committee.

Sen. Jeff Bridges, D-Greenwood Village, was one of the committee members who voted for Kirkmeyer’s amendment, alongside the three Republicans and Sen. Chris Kolker, D-Centennial.

“I’m a bit disappointed. This is one more hit, frankly, against the Judicial Department,” he said. “We asked when they were talking about this if there would be any other impacts, any other costs. And they said, ‘Absolutely not. It’s just the judges.’ And this bill clearly shows there are other costs.”

“We have a constitutional obligation to provide representation to indigent defendants,” responded Roberts, pushing back on the attempt to remove the other offices’ funding from the legislation. “I agree this is the judges bill. But if you add jduges into a criminal docket or a juvenile docket, you have a constitutional obligation to provide those defendants with representation if they cannot afford it.”

Following the vote, Roberts told Colorado Politics his intended amendment would restore funding solely for the additional public defenders.

Pursuant to the rules of both chambers, SB 24 must pass out of the legislature before the 60th day of the session. Bridges called the rule, which applies to bills creating new judgeships, “stupid” and “irresponsible” during the committee hearing. He added there appeared to be little interest in the legislature for changing or waiving the rule to prevent the judges bill from being enacted before the overall state budget.