Law libraries; requiring vote by board of trustees in certain counties for transmission of certain funds; modifying requirements for certain transfers; modifying certain assessments. Effective date.
SB 276 makes several changes to Oklahoma’s law library funding structure and to civil court filing fees. First, it revises the rules for how county law library funds are transferred to the State Judicial Revolving Fund. In counties under 500,000 population, excess law library funds above 25% of the prior year’s income must still be transmitted to the Supreme Court, while in counties of 500,000 or more, the county law library board of trustees must now vote on whether to retain those excess funds or authorize all or part of them to be sent to the Supreme Court. The bill also updates the amount counties must transfer from the court fund to the law library fund, with different amounts tied to county population brackets.
Second, SB 276 amends the state’s civil court flat fee schedule by adjusting the additional assessments collected in civil cases and directing those assessments to various funds. It increases or maintains the law library assessment depending on county population, continues the $25 assessment for the Oklahoma Court Information System Revolving Fund, the $5 assessment for Oklahoma Court-Appointed Special Advocates, and the $2 assessment split between the Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund and the Supreme Court Revolving Fund for interpreter and language-access services. It also preserves optional county sheriff security fees, continues the temporary $10 records management fee through November 1, 2027, and keeps the in forma pauperis process for litigants unable to pay court costs.
The bill’s practical effect is to alter how money flows among county law libraries, county court funds, and state judicial-related funds, while also changing the amount of certain filing-fee add-ons in civil cases. Counties with larger populations receive more discretion over excess law library balances, and counties below 500,000 population are subject to revised transfer requirements. The bill also affects litigants, court clerks, county commissioners, sheriffs, and judicial administrative funds by changing fee collection and fund allocation rules.
The available legislative history shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented public sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears administrative and fiscal in nature rather than controversial on its face, but it does impose or continue court-related assessments that could draw concern from fee payers and local court users. Any contention would likely center on the size of the assessments, the redistribution of county law library money, and whether larger counties should have discretion over those funds rather than mandatory transmission.
SB 276 amends Title 20 and Title 28 of the Oklahoma Statutes to change law library fund transfer rules and civil filing-fee assessments. It affects county law library boards, county court funds, the State Judicial Revolving Fund, the Law Library Fund, the Oklahoma Court Information System Revolving Fund, OCASA, the Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund, the Supreme Court Revolving Fund, and county sheriff service fee accounts. The bill also updates statutory population thresholds and fee amounts, and it preserves existing provisions for indigent litigants and electronic fee payments.
No committee transcripts or votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the record supplied. The bill reads as a technical funding and fee-adjustment measure, suggesting a generally procedural rather than ideological posture. Any sentiment inferred from the text would be neutral-to-mixed, with likely support from court and judicial funding interests and possible caution from counties or litigants affected by the assessments.
The main points of contention are likely to be the mandatory versus discretionary transfer of excess law library funds in counties with populations of 500,000 or more, and the revised dollar amounts counties must transfer to law library funds based on population. Additional friction could come from the continued layering of civil case assessments, which increase the cost of filing or pursuing civil actions, especially for frequent court users, while court and judicial stakeholders may favor the dedicated revenue streams. The bill’s lack of recorded debate means no specific opponents or supporters are identified in the materials provided.