Relating to the Judicial Department; and declaring an emergency.
Summary
HB 2712 makes several changes to Oregon’s Judicial Department statutes, primarily by increasing salaries for state judges and court leadership on a phased schedule. The bill sets new compensation levels effective July 1, 2025 for the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, other Court of Appeals judges, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, other Supreme Court justices, circuit court judges, and the Oregon Tax Court judge. It also provides for a further increase on July 1, 2027, when each listed judicial salary is set at 110 percent of the 2025 amount, as adjusted under existing law.
In addition to compensation changes, the bill expands the Chief Justice’s administrative authority over the courts. It authorizes the Chief Justice to establish judicial education requirements, create an ombudsman’s office within the State Court Administrator’s office to receive court-related concerns, adopt rules for resolving complaints about judicial performance, require individualized action plans for judges, and set confidentiality rules for information handled by the ombudsman’s office. The bill also expressly preserves the ability to refer matters to the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability.
Impact
HB 2712 amends ORS 292.406, 292.411, 292.416, and 292.426 to raise judicial salaries and adds new provisions governing court administration and judicial accountability. It increases the General Fund appropriation to the Judicial Department by $11,328,430 for judicial compensation and by $1,909,655 for operations to implement the new oversight and ombudsman-related provisions. The bill takes effect immediately as an emergency measure, so its changes apply upon passage rather than waiting for the normal effective date.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support overall, passing committee and floor votes with large majorities in both chambers. The House committee votes were unanimous on the initial amended version and strongly favorable on the later amended version, and the full House and Senate each approved the bill by comfortable margins. The voting pattern suggests general agreement with both the salary adjustments and the administrative reforms, though the presence of a few dissenting votes indicates some limited concern or disagreement.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the size and timing of judicial pay increases and on expanding the Chief Justice’s authority to create accountability mechanisms, including an ombudsman’s office and individualized action plans for judges. The relatively small number of no votes in the House and Senate suggests that objections were limited, but they may have reflected concerns about judicial compensation levels, the cost to the General Fund, or the scope of administrative oversight within the courts. The bill’s additional appropriations for implementation also likely drew scrutiny as part of the broader budget impact.