An Act amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in budget and finance, further providing for expenses; in facilities and supplies, further provid . . .ing for deposits into account; and, in access to justice, providing for performance audit of account.
HB331 amends Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes in three main ways. First, it increases the annual registration fee paid by the Office of the Court Administrator to the Special Court Judges of Pennsylvania Association for each magisterial district judge, Philadelphia Municipal Court judge, and Philadelphia Traffic Court judge position from $200 to $400, with those costs funded through the magisterial district judges education appropriation except for the monthly journal publication cost. Second, it redirects certain costs charged by magisterial district judges that would otherwise be paid to the Commonwealth into the restricted receipt account used for court-related funding, beginning July 1, 2025, and expiring June 30, 2028. Third, it removes an existing exception that had exempted certain traffic-citation convictions or guilty pleas from a surcharge, thereby broadening the surcharge’s application.
The bill also adds a new requirement for the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a performance audit of the account by June 15, 2026. That audit must examine how civil legal aid services are funded and delivered in Pennsylvania, identify recipient organizations and services, review assessment and collection rates for fees and surcharges, estimate the effect of repealing the surcharge exception, and consider alternative funding sources for civil legal aid. The bill applies the fee and deposit changes retroactively to July 1, 2025, and takes effect immediately.
In practical terms, HB331 affects court administration funding, fee and surcharge collection, and the financing of civil legal aid services. It changes how certain court-collected monies are deposited, potentially increasing the restricted account available for legal aid and related purposes, while also increasing the registration fee paid for certain judicial positions. It also creates a formal legislative review of whether the current funding structure is adequate and how much additional revenue could be generated by eliminating the traffic-related surcharge exception.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears generally favorable, with the bill advancing through committee and both chambers by substantial margins. However, the House final passage vote showed more opposition than most later votes, suggesting some concern about the fee and surcharge changes or the broader funding approach. The Senate amendments and the addition of the audit requirement indicate an effort to refine the bill and address questions about accountability and the effectiveness of the legal aid funding system.
The main points of contention appear to be the expansion of surcharge collection, the redirection of court-collected funds, and whether the bill’s funding mechanism is the best way to support civil legal aid. Supporters likely view the measure as a way to strengthen legal aid funding and improve oversight, while critics may object to increasing court-related fees or to removing the traffic-citation surcharge exception. The audit provision suggests lawmakers wanted more information before fully committing to long-term funding changes.
HB331 amends Title 42 by increasing certain judicial registration fees, redirecting specified magisterial district judge costs into a restricted receipt account for a limited period, eliminating an exception to a surcharge for certain traffic-related summary offenses, and requiring a legislative performance audit of the account and civil legal aid funding. It affects the Office of the Court Administrator, magisterial district judges, Philadelphia municipal and traffic court judges, the restricted account used for court-related and legal aid funding, and organizations receiving civil legal aid money.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support overall, as shown by repeated committee approvals and strong floor votes in both chambers. The House final passage vote was less unanimous than later Senate action, indicating some reservations, but the measure still advanced comfortably. The addition of an audit requirement and multiple Senate amendments suggests lawmakers were generally supportive but wanted more oversight and analysis of the funding structure.
The most notable disagreements concern whether it is appropriate to expand surcharge collection and redirect court-generated revenue into the restricted account, especially by repealing the traffic-citation exception. Some lawmakers likely viewed the changes as necessary to bolster civil legal aid funding, while others may have been concerned about imposing additional costs on court users or altering the distribution of fines and fees. The audit requirement reflects a compromise position aimed at evaluating the account’s performance and identifying alternative funding sources before making further changes.