Public Defense Reform

In 2022, the Idaho Legislature passed a bill that creates a new funding source for public defense beginning in 2025—shifting the cost of public defense services from the counties to the state.

During the 2023 legislative session, lawmakers were tasked with passing a bill that specifies what that statewide system will look like. Much to the ACLU of Idaho’s disappointment, the legislation introduced this session -- HB 236 -- fell far short of establishing a system that can meet constitutional muster or that will avoid a trial in Tucker.

HB 236, known as the State Public Defender Act, was introduced and passed during the 2023 legislative session. 

Unfortunately, the bill sponsors and the governor’s office failed to work with key stakeholders, including the ACLU of Idaho, to address significant concerns with the bill. Those concerns include, but are not limited to: inadequate funding, lack of political independence, and permissive standards.

The funding mechanism for the new model of public defense is laid out in different legislation; however, the bill’s Statement of Purpose provides that $48 million is to be made available annually to fund public defense across the state beginning in FY25.

Given recognized national standards for the provision of constitutionally effective public defense and existing caseloads, this level of public defense funding is woefully inadequate.

The Idaho legislature must significantly increase funding to ensure constitutionally adequate representation or decriminalize minor offenses to in order decrease caseloads and alleviate costs associated with the carceral state.

Ensuring that public defense is independent from judicial and political influence is paramount in achieving a constitutional system.

The American Bar Association created the “Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System” as a practical guide for governmental officials, policymakers, and other parties who are charged with creating and funding new --or improving existing-- public defense delivery systems.¹

The Ten Principles constitute the fundamental criteria necessary to design a system that provides “effective, efficient, high quality, ethical, and conflict-free legal representation for criminal defendants who are unable to afford an attorney.”² Political and judicial independence is the very first among the American Bar Association’s Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System because without it, “most of the other ABA Principles are unobtainable.”³ 

Under HB 236, the State Public Defender is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Chief District Public Defenders will be hired by District Magistrate Commissions with only permissive input from the State Public Defender.

This structure is contrary to the Sixth Amendment’s mandate that the public defense function, including the selection of defense counsel, be free from political influence.

The bill authorizes the State Public Defender to implement the American Bar Association’s most current maximum attorney caseload standards for effective representation, but it does not make clear that those limits are not to be exceeded.

In our view, HB 236 does not do enough to ensure that every indigent defendant’s case receives adequate attention and representation.

It is critical that Idaho’s defenders not take on cases that exceed workload capacities prescribed by the ABA by reference to national workload limits.