Wichita ? Judicial officials in Kansas are being told what school district administrators have heard for years: Consolidation could save money.

An audit produced by the state and released Wednesday estimated that if Kansas had only 13 judicial districts in 2008, instead of its 31 judicial districts, “costs could have been about $6.2 million less statewide.”

Under a hypothetical scenario of only seven judicial districts, expenses in 2008 could have been about $8.1 million less across the state, the Legislative Division of Post Audit’s report stated.

The audit contained two maps showing how a 13-district and a seven-district judicial system might appear in Kansas. Both maps see Douglas County ceasing to be its own judicial district, and being combined with other counties in the area. Douglas County’s existing judges would be expected to handle fewer cases.

The audit estimated changes in the state’s judicial system could result in fewer judges statewide and eliminate, potentially, more than 100 full-time staff positions. The primary savings from the redrawn judicial district boundaries stemmed from the assumption the state would eliminate its one-judge-per-county rule and some less costly district magistrate positions would be substituted for district judge positions.

A chart showing non-traffic case filings in 2008 showed the caseload per judge in the 24th Judicial District — consisting of Edwards, Hodgeman, Lane, Ness, Pawnee and Rush counties — was 390 cases for the year. By comparison, the caseload for judges in Shawnee County, making up its own judicial district, was 2,392 cases per judge. In Douglas County, the caseload was 1,603 per judge.

Judges in urban areas hear substantially more cases per year than their counterparts in rural counties, and until the state drops the one-judge-per-county standard, “caseloads will stay unequal,” the audit said.

While Kansas has 31 judicial districts, Utah and Iowa each has eight such districts and Minnesota has 10 districts, the audit pointed out. Utah is comparable to Kansas in land area, said District Judge Mike Keeley of Barton County, chief judge of the 20th Judicial District, but the two states have “completely different” demographic maps.

There are only about four places in Utah where there are people, Keeley said.

Thirteen judicial districts for Kansas would not be enough, in Keeley’s view. Larger districts would pose a problem with access to courts on a timely basis. He also noted that judicial districts where voters already have determined judges will be elected in partisan elections would partly overlap districts where voters have opted to see judge-retention ballot questions.

“When you start meddling,” Keeley said, “you may have some unforeseen consequences.”

Keeley, however, completely agreed with the audit’s call for further study on possible efficiencies.

District Magistrate Judge Michael Freelove, in the 16th Judicial District in western Kansas, had not seen the audit as of Wednesday afternoon, but he, too, favored an in-depth study before any changes occurred.

Reno County District Magistrate Judge Randy McEwen predicted “people from all over” would try to be involved in a study or any consideration of changes. He likened the potential political battles to the debates that arise when city-county consolidation or school district consolidation is discussed.

“We are not top-heavy in administration,” said Reno County’s Chief Judge Patricia Macke Dick, noting that chief judges in judicial districts receive only $1,000 extra a year for filling that administrative role.

Macke Dick thought the consensus favored a “really in-depth study.”

She and other western Kansas judges noted the traveling costs that could be a side-effect of a larger district. Also, Macke Dick was dubious districts could rely on reduced staff.

The audit recommended the Legislature ask the Supreme Court chief justice to appoint a judicial advisory committee to study the one-judge-per-county rule, redrawing judicial districts and equalizing caseload.

“This committee should prepare a report for the Legislature by the start of the 2011 legislative session,” the audit also recommended.

In addition, the audit advised the Legislature to provide funds to allow the Office of Judicial Administration to contract for a workload study.

Apart from consolidation, the audit pointed out savings could be gained by making greater use of technology and slashing the use of paper.