Senate Judiciary committee directs addition of definitions to H105, defers full reorganization

The Senate Judiciary Committee on May 13 considered H105 (Draft 2.1) and directed legislative counsel to add several statutory definitions and cross-references, while postponing a larger reorganization of consolidated underage-possession and alcohol-related statutes.

Ben Hombrowski, legislative counsel for the legislature, told the committee, “Before the committee is H105. Draft 2.1 is the most recent version,” and said the judicial bureau and the presiding hearing officer had suggested adding definitions and reorganizing the statute to match procedural flow.

The move matters because H105 consolidates multiple statutes addressing underage possession, procurement and impaired-driving-related offenses and associated alcohol rules. Committee members focused on two main changes proposed by the judicial bureau: adding definitions (for terms such as alcohol concentration, alcohol, ignition interlock device, restricted driver’s license and related certificates) and a wholesale reorganization to align the statute’s structure with procedural steps.

Committee members agreed that adding the additional definitions would be useful and feasible on a short timeline, while the larger reorganization could be handled in a later session. Hombrowski said he could add the definitions “this afternoon” and send the revised draft to editors the following day.

Members also debated whether a provision labeled in the bill as section J — giving a judge the authority to order participation in an education or treatment program — should remain as drafted or be removed. According to a committee member, the judicial bureau recommended removing section J, which would eliminate the judge’s explicit authority in that subsection to order mandatory education. Other stakeholders suggested keeping a civil-remedy framing rather than making failure to comply a criminal offense.

A number of committee members described a preference — or at least a current leaning — to keep the provision as a civil violation with clarifying language to avoid conflict with court rules, including a cross-reference that members noted to court rule 16. One member said the committee would revisit the question after receiving a required report a year after implementation and could consider criminalization later if the civil approach proved ineffective.

On scheduling, the committee tentatively set a 9 a.m. follow-up to hear testimony (including from a witness referenced as Michelle) and to proceed toward voting on H105. Committee members and counsel agreed to prioritize adding the definitions before any broader statutory reorganization.

No formal motion or recorded vote on H105 or on section J was taken during the discussion. The committee’s direction to staff to add definitions and to defer the full reorganization was given in committee discussion and scheduling, not by a formal roll-call vote.

Next steps: legislative counsel will produce a revised draft with the additional definitions and cross-references; the committee plans to reconvene at 9 a.m. to hear testimony and consider advancing H105 further.