Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Financial Obligations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances substitute for HB 1499 to change court handling of legal financial obligations
Summary
A Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 1499 would bar courts from imposing certain costs except as authorized by statute, require courts to waive uncollectible legal financial obligations on motion, expand the definition of indigence, and remove interest on restitution; the committee reported the substitute out with an 8-4 vote.
A Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 1499 that narrows when courts may impose legal financial obligations and changes how unpaid obligations are handled was reported out of committee with a due-pass recommendation on Feb. 21.
The substitute, as explained by committee staff, removes several currently authorized costs from statute, eliminates interest on the restitution portion of LFO judgments and strikes language requiring an administrative process to guarantee that waived debts are recalled from collections or excluded from background checks. The substitute instead requires a court to waive all uncollectible legal financial obligations upon motion of an offender and specifies that a clerk of court may act only pursuant to judicial order. The substitute also expands the definition of “indigent” for cost-imposition purposes to persons with income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (up from 125%).
Committee debate focused on process and consequences. Representative Entenmann, who described the proposed substitute as negotiated, said the change was a compromise reached with clerks’ representatives and advocates, adding, "My proposed sub will simply, it has been negotiated. There is an agreement between the County Clerk's Association and the bill's proponents, and I'm urging a good faith effort to recognize the compromise that removes the cost of clerks and sparing them from updating court records 1 by 1, and instead makes poverty fees uncollectible upon motion of the defendant." Representative Abel urged a no vote, saying in part, "the imposition of LFOs is a matter of judicial discretion. I have some concerns about undermining judicial discretion." Representative Burnett said members on his side opposed the bill and raised concerns about shifting costs to taxpayers.
A few technical points were clarified in committee discussion: the substitute does not change how “uncollectible” is defined in statute; it removes a separate prohibition on courts imposing electronic monitoring costs in protection-order proceedings that had been in the underlying bill. Staff said the substitute removes the scheduled deeming of certain LFOs as satisfied on set dates (that language was stricken).
On the roll call, the committee recorded eight ayes, four nays and one excused. Representatives voting aye were Taylor, Farvar, Entenmann, Goodman, Peterson, Salahuddin, Tai and Wallin. Representatives voting nay were Walsh, Abel, Burnett and Jacobson. Representative Graham was excused. By that vote, the substitute for HB 1499 was reported out of committee with a due-pass recommendation.
The bill now moves to the next stage of the legislative process with the committee’s recommendation; no additional amendments were adopted in committee.
