Committee advances bill requiring landlords to furnish proof of criminal background checks to tenants

The House committee voted to advance House Bill 1395 on a do-pass as amended motion after members narrowed the bill’s requirements and extended the timeline for compliance.

Representative Koppelman, who offered the amendment, said the change would limit refunds to “fees paid for the purpose of a background check” and extend the deadline for providing proof from seven to 14 days. “So maybe a 2 week time period would be reasonable. But but I'll move that amendment,” Koppelman said.

The bill would require a landlord who conditions rental on a criminal-background check to furnish proof of a completed check to the prospective tenant if the tenant requests it. Under the adopted amendment, if the landlord fails to timely furnish proof of the background check, the landlord must refund only the fees paid for the background check within 14 days; other processing or application fees would not be refundable under the amendment.

Representative Casper said the bill’s intent is to allow a denied applicant to see the specific information used in a denial. “If a landlord requires a criminal background check to execute a lease … that person who was denied ought to be able to see what the negative is,” Casper said. Several members raised implementation and timing concerns. Representative Volmer and others noted that third-party vendors sometimes bill landlords on a 30-day cycle, and that could complicate meeting a short deadline.

Representative Ruby, who seconded the do-pass motion, and Representative Shower argued for narrow refund language and for a reasonable time window for landlords to supply proof. Representative Johnson suggested the bill explicitly limit the landlord’s duty to respond when the tenant requests the proof.

After debate, the committee adopted the amendment to (1) change the seven-day deadline to 14 days, (2) limit refunds to fees paid specifically for background checks, and (3) require proof to be furnished when requested by the tenant. The committee then approved a do-pass as amended motion moved by Representative Koppelman and seconded by Representative Ruby. The recorded committee tally was 10 yes, 1 no, and 3 absent. Representative Bale agreed to carry the bill to the floor.

The measure’s supporters described it as a transparency measure for applicants who are denied housing, while some landlords and landlords’ representatives had raised concerns in emails about administrative burden and what documentation must be provided. Committee members discussed allowing an email receipt from the third-party vendor as acceptable proof.

The bill will move to the House floor with the committee’s recommendation and the amendment that narrows refunds and extends the compliance window.