Senator proposes moving antitrust review for boards from AG to Secretary of State

Senator Daniels, appearing before the Senate Administrative Rules Committee, said Senate Bill 835 would remove the Attorney General's office as the primary reviewer for potential antitrust problems stemming from actions by state boards and commissions and place that responsibility with the Secretary of State.

Daniels said the proposal “is not creating anything new here. We are simply removing the responsibility for checking for any antitrust problems that might come out of actions from a board or commission.” He told the committee the Office of the Attorney General already provides substantial legal advice and houses hearing examiners and that consolidating antitrust review there concentrated too much responsibility in one place.

Daniels cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a dental licensing board in explaining the change. He said the proposal responds to the Supreme Court ruling and related Attorney General opinions and aims to reduce the risk that board actions could expose the state and taxpayers to antitrust liability.

An amendment offered during the committee hearing narrowed the bill’s reach so it would not capture licensing boards or commissions whose actions are already under the supervision of another statewide elected official, including the Labor Commissioner. Daniels described that amendment as intended “to make sure that we don't inadvertently capture some boards and commissions” that are already subject to other oversight.

Committee members asked whether terms used in the bill — notably “anticompetitive effects” — should be defined. Daniels said the language was taken from an Attorney General opinion and from the dental-board decision and that he would review the phrasing but had not drafted a new definition during the hearing.

The committee took up the amendment and moved the bill forward from the committee; the transcript records a motion to give the amendment a do-pass and a subsequent motion to advance the bill, but a roll-call vote tally on the final passage in committee is not specified in the record provided.

The bill references prior Attorney General letters and the Dental Examiners Board matter as the legal background for the proposed transfer of duties; committee discussion focused on avoiding duplication with other agencies and on whether statutory language needed further definition.

Outcome and next steps: The bill and an amendment were taken up in committee and moved forward; the transcript does not contain a complete roll-call tally for the bill’s final committee vote and does not specify its next calendar assignment.