Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assault Restraint Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel rejects proposed wording change to align state restraining order language with federal law; committee votes 'do not pass' on assault‑restraining bill
Summary
The Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment to replace the word 'victim' with 'protected party' (language used in VAWA) and later voted to recommend 'do not pass' on Senate Bill 2326, an assault‑related protective order bill.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29 considered Senate Bill 2326, a measure addressing assault restraining orders, and rejected a sponsor‑requested amendment that would replace the term “victim” with “protected party.” The proposed change was described by proponents as aligning state law with the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA); opponents warned the substitution could import broader federal definitions and legal implications.
During debate, supporters said the term “protected party” is used in federal law to cover multiple protected individuals (for example, a parent and child seeking relief together). Some committee members opposed the change on policy grounds, saying that adopting VAWA‑style language could carry unintended consequences and definitions beyond this bill.
After the amendment failed for lack of a second, members considered motions on the bill. A motion for a due‑pass recommendation died for lack of second. Senator Merdahl then moved a “do not pass” recommendation; the motion carried on roll call. Several senators voted aye on the do‑not‑pass motion and a few opposed; Chair Larson recorded the motion as carried.
Why it matters: Committee action sends the bill back to sponsors with a do‑not‑pass recommendation, which typically halts further progress in the current session absent later reconsideration. The debate highlighted sensitivity among some senators to importing federal statutory language into state code without detailed review.
Vote: Roll‑call votes were recorded for the do‑not‑pass motion; the committee chair later asked for a senator to carry the do‑not‑pass position on the Senate floor.
