Judiciary committee gives favorable report to bill expanding authority and oversight of Pardons and Paroles board

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 8-3 to give SB 324 a favorable report after a lengthy debate over oversight and decisionmaking by the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Senator Chris Chambliss, chair of the Joint Prison Oversight Committee, told the committee the bill responds to what he described as a pattern of slow or incomplete responses to oversight questions. "We had the first, to my knowledge, public hearing ever in December of 2023," Chambliss said, and later told the committee officials did not provide timely written answers to follow-up questions. He said the board's "conformance is 20% to their own guidelines." Chambliss said the bill was drafted after months of committee work and consultation with the attorney general's office.

Chambliss summarized the bill's main provisions: it would expand the pardons-and-parole board from three members to five; require the Senate to confirm appointees before they are seated; direct the board to select its chair; and increase the interval before automatic parole consideration from five years to a maximum of 10 years for people serving life sentences for a Class A violent offense. "There are people in prison that we know we're not gonna let out. Yet victims and families have to go through this every five years reliving all of that," Chambliss said, explaining the change to the set-aside period for parole consideration.

Committee members largely endorsed the need for better accountability. Senator Singleton, who serves on the oversight committee, thanked Chambliss and said the committee "toiled over this for a while" and had been frustrated by what she described as evasive answers from board officials. Several other senators said they had been disturbed by the conduct of multiple state boards and agencies when questioned by oversight panels and argued the legislature needed stronger tools to enforce accountability.

At the same time, some members flagged concerns about unintended effects. One senator said parts of the bill "might be a vehicle to get a more lenient board" and urged care in how the changes are written. Other senators urged broader fixes or a study committee to address how the board operates and how hearings are conducted, including problems such as canceled hearings and lack of quorums.

The committee recorded a motion for a favorable report on SB 324, moved by Senator Singleton and seconded by Senator Gavann. The recorded outcome was 8 in favor and 3 opposed. The committee report will move with the bill to the next steps in the legislative process.

The debate included discussion of both process questions (timely responses to oversight inquiries, statutory review obligations) and policy choices (board size, selection of the chair, parole-review intervals). Members repeatedly emphasized the legislature's role in funding and oversight but also differed on how prescriptive the statute should be about board operations.

SB 324 received a favorable committee report and will proceed in the legislative process.