Conference committee negotiates sentence level and religious-service exemption in bill barring registered offenders from school property

House and Senate conferees met in a conference committee to negotiate changes to a bill that would prohibit people on the state offender registry from entering school property, debating both the criminal sentence for a first conviction and an exemption that would allow attendance at religious services held on school grounds.

The conference focused on two related proposals: a House offer of four amendments to the bill (referred to in committee as 02/1964) and a Senate counter that would change the recommended sentencing severity and add a limited religious-service exemption. The reviser explained the sentencing-grid implications, saying: "So severity level 6... the range is gonna be between 32 and 36 months, and that's gonna be presumptive prison. And an 8, the range is gonna be between 15 and 17 months, and... presumptive probation. For a 7... it would be between 22 and 26 months, and... presumptive probation." (Reviser)

Why it matters: the difference between a level-6 and a level-7 or -8 offense changes whether the first conviction carries presumptive prison time or presumptive probation, affecting how courts are likely to sentence people convicted under the bill.

House conferees pressed to keep four amendments on the table and to reduce the first-offense severity. A House conferee explained the religious-service exemption proposal: "...we didn't want to ostracize them from going to their church service if it met on school property... this would allow them to be able to go to the worship service." The House also said it removed a proposed polling-place exemption because officials are using schools less often as polling locations and because voting alternatives (mail, early voting) exist.

The Senate offered a compromise on sentencing and exemptions. A Senate conferee framed the counterproposal as two parts: adding the church-service exemption and moving the first-conviction severity down — not as far as the House suggested but enough to remove presumptive prison. The Senate said it would accept dropping the first-conviction severity to a level 7, which the reviser had described as "presumptive probation," as a way to keep the bill focused on school safety while avoiding a presumptive-prison sentence for a first offense.

Conferees also discussed the scope of who faces the prohibition. The reviser clarified that the offender registry includes people with a range of convictions, including those with misdemeanor-level offenses when an additional finding (for example, a motivating or bias finding) has been attached to the underlying offense; the bill would apply to "anybody that's on the... offender registration list." (Reviser)

Negotiations over unrelated bills took place alongside the central discussion. House and Senate conferees exchanged conditional offers about placing several bills into so-called "shells" to facilitate agreement: House Bill 2,349 (scrap metal changes), House Bill 2,323 (civil enforcement for insurance fraud), and others were offered as trade items. The House described HB 2,349 as a narrowed scrap-metal measure that "would allow local law enforcement to investigate scrap metal civil infractions and then send a report to the Attorney General for enforcement." (House conferee)

No final, formal vote was taken on the offender-on-school-property bill during the session. Conferees reported several tentative, conditional offers and counters and paused negotiations to consult stakeholders; they agreed to reconvene later to continue talks. One concrete procedural agreement reached during the meeting was to combine the contents of Senate Bill 237 with House Bill 2062 and to include agreed "balloon" amendments; staff were asked to draft the agreed language for signatures.

The committee left the session with negotiations ongoing. Conferees repeatedly requested that staff place specific bills into individual shells as part of deal-making; those requests were described in offers and counters but were not finalized.

Next steps: conferees paused to consult with stakeholders and planned to resume discussions and review written draft language produced by reviser staff. The meeting concluded with conferees agreeing to reconvene and with multiple conditional offers still on the table.