Senate panel hears bill to eliminate public defender and payment‑plan fees for indigent defendants

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday heard testimony on SB120, a bill that would eliminate two fees critics say disproportionately affect low‑income Nevadans: fees charged to enroll in court payment plans and fees assessed to people who receive court‑appointed counsel.

Supporters told the committee the fees are applied unevenly across Nevada courts and often compound poverty for people already unable to pay. Soraya Bonner, an intern in the office of Senator Melanie Scheibel, introduced the bill and said, “Justice should not be contingent on wealth.” Nick Shipack, Nevada state director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, described the amendment as narrowing the original bill and said it would “eliminate the ability for courts to charge to get on a payment plan” and “repeal statute that allows for the charging individuals for the use of public defenders.”

The bill’s sponsors and witnesses told the committee that payment‑plan fees vary widely across courts. Shipack said a survey of 40 justice and municipal courts found 19 charged no fee to get on a payment plan, while others charged amounts ranging from $10 to more than $50; his presentation listed counts of courts charging $10, $20, $25, $45, $50 and higher. He also described long‑standing public defender fees, noting that the 1975 Legislature enacted AB 70 to allow such charges and that current indigency standards have since been established.

Advocates and people with lived experience urged the committee to act. Denise Bolanos Heredia of Return Strong said fines and fees created an “overwhelming burden” for her family after her husband was incarcerated. Yesenia Moya, a caller who testified in support, said payment plans were not chosen to “laugh at the court” but because many people must choose between paying fees and paying for essentials such as rent and food.

Presenters cited data on collection and equity. Shipack said Clark County District Court collected about 8.17% of what was assessed for certain fees in 2023 and described substantial variation between judges within the same court: in one district court five judges assessed a public defender fee in 75% or more of their cases while eight judges assessed it in fewer than 5% of cases. He and others raised concerns about inconsistent reporting to the Department of Indigent Defense Services (DIDS) and the risk that counties may be reimbursed by the state while defendants are also assessed the same fee—creating the appearance of double‑payment in some cases, though presenters said precise case‑level counts were difficult to verify from available data.

Officials representing Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction said courts generally try to offer reasonable payment plans and use alternatives such as community service when appropriate. Senator members asked about enforcement for people who default on payments; presenters replied that consequences for nonpayment (warrants, license suspensions, collection actions) depend on each court’s rules and discretion and that the committee’s amendment intentionally leaves court processes in place to avoid constitutional concerns about regulating judicial procedure.

The hearing included supporters from the ACLU of Nevada, NAACP prison committee, Food Bank of Northern Nevada, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada and other advocacy organizations. No members of the public testified in opposition. Committee members closed the hearing without taking a vote; sponsors said they worked with stakeholders on the amendment and will continue coordinating language with courts and DIDS.

SB120 was heard but not advanced at the hearing; the committee did not record any formal vote during the session.