Pennsylvania House passes bill to seal eviction records after narrow votes on amendments

Harrisburg — The Pennsylvania House on June 16 approved House Bill 10 9 5, a measure that limits public access to eviction records, after several close roll-call votes on amendments and motions to table that split lawmakers along policy and partisan lines.

Supporters of the bill said it would help tenants rebuild their credit and housing prospects, while opponents said some amendments were necessary to protect landlords and public safety. The chamber debated several amendments that would have narrowed or clarified the bill before ultimately agreeing to the measure as amended.

The bill, described on the floor as one that “seals the abduction records to protect tenants and communities” in the clerk’s summary, drew sustained floor debate. Representative Schlossberg, speaking on behalf of an amendment, said the proposal would change the placement of eviction files under limited access by setting a time limit: “this amendment changes the placement of eviction files under limited access to be either 7 years since the filing of the case or upon adjudication of the evicting case in favor of the occupant,” he said, urging colleagues to support that change.

Rep. Rossi, offering amendment A01126, argued the bill as drafted was too broad and could erase records tied to nonpayment and to instances of property damage or criminal activity: “Tenants should not get a free pass for all reasons for cause that led up to the reason for eviction. ... this bill as written would give tenants a free pass for all situations, even acts involving criminal activity, which is simply unacceptable.” The amendment sought to limit the limited-access designation to evictions resulting from inability to pay rent. The amendment failed on a narrow vote, with the clerk reporting 101 ayes and 102 nays.

Representative Schaeffer offered amendment A01127 to restrict the bill to provide what he described as “a second chance” rather than multiple expungements, saying, “I support the underlying concept of this bill to give people a second chance ... I think that a good first step would be allowing people 1 second chance, and that's what my amendment offers.” The amendment was not agreed to; the same 101–102 split was recorded on the floor vote.

Prime sponsor Representative Wadell opposed several of the proposed changes as written, saying some would undermine the bill’s purpose and implementation: “This is not an agreed to amendment. As written, it would actually exclude tenants with no fault eviction records. For example, their landlord files citing termination of the lease term because they want to sell the building, defeating the purpose of the bill as a whole. I urge a no vote from all my colleagues.” He also told colleagues the bill reflected negotiations with stakeholder groups including the Pennsylvania Association of Realtors, the Pennsylvania Residential Owners Association, the Pennsylvania Apartment Association and the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Several procedural motions followed intense debate. Representative Schlossberg moved to lay multiple amendments on the table under Rule 59. On motions to table, the House recorded very narrow majorities: two separate motions to table amendments were adopted 102–101. Representative Lawrence withdrew two of his amendments earlier in the debate, saying, “In the spirit of bipartisanship, I will withdraw both of my amendments on this bill.”

Committee leadership and the bill’s supporters emphasized implementation concerns raised in committee, including court-record identification limits. Representative Wadell noted technical problems courts face in distinguishing common names and changing addresses, saying such limitations influenced opposition to one amendment.

After the votes on amendments and tabling motions, the House agreed to the bill as amended and ordered it reprinted. The clerk announced the bill as “agreed to,” and it will proceed in whatever next steps are required under chamber procedures.

The floor debate reflected competing priorities between tenant rehabilitation and landlord protections, and lawmakers repeatedly cited public safety and administrative feasibility when explaining their votes. The back-and-forth included both policy-oriented amendments and narrowly decided procedural moves that shaped the final legislation.

The House also handled many other calendar items during the session, including committee reports and votes on unrelated bills. Lawmakers recessed for committee meetings and returned to complete a sequence of measures before adjourning until the date set by the speaker.