Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Claims‑court proposal fails on tie vote after committee debate
Summary
Senate Bill 385, which would establish a specialty claims court, failed in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee on an 11–11 tie. Supporters said a specialty court would relieve district courts of complex civil suits; opponents said the state should prioritize current judiciary needs and not grow government now.
Senate Bill 385, proposed to establish a specialty claims court to handle complex civil claims (constitutional claims, permit disputes and similar matters), was debated in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee. Senator McGillivray, the sponsor, said the court would specialize in time‑consuming complex civil suits and could free district courts to focus on criminal cases and backlogs; the bill included pay‑as‑you‑go offsets in Section D that sponsor said would fund the court without increasing net costs.
Opponents criticized the bill as growing government when district courts face resource shortfalls; some senators argued the judiciary's more urgent needs—additional judges and staff in other counties—remain unfunded. Budget concerns included an asserted proposal that proposed judges' pay would be set at 20% above Supreme Court justice pay (noted by Senator Pope). On roll call the motion produced an 11–11 tie and the motion failed; the committee concluded for the day.
