Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House advances wide slate of bills; bail-bond, prison-relocation and education measures cleared
Summary
On March 7, 2011 the Utah House passed a package of bills including bail-bond timing changes, a prison-relocation authority substitute, reading-program pilot language and campaign finance clarifications; a proposed alimony reform failed after extended debate.
The Utah House of Representatives moved multiple measures through the floor on March 7, 2011, approving several bills and rejecting one notable alimony bill after protracted debate.
House Bill 370 (current fiscal-year supplemental appropriations, bail-bond amendments) was amended on the floor (Amendment No. 3) to limit when a bail bond remains in effect and to clarify when a bench warrant must be issued. Representative McKiff described negotiated language that shortens the period a bail company may remain liable and sets a 30-day window for courts to issue bench warrants after a failure to appear. HB 370 passed overwhelmingly, 73–1.
Representative Hughes introduced first substitute House Bill 445 to create a Prison Relocation and Development Authority charged with vetting proposals to relocate the Draper prison and to assemble stakeholders for transparent review. The sponsor said the authority would have no land-use powers and final decisions would remain with the Executive Branch; the substitute passed 73–0 and will be transmitted to the Senate.
Education measures also advanced. House Bill 302 was replaced with a first substitute making the K–3 benchmark-assessment program an opt-in pilot that would add first grade to the assessment and allow districts to choose participation; the substitute passed 46–28. Debate continued on House Bill 339 (charter-school enrollment amendments) over how to prioritize new seats for higher-performing charter schools; after reconsideration and placement on the third-reading calendar the bill later passed 47–27.
Campaign-finance cleanup in House Bill 304 was presented as a technical fix clarifying lawmakers’ ability to participate in political-action committees; floor amendments removed language that could have implicated judicial canons. Representative Hughes described the bill as a clarification of existing statute; HB 304 passed 71–1 and will be transmitted to the Senate.
A high-profile family-law proposal, Second Substitute House Bill 491 (alimony modifications), drew extended debate about whether to define and reintroduce fault into alimony determinations after a 2009 Court of Appeals decision (Mark v. Mark). Supporters argued the court had asked the legislature to define fault; opponents warned the change would increase acrimony, raise costs and expand litigation. The second substitute failed on the floor, 35 yes to 38 no.
Other actions on the calendar included passage of HJR13 (legislative compensation joint rules changes) 57–16, and approvals of multiple bills or substitutions that will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration. Several items were circled or placed on the third-reading calendar for later action during the day’s session.
