Senate Hears Constable Testimony; House Bill 133 Fails in Recorded Senate Count

Senators heard sustained testimony on House Bill 133, a set of amendments affecting constables and the process for serving legal process. The debate included both written and in‑person testimony from elected constables, deputy constables and task force members. In a recorded floor action earlier in the session, the Senate reported House Bill 133 as showing 11 ayes, 14 nays and 4 absent; the transcript records the bill as failing at that point.

Deputy Michelle, who identified herself as approved by the county commission and a deputy under Rick Berry, testified she and other local constables were not notified of the task force deliberations and said contracting had concentrated work with a few private providers, creating backlogs. "It's taking away our elected office, and there's no need for that," she said, opposing HB133.

Elected constable Kim Bates testified that constables have been elected positions for more than 50 years and warned that the bill would substitute an appointed structure for an elected one. "We don't need to abolish another elected office," Bates said, arguing for preserving local electoral accountability.

Rich Oldroyd, Director of Research for the Department of Criminal and Juvenile Justice and a task force member, explained that the bill resulted from two task forces and study over two years. He told senators the bill aims to address variations in cost, liability and lack of supervision in parts of the state and that the task force sought broad representation. Oldroyd said compromises produced the current package even though some aspects remained controversial.

Senators debated the consultation process, representation of constables on the task force, and whether contracting (statute cited as having been passed in 1983, referenced as '2135' in testimony) had already shifted work away from precinct‑elected constables.

Result recorded in transcript: House Bill 133 was reported as showing 11 ayes, 14 nays and 4 absent, recorded as failing during the floor action described in the transcript. The Committee of the Whole sections produced multiple public‑record testimonies that senators cited in floor debate.

What happens next: The transcript shows the bill 'failed' in the floor action reported; sponsors and opponents indicated possible follow‑up in rules or committee work.