Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stalking Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances stalking bill after major amendments to protect due process for respondents
Summary
Senate debated Substitute House Bill 25 (stalking amendments) at length, addressing pro se/ex parte orders and burden‑of‑proof concerns. Senators adopted amendments that preserve the petitioner's burden and the bill was placed on third reading (25–0 recorded).
Substitute House Bill 25, a stalking bill intended to create civil remedies and ex parte relief for non‑cohabiting victims of stalking, drew extended floor debate Feb. 20 as senators weighed victim protection against due‑process safeguards for respondents.
Supporters — including law enforcement, prosecutors and domestic violence advocacy groups — described the bill as a civil pathway for victims who have not lived with the alleged offender and therefore lack access to existing protective‑order remedies. Senator Gladwell, presenting the bill, described tragic cases where no remedy existed and said the bill provides an option to seek an ex parte injunction followed by a prompt hearing.
Senator Spencer repeatedly warned the measure risked creating unequal treatment for cohabitants versus non‑cohabitants and predicted federal litigation if constitutional protections for cohabitants were not addressed. Spencer said earlier efforts to fix that problem required a fiscal note and broader work by interim committees.
A central floor dispute focused on pro se filing and ex parte provisions that could yield a three‑year civil injunction if a respondent did not request a timely hearing. Senators moved to amend the bill to remove language that shifted the burden of proof to respondents and to ensure the petitioner continues to bear the burden of proof at any contested hearing. Senator Gladwell offered an amendment that deletes the burden‑shifting language and clarifies procedural safeguards; the amendment was adopted after explanation from floor counsel.
With the amendment in place, sponsors said they were comfortable the bill preserves both victim access to immediate relief and respondent due‑process rights. The second substitute of House Bill 25, as amended, was read for the third time and placed on the third‑reading calendar by roll call (25 ayes, 0 nays, recorded on the floor).
Next steps: the amended second substitute will appear on the Senate third‑reading calendar for final consideration. Sponsors said they would work with counsel and courts on uniform forms and implementation details.
