Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 2026 Priorities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sentencing Guidelines Commission outlines 2026 priorities: rerankings, domestic‑violence review, 'hernandizing' and a rewrite
Summary
The commission discussed priorities for 2026, including reranking parts of the standard grid, exploring separate or altered handling for domestic‑violence cases, studying the application of criminal history within single sentencing events ("hernandizing"), and a proposed reorganization of the guidelines; no binding policy changes were made.
At its Jan. 8 meeting the Sentencing Guidelines Commission aired a slate of priorities for 2026 and asked members to consider serving on subcommittees to study several complex issues before the commission takes formal votes.
Chair Mitchell identified the most likely near‑term projects as (1) reranking selected offense groups on the standard grid (motor‑vehicle theft, offenses resulting in death, and remaining drug‑grid items), (2) examining whether domestic‑violence cases should be handled differently or placed on a separate grid, (3) studying ‘‘hernandizing’’ (the application of criminal history from earlier convictions in the same sentencing event to later counts), and (4) a structural reorganization and renumbering of the guidelines to improve usability.
Commissioner Keith, who urged attention to domestic‑violence cases, said survivors’ families have told him the current rankings can fail to reflect victim impact. “The way that domestic violence cases are ranked displays… a lack of recognition of the humanity of the victim compared to other crimes,” Keith said, urging comparison of domestic‑violence rankings to other offense groups and discussion of alternatives to incarceration and how to treat criminalized survivors.
On 'hernandizing,' the chair explained the term as the practice of applying criminal history accrued during a multi‑count sentencing event to subsequent counts taken up during that same event; commissioners called the rule complicated and suggested the commission examine whether simplifications or narrow carve‑outs are possible. Director Reitz and several commissioners recommended studying approaches used by other states and convening a subcommittee because the rework could involve policy choices rather than purely stylistic edits.
Director Reitz also presented a reorganization proposal motivated by stakeholder feedback that the guidelines are difficult to navigate; the restructuring would renumber and group material (for example, consolidating how mandatory minimums are presented) so users can find rules more easily. Commissioners agreed much of the work will require close review to avoid unintended policy changes and volunteered to help on subcommittees; Chair Mitchell said the commission will spend more full‑meeting time next month on the two largest projects (hernandizing and the restructure) and will form subcommittees in March.
No formal votes were taken on these priority items; commissioners were asked to consider their availability for subcommittee service and to expect more detailed materials at the next meeting.
