Judiciary committee advances bill tightening penalties for nonconsensual image disclosure after debate on penalty level
Loading...
Summary
The Judiciary committee voted to advance H626 (strike‑all, draft 3.2), which targets nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images and includes an extortion enhancement. Lawmakers debated whether the offense should be a three‑year misdemeanor or a three‑year felony and agreed to move the bill forward while deferring broader penalty reform.
Speaker 1, a Judiciary committee member, moved to approve a strike‑all amendment to H626 (draft 3.2), a bill aimed at criminalizing the nonconsensual disclosure of visual images and adding an extortion enhancement. The committee discussed whether a subsection should explicitly say 'without consent' and whether the offense should carry a misdemeanor or felony penalty.
The committee heard arguments for leaving the 'without consent' language in place. Speaker 2 noted that the existing statute (referred to in discussion as '2606') had been upheld under strict scrutiny in the Van Buren case, and removing language risked weakening a provision the court had sustained. "No sense, like, tipping the Jenga Tower on that one," Speaker 2 said, urging caution about altering language tied to court precedent.
Members debated proportionality for the penalty. Speaker 1 said they had at one point favored a three‑year felony because of the harm to victims but also worried about consistency with other offenses that remain misdemeanors. Speaker 1 read several comparable provisions from the code and noted many related offenses carry misdemeanor penalties. "If we do that, I think we need to have the proportional penalties" for related offenses, Speaker 1 said, describing the tradeoffs between deterrence and legislative consistency.
Speaker 3 raised a concern about juvenile offenders and whether separate juvenile/family court processes should apply. Speaker 3 asked the committee to register concern about how the system treats juveniles who might commit the offense; Speaker 1 acknowledged the point and observed family court mechanisms exist but did not change the committee's direction.
After discussion, Speaker 1 moved the strike‑all amendment; the clerk conducted a roll call. Several members answered in the affirmative and at least one member (Christie) was recorded absent. The committee completed the roll call and prepared the clean, edited draft for the clerk.
The committee’s action advances H626 to the next legislative step; members also agreed to continue evaluating penalties and to consider broader statutory reform and stakeholder engagement after crossover or in the next session.
