Maine Judiciary Committee declines to advance parole reestablishment bill after concerns over retroactivity and implementation
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Lawmakers debated LD 1941 to reestablish parole, focusing on retroactivity, victim impacts and how parole decisions would interact with probation and court orders; Representative Lee moved to pass as amended but the motion failed on a 3–8 roll call.
The Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary reviewed LD 1941, a bill to reestablish parole in Maine, during a work session that focused on the bill’s implementation details and who would control custody when concurrent probation or parole proceedings occur.
Sponsor Representative Lee summarized the amendment, saying the updated draft adds an executive director to create guidelines, shifts the risk assessment to a broader "risk and suitability analysis" and allows the law to apply prospectively or retroactively for people sentenced since 1976. He also said the amendment raises the threshold for granting parole: "a simple majority of the parole board is insufficient to grant parole. You need 5 out of 7 of the individuals on the parole board in order to grant parole." (Representative Lee)
Opponents warned that retroactive application could undermine plea negotiations and strain prosecutorial practices. Representative Sinclair said plea bargains and sentencing negotiations could be destabilized if retroactivity undercut prior negotiations. Representative Poirier told the committee she would vote against the motion because of victims’ concerns: "I'm voting against this ... but I'm putting the victims and their families first." (Representative Poirier)
The Department of Corrections urged careful drafting to resolve conflicts between court‑ordered custody and parole board actions. Jill O'Brien of the Department of Corrections recommended the bill spell out how to handle situations where a court imposes custody and a parole proceeding is pending, and raised concerns about procedural fairness and counsel at revocation hearings.
Representative Lee moved that the committee "ought to pass as amended" on the yellow draft; Representative Sato seconded. After discussion the committee took a roll call. The clerk reported three members voting in the affirmative, eight in the negative and three absent, and the motion failed.
The committee closed the LD 1941 work session after the vote. Members who opposed the motion asked that implementation questions—especially priority between court orders and parole decisions and a clear statement about counsel at revocation hearings—be addressed if the bill returns for further consideration.