Committee debates grand-jury amendment to HB1639; ends in interim study after procedural votes
Loading...
Summary
An amendment adding broad grand-jury language to HB1639 drew extensive opposition over secrecy and separation-of-powers concerns; committee votes produced a tie on the main motion and ultimately approved interim study rather than sending a recommendation to the floor.
Representative Kutak moved OTPA with an amendment to HB1639 that added an extensive set of grand-jury provisions. Several members, including Representative Birch, objected that the amendment substantially altered the bill's subject and could create an unsupervised grand-jury-like process, raising constitutional and secrecy concerns.
Opponents warned the amendment would allow private citizens or nonprosecutorial actors to wield grand-jury powers without the prosecutorial discretion and ethical constraints that guide criminal grand juries. Representative Birch cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent and expressed concerns about lack of secrecy rules, conflict-of-interest risks, and the potential for politically timed investigations.
The committee took multiple roll-call votes. The amendment (2026-0542H) passed 8 yays to 7 nays on its roll call. The main motion to recommend HB1639 as amended resulted in an 8-to-8 tie; under committee rules that produced no recommendation and the bill would go to the floor without recommendation. The committee then considered alternate motions. A motion to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL) failed on a roll call (7 ayes, 9 nays). A subsequent motion to refer the bill to an interim study passed (14 yeas, 2 nays), sending the measure to further study rather than a committee endorsement.
Members cited the lack of public testimony on the grand-jury-style provisions and urged that the issue require its own bill and full expert input.
The committee recorded the roll-call results in the transcript and directed follow-up via the interim-study process.
