Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reentry Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances SB1110 to create home confinement program; supporters stress reentry benefits, some speakers warn of budget and retroactivity concerns
Summary
SB1110, establishing a home confinement program with GPS monitoring and a 50:1 supervision ratio, received a due-pass recommendation after advocates described reentry benefits and public commenters raised questions about retroactive scope and funding for monitoring and supervision.
The Senate Judiciary & Elections Committee advanced SB1110, a measure to create a home confinement program beginning in 2027 and retroactive to Jan. 1, 1994. Committee staff summarized the proposed eligibility rules, monitoring requirements and supervising-officer ratios, and the committee heard both support and concern from witnesses and members of the public.
Staff said the program would limit eligibility to people convicted of specified offenses such as burglary, drug possession, theft or fraud and would exclude those convicted of dangerous crimes against children or serious and violent felonies. Participating inmates would be subject to GPS monitoring for at least one year, could be ordered to pay a home confinement fee, and could be returned to incarceration for violations. The bill also constrains supervision ratios, specifying no more than 50 inmates per supervising officer, and requires the Department of Corrections to adopt rules for program implementation.
Supporters framed SB1110 as a structured reentry pathway. Steve Kaiser (Policy Forge/Action Now initiative) described the proposal as modeled after the federal First Step Act and argued it provides an "off ramp" for qualifying people leaving incarceration, with electronic monitoring, job requirements and phased supervision. Crystal Perez Jordan, testifying as an individual, said the bill would "make a real difference in families like mine," noting the emotional and financial harm of long separations and arguing eligible people who have completed programming deserve supervised reintegration.
At least one public commenter raised substantive fiscal and scope questions. Louis Marzetti Garza called the measure "a massive prisoner dump," pointed to the retroactive effective date back to 1994 and asked where funding for monitoring devices and supervisory infrastructure would come from if thousands of people became eligible. The committee recorded those concerns in the public record; a committee member asked about the fiscal note during roll call explanations.
A committee member moved SB1110 and the clerk announced a roll-call result of "5 ayes, 1 no, 1 not voting," giving the bill a due-pass recommendation.
What happens next: SB1110 is now eligible for floor consideration. Fiscal questions raised in testimony — monitoring costs, supervising-officer capacity and retroactivity estimates — are likely to be central in any further debate.
