Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protective Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances protective-orders bill after military, judiciary and advocates weigh implementation
Summary
A joint Senate committee advanced SB 30-83 with amendments after military liaisons and a DBEDT official urged fast notification of protective orders to military security forces and the judiciary requested time to rebuild prior notification channels; the committee added implementation notes and a defective effective date.
The Senate joint committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs and Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs on Feb. 18 recommended advancing SB 30-83, a bill that would change protective-order notification procedures, but it did so while recording multiple implementation concerns from the judiciary and urging continued military-judiciary coordination.
Kelly Mae Douglas of the US Defense State Liaison Office spoke in support and stood on written testimony. John Green, deputy director for military and community relations at DBEDT, told the committee that "ensuring that military security forces are notified within 24 hours allows commands to take appropriate action, reinforce compliance, and provide additional oversight where necessary," arguing that early awareness helps prevent escalation and improves interagency coordination.
Family Court Judge Jesse Hall said the judiciary is not opposed to the bill's intent but requested a deferral so courts and military partners can rebuild communication systems after a prior arrangement ended in September 2025. "Although our testimony looks like we are in opposition, we are not in opposition to the intent of the bill," Hall said, adding that the courts need time to reconnect with military contacts before a state mandate is implemented.
A public testifier, Titus Graham, a retired U.S. Marine, urged the committee to adopt measures ensuring misconduct by military members is reported promptly to base commanders and security forces so the Uniform Code of Military Justice can be applied where appropriate.
Committee leaders said they acknowledged the judiciary's concerns and recommended passing SB 30-83 with amendments, inserting a defective effective date and noting implementation questions in the committee report. The joint session adopted the committee recommendation by voice vote and recorded no objections in the reviewed segments.
Next steps include committee report language to clarify implementation responsibilities and continued outreach between the judiciary and military leadership to restore and formalize notification procedures.
