Committee holds survivor-protection bill for amendment after extended debate over standard of proof
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 465, which would protect people who report sexual-assaultive conduct from certain civil liability when acting in good faith, was the subject of extended debate on proof standards (actual malice, clear-and-convincing vs. preponderance); the committee held the bill for amendment and will revisit it at a Tuesday vote session.
House Bill 465 prompted extended debate in the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 20 as members discussed whether and how to protect people who disclose sexual-assaultive behavior from civil liability. Sponsors described an amendment that adopts an "actual malice" standard (reckless disregard for truth or knowledge of falsity) and raises the evidentiary standard to clear and convincing evidence; opponents argued that standard is too high and could chill reporting. Committee leadership said they would pursue an amendment to return the standard to preponderance of the evidence and held the bill for further amendment and a future vote session.
“Actual malice means reckless disregard for the truth or actual knowledge of a statement's falsity,” Delegate Embree explained while describing the amendment and the move from preponderance to clear-and-convincing. He said the change aligns the bill with prior case law and the bill permits attorney-fee shifting for meritless suits. Several members expressed concern about the difficulty of proving actual malice by clear-and-convincing evidence and raised examples where survivors may lack the documentary evidence needed to defend themselves. Delegate Moon and others urged balancing protections against strategic lawsuits designed to silence survivors.
The chair announced the bill is being held for amendment; committee members were told the matter will return at a scheduled vote session Tuesday for further consideration.