Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Errors Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary subcommittee advances technical "errors bill," resolves cross‑reference fixes and holds a few items for coordination
Summary
A Judiciary subcommittee spent its session reviewing the annual 'errors bill'—a package of technical statutory corrections—moved many noncontroversial cross‑reference fixes forward, added explicit citations for several "major policy influencing" positions, held a small set of sections pending related legislation, and tasked staff to coordinate with subject committees.
A subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary convened to review the state "errors bill," which collects technical corrections, cross‑reference fixes and minor drafting corrections across multiple titles of Maine law.
Legislative analysts Janet Stocco and Eli Murphy led a section‑by‑section review. Members agreed to adopt many noncontroversial corrections as drafted, and to explicitly add cross references to sections listing "major policy influencing" positions (including sections 9‑58 to 9‑60) where prior repeal of a section had left cross references incorrect.
The subcommittee flagged a small number of items for additional coordination rather than immediate inclusion: one correction that is already addressed in a different bill (L.D. 2001) was set aside so that the committee avoids creating a conflict; another item tied to pending labor legislation (held as "a38") will be the subject of outreach to the labor committee to ask whether they will incorporate the correction there. Where departments requested clarifying amendments (for example, the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry for a set of growth‑plan review provisions), the subcommittee accepted suggested language that preserves the policy committee's timelines while resolving the repeal/amendment conflict.
On other sections, the subcommittee agreed to move multiple grouped chunks of statutory corrections forward, and to include reviser's office and agency‑proposed amendments for supplemental sections where appropriate (S‑series supplemental corrections). The committee instructed legislative staff to draft brief memos and, where helpful, reach out to subject committees so that corrections are harmonized and do not create conflicting history lines.
The subcommittee adjourned after approving its package of in‑and‑out/hold instructions and asking staff to circulate proposed amendments and outreach results prior to the committee's full work session.
