Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate Judiciary reviews H540 to standardize post-adjudication restorative justice referrals
Loading...
Summary
Superior Judge Hillary Jenner Ames walked the Senate Judiciary Committee through H540, which consolidates statutory language into a single section, clarifies that restorative justice can be a sentence or a probation condition, adds judge-consideration factors, requires standardized forms and procedural rules, and sets an effective date of July 1.
Superior Judge Hillary Jenner Ames walked the Senate Judiciary Committee through H540 on March 20, describing it as “a bill that adopts the recommendations from the final report of the post adjudication reparative program working group.” Ames told the committee the measure reorganizes existing statutory language into a single, uniform section to make referrals to the restorative (reparative) justice program clearer and more consistent statewide.
Why it matters: The bill responds to a 2024 legislative directive that created a working group to review post-adjudication diversion and restorative programs after Act 180 and related provisions. Supporters say H540 reduces confusion caused by disparate references across Title 13 and Title 28, establishes example factors judges should consider before ordering participation, and aims to limit geographic disparities by standardizing forms and procedures.
What the bill does: Ames said Section 1 amends the statutory sentencing-options provision (as cited in the hearing as 13 BSA 70 30) to make referral language consistent and move detailed operational text into a new, single statutory section. Section 2 clarifies current practice that participation in a restorative justice program may be either a stand-alone sentence or a condition of probation. On the point of referrals tied to civil contempt, Ames said the working group recommended removing the existing reference that allows referral for civil contempt of a trial-support order because members “had never seen it used that way” and did not consider it an appropriate use of restorative programs.
Section 3, Ames said, is the core of the bill: a consolidated “one-stop shop” statutory section (referred to in the walkthrough as section 9 13) that carries forward eligibility language, explains the referral process when participation is not a condition of probation, and lists non-exhaustive example factors (six illustrative items) that judges should consider when ordering restorative justice participation. Subsections added by the working group would also require standardized forms to be used statewide and authorize the Supreme Court to adopt procedural rules to support uniform referral procedures.
On budget and scope: A committee member who had chaired the working group said the bill was designed to reorganize language—not to change eligibility—and emphasized statewide outreach to stakeholders including state's attorneys, the attorney general’s office, the Center for Crime Victim Services, and community justice centers. That member told the committee the budget impact is zero, adding, “The budget impact is 0. It doesn't cost anything to do this.”
Next steps and follow-up: Committee members asked whether the court already had authority to adopt procedural rules; witnesses said the court can adopt rules but that including a statutory reference signals the need for specific referral procedures. The chair said staff would reach out to the attorney general, state’s attorneys, and defender general to confirm whether those offices had previously testified and to make sure nothing important was overlooked. No formal vote on H540 was recorded during the walkthrough.
The committee scheduled follow-up appearances and thanked Ames and witnesses for the explanation; the bill’s effective date is stated in the draft as July 1.
