Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Support and opposition collide over proposed domestic-violence registry
Summary
Sponsors presented HB 13-63 to create a registry for repeat domestic-violence offenders; survivors and family members urged action while domestic-violence advocates warned registries can mislead and risk identifying victims, and said national groups oppose such lists.
A bill to create a public domestic-violence offender registry drew sharply different testimony at the House Judiciary Committee on March 12.
The sponsor described HB 13-63 as a registry for individuals convicted of multiple domestic-related crimes that would require registration after a second conviction and publish non-sensitive conviction information to help identify patterns. The sponsor said the measure was modeled on Tennessee’s Savannah’s Law and that the proposal aims to increase transparency while protecting victims’ sensitive data.
A surviving family member, who identified herself as Katie, urged support and tied her testimony to the suspected domestic-violence death of a relative. "Giving people access to clear, verified information could help protect lives and prevent future tragedies," she said.
Laurie Ruth, public policy director at the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, testified in opposition and said national coalitions and experts oppose domestic-violence registries. Ruth said many perpetrators are never convicted, that conviction records may not reliably indicate domestic violence, and that registries can unintentionally expose victims: "All the coalitions and the national group worry about the identification unwillingly of victims," she said.
The committee heard no vote during the hearing. Supporters said the registry would leverage existing offender-registry infrastructure and include safeguards to avoid publishing sensitive personal data; opponents urged the committee to consider evidence that registries may not achieve intended safety outcomes and could introduce new risks to survivors.
The chair closed the record after testimony and questions.
