Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice H642 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary Committee marks amendments to H.642 unfavorable after debate
Summary
On March 19 the House Judiciary Committee debated two amendments to H.642: Representative Michael Booten’s repeal of the "raise the age" law and Representative Aaron Maguire’s amendment to integrate parts of H.721; committee straw polls found Maguire’s amendment unfavorable by 6–3 and conducted an unrecorded straw poll on Booten’s repeal.
The House Judiciary Committee on March 19 considered two amendments to H.642, including a repeal of the state’s "raise the age" law and a separate amendment to fold sections of H.721 into H.642. Representative Michael Booten introduced draft 1.1 proposing repeal of the 2018 "raise the age" changes and argued that Department for Children and Families caseworkers cannot manage the current workload and that 18- and 19-year-olds should be held accountable in the adult justice system.
"I am presenting before you a repeal of ... raise the age," Representative Michael Booten said, identifying himself as the bill sponsor and representative for Barre City. Several committee members pushed back on timing and process, noting the statute is set to take effect July 1, 2027, and that the committee had previously allocated a two-year window for implementation and additional study. One committee member said the committee should wait for incoming data — including a recidivism study and planned data collection from a 4K initiative — before making a final decision.
Representative Aaron Maguire (Rutland City) separately offered an amendment to integrate sections two through nine of H.721 into H.642. Maguire told the committee the change would strengthen revocation standards (citing section 5285), clarify victim-participation rules (section 5288), tighten timelines and supervision structures, and make H.642's reforms more enforceable in cases involving violent juvenile and youthful offenses.
"This amendment strengthens H.642 by ensuring that the revocation standards we are updating operate within a modernized statutory structure," Maguire said, arguing the amendment would align procedures, confidentiality rules and jurisdictional updates so victims can participate reliably and public-safety criteria are clear.
Several committee members expressed substantive concerns about Maguire’s language: removing discretion from state's attorneys in some filings, reintroducing a "conditional plea of guilty" mechanism that existed from 2009 to 2019, possible effects on diversion for lower- and moderate-risk respondents, and shortened court timelines that may require more detailed testimony and drafting to resolve.
During proceedings the chair called for motions to find the respective amendments unfavorable. The committee conducted a straw poll on Booten’s repeal amendment; the transcript records members vocalizing assent but does not provide a complete, explicit final tally for that straw poll in the record provided. On Maguire’s amendment, the committee held a straw poll that the chair recorded as six in favor of finding the amendment unfavorable and three opposed, meaning the motion carried in the committee’s straw poll.
The committee adjourned until after floor session the following day. The record shows the committee debated policy trade-offs — accountability and supervision versus family-court approaches associated with lower recidivism in state data — and flagged a need for additional testimony and data prior to any final legislative action on H.642.
What’s next: The committee’s unfavorable straw findings will be reflected in its recommendation to the House; further debate and any final votes would occur on the floor or in future committee sessions, with July 1, 2027, noted repeatedly as the effective date the body must address.
