Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Bill Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Goodnow urges technical fix to preserve $200 bail cap in Judiciary bill
Summary
At a Judiciary meeting May 13, Representative Goodnow, the bill reporter on H 409, asked the committee to add a technical amendment to the miscellaneous Judiciary bill to correct a cross-reference so the $200 bail cap created after last session’s sealing/expungement changes remains in effect.
At a Judiciary meeting on May 13, Representative Goodnow, who said they were the bill reporter on H 409, asked lawmakers to include a section of H 409 in the miscellaneous Judiciary bill to correct a statutory cross‑reference and preserve an existing $200 bail cap.
Goodnow told the committee that last year the legislature changed sealing and expungement rules and in doing so expanded which crimes are eligible for sealing. "The third section of H 409 does is it replaces the word expungement with sealing," Goodnow said, adding the change references "13 BSA 7601, subsection 4 a," the list of qualifying crimes. Goodnow said the cross‑reference was not updated in every related provision after the earlier law change.
Goodnow said that omission created confusion that could eliminate the $200 bail cap that the legislature intended to keep in place. "I think that the technical change would just ensure that the legislature is referencing the crimes and set of eligible crimes to ensure that the $200 bail cap continues to be in place," Goodnow said. They described a judge in court who, reading the change as it currently stands, suggested there might be no eligible crimes and therefore no applicable $200 cap.
Committee members asked why the amendment should be added in the Senate now rather than waiting for the House to consider additional changes. The Chair asked, "why should we be doing this amendment in the Senate when the House is going to have another opportunity in a couple of days?" Goodnow said adding the change now could avoid additional back‑and‑forth and potential delay if the House amends the miscellaneous Judiciary bill again.
Another participant said adding the amendment in the Senate could be a matter of expediency because sending the bill back and forth could add a week to the process. Goodnow indicated they would consult with the House Judiciary chair about next steps. The committee recorded no formal motion or vote on the matter during the session.
The committee is expected to consult with the House Judiciary chair before deciding whether to insert the H 409 language into the miscellaneous Judiciary bill; no final action was recorded at the meeting.
