Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Administration backs waiver process to ease fines and fees; local officials warn of budget impacts
Summary
HB 133 would give courts a presumptive hardship waiver for fines and fees for people on certain benefits; the administration says $5 million is budgeted to cover initial costs, while local government and police groups raised concerns about revenue and administrative burden.
The committee heard House Bill 133 (as amended) on a proposal the Meyer administration described as a framework to let courts waive fines and fees for defendants who demonstrably cannot pay. An administration representative introduced the proposal and said the measure preserves restitution and certain traffic and enforcement fines but creates a presumptive waiver for people who receive means-tested benefits or are represented by public defenders.
At the hearing an administration representative (introduced to the committee as John James King) said HB 133 “gives judges a process and a framework to recognize when poverty exists and these fees cannot be paid” and outlined a hardship-waiver process. He said the administration included $5,000,000 in this year’s budget to cover the bill’s cost and cited a data point that there were “14,000,000 outstanding unpaid fines and fees” with OMB estimating a roughly 40% collection rate.
Local-government and law-enforcement witnesses raised concerns. Janelle Cornwell, executive director of the Delaware League of Local Governments, said fees fund local police-community programming and urged clarity about preserving local budgets. Marvin Maley, speaking for law enforcement, warned of unintended consequences: broad waivers applied unevenly could create perceptions of unequal justice, reduce deterrence, and impose administrative burdens on courts.
Witnesses asked for follow-up from administration staff about specific local fees (for example, port-security or municipal surcharges). The administration said the $5,000,000 is intended to be included in the operating budget going forward but that some specific local-fee questions would require follow-up.
No committee vote was recorded at the hearing; the panel took testimony and public comment.
