By: Journalist Christopher Ungaro (TU)
Multiple members of the Senate walked swiftly between the antechamber and the president pro tempore’s podium.
Sen. James Hayes (RSC) had put forward a bill that would call for the creation of new agencies within counties to ensure the criminal justice system cannot unfairly target one group. Opposition was levied against the bill from several angles.
Most of the Senate seemed favorable to the bill, yet some were concerned about the lack of detail concerning the new agencies’ funding and formats, and others were concerned the bill was dilatory.
Sen. Haner said, “My initial impressions are kind of good. I think it is important to create mechanisms that help make the justice system smoother and that there is a system that is evaluating the risk of an inmate and going out before the trial. I think that is good.”
Contrastingly, others had issues with the policy the bill proposed. They said they would have preferred if funding apparatuses could have been more clearly defined.
“I liked the bill as an idea… my only issue with it was the funding each county having to establish their own PSA… but the service of the counties having to establish these new things with their already set budget. They have to divert that money from somewhere,” Sen. Watkins said.
Then, Sen. Lillie Plane (TU) discovered what she believed to have been a dilatory issue with the bill, and another form of opposition was introduced.
“The 3rd section of this bill is a repealer, and generally when we create repealer sections you actually have to enumerate the language of the statute in the bill with a cross-through… we do put the actual language in the bill so that we can see what is being repealed,” Sen. Plane said.
Then, after more deliberation, President Pro Tempore Kai Marron put to rest issues regarding the legislative structure of the bill.
“Sen. Plane had a concern that listed in the substantive section of the bill that there was a repealer section that was not provided for in the short title, but then whenever I went back through and read the bill and the short title there seemed to be a provision for a repealer in the short title… I think it was just a miscommunication,” Marron said.
Finally, with both sides of opposition addressed, the bill was passed.