Proposal to create specialized claims court fails to gain committee majority
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senate Bill 385, proposing a new specialty claims court, drew debate about priorities for judicial resources and whether the proposal should be advanced after other judiciary funding decisions; the committee vote was tied and the motion failed.
Senate Bill 385, which would establish a specialized claims court, was heard in Senate Finance and Claims. Sponsor Senator McGillivray described offsets included in the bill package (Section D) intended to provide funding neutrality: eliminating some pretrial sentencing report costs and reallocating judicial resources.
Opponents argued the proposal would grow state court infrastructure when district courts remain underresourced for criminal dockets and dependency and neglect matters. Senator Cuff said local requests for judges and staff had not been met and urged caution about creating new courts before addressing existing unmet needs. Senator Temple said he opposed growing state government and would vote no.
Supporters said the specialty court could free district court time on complex civil claims. Senator Espin argued the bill was revenue neutral as drafted and that the concept had support on the floor.
Outcome: The motion to pass the bill failed on a roll‑call tie (11–11), and the chair noted the motion failed. Committee members returned materials to their folders without advancing the bill that day.
Ending: The committee did not advance Senate Bill 385; sponsors may revisit the concept in further sessions or with amended financing.