The House Judiciary Committee voted 4-5 against recommending House Bill 49, which would have amended Wyoming’s treatment court and related statutes to permit court-supervised diversion programs for people with mental illness and to update statutory language from “substance abuse” to “substance use disorder.” Proponents described the bill as a technical and programmatic update designed to let treatment courts operate both pre-adjudication diversion and post-adjudication treatment while aligning statutory language with modern clinical terms.

Representative James Larson introduced the measure alongside Alisa Butler, state court administrator for the Wyoming Judicial Branch, who explained the difference between treatment courts (post-conviction programs that typically serve defendants with a substance-use component to their offense) and diversion courts (pre-adjudication programs aimed at people with mental illness charged with low-level offenses). “Treatment court programs have been operational in Wyoming for many, many years. They’re incredibly effective,” Butler told the committee. Butler and legislative sponsors said existing pilot programs — Campbell County’s diversion court being the most mature — informed the bill’s drafting.

The bill would have: amended definitions in Title 5 (treatment court statutes) to add mental-health treatment and broaden participant definitions; authorized the Supreme Court to adopt rules governing referral and participation; allowed program teams to accept participants from other jurisdictions; added conforming changes in Title 7 (public defender statutes) and elsewhere; and substituted the term “substance use disorder” for “substance abuse” across multiple statutes.

Supporters included community behavioral-health providers and law-enforcement representatives. Andy Somerville, executive director of the Wyoming Association of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers, said community providers believe the courts and diversion pilots can reach people who otherwise “cycle in and out of jails.” Alan Thompson, with the Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police, said sheriff offices in pilot counties have expressed interest because diversion can reduce the burden of caring for people with serious mental illness in county jails. Clark Fairbanks of the Wyoming Youth Service Association also testified in support, citing the programs’ preventive potential for families.

Committee members asked about scope, diagnostic thresholds and cost. Representative Kelly raised concerns about allowing participants without a prior diagnosis to enter diversion, saying mental-health diagnoses often rely on behavioral assessment and that the system could be manipulated. Butler replied that diversion uses screening and then a more extensive assessment by behavioral-health providers before enrollment. Representative Bratton requested metrics from the Campbell County pilot; Butler said Campbell County had identified about 12 potential participants over a year, admitted several (she said she believed four) and had one successful graduate who had not returned to the jail system in months. Representative Bratton also recited pilot figures he had reviewed (12 referred, six screened, two accepted, one noncompliant discharge and one expected graduate), highlighting the limited and preliminary nature of the data.

Representative Feiler moved that the bill be recommended “do pass,” seconded by Representative Chastock. On roll call, Representative Brady voted no; Representative Brett voted no; Representative Chestnut voted aye; Representative Feiler voted aye; Representative Kelly voted no; Representative Lee voted no; Representative Singh left a vote of aye; Representative Webb voted no; and the chair registered aye. The clerk announced “4 ayes, 5 nos,” and the motion failed.

Witnesses and sponsors emphasized the legislation did not itself appropriate funds or expand slots; treatment funding remains a part of the Supreme Court grant process and behavioral health redesign funding administered by the Department of Health covers provider treatment payments. Witnesses said diversion and treatment courts’ costs are managed through existing behavioral-health contracts and court grant processes, but multiple legislators pressed for clearer fiscal notes and long-term funding logistics if the programs scale.

With the committee’s rejection, the bill will not progress from the Judiciary Committee. Sponsors said the measure was intended to be a foundation bill — aligning statutory language and filling gaps identified by pilot programs — and might be revisited with more specific fiscal detail and clarifications about screening, consent and data needed to operate diversion courts.