Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Runestad asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I cannot support this bill. I think it will have a substantial impact on court budgets and does not allow for a lot of time for them to account for the changes. Many counties are already into their fiscal year which encompasses this change. The bill does not seem to allow for the recovery of court monies spent on damaged lost equipment, for example a juvenile cuts off a tether or otherwise destroys or loses it. They are very expensive and the court would be unable to recoup that money from the juvenile or their parents. Subsection (c) on page 16 also limits the court’s ability to enforce the orders, i.e., can’t remove a child for nonpayment of restitution or doing community service. I don’t like the idea of limiting the court’s ability to enforce their orders. Yes, this change would say they have to be indigent but in talking with the courts and prosecutors, it seems like they don’t do any checking to see if that’s true. I’m also not sure if this is consistent with the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, which is an amendment to the state’s Constitution.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 429, entitled
A bill to amend 1990 PA 250, entitled “DNA identification profiling system act,” by amending section 6 (MCL 28.176), as amended by 2018 PA 310.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: