Judiciary Committee approves broad batch of technical corrections to state code

The Senate Judiciary Committee on an unspecified date approved a large package of technical corrections to the state code, moving multiple provisions between titles, deleting obsolete sections, and standardizing terminology.

Senator Tucker, presenting the Code Revision Commission’s package, described the measures as “technical corrections,” noting they are housekeeping changes such as deleting obsolete language, clarifying facility references, moving sections between code titles, splitting sections for clarity and correcting grammatical errors. “This is the next batch of technical corrections bills,” Tucker said. “I’m only gonna run the technical corrections bills today.”

The package included House Bill 1279 (deleting obsolete references and small style fixes), HB 1283 (reclassifying certain offenses as violations where only fines are authorized and conforming Freedom‑of‑Information Act language), HB 1284 (title transfers and militia terminology updates), HB 1287 (repealing archaic court provisions and moving constable provisions), HB 1289 (constitutional quotation fix and fee reference removal), HB 1290 (title 22 corrections), HB 1291 (resolving conflicts between 2021 acts and reclassifying offenses), HB 1294 (removing uncodified provisions and updating references) and HB 1295 (entity name corrections). Committee members moved and approved each bill, generally by voice vote.

One bill in the group, House Bill 1285, was pulled for additional research. Senator Flowers and others noted apparent inconsistencies in how the code treats ‘violations’ and associated fine ranges; for one section the penalty range appeared to be $300–$1,000 while other violation provisions had lower maximum fines. Matthew Miller of the Bureau of Legislative Research told the committee his office would research penalty schemes because “I would need to look … what types of penalties we have for violations,” and the committee agreed to pull HB 1285 to check consistency and return with recommended corrections.

Committee members also asked several technical and substantive questions during the presentations, including how constable provisions will appear after transfer between titles and whether newly inserted classification language aligns with customary misdemeanor/violation schemes. Tucker and BLR staff committed to follow‑up research where members flagged potential inconsistencies.

With follow‑up research pledged on HB 1285, the committee advanced the remainder of the corrections package and adjourned after completing the agenda.