Committee debates limited attorney-general intervention and a proposed statewide grand jury for election offenses

The committee examined two related proposals that would broaden statewide prosecutorial tools. Chair Curtis summarized SB604 as legislation allowing the attorney general to assist district attorneys or assume concurrent jurisdiction for specified offenses — violent crime, certain trafficking offenses and some election-related prosecutions — after notifying the local DA and giving a period to proceed (the chair proposed 90 days as a middle ground). "If you don't want to prosecute this case within 90 days, we may exercise our concurrent jurisdiction to do so," Curtis said, citing high-profile failures to prosecute as the impetus.

Several witnesses cautioned about automatic concurrent jurisdiction. Joe recommended a request-driven approach: "The DA can request that the AG come in would certainly be better than the AG would have current concurrent jurisdiction on their own," he said, adding that the GBI operates on request. Members raised concerns that a future attorney general could use unilateral authority in ways that conflict with local priorities, and they asked for careful carve-outs and a clear list of qualifying offenses.

On the statewide grand jury, the chair described SR875 as a constitutional amendment to create a limited statewide grand jury (13–23 members, not to exceed 12 months' service) to investigate voting and election crimes and related offenses, with SB607 providing the enabling statutory detail. Witnesses and members raised logistical concerns about representativeness and jury composition for statewide panels and asked PAC and counsel for drafting feedback.

Next steps: the committee asked stakeholders for drafting suggestions and to flag specific offenses that should or should not be included in concurrent-jurisdiction language before the next meeting.