Meyer administration backs waiver process for fines and fees; local officials warn of revenue impacts

A representative of the Meyer administration urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance House Bill 133 (as amended) to allow Delaware courts to waive fines and fees for defendants who demonstrably cannot afford them, describing a hardship‑waiver framework intended to protect constitutional protections while preserving victim restitution.

The administration representative said the bill does not eliminate fines or fees but establishes a presumptive waiver for people on Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, veterans benefits, SSI/SSDI, subsidized housing, those represented by a public defender, or those with incarceration histories; judges may still impose fees but must explain decisions in writing. The administration told the committee it has budgeted $5,000,000 this year to cover the change and cited roughly 14,000,000 outstanding unpaid fines and fees with an estimated collection rate of about 40% per OMB — figures presented by administration staff during testimony.

Supporters from civil‑justice groups told the committee the measure could change lives by letting judges consider ability to pay. Fatima Montero of the Fines and Fees Justice Center thanked the committee and urged a favorable report.

Local officials voiced concerns. Janelle Cornwell, executive director of the Delaware League of Local Governments, said fines and fees fund local police programs and community outreach and urged assurance that the $5,000,000 included in the governor's budget be carried forward so municipalities do not lose recurring revenue. Marvin Maley of the Delaware Police Chiefs Association said broad waiver authority could create perceptions of unequal enforcement, add administrative burdens to courts, and recommended more time to estimate revenue impacts before advancing the bill.

Administration staff clarified that the $5,000,000 is included in the governor's operating budget this year and is intended to be treated as an ongoing appropriation; staff said some specific local fee questions (for example, port security fees) would require follow‑up.

No committee vote was recorded at the meeting.