►
From YouTube: Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary (11-3-22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
A
Okay,
you
have
the
minutes
from
the
October
20th
22
meeting
have
a
motion
to
have
a
second
a
motion
and
a
second
all.
Those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
I
oppose
no
motion.
Carries
minutes
are
approved,
we're
going
to
jump
right
into
the
agenda.
It
is
not
a
lengthy
agenda,
but
an
agenda
that
I
anticipate
will
generate
a
lot
of
discussion.
So
I
would
ask
that
Senator
Ralph
Alvarado,
please
come
to
the
table.
A
E
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
and
thank
you,
members
of
the
committee
I'm
Ralph
Alvarado
state
senator
for
the
28th
District,
thanks
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
present
what
we're
calling
the
planned
Community
act.
I
think
some
of
you
may
have
known
this
as
a
an
HOA
bill
or
homeowners
association
bill.
That's
been
presented
in
the
past
in
various
forms.
E
Hopefully
all
of
you
have
a
copy
of
the
of
the
proposed
draft
that
we
have
so
far,
but
this
bill
has
been
a
slow
labor
of
love,
really
that
began
several
years
ago
as
a
request
from
a
constituent
who
was
frustrated
with
his
homeowners
association
in
the
Masterson
Station
area
of
Lexington.
He
had
requested
some
financial
documents
and
claimed
that
the
HOA
was
unwilling
to
provide
them.
E
He
was
concerned
that
monies
were
not
being
handled
properly
and
informed
me
that
he
could
not
afford
an
attorney
to
pursue
the
matter
privately
and
he
asked
if
I
could
do
something
legislatively
to
require
that
these
documents
be
provided.
So
once
I
began
to
look
into
the
matter,
I
discovered
that
there
was
nothing
in
the
law
to
obligate
this,
so
I
produced
a
draft
for
a
bill
as
as
I'm
known
to
do,
and
this
quickly
drew
the
attention
of
others
who
have
been
working
on
HOA
legislation.
E
They
asked
to
expand
the
issue
to
cover
some
of
the
requests
and,
in
short
order,
I
discovered
that
many
citizens
were
struggling
with
homeowners
associations
and
the
issues
due
to
lack
of
legislation,
and
these
things
were
much
broader
and
much
deeper
than
I
had
originally
realized.
To
make
a
long
story
short.
There
have
been
multiple
lawsuits,
at
least
in
my
district
alone
regarding
homeowners,
associations
and
directors
who
took
control
of
the
funds,
but
didn't
perform.
E
The
tasks
required
for
maintenance
of
common
areas
and
citizens
often
would
seek
help
from
local
county
or
city
officials
only
to
find
that
they
had
no
jurisdiction
over
these
matters
either.
Members
of
the
homeowners
association
have
often
hired
attorneys
to
try
and
Sue
the
director
or
person
in
charge
only
to
find
out
that
that
person
was
bankrupt
or
had
left
the
country,
and
there
was
no
law
or
Baseline
laws
that
they
could
rely
on
to
help
run
their
HOA.
So
there
was
often
no
recourse.
E
E
All
of
a
sudden,
some
of
the
homeowners
realized
hey.
The
greens
are
not
being
kept
up.
There's
you
know
weeds
all
over
the
place.
Grass
is
overgrown
and
tried
to
find
out
what
was
going
on.
They
try
to
get
a
hold
of
the
person.
Who
was
the
developer,
couldn't
get
a
hold
of
them
all
of
a
sudden,
the
the
the
golf
all
the
golf
was
kind
of
shut
down.
The
restaurant
was
shut
down.
They
didn't
realize
what
was
going
on
reach
out
to
local
officials.
E
Had
no
jurisdiction
couldn't
do
anything
about
it,
make
again
a
long
story.
Short.
Three
years
later,
lots
of
attorneys
trying
to
track
this
individual
down
the
whole
Golf
Course
went
to
waste,
and
now
those
folks
who
had
were
overlooking
a
lot
of
these
Golf
Course
areas
are
overlooking
just
plain.
Grass
and
they've
lost
a
lot
of
value
in
their
homes
as
a
result,
and
unfortunately
this
happens
in
many
different
ways
in
in
our
state.
I'll
go
briefly
I'm
not
going
to
describe
the
bill
in
detail.
E
We
can
answer
some
of
those
questions,
but
you
have
kind
of
hope
that
the
draft
before
you,
the
first
sections
regarding
definitions,
the
second
section
regards
applicability,
the
third
one
is
creation
and
duties
of
homeowners
associations.
The
fourth
step
action
is
the
declarant
control
period.
The
fifth
one
has
to
do
with
easements.
The
sixth
one
is
management
of
the
homeowners
association
and
board
duties.
Section
seven
is
amendments
and
termination.
Section
8
is
meeting
notice
requirements
for
the
homeowners
association.
Section
9
is
Quorum
requirements
for
the
HOA
section.
10
is
financial
reporting.
E
11
has
to
do
with
transparency.
12
is
with
seller's
disclosure.
The
13th
is
with
common
expenses,
section
14
has
to
do
with
assessments.
15
with
private
cause
of
action.
16
with
lien
rights
and
17
is
display
of
political
signage
on
properties
have
here
a
very
special
guest
someone
who's
a
lot
more
well-versed
on
these
issues
than
I
am
who
could
probably
answer
a
lot
of
questions
and
give
a
good
presentation
on
why
this
this
kind
of
legislation
is
needed
for
our
state,
so
rich
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Richard
horning
and
I
am
an
attorney
with
a
small
law
firm
in
Louisville
and
horning
PSC
and
I
really
appreciate
you
letting
me
speak
today
on
this
important
legislation
been
an
attorney
for
38
years,
primarily
a
small
civil
practice.
We
do
a
lot
of
real
estate
work
and
handle
essentially
commercial
residential
closings
leases
contracts,
civil
litigation
and
a
lot
of
Community
Association
representation.
Over
the
years.
F
We
in
our
firm
have
represented
over
600
planned
communities
in
the
last
50
years
about
half
of
those
being
subdivision
communities
and
about
half
of
those
being
condominium
communities
in
2006,
I
helped,
along
with
several
others
that
are
here
today
from
the
Kentucky
chapter
of
Community.
Association
Institute
helped
form
a
chapter
here
in
Kentucky
because
of
the
need
for
education
and
of
Community
Association
board,
board
members,
directors
and
others
that
participate
in
those
types
of
operations.
F
F
Many
of
those
people
are
here
today
in
support
of
this
legislation,
as
it
is
very
important
to
their
daily
lives.
Over
the
last
35
plus
years,
we've
seen
numerous
issues
in
my
firm
in
representation
of
these
communities.
Due
to
what
Senator
Alvarado
pointed
out
as
to
really
what
mostly
comes
from
poor
document
drafting.
F
We
have
you
know
communities
where
it's
a
one-page
on
the
plat
set
of
restrictive
covenants
that
barely
covers
anything
from
which
then,
when
the
folks
come
to
us
to
help
them
with
the
issues
that
we've
shown
in
some
of
the
slides,
they're
unable
to
essentially
govern
their
Community,
because
they
have
no
ability
to
amend
those
documents,
typically
without
a
hundred
percent
of
the
community.
Voting
to
do
so
so
we've
seen
drastic
issues
with
that.
F
We
see
I
helped
spearhead
back
in
2011
that
the
Kentucky
Condominium
Act,
which
was
an
update
to
the
Old
Kentucky,
horizontal
property
regime
law
that
affects
condos
and
unfortunately,
that
Condominium
Act
and
condominium
laws,
don't
affect
subdivisions,
so
there's
absolutely
zero
statutory
Provisions
in
in
Kentucky
that
help
subdivisions.
So
we
modeled
this
proposed
legislation.
Basically
from
similar
legislation,
we
did
back
in
the
Kentucky
condo
act
to
try
to
give
some
default
legislation
in
those
communities,
so
the
slides
that
we
we
prepared
and
I
I
think
you
all
have
been
provided.
F
I'm
not
getting
into
great
detail
of
the
the
basic
preliminary
slide.
Just
shows
you
how
many
kentuckians
are
affected
by
planned,
Community
issues
and
how
important
this
is
to
the
day-to-day
operation
of
these
subdivision
communities
where
they've
many
times
flounder,
because
we
have
no
statutory
basis
for
them
to
to
work
from.
F
F
So
we
have
many
many
of
our
subdivisions
that
I've
represented
unable
to
handle
the
common
area
maintenance
that
when
these,
these
platted
communities
are
done
they're
many
times,
given
the
responsibility
for
infrastructure
improvements
for
taking
care
of
common
areas,
all
the
common
area
of
fencing,
all
of
those
types
of
things
keeping
street
lights
on,
for
example,
and
then
the
documents
don't
provide
adequate
remedies
for
passing
changes
in
assessments,
for
example,
from
which
they
can
functionally
operate
financially.
F
We've
had
issues
with
transparency
issues
that
Senator
Alvarado
pointed
out
where
we
don't
have
full
disclosure
made
and,
and
we've
seen
in
the
condo
act,
for
example,
incredible
assistance
to
new
condo
buyers
as
a
result
of
the
same
disclosure.
We
provide
in
that
act
that
we're
trying
to
mirror
here,
from
which
certain
details
will
be
provided
to
a
buyer
of
any
home
in
Kentucky.
F
So
some
of
the
examples
we
Senator
Alvarado
has
pointed
out:
we've
had
we've
had
several
of
our
communities
that
have
multiple
issues,
with
lack
of
the
mandatory
procedures,
lack
of
ability
to
properly
assess
one
of
my
communities.
We've
had
to
go
to
court
to
try
to
get
a
declared
declaration
of
rights
to
allow
them
to
amend
their
documents,
because
it's
a
460
unit
condominium
complex
that
it
as
their
documents
currently
State
and
don't
State.
F
Any
provision
for
Amendment
would
require
a
hundred
percent
of
all
of
the
460
unit
owners
to
amend
their
documents
to
allow
for
changes
to
assessments
for
allow
changes
to
add
finding
ability.
For
example,
we
have
most
of
our
communities
in
in
the
Commonwealth
that
essentially
require
Court
action
over
any
violation
and
anytime.
You
want
to
enforce
something.
So
if
it's
to
force
someone
to
bring
their
trash
cans
in
you're,
going
to
look
at
spending
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
dollars
to
go
to
court
to
force
compliance
so
having
these
default.
F
Basic
statutory
remedies
will
give
many
communities
that
don't
speak
to
enforcement
at
all.
The
ability
to
have
those
types
of
of
enforcement
abilities
at
their
disposal,
so
you
see
in
the
slide
several
other
references
as
far
as
handling
assessments,
handling
deed
restriction,
violations,
dealing
with
protecting
rights
to
the
communities.
F
So
the
solution,
as
we
we've
proposed
in
this
legislation,
is
this
planned
Community
act,
which
has
essentially
been
adopted,
as
I
said,
from
a
uniform
model
act
nationally,
so
that
we
can
get
more
efficient
governance
to
our
board
members,
essentially,
the
determination
by
owners
who
have
vested
interest
in
these
communities
giving
giving
them
some
default
legislation
where
their
documents
don't
speak
to
it,
and
that's
very,
very
pervasive
in
in
Kentucky,
and
especially
I,
find
that
in
more
of
the
rural
areas,
where
there's
really
just
no
no
documentation
for
what
communities
are
are
to
be
able
to
do
so
and
and
what's
important
in
the
last
bullet
point
on
this
slide.
F
Is
that
we're
not
altering
existing
documentation?
This
this
legislation
will
provide
default
statutes
for
when
the
documents
are
silent,
it's
not
going
to
be
altering
existing
contractual
obligations
so
for
anyone
concerned
that
this
somehow
trumps
the
existing
documents
community.
That
is
not
true.
Moving
on
and
Senator
Alvarado
already
covered
most
of
this.
As
far
as
the
history
we've
been
trying
to
get
agreed
upon
legislation
for
over
five
years
now,
we've
had
certain
working
documents
go
back
and
forth.
F
F
So
again,
the
main
components
of
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here
are
to
give
those
default
statutory
guidelines
from
which
documents
are
silent,
and
so
we
can
provide
basic
powers
to
a
board,
for
example,
to
help
with
assessment
abilities,
violation,
abilities
things
like
that
setting
budgets
getting
getting
the
the
financial
side
of
associations,
which
has
been
a
very,
very
difficult
problem
for
so
many
that
have
to
throw
their
hands
up
because
they
can't
get
the
residents
to
to
agree
to
come
in
masses
to
properly
adopt
their
amendments.
F
F
So
then
the
obviously
the
transparent
component
is
so
important
in
in
my
job,
I've
had
many
many
cases
go
to
court
over
failure
to
disclose
issues
in
subdivisions
until
after
the
fact
after
you're
already,
you
bought
your
house
and
you're
living
there
and
then
find
out,
there's
been
ongoing
litigation
and
all
kinds
of
financial
issues
in
the
community
that
have
never
been
disclosed.
F
So
those
transparency
issues
are
very,
very
important
and
then
just
ultimately
the
uniform
standards
that
we
hope
that
all
the
communities
would
be
able
to
adopt
as
routine
from
these.
These
sections
I've
alluded
to,
and
this
last
slide
obviously
goes
without
saying
just
providing
the
details
from
which
improved
operation
and
management
can
occur.
Increased
transparency,
I've
already
spoken
to
and
then
just
the
self-governance
methods.
F
We
we
provide
here
for
default
reasons
in
case
the
documents,
don't
speak
to
those
and
then
obviously
improving
the
infrastructure
and
common
area
maintenance
issues,
so
that
that
really
is
the
basis
for
this
legislation.
H
Thank
you
for
the
bill
over
here.
Oh
sorry,.
F
H
As
a
real
estate
attorney
I'm
interested
in
the
bill
and-
and
we
had
a
lot
of
good
discussion
last
year
on
the
bill-
we've
got
some
new
rules.
You
know
where
we
can't
pre-file
bills
and
just
a
quick
question
in
in
as
the
sponsor
you
don't
have
to
tell
me
to
answer
the
question
now.
I
can
understand
if
you
would
want
to
wait,
but
could
you
tell
me,
do
you
intend
to
file
the
same
version
as
last
year
that
we
ended
up
with
or
have
you
made
changes
in
the
interim.
E
There
have
been
changes
every
year.
Mr
chairman
is.
E
No,
the
chairman
is
aware,
I
think
when
we
first
started.
The
very
first
version
of
this
was
kind
of
a
an
Omnibus
Bill
that
was
hopeful
of
fixing
all
the
problems
and
all
the
issues
that
we've
heard
about
in
the
past
and
I
think
the
bill
was
over
40
pages.
At
that
time.
There's
a
lot
of
concerns.
We
had
a
lot
of
feedback
from
stakeholders
who
asked
for
things
to
be
removed
and
changed,
and
we
did
that
it
had
multiple
meetings.
E
The
chairman
was
part
of
those
meetings
and
we
made
as
many
modifications
as
we
could
over
the
next
couple
of
years.
Last
year
we
took
a
bit
of
a
different
approach
and
a
lot
of
the
stakeholders
said:
Hey
listen.
This
is
what
you
fundamentally
want
to
do:
here's
what
we
would
recommend,
and
so
they
provided
language
that
we
presented.
There
were
three
changes:
I
had
made
to
numbers
and
I
think
that
was
a
for
those
of
you
who
are
in
the
Senate
version
of
this
of
this
committee.
E
Remember
that
hearing
and
presented
the
information
there,
and
there
were
some
things
that
we
had
put
in
before.
That
was
not
liked.
That
then
was
changed,
and
then
there
was
complaints
of
that
not
being
a
pro
appropriate
line
to
go
back
to
the
original
language.
We
made
those
changes
here,
trying
to
be
more
conscious
of
just
trying
to
get
some
basic
rules,
and
so
I
think
this
bill
is
much
more
pared
down.
E
It's
different
from
last
year's
bill,
but
it
is
definitely
much
more
paired
down
from
the
original
versions
that
we
had
just
trying
to
be.
Conscious
of
that
and
again
we're
trying
to
provide
some
basic
default
rules,
I
mean
and
so
often
that
folks
don't
have
any
recourse
in
in
when
something
happens
and
goes
bad
and
a
lot
of
our
homeowners
associations.
They're,
not
aware
when
somebody
buys
in
they
think.
Oh
sure,
okay,
I'll
pay
a
fee
every
month
and
they
don't
think
anything
about
the
rules.
E
I
F
You,
yes,
that
is,
that
is
what
we're
attempting
here,
as
I
said
earlier,
when
you,
when
you
own
in
a
community
with
those
declarations
and
bylaws
existing
those,
are
contract
documents
that
you're
bound
to
and
so
we're
not
trying
to
obviate
those
where
they
speak
to
these
same
issues,
even.
I
F
I
I
Okay
and
second
question
along
those
same
lines
is:
it
appears
to
me
on
the
language
on
its
face.
It
would
apply
to
something
as
simple
as
a
common
road
maintenance
agreement.
I've
got
three
pieces
of
property
that
are
sharing
the
maintenance
of
a
road.
Is
it
your
intention
that
the
requirements
of
this
law
would
apply
in
that
situation?.
F
And
I'm
not
sure
I
can
answer
that
completely
without
looking
at
that
particular
section.
But-
and
this
also
goes
back
to
your
earlier
question-
this
is
only
when
a
declarant
puts
a
declaration
of
record
that
any
of
this
applies
that's
for
common
communities
and
multiple
Lots,
so
they
kind
of
control
their
Destiny
in
a
lot
of
those
regards,
and
so
those
documents
I,
don't
think
this
legislation
mandates
a
whole
lot
as
far
as
the
infrastructure
itself,
I.
I
Will
just
note
for
those
of
us
that
live
and
do
real
estate
in
rural
areas?
It
is
not
uncommon
for
a
farm
to
be
divided
into
five.
Lots
have
a
common
road
and
it
would
seem
to
fit
that
definition
and
I
would
hate
for
us
to
have
to
have
a
board
of
directors
and
meetings
and
all
this
sort
of
stuff
on.
Are
we
going
to
throw
some
gravel
out
there
every
other
year?
So
maybe
look
at.
J
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
last
year,
as
Senator
I
know,
we
had
this
legislation.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
it
and
I
found
one
once
I
got
back
to
my
district
after
the
session
was
over.
There
was
a
lot
of
interest
in
this
legislation
and
appeared
to
be
quite
a
bit
of
support
for
it.
J
I
was
wondering
if
the
comment
was
made.
We
couldn't
pre-file,
but
we
can
post
working
drafts,
which
I
I
think
would
be
helpful
in
this
legislation
because
it
is
pretty
complicated
and
for
those
of
us
who
are
not
attorneys,
we
probably
would
like
to
be
able
to
review
it
before
we
got
in
session.
It
looks
to
me
from
the
feedback
I've
received
in
my
community,
that
that
is
something
I'll
be
supporting.
E
Thank
you
Senator
and
really
again
we're
welcome
to
feedback.
I've
said
I've
been
doing
this
for
four
or
five
years
now
with
this
with
this
bill,
but
we
passed
it
out
to
all
the
members,
so
everybody
should
have
it
and
if
they
want
to
receive
feedback
from
their
communities
and
things
they'd
like
to
see
we're
open
to
that
follow-up.
F
K
Thank
you,
Mr,
chairman
of
two
quick
questions.
The
first
in
one
of
your
slides
you've
got
a
legislative
history
that
says
we've
removed
or
significantly
altered
the
most
controversial
Provisions.
K
Just
very
briefly,
if
you
could
touch
upon
what
those
were,
even
if
there
were
broad
categories
and
then
my
second
question
was
you
mentioned
a
model
bill?
Is
this
a
ulc
bill
or
are
there
other
states
that
have
adopted
similar
legislation.
F
The
the
you
know,
for
example,
from
comments
from
other
interest
groups.
We
completely
modified
the
declaring
control
period
piece.
We've
essentially
removed
a
lot
of
the
financial
reporting
that
we
had
previously
and
made
that
much
simpler.
F
We've
completely
modified
the
seller's
disclosure
piece,
which
were
optimistic
that
actually,
the
the
Kentucky
Real
Estate
Commission,
is
going
to
address
and
maybe
make
that
less
necessary
from
making
certain
changes
to
the
current
seller's
property
condition,
report
forms
and-
and
most
of
it's
just
been
paired
down
to
make
this
much
more
concise
and
direct
I
hope
that
answers
your
first
question
and
then
the
second
one
is.
This
is
patterned
after
the
uniform
common
interest.
F
L
L
Well,
he
has
a
contract
with
me
that
I
have
agreed
to
meet
these
conditions
throughout
the
development.
So
when
Senator
Westerfield
comes
to
me,
he
knows
that
he's
not
going
to
violate
those
conditions
of
at
least
not
having
a
secondary
buildings
or
certain
square
footage
or
other
things
like
that
within
this
development,
and
that
becomes
somewhat
of
a
contract
between
everyone.
You
agree
with
that.
F
L
And
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
so
anything
that
this
bill
may
have.
It
could
not
affect
anything
that's
currently
in
existence
by
Constitution,
because
we
would
then
be
interfering
with
a
contract
that
was
already
entered
into.
That
is
correct,
so
only
going
forward
or
those
areas
that
are
silent.
F
L
F
I
C
For
his
asking
that
question,
is
it
possible
that
you
put
a
provision
in
here
there's
any
organization
that
Presley
exists
or
a
Future
Organization
would
want
to
be
exempt
from
this
because
as
a
landowner
homeowner
and
has
a
a
unit
in
a
place
in
Lexington
I
wouldn't
want
to
be
bound
by
the
terms
of
this
condition
of
this
document.
I've
read
so,
would
it
be
possible
to
put
a
provision
in
here?
C
Would
you
object
that
any
organization,
that's
foreign,
because
as
I
read
it
now,
it's
mandatory
it's
going
to
apply
whether
you
want
it
to
or
not.
If
you're
going
to
be
forming
a
one
of
these
non-profit
organizations.
By
what
you're
saying
would
you
be
a
objectable
to
some
provision
being
provided
that
any
organization
that
is
organized
could
exempt
itself
from
this
law?.
F
I
think
that
would
be
completely
counterproductive
to
the
goal,
because
I
I'm,
pretty
sure,
probably
every
developer,
would
opt
out
if
they
could
so
I.
Don't
know
that
I
could
endorse
that.
G
F
G
Discussion
this
morning
or
this
afternoon,
all
right
we're
still
morning
all
right.
We're
gonna
go
just
just
a
hair
out
of
order
to
try
to
accommodate
some
witnesses,
I'm
going
to
bring
up
the
folks
from
secure
democracy
USA.
This
is
item
number
five
on
your
agendas,
the
restoration
of
failing
felon
voting
rights,
Charlie
I,
don't
know
who's
coming
up
with
you,
I've
got
a
few
I've
seen
several
listed
here.
M
G
N
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
thank
you
to
the
members
of
this
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
testimony
today
in
support
of
the
restoration
of
voting
eligibility
for
kentuckians
with
prior
felony
convictions.
N
For
the
record,
my
name
is
Charlie
Olina
I
am
the
vice
president
of
advocacy
for
secure
democracy
USA.
We
are
a
non-partisan
non-profit
that
works
to
build
confidence
in
our
elections
and
improve
voting
systems
across
the
United
States,
and
that's
work
that
we've
done
right
here
in
Kentucky,
in
partnership
with
Secretary
of
State
Michael
Adams.
N
We've
been
working
in
Kentucky
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle
since
our
founding
four
years
ago
and
Wright's
restoration
has
been
a
focus
of
ours
throughout
that
time.
I'm
here
to
express
our
strong
support
for
voting
rights,
restoration
and
urge
you
to
advance
this
critical
issue.
N
It's
estimated
that
approximately
200
000
kentuckians
are
currently
disenfranchised
due
to
a
felony
conviction.
Many
of
these
are
real
citizens
all
over
the
Commonwealth
who
have
served
their
time
and
are
living
working,
raising
families
and
paying
taxes
in
their
communities.
Yet
they
cannot
participate
or
vote
in
our
political
process,
while
Governor
Andy
beshear
issued
an
executive
order
to
restore
the
rights
of
some
individuals,
it's
far
from
sufficient
and
a
permanent
situation
determined
by
the
legislature
is
needed.
N
We've
discussed
this
issue.
Our
research,
which
you're
going
to
see
a
snapshot
of
and
potential
policy
Solutions
with
Senate
leadership,
Senator
storm
and
others
to
work,
to
identify
language
that
both
provides
a
clear
and
predictable
mechanism
for
folks
to
regain
their
voting
eligibility
that
we
can
all
agree
on.
N
Senator
storm
is
on
board
to
sponsor
and
push
legislation.
Unfortunately,
he
suffered
a
loss
in
the
family
and
so
couldn't
be
here
with
us
today,
but
we
hope
to
have
language
that
can
be
pursued
and
discussed
in
the
2023
legislative
session.
N
Proposals
to
restore
voting
eligibility
have
been
introduced
consistently
by
Republican
and
Democratic
legislators
alike.
Last
session,
we
supported
Senate
Bill
223
by
Senators
Neil
in
Higdon
that
bill
proposed
restoring
voting
eligibility
to
individuals
with
prior
felony
convictions
immediately
upon
completion
of
their
sentence,
including
probation
and
parole
sept
for
those
individuals
who
had
been
convicted
of
treason,
bribery
in
an
election
or
felony
election
fraud.
N
N
N
Kentucky's
current
system
leaves
restoration
on
to
the
discretion
of
a
single
elected
official
Governor
beshear,
which
can
lead
to
bias
and
creates
an
unpredictable
environment
for
individuals
seeking
Clarity
on
what
they
are
legally
and
allowed
to
do,
and
what
they're
not
allowed
to
do
when
it
comes
to
participating
in
our
elections.
N
The
solution
that
we
are
proposing
would
ensure
that
all
kentuckians
will
be
treated
fairly
under
the
law
and
create
a
bright
line
for
both
individuals
who
have
lost
their
rights
and
for
Kentucky's
elections.
Administrators
who
need
to
be
able
to
provide
clear
guidance
around
who
is
and
who
is
not
eligible
to
vote
today.
N
N
Kentucky's
restoration
laws
should
not
carve
out
anybody
based
on
the
class
of
crime
they
committed,
except
where
that
crime
poses
a
direct
threat
to
our
electoral
system.
Kentucky's
sentencing
laws
already
account
for
a
variety
of
aggravating
and
mitigating
factors.
A
court
could
consider
imposing
harsher
sentences
on
those
convicted
of
repeat
and
or
serious
offenses.
N
We
would
encourage
that
Kentucky's
restoration
laws,
respect
and
reflect
the
established
sentencing
process
of
the
courts
by
restoring
the
voting
eligibility
of
any
person
who
is
deemed
been
deemed
fit
to
return
to
society
and
is
no
longer
under
the
supervision
of
the
Department
of
Corrections
Kentucky's
restoration
laws
should
also
cover
anyone
convicted
in
another
state
or
jurisdiction
who
is
similarly
completed
their
term.
N
The
vast
majority
of
states
do
not
on
condition
restoration
of
voting
eligibility
on
payment
of
lfos.
It's
a
very
unusual
practice.
It's
only
required
in
Six
States,
and
there
are
some
practical
challenges
to
that
system,
mainly
that
it
creates
additional
confusion
and
barriers
for
voters,
elections,
officials
and
correction
officials
alike
to
determine
eligibility
given
the
Practical
barriers.
The
Constitution
should
at
most
leave
this
question
to
the
state
legislature
to
resolve
in
statute.
N
N
There
is
an
active
in
engaged
and
energized
network
of
individuals,
organizations
and
leaders
ready
to
put
in
the
work
to
see
a
referred
constitutional
measure
through
to
passage
at
the
ballot.
What
we
are
presenting
to
you
here
today
is
just
a
small
part
of
that
bigger
effort,
I
look
forward
to
continued
conversations
with
all
of
you
on
the
issue.
N
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
after
the
presentation
of
the
panel,
but
for
right
now,
I'd
like
to
pass
things
along
to
our
pollster
Robert
blizzard
to
talk
about
some
of
the
research
that
we
have
just
engaged
in.
O
P
This
is
Robert
blizzard
with
with
public
opinion
strategies
thanks
to
the
committee
and
the
folks
there
for
letting
us
kind
of
walk
through
this
today.
I
know
nothing
is
more
exciting
than
listening
to
a
poster
talk
through
some
polling
numbers,
especially
on
the
phone
and
I
apologize,
I'm
kind
of
in
transit.
Today,
it's
difficult
to
to
get
there
but
I'm
going
to
briefly
and
briskly
forsake
a
time
kind
of
walk
through
some.
P
Some
poll
results
from
a
Statewide
survey
among
Republican
primary
voters,
and
that
is
registered
Republicans.
P
With
with
previous,
you
know,
Republican
primary
vote
history
we
did
a
500
sample,
which
is
a
very
standard,
Statewide
Republican
primary
sample,
and
we
feel
that
the
survey
in
mid-september
September
18th
through
21
and
I,
believe
you
all
have
access
to
the
the
presentation
that
I'm
going
to
briefly
walk
through
here
on
slide.
Two
of
the
presentation.
P
What
we
found
was.
It
was
overwhelming
support
among
Republican,
primary
voters
for
the
general
assembly
and
the
legislature.
They
are
putting
a
constitutional
amendment
on
an
upcoming
ballot
to
determine,
as
as
Charlie
outlined
in
her
president
mentioned,
a
permanent
solution.
70
of
Republican
primary
voters
say
they
would
support
putting
it
on
the
ballot
to
just
27
percent,
say
that
they
would
be
opposed
the
intensity
there
I
think,
is
also
important.
P
Almost
40
percent
of
Republican
primary
voters
say
they
strongly
support
placing
this
on
the
ballot
versus
just
19
who
strongly
opposed,
and
so
that
the
takeaway
I
have
here
is
there's
no
there's
no
opposition,
even
among
the
Republican
base.
If
you
will
for
for
placing
this
on
the
on.
H
P
Ballot
that
is
same
same
trend
lines
when
you
look
at
slide
three,
you
look
at
the
Republican
primary
elective
electorate
by
a
political
ideology
and
again
this
is
a
self-described
ideology,
but
among
the
most
Conservative
Republican
primary
voters,
which
is
about
half
of
the
primary
electorate
48.
They
support
placing
this
on
the
ballot
by
almost
a
two
to
one
margin,
62
to
33,
with
again
similar,
similar
intensity
strength
there
as
well.
So
a
lot
of
support
for
you
know
placing
this
on
the
ballot
and
I.
P
G
P
Have
some
questions
about?
Okay?
If
it
was
on
the
ballot,
you
know,
how
would
you
vote
and
the
language
we
used
for
this
survey
was
on
slide,
four,
that
this
issue
would
amend
the
Constitution
to
allow
kentuckians
convicted
of
a
crime
other
than
treason,
election
fraud
or
bribery
to
regain
their
eligibility
to
vote
after
serving
their
time,
including
completion,
completing
Probation
and
Parole,
and
then
ask
voters,
obviously
hey
it's
ever
on
the
ballot.
P
How
would
you
vote
for
it
and
on
five
five
by
a
53-41
margin,
Republican
primary
voters
said
they
would
actually
support
this
amendment.
So
not
only
do
you
have
again
seven
out
of
10
Republican
primary
voters
in
Kentucky
that
go
ahead
and
place
this
on
the
ballot,
but
you
have
a
majority
of
them
say
that
they
would.
You
know
they
would
support
this
amendment
as
well.
If
they
went
to
the
polls
to
vote
on
it
on
slide
six,
you
know
when
you
look
at
it
again
by
ideology
within
the
Republican.
P
P
P
It
I
think
it
shows
how
how
much
you
know
how
much
support
there
is
for
again
placing
this
on
the
ballot,
but
also
when
it
comes
to
election
time
on
slide.
Seven
I
have
this
very
frequently
in
a
lot
of
surveys
and
I.
Think
it's
it's
important
to
point
out
here.
This
is
a
Do,
no
harm
vote
for
republicans
in
the
legislature.
P
P
P
We
also
at
the
end
of
the
survey
we
tested
some
messaging
for
the
amendment
if
it
were
to
come
and
be
placed
on
the
ballot,
the
strongest
messages
in
favor
of
the
amendment
and
I
know.
There
will
be
some
some
more
discussion
about
this
after
I
hop
off
here,
laid
out
by
others
on
our
panel,
but
the
strongest
messages
are
are
led
by
a
second
chance
argument
that
the
amendment
would
be
about
real
kentuckians,
who've
redeemed
themselves
earned
back
their
eligibility
to
vote.
P
P
The
second
strongest
message
that
we
tested
in
support
of
the
amendment
is
that
you
know
you
still
have
to
earn
back
your
eligibility
and
it's
making
people
eligible
to
vote
doesn't
mean
they
automatically
get
it.
You
have
to
have
folks,
earn
it
back
by
completing
all
terms
of
their
sentence,
ordered
by
a
judge,
scale
or
prison
time
probation,
parole
requirements,
any
community
service,
they
have
to
earn
it
back,
which
I
think
isn't
is
important
and-
and
you
can
see
there
on
the
rest
of
that
slide.
P
Some
of
the
other
messages
we
tested
that
were
strong
support
for
the
for
the
amendment
itself.
The
other
good
news
for
proponents
of
the
amendment
on
slide.
Nine
after
Republican
primary
voters,
hear
those
statements,
support
climbs
and
you
can
see
along
the
top
on
slide
nine
there.
P
The
initial
ballot
again
was
53-41
after
voters
hear
that
those
messages
it
increases
to
60,
to
28,
even
very
conservative,
Republican
primary
voters,
who
again
were
a
little
more
mixed
on
the
amendment
before
hearing
the
messages
you
know
become
22
points
in
support
of
the
amendment,
55
33
and
somewhat
conservatives
and
moderate
liberal.
P
P
P
You
know
it's
not
a
significant
mover,
but
it
does
help.
Does
help
drive
support
for
the
amendment,
even
among
those
who
initially
are
against
it
and
even
among
those
who
are
initially
for
it,
as
you
see
on
the
kind
of
the
right
side
there
of
of
slide
10.
and.
P
We
asked
what
you
know:
how
long
should
a
waiting
period
be
among
Republican
primary
voters,
and
you
know
for
the
most
part
you
see
here
this.
You
know
it's
pretty
mixed.
You
have
you
know
about
a
third
of
Republican
primary
voters
say
it
should
be
about
a
year.
You
know
about
one
out
of
five
21
percent,
say
two
years,
but
then
you've
got
41.
You
know,
say
three,
four,
five
or
even
more
than
five
years
and
obviously
more
Conservative
Republican
primary
voters
are
are
more
likely
to
say.
P
The
waiting
period
should
be
longer
than
moderate,
liberal
Republican
primary
voters
who
who
say
we
should
keep
it
at
a
year
and
so
I
thought
that
was
kind
of
an
interesting
distinction
there
within
the
data.
So
with
that,
that
is,
everyone
knows
a
very
exciting
run
through
of
polling
numbers
via
phone.
You
know,
and
around
lunchtime
to
a
committee
but
happy
and
and
pleased
to
walk
through
that
data.
P
With
you
guys
and
again,
the
main
takeaways
when
you
look
at
this
polling
is
there's,
there's
very,
very
strong
support
for
putting
it
on
the
ballot.
P
A
majority
of
Republican
from
primary
voters
say
they
would
support
it
if
it
was
on
the
ballot
and
then
you
know,
hearing
messaging
in
support
of
the
amendment
you
know
does
help
increase
support
among
Republican
primary
voters,
specifically
more
Conservative
Republican
primary
voters,
who
are
a
bit
mixed
on
the
amendment
to
seek
him
so
with
that
I'll
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
Charlie
and
to
introduce
the
next
person
and
I'll
hop
off.
Thank
you.
Robert.
N
R
Thank
you,
Charlie.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
As
Charlie
said,
my
name
is
Jason.
Hall
I'm
executive
director
of
the
Catholic
Conference
of
Kentucky
I,
represent
the
four
Catholic
Bishops
Archbishop
Shelton
fob
of
Louisville
Bishop
John
effort
of
Covington
Bishop
John
Stowe
of
Lexington
and
Bishop
William
medley
of
Owensboro,
the
Bishops
of
Kentucky
and
their
predecessors
have,
for
many
years
voiced
strong
support
for
the
automatic
restoration
of
voting
rights.
R
R
This
concept
does
include
a
robust
concept
of
Rights,
but
also
puts
an
emphasis
on
the
responsibility.
Each
of
us
owes
to
help
build
up.
The
communities
in
which
we
live
voting
is
one
of
the
ways
that
we
fulfill
that
responsibility
in
2005,
the
conference
issued
a
pastoral
statement
on
criminal
justice,
recommending
that
Kentucky's
Constitution
be
amended
so
that
the
right
to
vote
would
be
automatically
restored
to
former
offenders
upon
completion
of
all
the
conditions
of
punishment
imposed
upon
them
by
the
court.
R
R
One
is
the
right
and
the
obligation
to
participate
in
the
public
life
of
the
community.
This
obligation
finds
expression
in
the
catechism
of
the
Catholic
Church,
where
it
teaches
that
exercising
the
right
to
vote
is
actually
a
moral
obligation.
R
We
understand
the
reasons
why
a
felony
conviction
has
historically
resulted
in
the
loss
of
the
right
to
vote.
The
commission
of
a
crime
is
a
breach
of
trust
with
one's
neighbors
and
an
act
that
causes
them
harm.
Society
needs
an
effective
justice
system
to
hold
people
accountable
and
to
protect
all
of
us
from
harm.
R
This
General
Assembly
has
taken
several
steps
over
recent
years
to
encourage
and
facilitate
the
process
of
reintegration
into
society
of
those
with
felony
convictions
and
to
reduce
recidivism.
We
have
supported
and
applaud
those
ongoing
efforts
and
believe
that
an
important
step
in
that
process
is
the
restoration
of
voting
rights
to
those
who
have
completed
their
sentences.
We
thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
your
support
for
this
effort.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
S
Good
morning,
committee
members,
my
name
is
Greg
kildow
and
I
live
in
Benton
Kentucky
I've
been
in
Kentucky
and
since
the
age
of
12,
when
my
mom
and
dad
retired,
from
their
work
as
a
parole
officer
and
a
truck
driver
and
moved
our
family
from
South
Bend
Indiana
I
spent
most
of
my
life
in
Marshall
County,
where
I
went
to
North,
Marshall,
Junior,
High
and
Central
High
School.
If
you
were
to
look
at
my
resume
in
my
educational,
professional
accomplishments,
you
might
be
surprised
to
learn
that
I've
been
incarcerated
three
times
on
drug
related
charges.
S
It
surprised
my
family
too,
because
I
was
one
of
the
kids
that
never
done
any
drugs
peer
pressure,
never
got
to
me
at
all.
I
was
around
35
years
old.
When
someone
gave
me
a
methamphetamine
in
a
capsule,
it
gave
me
an
energy
boost.
I
was
looking
for
at
the
time,
but
ended
up
costing
me
more
than
I
could
ever
imagine
for
the
next
five
or
six
years.
I
was
never
without
meth.
It
sent
me
down
a
path
where
I
lost
my
wife,
my
son's,
not
wanting
anything
to
do
with
me.
S
Even
my
parents,
wouldn't
talk
to
me,
I
was
arrested
in
99
for
manufacturing.
Meth
got
out
on
bond
after
eight
days,
received
a
second
charge
for
the
same
offense.
Six
months
later,
I
received
a
20-year
sentence
and
served
that
time
in
Marion,
County,
Green,
River,
Eddyville
and
then
finally,
Paducah
Paducah
is
where
I
spent
my
time
at
a
halfway
house.
It
was
there
that
my
life
began
to
turn
around
I
earned
my
first
degree
in
industrial
mechanics
and
followed
by
a
second
degree
in
industrial
Construction.
S
Despite
the
positive
steps
I've
taken
to
rebuild
my
life
as
a
productive
citizen
of
our
Commonwealth
and
the
success
I've
found
in
my
career
and
personal
life,
I
will
not
be
eligible
to
vote.
I'm
doing
all
the
right
things,
including
giving
back
to
my
community
Through
volunteering,
creating
jobs
working
hard
to
support
myself,
my
girlfriend
and
our
three-year-old
child,
and
yet
I
will
continue
to
be
punished
by
being
blocked
from
the
voting
booth.
I've
done
everything
I
can
to
make
up
for
my
mistakes.
In
the
past,
but
now
my
hands
are
tied.
S
It
makes
me
wonder
how
I
can
be
trusted
to
lead
10
people
that
work
daily,
but
our
government
still
doesn't
believe.
I
should
deserve
to
participate
fully
in
our
democracy
after
everything
I've
accomplished
and
worked
for
I.
Believe
my
right
to
vote
should
be
restored
without
having
to
jump
through
hoops.
I'm
hopeful
the
day
will
come
that
I
can
proudly
register
as
a
member
of
the
public
and
part
Republican
party
and
make
my
voice
heard
at
the
polls
on
decision
that
will
impact
my
future,
which
continues
to
look
very
bright.
Thank
you
guys
for
listening.
S
T
The
irony
of
the
whole
disenfranchisement
is
that
the
very
Behavior
Society
encourages
the
commitment
to
the
larger
social
and
political
Collective
is
undermined
by
a
law
that
denies
the
right
to
vote.
Two
people
who
desire
to
engage
in
that
way
and
I
am
one
of
those
individuals.
Thank
you
for
listening.
N
G
U
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and
I
I
have
a
couple
of
you
permit
I
I
guess.
My
first
question
is
you
know
I
I'm,
all
about
second
chances.
I
I,
don't
have
an
issue
with
that
concept.
I
guess
my
concern
is
what,
if
you
had
a
situation
with
a
repeat,
felony
offender,
in
the
sense
that
you
had
multiple
crimes,
I
mean,
would
they
be
restored
after
the
serving
of
the
sentence
on
each
one.
N
Second,
this
was
committed,
while
they
were
still,
you
know,
on
probation
or
parole
under
the
supervision
of
the
Department
of
Corrections.
But
again
you
know,
courts
will
take
a
you
know,
repeat
offenses
into
consideration
of
of
their
sentencing
and
there's
actually
a
lot
of
research
and
studies
to
show
that
rights.
Restoration
is
part
of
a
successful
reintegration
program
and
also
can
help
reduce
recidivism.
N
So
Florida's
parole
commission
found
that
those
voters
who
those
individuals
who
had
been
released
and
had
their
rights
to
vote
restored
were
three
times
less
likely
to
reoffend
and
when
folks
are
feel
like
they
are
a
valued
part
of
their
community
and
their
needs
and
concerns
are
being
addressed
and
they're
less
likely
to
engage
in
in
future
crimes.
I
don't
mean
to
say
this
is
a
Panacea
for
all
crime,
but
it
is
an
important
part
of
the
puzzle
for
for
improving
Public,
Safety,
okay,.
U
And
I
guess
my
second
question
is
As
I
understood
your
presentation.
The
goal
would
be
even
if
somebody
in
an
alternative
jurisdiction
completed
the
the
requirements
of
that
jurisdiction.
That
Kentucky
would
automatically
recognize
that
and
and
and
restore
the
rights
of
that
person.
You
know
I
think
we've
seen
countless
stories,
especially
over
the
last
couple
years,
with
the
increase
in
crime.
U
That's
I
think
a
real
problem,
the
United
States
of
America
that
you
have
places
such
as
I
think
with
George
on
the
prosecutor
in
Los
Angeles,
where
they
actually
catch,
have
tapes
of
criminals
in
jail.
Basically,
talking
about
you
know
this
guy's,
you
know
great,
you
know
we
can
get
right
back
out
on
the
street.
U
He
has
minimal
to
no
punishment
on
these
types
of
things,
and
and
some
of
these
people
are
really
bad
people
and-
and
it
has
just
led
to
an
explosion
of
crime
and
certain
jurisdictions,
and
although
I
can
imagine
that
most
of
these
people
wouldn't
what
would
not
want
to
move
to
Kentucky.
But
if
you
know
I,
don't
think
they
probably
quite
find
the
same.
U
Welcome
here
you
know:
if
they
did,
you
know
I
I
guess
I
have
a
concern,
at
least
maybe
in
some
Urban,
with
the
efforts
bought
to
elect
certain
prosecutors
that
are
soft
on
crime,
that
you
would
have
a
how
should
I
say,
a
less
even-handed
application
of
Justice,
which
could
result,
in
particular,
disparities
where
you
would
have
persistent
criminals
and
urban
jurisdictions
having
their
rights
restored,
but
perhaps
a
more
conservative
jurisdictions.
You
would
not
see
that
occurring
as
often
is
that
a
scenario
that
you
could
potentially
see
happening.
N
Well,
thank
you,
Senator
wheeler,
for
that
question.
I
I
understand
your
concern,
but
there's
no
evidence
that
voting
rights
you
know
is
is
directly
tied
to
somebody's
willingness
or
unwillingness
to
commit
a
crime.
You
know
before
you
commit
a
crime.
You're,
probably
not
thinking.
N
Oh,
but
I
won't
be
able
to
vote
now,
and
so
it's
not
particularly
an
incentive
necessarily
in
the
ways
that
you
know
is,
is
going
to
result
in
the
kind
of
soft
on
crime
environment
that
you're
describing
here
and
in
in
you
know,
and
in
many
ways
could
actually
help
to.
U
So
I
think
this
could
end
up
being
a
very
Vicious
Cycle
in
areas
that
are
already
high
crime
areas
where
you
would
have
folks
that
would
be
focused
on
electing
people
that
are
going
to
have
a
a
soft
on
on
crime
approach
but
and
I'm
not
saying
that
would
occur
in
every
circumstance
and
I
think
that
you
know
people
that
show
a
a
true
effort
to
redeem
themselves
over
a
period
of
years
that
that
their
should
be
a
second
chance
for
those
people
if
they've
gone
10
or
15
years,
without
committing
another
crime
or
even
six
or
seven
years.
U
N
If
I
may
respond,
Mr
chair,
I,
think
again,
Senator
I
I
understand
your
your
concern
on,
but
I
think.
At
the
same
time,
a
few
things
to
clarify
one
folks,
living
in
in
suburban
and
Rural
communities
are
far
more
likely
to
see
the
inside
of
a
jail
cell
than
those
living
in
urban
areas.
That's
true
nationally,
that's
true!
In
Kentucky
as
well,
rural
communities
are
increasingly
making
up.
You
know
sizable
populations
of
of
the
incarcerated
population.
N
Furthermore,
we
feel
that
parole
and
probation
are
those
waiting
periods
and
you've
heard
today
Marcus.
How
long
have
you
has
it
taken
you
to
come
off
probation
or
parole?
Four
years?
You
know
these
are
this.
That
is
the
that
is
what
is
designed
by
the
courts
to
be
the
period
of
reintegration,
the
period
of
proving
that
you
can
be
a
productive
member
of
society.
You
know
it's
folks
that
are
still
under
the
supervision
of
the
Department
of
Corrections.
You
know
needing
to
meet
goals
and
establish
benchmarks
and
and
be
reintegrated.
N
V
Me
thank
you
Mr,
chairman,
first
of
all,
Mr
Jackson,
Mr
kidlow.
Congratulations
to
both
of
you
all
I
wish
that
100
of
people
who
have
made
some
bad
decisions
in
life
could
follow
the
path
that
you
guys
have
and
I
do
think.
V
We
need
to
look
at
something
to
help
you
to
further
that
path
and
and
that
success,
but
I
do
have
a
couple
clarifying
questions:
Miss,
Alina
I,
if
I
understood
early
on
in
your
testimony,
you
mentioned
something
about
three
years
later
about
some
rights,
and
you
mentioned
the
right
to
hold
office.
The
right
to
cure
sit
on
the
jury
am
I
correct
in
that
yes,.
V
N
N
It
does
not,
it
would
not
touch
firearm
ownership,
that's
handled
separately,
so
for
the
purposes
of
this
and
and
the
part
where
we're
proposing
to
change
it's
just
those
running
for
running
for
and
holding
office
and
serving
on
a
jury
that
are
included
in
that
particular
section
as
other
civil
rights.
V
Okay,
because
that
would
definitely
have
a
problem
with
three
years
later,
allowing
possession
of
firearm
by
somebody
committed
murder
right.
That
would
be
an
issue
also
with
a
sex
offender.
Then
then
we
take
him
off
the
sex
offender
registry
if
we
begin
to
restore
those
rights
after
three
years.
V
You
know
I'm
just
question
because
I
want
to
make
sure
if
we're
going
to
do
something,
we
do
it
correctly,
that
we
provide
to
the
people
who've,
earned
it
these
rights,
but
also
make
sure
we're
providing
protection
for
the
citizens
at
the
same
time
from
those
that
maybe
are
still
a
threat
to
some
degree.
Okay,
next
question-
and
this
is
more
of
just
a
a
personal
question
for
Mr
Hall-
you
mentioned
that
voting-
is
a
moral
obligation
and
I
guess.
V
R
Well,
I
can
give
an
extended
Treatise
on
the
Theology
of
sin
if
you
would
like,
but
what
the
catechism
teaches
is
that
love
of
neighbor
includes
participation
in
one's
community
and
solicitors.
Being
solicitors
of
the
good
of
the
community
and
in
a
democracy
voting
is
a
key
part
of
doing
that.
Now,
whether
it's
a
sin
or
not
depends
on
your
intention
in
the
state
of
what
your
intent
is.
If
you're
saying
I
hate
my
community
and
I
don't
want
to
participate,
then
probably
this
is
thank.
H
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman.
My
question
is
I.
Think
we're
going
to
agree,
but
this
is
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
that
what
you're
saying
is
what
I
think
you're
saying
so
we've
talked
a
lot
about
the
Constitutional
Amendment.
Okay.
Is
it
your
all's
opinion
that,
in
order
for
the
legislature,
in
order
for
us
to
do
something
in
this
area,
make
the
changes
that
you
want
that
we
have
to
do
it
through
a
constitutional
amendment
that
we
we
don't
have
the
latitude
to
do
it
through
revised
Statute?
Is
that
your
opinion.
H
N
My
understanding
is
that
the
the
governor
had
does
have
the
right
to
issue
those
executive
orders,
as
he
has
power
of
clemency,
for
example,
but,
but
we
also
don't
think
that
it
should
be
his
decision.
We
we
think
that
it
should
be
this
body.
We
think
it
should.
This
kind
of
decision
belongs
in
the
hands
of
the
legislature.
We
are
asking
you
to,
you
know,
refer
a
constitutional
amendment,
we
understand
what
what
that
takes
on
and
the
obligation
that
comes
with
that
request,
but
we
think
this
is
this.
N
Is
the
issue
for
y'all
to
to
address
and
and
I
think
in
an
opportunity
to
kind
of
take
back
the
issue
in
some
ways
as
well.
I.
H
Agree
with
what
you're
saying
I
agree
with
that,
if
we
are
going
to
do
something
legislatively
I
think
our
only
route
is
through
Constitutional
Amendment,
because
it
it's
section
145
is
pretty
tight,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify
that.
Thank
you.
Yep.
C
Turner,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
and
thanks
for
all
of
you
all
being
here
been
married
to
a
Catholic
lady
I,
get
that
little
verb
ever
now
and
then
I've
been
practicing
all
44
years
and
I've
done
a
lot
of
criminal
law.
The
question
I
have
is
normally
we
speak
to
the
jurors,
I
practiced
criminal
law
for
44
years
and
the
jury
was
sent
in
somebody,
but
then
the
administrative
through
the
court
system
it
takes
over
and
it's
the
one
that
decides
really
what
the
time
is
I
mean.
C
The
gentleman
here
says:
he's
got
two
more
years
of
parole
and
I
guess
one.
The
first
question
I
have
is:
is
he
asking
that
in
his
case
is
he
would
he
want
his
time
to
be
stopped
already
and
have
the
right
to
vote
now
or
is
he
willing
to
wait
till
his
parole?
Time
is
up
which
may
be
a
lot
shorter
than
actually
the
jury
sentenced
him
I
mean
unless
he
made
a
guilty
plea.
So
that's
the
question.
I
have.
What
is
the
position
you
all
take
on?
That's
the
first
question.
N
For
I,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
for
Kentucky
I
mean
we.
What
we
have
currently
is
a
lifetime
ban,
no
matter
what
no
matter
how
long
you
have
been
off
papers,
you
know
you,
you
can't
vote
unless
a
single
elected
official
and
the
governor
says
that
you
can.
We
don't
think
that's
right,
and
we
don't
think
that
that's
fair.
N
What
we
are
proposing
here
in
the
bill
that
we
supported
last
session
required
complete
full
completion
of
the
sentence
on
for
this
issue.
I
completely
understands
and
and
hear
your
concerns
around
sentencing,
but
we
think
that
should
be
addressed
through
statute
and
separately
than
the
Constitutional
change,
and
that
we're
asking
to
make
here
on.
C
Knowing
than
a
jury
is
who
we
rely
on
unless
you
do,
a
plea
is
the
time
that
you're
asking
that
that
when
we
do
legislation,
Constitutional,
Amendment
or
whatever
you
right
to
vote
end
because
it's
going
to
be
different
unless
we
set
some
specific
time
frame,
is
it
going
to
be
the
jury
sentencing
time,
because
it
can
always
be
cut
short
by
the
probation,
Pro
board?
The
court
sentence
whenever
the
judge
reduces
it
from
a
jury,
we're
not
going
to
have
something:
that's
con
and
I'm
trying
to
find
out
legislatively
looking
forward?
C
What
are
you
all
asking
that
that
rule
be?
Is
it
what
the
jury
said
that
the
time
that
the
that
they're
going
to
be
then,
given
the
right
to
vote
again
and
I'm
familiar
with
the
Kentucky
statute,
you
can
carry
a
gun
in
Kentucky.
If
you
had
didn't
get
convicted
before
76
and
you
can
hunt
now
you
can't
federalize
what
creeps
everybody
from
carrying
a
gun.
Now.
C
Statutes,
One
controls
it,
but
that's
not
an
issue.
I
want
to
know
so
when
we
as
legislators
start
working
on
this.
What
your
position
is
ask
when
you
want
that
voting
right
to
take
effect,
because
it's
going
to
be
different
in
everybody.
Unless
we
say
it's
going
to
be
the
jury
sentence
or
your
police
sentence,
because
it
can
always
be
terminated
shortened
and
by
certain
Acts
bye.
C
N
I,
apologies,
Senator,
I,
misunderstood
your
question
the
first
time
around
and
what
my
understanding
of
the
language
that
we
are
proposing
is
that
the
completion
of
sentence,
terms
of
Probation
and
Parole
would
be
as
it's
defined
by
the
Department
of
Corrections
and
watch
Once.
An
individual
is
no
longer
under
the
supervision
of
the
Department
Corrections,
including
the
division
of
parole,
that
that
would
be
the
kind
of
clear
bright
line
when
you're
off
papers
to
say.
Okay,
now
you
can
vote.
C
W
Schroeder,
thank
you.
Mr,
chair
I
want
to
discuss
the
current
situation
that
we
have
I'm
right
here.
Thank.
W
Thank
you
for
your
testimony
today
and
much
like
representative
Blanton.
Congratulations.
You
know
thanks
for
sharing
your
story
and
it's
a
great
example.
We
don't
hear
enough
about
success
cases.
So,
thanks
for
being
the
success
regarding
the
current
process,
have
you
guys
applied
to
the
governor's
office
and
I'm
curious?
Like
do
you
get
a
reasoning
back?
W
Why
it's
denied
and
then
I'd
like
to
hear
if,
if
anyone's
keeping
statistics
for
the
percentage
that
are
I
guess
are
denied
and
educate
me
with
that
process,
if
the
governor's
office
just,
is
it
a
blanket?
No,
yes,
how
that
works,
but
first
I'm
just
curious
how
that
process
has
gone
for.
T
Yes,
I
applied
I
petitioned
the
governor
for
the
restoration
of
my
rights.
No
word,
no,
nothing
followed
up,
calls
no
word,
no,
nothing!
A
lot
of
people
that
we've
been
working
with,
we
personally
assisted
to
someone
two
years
ago
with
the
petition
of
their
rights
for
a
drug
opposition
of
a
drug
offense
and
still
no
word,
no,
nothing.
It's
just
sitting
in
limbo,.
T
Not
initially,
if
you
call-
and
you
tell
them
that
you
have
applied
and
everything,
then
we
get
the
same,
prompt,
it's
being
considered
it's
on
the
desk,
we'll
let
you
know
if
you
get
it,
but
there's
no
requirements
to.
Let
us
know
if
we
are
denied.
W
I'm
curious:
do
we
have
numbers?
Do
we
have
a
percentage
of
even
people
are
applying,
but
I
guess
that
you
wouldn't
necessarily
know
how
many
people
are
applying
there's
no
way
to.
Unless
you
did
like
an
open
records
with
the
governor's
office.
I
guess
has
anyone
done
that
or
I.
N
Don't
have
access
to
that
information,
you
know
just
off
off
the
top
of
my
head.
N
That,
within
the
kind
of
network
of
folks
working
on
this,
they
have
yeah
requested
those
records
in
in
order
to
be
able
to
notify
folks
that
their
rights
have
been
restored
or
they've
got
an
opportunity
to
be
able
to
petition
or
I.
G
Think
it's
a
good
question.
Senator
I'd
ask
staff
if
they
wouldn't
mind
transmitting
that
question
to
the
governor's
office
and
asking.
W
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
it's
obviously
clear
where
I
am
on
this
bill.
I've
Carry,
I've,
carried
it
before
I,
want
to
note.
I
represent
a
community
that
we
do
have
a
very
high
crime
rate
and
going
up
mostly
caused
by
Young
Folks,
and
so
at
some
point.
Hopefully
they
stop
committing
crimes
and
so
forth.
D
So
I've
started
looking
at
these
criminal
justice
issues
a
little
differently
recently
and
it's
about
the
holistic.
It's
about
the
person,
obviously
making
them
holistic,
making
them
a
good
father,
getting
back
in
the
community,
going
back
to
work
being
a
taxpayer,
but
I
want
to
look
at
it
a
little
bit
differently
and
I.
Think
Charlie.
You
said
that
you,
you
talked
on
this
a
little
bit,
and
that
is
what
it
does
for
recidivism
rates,
so
I'm
going
to
start
asking
this
question
on
every
criminal
justice
bill.
D
What
does
this
do
for
victims
for
future
victims?
So
I
want
to
make
the
person
who
committed
crime
I
care
about
that
person,
their
their
human
being?
They
have
dignity,
but
I
think
we
should
focus
more
on
future
victims.
So
help
me
understand
how
this
and
I
want
to
note,
by
the
way
that
our
crime
rate
is
not
related
in
any
way
to
people
getting
their
vote
restored
or
not,
in
my
view,
is
a
lot
of
other
things,
but
so
so
someone
articulate
the
message
to
me
and
to
the
people
who
are
watching
the
kentuckians.
N
Thank
you,
Robert
representative
nemis,
for
that
question,
and
also
thank
you
for
championing
this
issue.
In
the
past
and
I
mean
victims
are
at
the
moral
center
of
the
Criminal
Justice
System,
but
at
the
same
time
you
know
the
the
kind
of
survivors
and
victims
advocacy
groups
that
I've
spoken
with
about
this
issue.
N
N
But
folks,
victims
have
also
you
know
across
the
country
and
advocacy
groups
that
represent
them,
have
joins
this
effort
and
pushed
for
reform
here,
because
it's
a
part
of
the
rehabilitative
process.
It's
a
part
of
the
healing
process
for
those
who
have
harmed
and
for
those
who
have
been
harmed,
and
there
is
there-
is
a
study,
for
example,
from
the
alliance
for
safety
and
Justice.
N
It
found
that
six
and
ten
on
folks
who
had
been
the
victim
of
a
crime
would
prefer
a
system
that
is
more
focused
on
prevention
and
Rehabilitation
programs
and
that
will
fully
offer
the
opportunity
for
individuals
to
reintegrate
into
their
communities
and
and
be
on
productive
and
and
supportive
members
of
that
community,
and
so
I
I
hear
I,
hear
that
and
I
think
that
is
is
extremely
important
in
this
issue
and
but
also
in
my
experience
this.
N
This
has
been
an
important
part
of
the
healing
process
as
well
and
and
the
rehabilitation
process
of
of
individuals
who
have
caused
harm
Mr.
D
I
think
we
should
support
this
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
But
but
let
me
tease
this
out
a
little
bit
here,
because
it
will
limit
future
victims,
not
people
who've,
already
been
victimized
right
when
we
say
recidivism
goes
down,
that's
a
that's!
A
scientific
way
of
saying
somebody's
not
going
to
be
a
victim
in
the
future
that
might
have
otherwise
been.
These
folks
are
going
to
re-enter
our
communities
they're
going
to
be
our
neighbors
right.
So
we
need
to
do
what
we
need
to
do
to
try
to
get
them
back
into
the
fold.
D
So
they
don't
hurt
somebody
else.
So
we
need
you
guys
need
to
I.
Think
refocus,
because
I
think
this
is
what
we're
trying
to
hear.
We
want
to
rehabilitate.
We
want
to
hug
everybody
and
okay
great,
that's
not
what
we're
trying
to
do
right,
we're
trying
to
reduce
crime,
and
we
use
all
those
beautiful
words,
big
words,
recidivism
rehabilitate
what
matters
is
your
neighbor
down
the
street.
D
Fewer
of
them
will
be
will
be
victims
in
the
future.
So
we
need
to
be
better
at
articulating
that
message,
because
it's
not
you're,
not
we're
not
going
to
pass
this.
If
we're
saying
we're
making
the
criminal
a
better
person,
no,
we
are
reducing
future
victims.
That's
what
the
message
has
to
have
to
start
to
be
in
all
these
criminal
justice
bills.
We
need
to
start
with
the
victim.
The
middle
needs
to
be
the
victim
or
potential
victim,
and
the
end
needs
to
be
the
victim.
D
M
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
such
a
thorough
presentation
and
for
the
personal
testimonies
they're
compelling
as
well.
About
six
years
ago,
I
was
in
a
group
that
was
talking
with
local
criminal
justice
officials,
judges,
prosecutors,
sheriffs
police,
Chiefs.
One
of
the
things
they
said
was
shocking
to
me.
I
was
have
been
a
lawyer
for
a
long
time
worked
in
civil
litigation,
not
Criminal.
M
M
Secondly,
I'm
worried
about
high
recidivism
and
wondered
if
you
have
a
I
mean
when
you
talk
about
second
chances,
I
believe
in
those
completely,
but
maybe
not
seven
chances
also
about
recidivism.
Do
you
have
any
statistics
about
whether
that
occurs
during
this
probationary
parole
time
or
afterwards,
so
that
someone
has
served?
Do
you
have
that
kind
of
Statistics?
Yes,.
N
Representative,
those
studies
were
based
off
of
folks
who
had
come
off
paper,
so
they
had
finished,
probation
and
and
parole.
N
Representative
Decker
I'm,
going
to
be
honest,
I
am
I,
am
not
a
lawyer
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I
can
speak
with
100
accuracy
to
to
that
exact
question,
so
I
would
love
to
follow
up
with
you
when
I
have
a
chance
to
call
the
lawyer-
and
he
can
tell
me
the
right
answer
here,
but
I
I
don't
want
I,
don't
want
to
misspeak.
N
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
it.
X
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I'm
down
front
here,
I
appreciate
your
remarks
and
good
afternoon
to
everyone.
I
noticed
that
43
States
automatically
restore
voting
rights,
so
that
puts
Kentucky
in
a
very
extreme
minority
of
states
that
don't
automatically
do
this
in
the
bill
that
we
saw
last
year,
223
there
were
exceptions
for
treason,
bribery
in
the
election
and
election
fraud
in
those
43
states
that
automatically
restore
are
those
consistent
exceptions
throughout
those
States.
N
Thank
you
representative
for
that
question.
So
I
will
say
bribery
in
an
election.
Election
fraud
and
treason
are
are
kind
of
the
standards
that
if
a
state
does
carve
out
specific
crimes,
they
are
carving
out
those,
and
there
are
a
handful
of
states
that
do
impose
additional
carve
outs
but
they're,
extremely
specific
and
and
so
for
example,
first
degree,
murder
or
you
know,
a
specific
crime
in
Governor
beshear's
executive
order.
He
went
very
Broad
in
terms
of
violent
felonies
and
no
other
I
want
to
be
extremely
clear.
N
That
no
other
state
in
the
nation
has
those
kinds
of
broad
carve-outs.
If
there
are
carve
outs
of
specific
crimes,
it's
very
specifically
enumerated
in
order
to
provide
that
Clarity
and
I.
Think
that's
one
of
the
other
challenges
with
the
governor's
executive
order.
Is
it's
been
difficult
for
individuals
to
determine
whether
you
know
what
what
crimes
count
and
what
don't
so.
X
So
it
wouldn't
be
out
of
the
norm
if
we
were
to
add
two
or
three
really
heinous
crimes
to
the
three
that
that
we've
outlined
that
wouldn't
be
out
of
the
norm,
Nationwide
to
do
that,
but
you're
saying
abroad,
swath
of
of
saying
violent,
felonies
yeah
that
that
is
abnormal
or
not
not
consistent
across
the
country.
Yes,.
N
So
31
of
those
43
states
don't
include
any
additional
carve
outs
beyond
that
Teresa
and
bribery
and
election.
So
it's
still
a
vast
majority
of
the
states.
Don't
address
those
carve
outs
if
they
are
addressed
I
I.
That
would
be
my.
My
response
is
to
to
get
very,
very
specific,
but
our
positioning
still
is
that
you
know
sentencing
is
happens
Elsewhere
on
and
for
particularly
egregious
crimes.
N
There
will
be,
you
know
particularly
strong
sentences,
and-
and
so
you
know,
regardless
of
the
individual
or
a
crime
or
circumstance
that
we're
talking
about
here-
we're
talking
about
folks
who
have
done
everything
that
the
court
said
they
needed
to
do
to
repay
their
debt
to
society,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
get
too
deep
into
oh
carve
out
this
crime
carve
out
that
crime
carve
out
this
crime
and
particularly
because
support
starts
to
drop
for
the
amendment
when
you
start
to
do
that.
N
But,
for
example,
in
our
poll
last
year
we
started
with
79
support
and
when
you
said,
you
know
accept
the
all
these
crimes.
The
more
you
add,
the
lower
that
support
goes
so
also
from
you
know,
a
viability
standpoint
and
and
success
at
the
ballot
I'd
encourage
those
carve
outs
to
stay
narrow.
G
You
thank
you
Mr
chairman.
Yes,
sir,
you
mentioned
Charlie
Arkansas,
Louisiana,
Missouri
and
Texas.
Do
any
of
those
states
have
those
carve
outs
or
any
carve
outs
off
the
top
of
your
head
and
I
know
I'm
putting
you
on
the
spot,
but
you
mentioned
those
so
I'm
curious
as
exemplars,
whether
or
not
they
have
them.
Yes,.
G
G
A
You
Mr
chairman
just
quickly,
so
no
other
states
have
addressed
the
repeat
offenders.
There
aren't.
N
Exceptions
for
that,
so
some
some
states
do
I
I
I
can
I
can
try
to
find
the
answers
around
that
I
I
believe
it's
it's
my
understanding
that
Arizona
treats
and
second
offenders
differently
than
you
know,
first-time
offenders,
so
I
I
would
be
happy
to
prepare
and
share
that
information
with
you,
but
I'm,
not
I'm.
Not
sure
I
can
answer
that
off
the
top
of
my
head.
Okay,.
G
G
Yeah,
while
they're
clearing
out
I'm
gonna
have
no
stranger
to
the
committee.
Josh
Crawford,
with
the
Pegasus
Institute
coming
on
up
here,
I
want
to
mention
again
highlight
the
the
materials
that
are
online.
G
G
About
questions
but
didn't
get
your
name
on
the
list.
Also
I
know
the
League
of
Women
Voters
submitted
a
letter
in
support
of
the
panel.
We
just
heard
in
that
proposal
and
that's
in
the
materials
as
well
and
online.
So
please
be
sure
and
check
all
that
information
out.
I
know
the
Catholic
conference
statement.
Is
there
secure
democracy
statements
there
and
their
slide
Deck
with
the
polling
information?
Q
Thank
you,
chairman
Westerfield,
for
the
opportunity,
IOU
chairman,
Massey
and
representative
bratcher,
an
apology.
This
is
the
second
time
you
have
had
to
look
at
my
face
today
and
I
recognize
it's
not
a
great
face,
so
we
will.
We
will
get
through
this
together.
Once
again,
as
was
mentioned,
the
presentation
is
on
solitary
confinement,
both
a
sort
of
national
perspective
and
its
use
here
in
the
Commonwealth.
Q
First
and
foremost,
what
is
solitary
confinement
for
the
purposes
of
this
conversation?
We
are
primarily
talking
about
administrative
and
disciplinary
segregation,
not
segregation
for
the
the
safety
of
an
inmate
protective
custody.
That
kind
of
thing
we're
talking
about
administrative
decisions
and
then
disciplinary
segregation.
Q
Solitary
confinement
is
the
practice
of
isolating
in
inmates
for
22
to
24
hours
a
day
with
little
human
contact
for
periods
ranging
from
days
to
years.
It
limits
access
to
educational
or
rehabilitative
programming,
solitary
confinement
as
disciplinary
segregation
is
a
punitive
response
to
inmate
behavior
and,
in
the
short
term,
can
be
a
useful
administrative
tool
to
help
ensure
inmate
and
staff
safety.
Long-Term
solitary
confinement
has
repeatedly
been
found
to
have
deleterious
effects
on
inmates
and
increase
recidivism
representative
nemes.
Q
It
looks
like
has
exited,
but
there
will
be
a
substantial
portion
of
this
presentation
about
recidivism.
The
the
concept
of
an
academic
consensus
is
relatively
rare.
Q
In
truth,
on
most
issues
you
can
find
reasonably
high
quality
research
and
peer-reviewed
journals
that
come
down
on
on
both
or
multiple
sides
of
of
various
issues
when
it
comes
to
the
impact
that
long-term
solitary
confinement
has
on
both
inmate
mental
health
and
recidivism,
though
we
get
about
as
close
to
an
academic
consensus
as
there
is
so
sort
of
a
national
picture
on
any
given
day
in
2019
the
last
year
that
we
have
a
full
available
data,
there
was
an
estimated
between
55,
000
and
62
500
inmates
had
spent
the
previous
15
days
in
solitary
confinement
in
just
state
and
federal
prisons.
Q
So
we're
not
talking
about
local
jails.
Here,
the
use
of
punitive
solitary
confinement
has
grown
faster
than
prison
growth,
so
over
a
time
period
in
which
prison
populations
grew
by
28
percent.
The
number
of
prisoners
in
solitary
confinement
grew
by
40
percent
and
a
2003
report
estimated
that
nearly
half
of
all
prison
inmates
in
solitary
confinement
had
some
severe
mental
illness.
We'll
come
back
to
that
in
a
little
bit,
so
the
impact
on
inmates
virtually
every
study
on
the
impact
of
solitary
confinement.
Q
Again
we're
talking
specifically
about
long-term
solitary
confinement
here,
finds
adverse
impacts
on
inmate
mental
health
and
behavior.
This
is
subsequent
Behavior
to
release
from
the
institution
or
release
from
solitary
confinement,
so
studies
find
that
both
inmates
behave
more
poorly
upon
release
from
long-term
solitary
confinement
and
that
they
recidivated
higher
numbers.
We'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
in
a
minute.
These
mental
health
impacts
include
everything
from
hypertension,
uncontrollable
anger,
hallucinations,
emotional
breakdowns,
chronic
depression,
suicidal
thoughts
and
behaviors
as
well
as
anxiety.
Q
This
is
particularly
true
among
inmates
who
already
have
serious
mental
health
challenges.
Serious
mental
illnesses,
which
again
is
about
half
of
the
prison
population
as
it
relates
to
solitary
confinement
juveniles
and
pregnant
women.
This
committee
may
remember
that
a
number
of
years
ago,
Senator
Adams
sponsored
a
Senate
bill
that
actually
Exempted
pregnant
female
inmates
in
the
Commonwealth,
from
solitary
confinement.
So
on
that
particular
question,
the
Commonwealth
is
very
much
ahead
of
the
Curve.
Q
The
impact
on
recidivism,
so
Studies
have
repeatedly
found
that
placement
and
solitary
confinement
has
a
negative
impact
on
recidivism
Additionally,
the
longer
the
stay,
the
greater
the
negative
impact,
and
so,
if
you're
talking
about
30
days
versus
six
months
versus
six
years,
that
impact
plateaus
at
a
certain
point.
But
it
grows
over
a
certain
point
as
well.
One
study
found
the
long-term
solitary
confinement,
increased
the
risk
of
being
convicted
of
another
crime
within
three
years
after
release
by
about
15
percent.
Q
Another
in
valuation
in
Texas
found
that
inmates
released
directly
from
solitary
confinement
were
had
a
12
percent
increase
in
recidivism.
A
an
evaluation
of
prisoners
in
Connecticut
found
that
91
of
prisoners
who
were
released
from
solitary
confinement
committed
a
new
offense
within
three
years.
That
was
nearly
double
the
control
population
for
for
individuals
who
had
not
been
in
solitary
confinement
for
a
period
of
time.
Q
So
in
Kentucky,
as
I
already
mentioned,
Senate
Bill
84
not
only
banned
the
practice
for
pregnant
women,
but
required
some
data
reporting
representative
hevren,
ahead
of
the
2022
session,
requested
some
additional
data
in
support
of
House
Bill,
615
and
I
want
to
share
some
of
that
data
with
the
committee
here
we
have
the
number
of
individuals
who
are
placed
in
a
restrictive
housing
unit.
This
indicates
how
many
times
these
individuals
were
were
placed
in
a
restrictive
housing
unit.
So
this
is
not
days.
Q
This
is
number
of
times
that
an
individual
was
put
in
restrictive
housing.
Obviously
one
or
two
stays
is
is
by
far
the
most
dominant
and
it
sort
of
goes
down
from
there.
Four
five
and
six
have
about
the
same
numbers.
You
see
those
numbers
decrease
some
in
2020
and
2021.
This
is
largely,
in
my
opinion,
a
result
of
responses
to
changes
in
Correctional
policies
related
to
covid-19.
Q
Finally,
this
chart
indicates
the
number
of
days
spent
in
a
restrictive
housing
unit.
Again,
six
days
or
less
seven
to
twenty
nine
days,
those
are
your
largest
chunks.
That's
not
really
what
we're
talking
about
here,
but
in
2021
there
were
1400
inmates
who
spent
between
30
and
90
days
in
a
restrictive
housing
unit.
We
had
44,
who
spent
the
entire
year
somewhere
between
half
the
year
and
the
entire
year,
I'm,
not
entirely
sure
what
the
over
365
designation
is.
This
came
directly
from
the
Department
of
Corrections.
Q
They
would
have
to
answer
that
question
I,
don't
know
if
that's
people
who
carried
over
from
previous
years
but
I'm
not
entirely
sure
what
that
over
365
designation
accounts
for,
but
so
you're
talking
about.
You
know
close
to
2000
inmates
last
year,
who
spent
30
days
or
more
in
solitary
confinement
and
given
the
detrimental
impacts
both
to
inmate
mental
health
and
subsequent
recidivism
you're
talking
about
a
reasonably
large
portion
of
people
who
are
going
to
have
a
those
negative
impacts.
Q
Importantly,
there
are
alternatives
to
solitary
confinement,
so
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Corrections
has
what
it
refers
to
its
therapeutic
diversion
unit.
This
is
a
specific
unit
that
focuses
on
inmates
with
severe
mental
illness.
Who've
repeatedly
found
themselves
in
solitary
confinement
offers
a
tremendous
amount
of
service
that
that
works
directly
with
those
individuals
puts
those
individuals
in
a
community
or
they
don't
have
to
find
themselves
in
in
these
restrictive
housing
units.
Q
An
evaluation
of
that
program
in
North
Carolina
found
both
lower
rates
of
recidivism
for
those
inmates
upon
release,
found
better
conditions
for
staff
and
other
inmates
and
fewer
disciplinary
responses
to
those
inmates
within
that
therapeutic
diversion
unit.
This
again
all
takes
place
within
the
confines
of
the
facility.
Q
There
are
also
a
number
of
programs
that
sort
of
allow
for
segregation
with
longer
periods
of
time
outside
of
the
cell
for
programming
and
Recreation.
The
the
Colorado
Department
of
Corrections
has
sort
of
set
up
the
model
for
this,
where
they
have
sort
of
a
step
down
process.
Q
If
you
find
yourself
in
solitary
confinement,
but
you
are
low
risk,
then
you
spend
more
time
in
programming
and
Recreation
and
a
little
bit
less
time
in
the
cell
if
you're
high
risk
I
think
the
the
maximum
amount
of
time
that
you
have
is
something
like
three
hours
for
programming
one
hour
for
recreation,
so
you're
still
spending
20
hours
a
day
in
the
cell,
but
that
is
for
sort
of
your
highest
risk
cases.
Q
There
have
been
a
number
of
of
jurisdictions
that
have
established
review
processes
for
once,
an
inmate
is
placed
in
solitary
confinement
after
a
period
of
time
to
basically
plan
and
say
like
okay,
rather
than
leaving
this
person
in
solitary
confinement
for
a
prolonged
period
of
time.
What
is
the
process
by
which
this
person
can
either
make
their
way
back
into
the
general
population?
Nation
make
their
way
into
a
specialized
unit.
What
North
Carolina
does
or
ways
that
we
can
get
this
person
more
resources
or
more
involved
in
the
prison
community?
Q
Finally,
there
are
a
number
of
states
that
are
leading
the
way.
I
have
a
number
of
friends
at
think
tanks
and
Mississippi,
and
this
is
something
that
people
don't
get
to
say
enough
and
so
they're
going
to
be
happy
that
I
am
but
Mississippi
is
really
leading
the
nation
on
this
in
a
positive
way.
They
have
substantially
reformed
the
way
that
they
deal
with
segregated
populations
and
solitary
confinement.
They
reduced
the
solitary
population
within
one
institution
from
about
a
thousand
inmates
to
150
and
then
eventually
close
that
entire
unit.
Q
They
estimate
savings
because
of
the
the
lack
of
Staff
needed
for
some
of
those
high
risk
units
of
about
eight
million
dollars
annually
of
being
able
to
to
divert
away
from
that.
At
the
same
time,
they
reduce
violence
levels
among
that
population
by
70
percent.
Maine
did
some
similar
things
was
able
to
reduce
its
population
by
50
percent.
Q
Texas
and
New
Mexico
have
commissioned
studies
to
evaluate
how
solitary
confinement
is
used
in
their
states
and
then
finally,
Alaska
Connecticut,
Maine,
Nevada,
New,
Jersey,
New,
York,
Oklahoma,
West,
Virginia
and
Texas,
which
is
about
an
Eclectic.
A
group
of
people,
a
group
of
states,
as
you
can
get,
none
of
those
folks
will
be
voting
together.
Next
Tuesday
all
past
laws,
either
severely
limiting
or
prohibiting
the
use
of
solitary
confinement
for
juveniles.
Q
Juveniles
are
again
one
of
these
populations
that
the
the
negative
mental
health
impacts
are
are
more
substantial
than
they
are
for
the
general
population,
and
so
they
have
either
severely
limited
the
practice
or
outlawed
it
for
juveniles
altogether.
Q
So
before
I
take
any
questions.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
placing
an
inmate
in
solitary
confinement
is
the
greatest
deprivation
of
Liberty
that
the
state
can
impose
upon
an
individual
that
doesn't
make
it
inherently
wrong,
but
it
does
mean
that
it
ought
to
be
scrutinized
with
the
seriousness
that
it
deserves.
It
is
a
useful
tool
that
exists
on
a
spectrum
for
short
stays.
Q
It
could
be
a
valuable
tool,
it
can
be
an
important
tool
and
unfortunately,
it's
oftentimes
the
only
tool
that
our
Corrections
Officers
are
given,
but
expanding
those
tools
and
making
sure
that
it
doesn't
end
up
on
the
wrong
end
of
the
Spectrum
in
which
those
effects
are
negative,
both
for
long-term
Public,
Safety
and
those
inmates.
Mental
health
is
crucial
to
making
sure
that
we
not
only
treat
inmates
humanely
but
that
we
reduce
crime
in
our
communities.
So
with
that
I'll
take
any
questions.
O
Q
There
are
a
couple
of
suggestions:
I
would
make
as
it
relates
to
that.
The
first
thing
to
do
is
to
equip
Corrections
officials
with
more
tools
right
before
you
ever
have
a
conversation
about
taking
tools
away
is
to
equip
those
those
individuals
with
more
tools,
and
the
second
is
to
take
a
serious
look
at
what
long-term
solitary
confinement
looks
like
and
rolling
back.
That
is
a
process
again.
I.
Q
Don't
think
that
you
need
to
to
reduce
the
use
of
solitary
confinement,
as
you
saw
in
the
data
for
most
of
those
cases
where
you're
talking
about
several
days
at
a
time,
and
there
are
a
number
of
states,
Mississippi
Maine
among
them,
who
basically
put
parameters
up.
That
said,
shall
not
exceed
X
number
of
days
in
wide
number
of
month
period.
That
kind
of
thing
can
be
helpful
on
that
front,
but
I
think
it's
important
in
this.
Q
This
conversation
to
to
address
all
of
those
things
to
equip
correction
staff
with
more
tools
to
create
processes
by
which
individuals
who
are
placed
in
solitary
confinement
have
successful
Pathways
out
and
that
we
certainly
never
release
anybody
back
into
the
community
directly
from
solitary
confinement
and
that
we
look
at
limiting
its
long-term
use.
Not
it's
not
its
use,
generally,
not
its
use
as
an
administrative
or
or
disciplinary
tool
in
the
short
term.
But
the
the
evidence
is
pretty
clear
about
the
negative
impacts
over
the
long
term.
I
I
The
power
I
won't
get
into
the
war
stories,
but
people
have
been
left
because
quote:
I
forgot,
I
put
her
in
solitary
confinement
and
they've
died
there
and
it
happens
all
over
this
state.
So,
as
this
committee
goes
forward,
I
won't
be
here
next
year.
Hope
you
look
at
this,
but
don't
fall
prey
to
the
oh,
but
we've
got
a
review
process
in
place
because,
if
nobody's
checking
to
see
that
it's
happening,
it's
probably
not
going
to
be
happening.
Thank
you.
J
You
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
we've
talked
about
this
I've
talked
about
this
quite
a
bit
with
the
presenter
already
and.
Q
J
Like
to
ask
for
some
leeway
if
I
could
Mr
chairman,
yes,
sir,
thank
you,
we
I've
talked
a
lot
about
and
a
couple
of
things.
This
is
a
real
I,
would
say
almost
an
emotional
issue
for
me,
being
a
formal
prison,
administrator,
jail
administrator
work,
having
worked
in
a
jail
and
I
listened
to
representative
McCoy,
and
you
know
he
makes
his
living
suing
jails.
Well.
J
I
make
a
part-time
living,
defending
jails
in
federal
civil
rights
cases
as
an
expert
witness
and
there's
definitely
two
sides
to
this
story,
and
I
and
I
want
I.
Guess
it's
a
little
bit
follow-up
on
what
representative
Banta
was
talking
about.
J
You
present
an
academic
argument
and
a
good
one.
Much
of
it.
I
agree
with
there's
no
question
no
question
at
all.
The
long-term
solitary
confinement
causes
mental
illness,
although
I
would
tell
you
most.
People
that
are
put
in
solitary
confinement
are
unfortunately,
already
crazy,
but
but
there,
but
there's
no
question
about
that.
But
when
you're
in
a
Cell
Block
at
three
in
the
morning
and
you've
worked
24
hours
and
you're
all
by
yourself.
J
Limiting
options
or
and
you're
not
talking
about
someone
that
has
a
lot
of
Education
I'm
talking
about
the
employee,
now
you're,
not
talking
about
somebody
who
has
a
lot
of
Education
knows
the
law.
All
they
know
is
I.
Disagree
disagree
with
representative
McCoy.
Most
correctional
officers
are
just
trying
to
do
the
best
job
they
can
and
I.
Don't
think
any
of
us
have
ever
been
faced
with
these
kind
of
choices.
J
I
can't
think
of
a
group
of
people
more
beat
down
other
than
police
officers
than
correctional
officers
and
they're
just
trying
to
do
the
best
they
can
and,
as
you
say,
solitary
confinement
is
about
the
only
thing
left
that
they
can
do.
99
of
the
time
to
mean
maintain
the
larger
order
in
that
facility
and
to
protect
the
person.
That's
in
solitary
confinement,
you
make
an
academic
argument,
the
difference
between
punitive
and
safety
and
discipline,
but
that's
a
very
academic
argument.
J
So
as
we
move
forward,
let's
not
get
too
excited
about
all
these
horrible
things
that
are
going
on
and,
let's
think
about
the
larger
picture
of
the
people
that
we
place
in
these
situations
and
what
they
are
going
to
have
to
live
with,
because
I
don't
see
anybody
sticking
up
for
them.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
G
Thank
you,
Senator,
any
other
questions,
seeing
none.
Thank
you.
Mr
Crawford
I
appreciate
your
presentation.
Thanks
for
your
patience
as
we
switched
up
the
agenda
members,
we
have
one
more
meeting.
This
is
not
our
last
meeting.
We
have
a
meeting
in
December
on
December
15th
right
back
here
in
this
building,
so
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
there
and
I
wish
you
all
a
Happy
Thanksgiving.