►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Judiciary (1/26/22)
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
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
the
meeting
of
the
judiciary
committee.
The
meeting
is
hereby
called
to
order.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll
representative.
E
A
Here
in
the
room
we
do
have
a
quorum
as
always
before
we
begin,
I
would
caution
everyone
to
put
their
phone
on
airplane
mode,
because
the
signals
sometimes
interferes
with
our
equipment,
which
is
very
sensitive,
and
just
being
mindful
of
that
today,
we
actually
initially
had
two
bills
for
consideration,
one
we
have
passed
over
for
this
moment
and
you
may
be
attuned
to
that
in
the
future.
So
with
that,
we
have
one
bill
for
consideration
that
is
house
bill,
230
sponsored
by
representative
mead,
who
is
here
and
ready
to
present.
H
A
H
All
right,
thank
you.
All
very
much
house
bill
230
affirms
legislative
authority
in
the
separation
of
powers
by
making
it
clear
that
the
general
assembly
may
defend
the
constitutionality
of
the
laws
that
we
pass,
but
we
may
not
be
hauled
into
court
every
time.
Someone
doesn't
like
the
law
that
has
been
passed.
Section
1
allows
for
intervention
on
behalf
of
the
bodies.
H
Section
2
makes
it
clear
that
there
is
no
waiver
of
immunity
or
privilege,
and
section
3
reaffirms
that
in
all
matters,
legislative,
muni
and
privilege
shall
be
applied
interpreted
as
broadly
as
the
constitution
allows
and
shall
not
be
waived.
Unless
that
waiver
is
specific
and
explicit,
it's
necessary
to
make
it
clear
that
leadership
of
each
house
has
standing
to
intervene
without
any
waiver
of
legislative
immunity
or
legislative
privilege
on
behalf
of
their
respective
chambers
or
together
for
the
general
assembly
as
a
whole.
H
As
currently
written.
It
allows
leadership
only
to
intervene
in
an
existing
court
challenge,
challenging
the
constitutionality
or
validity
of
any
legislative
act
statute,
executive
order,
administrative
regulation
or
order
of
any
executive
agents,
because
the
general
assembly
is
not
in
continuous
session.
It
has
been
unclear
whether
the
general
assembly
is
entitled
to
any
voice
at
all
during
the
interim
and
litigation,
so
this
will
clarify
that
we
may
have
a
voice,
but
section
2
ensures
that
no
legislators,
immunity
is
waived
and
no
legislative
privilege
is
waived.
H
And
finally,
in
section
3,
it
affirms
the
ancient
doctrine
and
legislative
media
and
privilege
contained
in
our
constitution
in
section
43.
The
speech
and
debate
clause,
the
doctrine
of
legislative
immunity
and
the
declaratory
judgment
are
act
are
very
clear
that
legislators
and
legislative
bodies
are
immune
from
suit,
even
if
the
suit
for
judgment
requests
no
damages
or
other
relief
and
shall
not
be
named
as
defendants
in
any
action
seeking
to
declare
legislation
unconstitutional.
G
H
G
H
Many
times
when
the
constitutionality
of
these
laws
are
challenged,
there
may
not
be
someone
to
to
challenge
the
constitution
now.
The
ag
in
previous
years
may
not
have
wanted
to
challenge
it,
but
this
gives
the
opportunity
for
the
general
assembly
to
uphold
and
defend
the
constitutionality
of
any
of
the
bills
that
we
pass
when
we
feel
it's
necessary.
We
represent
the
people,
we're
the
voice
of
the
people.
We
should
be
standing
up
for
the
people
in
the
court
and
that's
the
reason
for.
H
F
Well,
representative
also
say
it:
it's
often
that
it's,
the
executive
branch
challenging
the
constitutionality
of
an
act,
so
the
executive
branch
is
not
there
to
defend
it.
So
this
is
this
bill
just
allows
the
general
assembly,
through
its
officers,
to
to
defend
the
accident
passes
and
because
we're
not
in
continuous
session.
This
section
one
identifies
the
constitutional
officers
who
do
exist
when
we're
not
in
session
as
having
the
right
to
intervene.
G
C
Thank
you
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
presenting
this
bill.
I
just
had
a
question
about
the
impact
of
this
legislation
on
open
records
and
whether
or
not
there
would
be
any
and
also
with
regard
to
questions
of
first
amendment
protected
speech.
Whether
that
goes
is
addressed
or
impacted
with
this
at
all,
because
you're
talking
about
constitutionality
of
these
matters.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
want
to
thank
the
speaker
for
bringing
this
this
bill.
This
is
an
important
step
in
the
evolution
of
the
legislative
independence.
I
wouldn't
note
a
couple
cases.
I
think
that
are
really
important
roles
versus
council,
which
is
something
that
most
people
are
very
proud
of
in
commonwealth
of
kentucky.
D
Two
of
the
two
of
the
parties
in
that
case
were
the
speaker
of
the
house
and
the
president
of
the
senate,
and
that
case
led
to
historic
changes
in
the
way
we
fund
our
education
system
throughout
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky
powell
versus
mccormick,
which
is
a
case
from
the
federal
courts
talks
about
the
legislative
immunity.
D
That's
one
of
the
provisions
of
this
of
this
bill,
which
is
to
say
that
you
know
it's
important,
that
we
have
legislative
immunity
and
that
is
recognized
in
kentucky
in
a
case
called
baker
versus
fletcher,
where
the
legislature
was
sued
and
and
the
kentucky
supreme
court
noted
that
it,
you
know,
upheld
the
legislative
immunity
portion,
which
I
think
is
section
two
and
three
of
your
bill.
D
A
perfect
example
is
one
that's
going
on
right
now,
where
a
member
of
the
general
assembly
and
five
citizens
and
the
kentucky
democratic
party
have
filed
a
lawsuit
against
the
board
of
elections
and
the
secretary
of
state
and
that's
fine.
But
the
real
party
in
interest
in
that
claim
is
the
legislature.
And
so,
if
the
speaker
of
the
house
and
if
the
president
of
the
senate
or
one
of
the
other
decide
to
intervene,
that's
an
important
step
that
should
be
allowed
to
be
taken.
D
I
think
it's
one
that
is
is
quite
frankly
non-controversial,
and
so
I
look
forward
to
voting
for
this
bill
and
and
hope
others
will
stand
up
for
the
the
independence
of
the
legislature
as
well.
Imagine
if
this
had
been
brought
a
number
of
years
ago
when
we
might
have
not
agreed
with
the
particular
governor,
if
we
were
republican
or
democrat,
it's
important
that
the
legislature
have
the
right
to
intervene.
If
it
were
fletcher,
governor
stumble
could
have
intervened.
If
it
were
obviously
a
democrat
governor,
the
republican
can
intervene.
D
This
is
a
this
is
a
separations
of
powers.
Issue
that
I
think
it
would
already
be
recognized
in
the
courts,
but
it's
important
that
we
as
a
legislature
codify
in
our
statutes.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
have
a
question
and
maybe
a
comment.
I
I
think
this
bill
is
really
interesting,
because
I've
been
teaching
a
class
at
u
of
l
law
school
about
legislation
and
statutory
interpretation,
and
this
is
sort
of
the
mix
of
the
two
in
in
that
class.
We
talk
a
lot
about
how
to
find
legislative
intent
and
I
think
about
that.
A
lot.
I
As
you
know,
one
of
138
members
of
the
general
assembly
trying
to
find
legislative
intent
is
really
really
difficult
because
we
all
have
different
opinions
and
if
you
asked
us
why
we
voted
for
or
against
a
particular
piece
of
legislation,
you
would
get
138
different
answers.
So
a
court
trying
to
find
one
answer
is
is
really
difficult,
and
I
tell
you
that
to
ask
this
question.
I
You
know
the
especially
right
now,
the
senate
and
the
speaker,
the
senate,
president
and
speaker
of
the
house,
are
all
of
the
same
party.
So
how
would
minority
concerns
and
minority
voices
in
litigation
be
represented?
So
if
you
know,
if,
if
a
particular
party
voted
one
way
on
a
bill
and
the
minority
party
voted
the
other
way-
and
there
were-
you
know
legitimate
concerns
that
that
are
probably
the
same
concerns
that
are
brought
up
in
the
litigation.
H
Well
again,
in
this
bill,
we're
not
really
we're
not
really
focusing
on
legislative
intent,
we're
focusing
focusing
on
the
constitutionality
of
a
bill,
and
so
the
speaker
and
the
president
represent
the
entire
body.
So
they
will.
They
should
be
operating
in
a
in
a
manner
that
is
bipartisan
and
for
the
good
of
the
commonwealth
and
and
therefore
it
wouldn't
matter
who
the
speaker
is
what
party
they're
a
part
of
and
and
of
course,
as
as
representatives
said,
this
is
this
is
for
years
down
the
road.
H
It
could
be
someone
else
of
another
party
that
the
speaker
or
the
president
at
that
time,
so
we're
that
again,
that
should
not
matter.
It
should
be
what's
the
best
for
the
commonwealth
and
operating
in
that
manner.
I
I
I
have
a
little
bit
of
a
concern
about
that
language.
Just
it
gets
into
a
little
bit
to
me
about
telling
courts
how
to
interpret
something
and
getting
to
a
little
bit
of
separation
of
powers.
Concerns
I'm
happy
to
talk
to
you
more
about
that
and
see
if
there's
a
way
to
to
clarify
that
a
little
bit
better,
but
that's
a
road
I'm
not
really
interested
in
going
down.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
answering
my
first
question.
E
Quick
follow-up.
I
thank
you,
mr
chair,
a
quick
follow-up
on
representative
cantrell's
question
about
the
section
two
about
legislative
immunity.
Does
this
conflict
in
any
part
with
existing?
Not
anything
the
legislature
might
seek
to
modify
during
the
session,
but
with
existing
interpretation
of
the
kentucky
open
records
law
as
written
or
as
interpreted
by
the
courts?
Currently.
E
So
just
to
follow
up.
Does
this
expand
that
in
any
way
that
it
might
create
a
conflict.
F
Sorry,
I
don't
see
how
it
would
create
a
conflict.
Does
it
expand
the
independence
of
the
the
legislature
and
probably
provide
more
protection
for
its
records
it?
It
would
if
the
open
records
act
applied.
So
so
guess,
but
it
like.
For
example,
your
constituents
may
communicate
with
you,
and-
and
this
should
be
intended
to
say
that
that
your
communications
with
your
constituents
with
your
colleagues
etc,
are
covered
by
legislative
privilege
and
not
can't
be
invaded
by
the
courts.
D
Mr
chairman,
I
I
don't
think-
and
I
think
I
agree
with
with
the
colloquy
we
just
had-
it-
does
not
expand
the
legislative
privilege
in
any
way
legislative
privilege
was
it
was
was
ex,
is
in
the
constitution.
The
bill
we
passed,
I
think
a
couple
years
ago,
maybe
was
last
year,
talked
about
the
open
records
act
as
it
applies
to
the
legislature
by
the
way
the
open
records
act
hasn't
applied
to
the
court
system
for
a
number
of
years.
D
There's
two
cases
in
ray
auditor
and
ex
parte
farley,
where
the
kentucky
supreme
court
said
that
the
open
records
act
did
not
apply
to
the
judiciary,
so
this
doesn't
affect
that.
What
this,
I
think
would
do
is
in
the
context
of
a
lawsuit,
if
the
speaker
and
or
the
president
decided
to
intervene
that
this
in
no
way
waives
the
legislative
privilege
that
is
already
on
the
books.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
G
I
Man
just
explain
my
vote
really
briefly,
I'm
gonna
pass.
I
might
cast
a
pass
vote
and
just
explain
briefly.
I
think
it's
clear
for
my
questions.
I
have
a
little
bit
of
mixed
feelings
about
this.
I
understand
that
the
intent
and-
and
I
think
it
could
be
helpful
in
litigation
and
statutory
interpretation
going
forward,
but
I
do
have
some
concerns
and
I'm
gonna
pass
today.
G
A
G
C
G
C
E
I'm
gonna
pass
for
today
and
I
have
a
few
questions
about.
It
so
reserve
the
right
to
change
that
on
the
floor.
E
G
F
A
A
Thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
we
we
will
for
the
judiciary
committee
purposes
we
passed
over
the
other
bill
that
was
going
to
be
heard.
Today
we
will.
We
do
have
two
other
bills
that
have
been
referred
to
us
we're
in
discussions
as
to
what
the
agenda
will
be
for
the
following
week.
I
will
let
you
know
as
soon
as
I
know,
but
we
did
have
house
bill.
48
and
house
bill.
154
have
been
referred
to
this
committee,
so
if
you
have
the
time,
please
take
the
time.
A
If
you
have
not,
if
you
don't
have
the
time,
please
take
the
time
to
read
them
and
be
prepared
in
case
those
are
on
the
agenda
for
next
week
with
that,
having
no
other
business
we'll
stand
adjourned.
Thank
you.