Expungement Bill Still Work in Progress in Trenton
A marijuana expungement bill conditionally vetoed by Gov. Phil Murphy weeks ago was scheduled for a vote in the Senate Thursday to adopt the governor's proposed changes, but the bill was held.
September 12, 2019 at 06:33 PM
5 minute read
An expungement bill that would allow individuals convicted of minor marijuana- and hashish-related offenses to wipe their records clean, conditionally vetoed by Gov. Phil Murphy weeks ago, was scheduled for a vote in the Senate Thursday to adopt the governor's proposed changes. But the bill was held for lack of legislators present during the session, and because of the disruption of upcoming state elections.
Meanwhile, prime sponsors of the original expungement measure introduced a new bill on the same day, shortly after the voting session. Sen. Sandra Bolden Cunningham, D-Hudson, Sen. M. Teresa Ruiz, D-Essex, and Senate President Steve Sweeney, D-Gloucester, said their new bill would offer a criminal justice reform plan that would improve on the governor's proposal from the conditional veto.
"We are offering a comprehensive expungement plan that builds on the proposal offered by Gov. Murphy so that we can make reforms that will produce more fairness in the criminal justice system," Sweeney said in a statement. "I want to commend the Governor for the constructive ideas he incorporated into his conditional veto. We are improving on his plan to make sure the expungement program is more expansive and covers more people."
Sweeney said the Senate is not rejecting the governor's proposal, and that "Democratic Senators welcome most of the ideas in the conditional veto, and … discussions with the Governor will continue to reach a full agreement that would preferably include the revisions contained in the new bill."
Thursday's scheduled vote on the conditionally vetoed measure, S-3205, was to adopt the recommendations of Murphy and to accordingly amend the bill.
That did not happen because too few Democratic senators showed up in Trenton for the 2 p.m. Thursday voting session. Fewer than 21 Democrats, which would have made up a majority of the 40-member chamber, were present for a vote.
Another wrinkle on why the measure was held has to do with all 80 seats in the Assembly coming up for reelection. The expungement bill conditionally vetoed by Murphy appeared unlikely to be taken up again for a vote in either house until after the Nov. 5 elections since Assembly members, who must vote on the amended bill, too, for it to pass, are out campaigning.
"It's a great piece of legislation, but you never miss an opportunity to make it better. This is a great bill, and we've worked with the governor's office and we're still working with them," said Cunningham, one of the bill's prime sponsors, just before the start of Thursday's voting session, after the measure was pulled off the board list.
It wasn't until after the voting session had ended that it was announced a new expungement bill had been introduced.
Murphy conditionally vetoed the legislation last month. The conditional veto was in part because of the burden that he said it could put on the court system and those using it, and because the current system was not able to handle mass automatic expungements right away.
In his 19-page conditional veto letter on Aug. 23, Murphy made several recommendations that he said would strengthen the legislation. He also urged adding amendments suggested by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Among his proposed changes were: a requirement that the state implement an "automated clean slate expungement system" for individuals convicted of multiple crimes who have had a clean record for at least 10 years, to remove the need for an attorney or a paperwork-heavy administrative process; and establishment of a streamlined, electronic expungement filing system that would eliminate filing fees to petition for an expungement and the current expense of sending petition notices to various law enforcement agencies.
"While laudable for its social justice aims, such a process may have the unintended and unfair effect of delaying the review of standard expungement petitions," said the governor's office in an Aug. 23 release regarding the original S-3205 measure.
S-3205 passed the Senate by a 24-12 vote on June 10. The Assembly version of the bill, A-4498, won final legislative approval in the full Assembly, 50-15-6, on the same day.
S-3205 includes a provision named after the prime sponsor, the "Cunningham Cleanser," which permits formerly incarcerated persons to petition the court after 10 years of law-abiding life to expunge their criminal record.
"Let me just say, we've taken this opportunity to look at the bill a little bit closer, and I'm sure the cleanser is definitely going to be in it no matter what," Cunningham told the Law Journal on Thursday.
A conditional veto of a bill by the governor triggers a two-step process. The measure gets kicked back to the chamber from which it originated for amendments. It would be subject to two votes in that chamber: a vote to adopt the governor's proposed amendments, and then a vote to pass the measure again. The measure would then proceed to the other chamber for a vote, after which it would return to the governor's desk.
In the case of S-3205, after Thursday, there were no Assembly or Senate voting sessions scheduled until after the Nov. 5 elections, meaning the Assembly's vote would not come until then, even if the Senate passed the amended version Thursday.
A Senate Democratic aide who asked not to be named said the expungement bill "is controversial, and nothing controversial will be voted on until after the Nov. 5 elections."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Trending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250