Bill Summary
The legislation aims to amend the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 by providing technical assistance and training to state and local courts for the improvement of constitutional and equitable enforcement of fines, fees, and monetary bail. It also seeks to collect data on the impact of fines and fees on low-income and minority communities and address the disproportionate burden of these practices on these communities. This involves amending Section 202 of the Act to establish definitions and outline the duties of the Institute, providing grants for technical assistance and training, and requiring reports and a study on the effectiveness of these grants.
Possible Impacts
1. Low-income and minority communities will benefit from the legislation through the collection of data on the impact of fines and fees, which may lead to a decrease in the disproportionate burden these communities face.
2. State and local courts will receive technical assistance and training through grants provided by the State Justice Institute, leading to improved policies and practices for the enforcement of fines, fees, and monetary bail.
3. The legislation will require grantees to report on their use of fines, fees, and monetary bail, providing transparency and accountability for these practices. This will also allow for a study to be conducted on the effectiveness of these grants, potentially leading to adjustments in the future to better address issues of poverty and racial inequalities.
[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3375 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3375
To amend the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to provide technical
assistance and training to State and local courts to improve the
constitutional and equitable enforcement of fines, fees, and monetary
bail, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 3, 2020
Mr. Schatz (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Jones, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr.
Merkley) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to provide technical
assistance and training to State and local courts to improve the
constitutional and equitable enforcement of fines, fees, and monetary
bail, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``State Justice Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly
held that the government may not incarcerate an individual
solely because of the inability of the individual to pay a fine
or fee.
(2) In 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit ruled that it is unconstitutional to imprison
people for failing to pay fines and fees without inquiring into
their ability to pay. The Fifth Circuit also ruled that it is
unconstitutional for judges to determine ability to pay when
court debts help pay court budgets.
(3) Under section 3142 of title 18, United States Code,
Federal judicial officers may not impose a financial condition
that results in the pretrial detention of an individual.
(4) In 2017, a report by United States Commission on Civil
Rights evaluated evidence that--
(A) 47 states increased their fines and fees in
recent years, including fines and fees imposed on
juveniles;
(B) in Virginia, 1 in 6 drivers had license revoked
as a result of an inability to pay court fines and
fees;
(C) in New Jersey, 42 percent of suspended drivers
lost their jobs as a result of the suspension;
(D) in the 50 cities with the highest proportion of
revenues from fines, the median size of the African-
American population in each city was greater than 5
times the median in the United States;
(E) in Washington, Latinos received higher fine
assessments than non-Latino Whites for similar
offenses;
(F) 10 counties in California detained
approximately 700 people per month for an average of 3
days as a result of a failure to pay and driving with a
suspended license; and
(G) according to the Department of Justice on the
investigation of the Ferguson Police Department,
revenue collection, not public safety, was the primary
impetus behind the collection of fines and fees.
(5) There is no clear evidence that fines and fees are an
effective crime deterrent.
(6) Defendants released from custody with no financial
penalty return to court at the same rate as defendants released
on financial bond.
(7) The burden of fines and fees is disproportionately
shouldered by low-income communities and communities of color,
which in turn aggravates and perpetuates poverty and racial
inequalities.
(8) Cities with larger Black populations fine residents
more on a per capita basis and are more reliant on fines. A 1
percent increase in a Black population is associated with a 5
percent increase in per capita revenue from fines and a 1
percent increase in share of total revenue from fines.
(9) In addition, data on the extent to which individuals
are jailed or otherwise penalized because of their inability to
pay fee-only offenses are insufficiently developed, preventing
a full picture of the pervasiveness of targeted fees, as well
as the repetitive impact on individuals from both low-income
communities and communities of color.
(10) Decisions regarding pretrial release or detention adds
financial stress to individuals unable to pay monetary bail and
the jails holding those unable to pay.
(11) Individuals gave up necessities like rent, food,
medical bills, car payments, and child support, in order to pay
down their court debt.
(12) Thirty-eight percent of people surveyed committed a
crime to pay off their court debt.
(13) Driver's licenses are often suspended automatically
when cases are transferred to private collectors and are not
restored until debts are paid in full.
(14) Thirty States continue to require payment of all legal
financial obligations before voting rights are restored,
effectively disenfranchising individuals because of an
inability to pay.
(15) Many jurisdictions across the country rely on fines
and fees as a primary revenue source.
(16) A 2019 analysis of fine revenues found that--
(A) fines are a critical source of funding, at
times accounting for more than half of all general
revenues;
(B) fines and fees account for more than 10 percent
of general fund revenues for nearly 600 jurisdictions,
and in at least 284 of those, the share exceeded 20
percent, while another 80 governments reported even
higher fines accounting for more than half of general
revenues;
(C) annual revenues exceeding $100 for every adult
resident, while 363 exceeded $200 per adult in all the
governments analyzed;
(D) the States with the highest fines and fees
revenue are Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, New York,
Oklahoma, and Texas; and
(E) jurisdictions where fines and forfeitures
accounted for more than 20 percent of general fund
revenues recorded a median household income of only
$39,594.
(17) The dependency on fines and fees creates a harmful
incentive for courts to levy fines and fees on indigent
individuals regardless of the severity of the crime.
(18) However, some jurisdictions spent more than the
revenue they raised collecting fees, therefore losing money
through this system.
(19) In some jurisdictions like New Orleans the cost of
incarcerating individuals unable to pay fines, fees, and
monetary bail exceeded the revenue generated from those
practices.
(20) Some jurisdictions in Texas and New Mexico spent 41
cents of every dollar of revenue they raise from fees and fines
on in-court hearings and jail costs alone.
(21) In almost every State and the District of Columbia,
juvenile courts impose court costs, fines, and fees on youth,
their families, or both. These costs may increase recidivism,
increase the potential of future jail or prison time,
exacerbate racial inequality, and increase the economic and
emotional distress of low-income families.
(22) Imposing fines and fees on minors and their families
is ineffective as a revenue-generating measure, often because
minors in the criminal justice system come from indigent
families. Imposing these fines and fees increases recidivism
and economic and emotional hardship on families.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to create a grant program
to provide technical assistance and training to State and local courts
to--
(1) improve the constitutional and equitable enforcement of
fines, fees, and monetary bail;
(2) improve practices regarding the use of fines and fees
and their equitable enforcement when used; and
(3) collect data to better understand the research and best
practices of State and local courts on a Federal level.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Section 202 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10701) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) `constitutionally adequate notice' means a citation
or summons that adequately informs an individual of--
``(A) the precise offense with which the individual
is charged;
``(B) the amount currently owed by the individual
and other possible penalties;
``(C) consequences for nonpayment;
``(D) the method and means for accepting payments;
``(E) the date of any court hearing;
``(F) the availability of alternate means of
payment;
``(G) the rules and procedures of the court;
``(H) the rights of the individual as a litigant;
and
``(I) whether the individual is required to appear
in court in person;
``(10) `fees'--
``(A) means monetary fees that are imposed for the
costs of fine surcharges or court administrative fees;
and
``(B) includes additional late fees, payment-plan
fees, interest added if an individual is unable to pay
a fine in its entirety, collection fees, and any
additional amounts that do not include the fine;
``(11) `fines' means monetary fines imposed for punishment;
``(12) `monetary bail' means a payment of money or purchase
of a surety bond to obtain the release from jail; and
``(13) `surcharge' means a monetary amount added to a fine
as a flat amount or a percentage.''.
SEC. 4. CONSTITUTIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF FINES AND FEES AND MONETARY BAIL.
(a) Duties of the Institute.--Section 203(b) of the State Justice
Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10702(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) assist State and local courts in the constitutional
and equitable enforcement of fines and fees.''.
(b) Purposes of Grants.--
(1) In general.--Section 206(a) of the State Justice
Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10705(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the
end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the
end and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) provide technical assistance and training to State
and local courts to develop and implement best policies and
practices for the constitutional and equitable enforcement of
fines and fees that incorporate guidance that--
``(A) courts should not incarcerate or issue an
arrest warrant for an individual for the nonpayment of
a fine or fee without first conducting an ability-to-
pay determination and establishing that the failure to
pay was intentional;
``(B) courts should consider alternatives to
incarceration for defendants who are currently unable
to pay fines and monetary bail;
``(C) courts should not condition access to a
judicial hearing on the prepayment of a fine or fee or
a promise of future payment of a fine or fee;
``(D) courts should provide constitutionally
adequate notices and counsel in cases in which a fine
or fee will be imposed;
``(E) courts should not initiate driver's license
suspension procedures for nonpayment of a fine or fee;
``(F) if courts choose to issue an arrest warrant
or suspend a driver's license as a means of coercing an
individual to pay a fine or fee owed to the court,
courts should not do so if the individual has not been
afforded constitutionally adequate procedural
protections;
``(G) courts should determine the ability to pay of
an individual at sentencing prior to determining a
constitutional and equitable fine and fee;
``(H) courts should reduce and waive fines and fees
if the court has discretion in cases where the
imposition of fines and fees would be unconstitutional
and inequitable or cause undue hardship to the
individual;
``(I) courts should avoid adopting mandatory fines
and fees for misdemeanors and traffic-related and other
low-level offenses and infractions;
``(J) courts should grant judges the authority and
discretion to modify sanctions after sentencing if the
circumstances of the defendant change, including that
the ability of the defendant to pay a fine or fee
becomes a hardship;
``(K) courts should adopt education requirements
for judges and court personnel on issues related to all
relevant constitutional and procedural principles
relating to fines and fees;
``(L) courts should not impose a fine, fee, or any
other penalty for the participation of an individual in
community service programs or other alternative
sanctions;
``(M) if courts utilize community service programs
or alternative service sanctions, best practice and
standards for those programs should be used, including
fair wage attribution, caps on number of hours
performed, and permissible activities of service;
``(N) courts should not order or extend probation
or other court-ordered supervision exclusively for the
purpose of collecting fines, fees, or costs;
``(O) courts should not charge interest on payment
plans entered into by a defendant, respondent, or
probationer; and
``(P) courts should consider the use of community
service credits such as completing community service
hours, domestic violence counseling, and drug treatment
programs, as an alternative to payments; and
``(9) provide technical assistance and training to State
and local courts to develop and implement best policies and
practices for the constitutional enforcement of monetary bail
that incorporate guidance that--
``(A) courts should not employ monetary bail or
bond practices that cause defendants to remain
incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay
for their release;
``(B) courts should not impose monetary bail--
``(i) as prepayment of anticipated fines
and fees; or
``(ii) as a method for collecting past-due
fines and fees;
``(C) courts should eliminate and prohibit the use
of monetary bail schedules;
``(D) courts should impose a monetary pretrial
release option if it is the least restrictive pretrial
release option available;
``(E) courts should only detain an individual if
there is clear and convincing evidence that the
individual poses a serious imminent risk of--
``(i) a danger to the community; or
``(ii) flight;
``(F) courts should safeguard against
unconstitutional practices by court staff and private
contractors; and
``(G) courts should not pass the costs of pretrial
release and electronic monitoring to the defendant,
probationer, or parolee, and if the court determines
that electronic monitoring is necessary, any associated
costs should belong to the jurisdiction.''.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Executive Director of the State
Justice Institute shall promulgate regulations to implement the
amendments made by paragraph (1), including--
(A) the information that shall be included in an
application for funding under section 206 of the State
Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10705); and
(B) any other requirements applicable to grantees
under that section.
(c) Records and Reports.--Section 211(a) of the State Justice
Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10710(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Institute'' and inserting ``(1) In
general.--The Institute''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following
``(2) Report on fines, fees, and monetary bail.--
``(A) In general.--The Institute shall require that
a recipient of a grant awarded for the purpose
described in paragraph (8) of section 206(a) shall
submit to the Institute an annual report that includes,
for the previous 12-month period--
``(i) the number of new admissions to jail
or prison due to failures to pay fines or fees;
``(ii) the number of new admissions to jail
or prison due to failure to appear when the
underlying offense is a failure to pay a fine
or fee;
``(iii) the number and type of alternatives
considered for defendants who are unable to pay
fees and fines;
``(iv) the number of times a judicial
hearing was contingent upon the prepayment of
fines and fees, including hearing fees if the
court deems the defendant ineligible for a fee
waiver;
``(v) the number of times constitutionally
adequate notices were provided to counsel in
cases in which a fine or fee will be imposed;
``(vi) the number of times an arrest
warrant or driver's license suspension was used
as a means of coercing an individual to pay a
fine or fee owed to the court;
``(vii) the number of additional fees
imposed by the department of motor vehicles to
get a driver's license reinstated or suspension
lifted;
``(viii) the number of times monetary bail
practices were used that caused defendants to
stay incarcerated due to their inability to pay
a fine or fee;
``(ix) the number of times voter
disenfranchisement was used as a result of an
individual's inability to pay a fine or a fee
owed to the court;
``(x) a disaggregation of the data
described in this subparagraph by race, gender,
and disability status; and
``(xi) any other additional statistical
data that the Director determines should be
collected and reported.
``(B) Report to congress.--The Institute shall
submit to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and to the
Committee on Appropriations and Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives an annual report on the
data submitted under subparagraph (A).''.
(d) Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which grants are first awarded for the purpose described in
paragraph (8) of section 206(a) of the State Justice Institute
Act of 1984, as added by subsection (b) of this section, the
Executive Director of the State Justice Institute shall conduct
a study on the effectiveness such grants on the constitutional
enforcement of targeted fines, fees, and monetary bail by State
and local courts.
(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which the Executive Director of the State Justice Institute
completes the study under paragraph (1), the Executive Director
shall submit to Congress a report on the study and any policy
recommendations that the Executive Director determines are
appropriate.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 215 of the State
Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10713) is amended, in the
first sentence by striking ``$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005,
2006, 2007, and 2008'' and inserting ``$27,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2021 through 2026, of which $20,000,000 shall be authorized to be
appropriated for grants under paragraph (8) of section 206(a)''.
<all>