WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

LD 1032

An Act Regarding Court Security

132nd Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Quentin Chapman and 9 co-sponsors

If court security falls short of scheduled time by more than 2% in a month, the Judicial Branch must contract security, prioritizing local sheriffs before outside providers.

Placed in Legislative Files (DEAD.)
#contracts #courts #security
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · LD 1032

Summary of LD 1032 — An Act Regarding Court Security

Status: Dead (Placed in Legislative Files)
Introduced: March 12, 2025
Committee: Judiciary
Subject: Contracts, Courts, Security

Purpose and intent

LD 1032 would require the Judicial Branch to ensure court security coverage by contracting qualified individuals if court operations are affected by a lack of available court security for more than 2% of scheduled court time in any given month. The bill prioritizes utilizing local law enforcement resources before seeking outside contractors.

Key provisions

  • Trigger for contract: If court security shortages affect more than 2% of scheduled court time in a month, the Judicial Branch must contract for court security-related functions with qualified individuals.
  • Preference for local law enforcement: Before engaging outside contractors, the Judicial Branch must offer the security contract to the sheriff’s office in the county where the court is located.
  • Existing contract rates (for context):
    • Sheriff’s offices providing full-time court security: Judicial Branch pays about $32,143 per month.
    • Police officers hired on a per diem basis to cover marshal staffing shortages: about $600 per day.
  • Fiscal note limitation: The fiscal impact is uncertain because it depends on how often the threshold is reached and which authority would provide services. Consequently, the fiscal note does not provide a specific cost estimate for the bill.

Who is affected

  • Judicial Branch of Maine: Obligated to secure court security through contracts when local resources are insufficient.
  • County sheriff’s offices and local police departments: Potentially engaged as the initial providers of court security under the bill.
  • Courts, court staff, and litigants: Implicitly affected by how security coverage is arranged and funded.
  • General Fund (state finances): Potential cost impact if outside contracts are utilized more frequently.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • 2025-03-12: Referred to the Judiciary Committee.
  • 2025-04-09: Work session held; divided report considered.
  • 2025-06-04: Committee Amendment A (H-467) adopted; bill moved to engrossment; sent for concurrence.
  • 2025-06-04 to 2025-06-11: Legislative actions in both chambers involving acceptance/insistence votes and reports.
  • 2025-06-11: Senate Insisted on Majority Ought Not To Pass; bill ultimately placed in Legislative Files (DEAD).

Status and outcome

  • The bill did not pass and was ultimately placed in Legislative Files (DEAD) on June 11, 2025.

Notes

  • The core policy is to ensure court security continuity by leveraging sheriff and local police resources before resorting to outside contractors, with a defined threshold (2% of scheduled court time) triggering a procurement mechanism.
  • The fiscal note emphasizes uncertainty about costs, reflecting variability in how often shortages occur and which entities would provide services.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.