House Judiciary Committee - February 19, 2026 [Source] Translate

The meeting began with the Vice Chair leading the discussion. The agenda was modified to include HB 208, presented by Representative Watkins, which addresses parentage amendments. Watkins shared a personal story about a constituent whose son-in-law was unexpectedly identified as a father, raising potential child support issues. The bill proposes to amend laws regarding parentage adjudication, allowing proceedings to start before a child turns 18, or up to 26 for children born after May 6, 2026. It aims to limit past support liability to one year instead of four, aligning with neighboring states' practices. Committee members discussed the implications of the bill, focusing on fathers' responsibilities and the circumstances under which child support claims can arise. Concerns were raised about fathers being unaware of their parental status and the consequences of child support obligations. After the discussion, a motion to recommend HB 208 to the House floor failed with a vote of four to six. The committee then addressed HB 503, Real Estate Modifications, presented by Representative Lubbe, who proposed sending the bill for interim study to explore ways to reduce homebuyer costs, particularly regarding title insurance and mortgage expenses. This motion passed unanimously. Next, Representative Clancy presented HB 331, Criminal Offenses Modifications, which aims to clarify the definition of terrorism related to unlawful detention during protests and ensure punishments fit the severity of crimes, especially against public officials. The bill includes provisions for designated foreign terrorist organizations and addresses the concealment of identity while committing offenses. The discussion emphasized the need for legal definitions to align with the severity of actions. Concerns were raised about the bill potentially infringing on First Amendment rights, particularly regarding protests. The bill defines an offense as wearing a mask or disguise to conceal identity while committing a crime, suggesting additional penalties for such actions. It also addresses unlawful deprivation of religious rights, stating that individuals preventing access to places of worship could face legal consequences. Committee members sought clarification on the bill's provisions, including the distinction between lawful protests and unlawful obstructions. Public comments included concerns about the bill's implications for civil liberties and the treatment of protesters. A physician, Taj Becker, criticized the vague terminology in the bill and suggested amendments to protect citizens' rights. The committee then adopted a substitute version of HB 331. Representative Acton supported the bill, emphasizing the need to balance public safety with the right to protest. Other representatives discussed the importance of clear language to avoid broad interpretations. Representative Lou Miller opposed the bill, citing concerns about expanding the definition of terrorism and potential misuse against differing political views. A roll call vote on the motion to recommend the bill favorably passed with a vote of seven to two. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn.