Gov. Kay Ivey enters the Alabama State Capitol ahead of the State of the State address speech on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Montgomery, Ala. A bill that would have allowed parole applicants, crime victims and law enforcement to participate remotely in parole hearings died after the Legislature failed to act on changes proposed by Ivey before adjourning. (Estela Muñoz for Alabama Reflector)
A bill that would have allowed parole applicants, victims and law enforcement to virtually address the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles died after lawmakers failed to act on an executive amendment from Gov. Kay Ivey on the final day of the 2026 legislative session.
SB 240, sponsored by Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road had bipartisan support and went to Ivey on April 7. However, Ivey proposed a change to the bill that Gina Maiola, a spokeswoman for Ivey, said was “necessary” in a statement on Wednesday.
“It would have changed the effective date to coincide with the fiscal year and required General Fund support to make sure this was not an unfunded mandate,” the statement said.
Ivey wanted the General Fund money to pay for technology to implement the law and change the effective date of the act from March 2027 to October 2027.
The Legislature did not act on the amendment before adjourning, killing the legislation.
A message was sent to Barfoot on Thursday seeking comment.
Parole reform
SB 240 was one of three bills that lawmakers approved that dealt with parole reform. One allows the parole board greater discretion for deciding whether to revoke parole while a second codified into law that members of the parole board must factor the education classes and employment history of someone who is incarcerated when deciding whether to grant parole for an applicant. Those other two bills passed.
“It is unfortunate, particularly given the broad support that it received from the Legislature,” said Jerome Dees, policy director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, in an interview on Thursday. “It is rare that we see in the Alabama Legislature a bill that receives that kind of support in both chambers.”
A’Niya Robinson, policy director for the ACLU of Alabama, said she was disappointed.
“It is a bipartisan bill, and this was something that groups from across the spectrum had been working on for years,” she said.
With the bill dead, the parole board will not be able to address applicants directly during their parole hearings and instead will rely on written statements submitted by the applicants, their families and any others who support them getting granted parole.
“What we have seen historically is that those documents are not always read over and thoroughly viewed,” Dees said. “There have been instances in the past of the parole board denying parole to deceased individuals, folks who have died while in custody in between their application and the actual hearing. If they are going through that process and denying those folks, not even knowing that they are no longer alive, I think that speaks to the lack of thoroughness that is sometimes given to that review process.”
For Robinson, it halted progress on criminal justice reform.
“We did see some strides this year,” she said. “We did see the passage of SB 254 and HB 86, and we also had some lively Joint Prison Oversight Committee hearings, so there is definitely an appetite for criminal justice reform in this state.”
Victims and their families will also have to drive to address the board.
“As a prosecutor, I have done that before for parole hearings,” said Rep. Matt Simpson, R-Daphne, a supporter of the bill, in an interview on Wednesday. “You have to get up at 5,6, in the morning on state time. You have to drive up here in a state vehicle, pay for gas. You would just pay for a television and internet connection. It is not that hard.”
New technology
SB 240 would have not changed the current parole process writ large but instead would have established the rules and incorporated the technology to allow participants to partake in the proceedings virtually.
Under SB 240, the parole board would have been required to allow applicants to participate in the hearing virtually, be that by phone, video conference or other similar manner.
It also would have required victims and their supporters to either hear or see the statement from the applicant and would have required the two parties separated so they do not see one another if requested.
Lawmakers had been trying to enact the same bill for the past three years but have continued to fall short of getting it enacted into law.
Cam Ward, director of the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, said the technology is available to allow for that, and that it would replicate the process used by other states.
Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, brought up the issue during the Joint Prison Oversight Committee meeting on Wednesday.
“Right now, inside the facilities, you have the technology, and if you don’t, you do what is necessary to accommodate them so they can have their virtual hearing with the judge,” he said to Charles Williams, deputy commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections at the meeting.
Williams said ADOC will accommodate a virtual hearing, if possible, in some circumstances because the technology is available at some Corrections facilities but not all. At times when it is not possible for people to speak with the judge virtually, people who are incarcerated are transported to the hearing.
England asked who provided the technology. Williams said it was the ADOC that was responsible for the technology.
England then asked if Corrections provided tablets to make it possible for people to participate in court hearings virtually. Williams said he would look into it.
“For them to kill that bill because of money when, as you heard them testify, that we have the infrastructure all over our system to provide virtual access for inmates to their judge for virtual hearings for court but then turned around and say that we do not have the money for parole, is just being disingenuous,” England said.
From Alabama Reflector Post Url: Visit
Author: Ralph Chapoco