AN ACT to provide for a legislative management study regarding accessibility of government services for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have hearing differences.
Summary
HB 1097 directs the Legislative Management to study how accessible state and local government services are for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have hearing differences. The study is scheduled for the 2025-26 interim and is intended to examine whether government entities are meeting federal Americans with Disabilities Act communication requirements and where barriers still exist.
The study must look at how individuals receive information from and convey information to government agencies, identify practical strategies to improve communication, and gather input from a broad set of stakeholders. Those stakeholders include the Department of Labor and Human Rights, the Department of Health and Human Services, school for the deaf employees, people with hearing differences, information technology professionals, ASL interpreters, and family members of affected individuals. The Legislative Management must then report findings and any recommended legislation to the 70th Legislative Assembly.
Impact
The bill does not immediately change substantive state law or impose new mandates on agencies; instead, it creates a legislative study that could lead to future legislation. Its practical impact is to place accessibility of government communications for deaf and hard-of-hearing residents under formal review, with potential implications for state and local agencies, schools, interpreters, and technology systems if recommendations are later adopted.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received very favorably. It passed the House 87-1 and the Senate 47-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little opposition. The vote totals suggest lawmakers generally agreed that reviewing government communication accessibility for people with hearing differences is a worthwhile and noncontroversial policy step.
Contention
There is little evidence of major contention in the available record, and no committee transcript excerpts are provided. The only apparent point that could generate discussion is the scope of the study—specifically how state and local agencies should meet ADA communication obligations and what strategies or technologies should be prioritized. Any concerns would likely center on implementation costs, agency workload, or the feasibility of improving access across diverse government settings, but those concerns are not reflected in the vote results.