Court reporters; eliminating charge for certain transcripts. Effective date.
Summary
SB230 updates Oklahoma’s court reporter statute governing transcripts in judicial proceedings. The bill keeps the basic requirement that court reporters make a full record of proceedings and transcribe requested portions, but it revises the transcript-fee language and clarifies procedures when no official court reporter is available. In those situations, a judge may order electronic recording of the proceeding, or the parties may, with judicial approval, use a freelance reporter and share the cost; any transcript prepared by the approved reporter would be treated as the official transcript.
The bill also changes transcript cost rules. It states that the fee for a certified copy of an original transcript will be set by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and provides that two copies of the original transcript must be furnished to all parties without additional charge. It preserves existing provisions requiring the requesting party to pay transcript costs initially, allowing those costs to be taxed as court costs, and it retains the indigency safeguard for criminal defendants who need a transcript for appeal but cannot afford one. The bill becomes effective November 1, 2025.
Impact
SB230 amends 20 O.S. Section 106.4, the statute governing court reporter duties, transcript preparation, and transcript fees. Its main legal effect is to update transcript-related procedures and eliminate charges for certain copies of original transcripts by requiring two copies to be provided to the parties at no additional charge, while leaving intact the broader framework for who pays for transcripts and when costs may be shifted to the court fund or taxed as costs. It also authorizes electronic recording or freelance reporters when an assigned court reporter is unavailable, which may affect trial administration, appellate record preparation, and court operations.
Sentiment
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded vote, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears procedural and administrative rather than controversial, with an apparent policy goal of reducing transcript costs and clarifying how records are made when a court reporter is unavailable.
Contention
The principal point of potential contention is the cost and allocation of transcript expenses. The bill shifts the fee structure by requiring two copies of the original transcript to be furnished without additional charge, which may be viewed favorably by litigants but could raise concerns for court reporters or court administration about compensation and workload. Another possible issue is the use of electronic recording or freelance reporters in place of an assigned court reporter, which may prompt questions about record accuracy, official transcript status, and consistency across courts. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided materials.