The Clean Slate Kentucky Act proposes automatic expungement for eligible misdemeanors and felony convictions.

Advocates say the bill will change lives and boost the economy.

But opponents say it's taking authority out of the hands of judges.

Our Mackenzie Spang brings us the debate on Senate Bill 290.

Brittney Bogart has been involved with the justice system since she was a child.

Now she's a city council member, the first formally justice involved elected official in the state.

She says getting her record expunged changed her life.

It allowed me to work, to go back to school, to provide for my children and to serve my community.

Since then, I've helped more than 400 people in western Kentucky clear their records.

And I can tell you, the biggest barrier isn't willingness to change.

It's the system.

Senate Bill 290 would allow a person's criminal record to be cleared without a formal court petition, if they have been crime free for at least five years.

The bill only applies to low level misdemeanors and class D felonies.

Supporters say automatic expungement would be a workforce booster.

And we find that with expungement, actually we see a 10% increase in their earnings or 10% increase in their workforce participation and an earnings increase on, on average, of about $6,000.

We looked at the data and saw that about 1.1 million adults in Kentucky have some kind of record, and if even only 10% of those were to get their, eligible for clean slate and to have their record expunged.

That's nearly 220 million and increased wages and the associate tax revenue to go along with it.

Opponents of the bill say the current expungement system, which requires a petition and court appearance, keeps offenders accountable and gives judges the ability to assess what's right for the community.

It does give accountability to defendants to basically say, if you want to have your record expunged, you do have to go in front of a court.

You do have to let the judge who signed the order of conviction, who signed the order of judgment, the right to decide whether in fact, she wants she or he wants to put their signature on an expungement.

So what it does is it bypasses me entirely.

It gives me no discretion whatsoever.

It's making me sign my name without having the ability to decide whether I think it's appropriate for the community.

The danger to the community is completely wiped away.

Senate Bill 290 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, but several lawmakers who voted for the bill agreed that the issue of judges signing a document that they don't agree with should be addressed.

Republican Senator Danny Carroll was the only no vote on the measure, saying he's concerned with victims and repeat offenders.

It seems that all the conversations in Frankfort these days are about making offenders whole, and I don't hear a whole lot about victims anymore.

I agree with one, two, maybe three chances.

And I think people are given those chances through the court system.

Time and time again.

But the process is in place where the judges do have the discretion.

And I struggle with the automatic, aspect of this.

If passed, Senate Bill 290 would not go into effect until 2032 to give time to the administrative office of the courts to adjust to an electronic filing system being set up in other pieces of legislation.

For Kentucky edition, I'm McKenzie Spink.