Pennsylvania House Bill HB57

Pennsylvania 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/7/23
• Refer: 3/7/23

Caption

In powers and duties, providing for application form for licenses, certificates, registrations and permits.

Impact

The implementation of HB57 would directly influence the way licensing boards and commissions handle applications, particularly by mandating that provisions be made for individuals who prefer or require a paper format. This change is expected to enhance accessibility for those who may have concerns about technology or who adhere to certain beliefs that discourage the use of electronic forms. By ensuring that an alternative is available, the bill seeks to uphold the rights of individuals and align the application process with broader considerations of personal freedom and choice.

Summary

House Bill 57 is aimed at amending Title 63 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, specifically focusing on the powers and duties related to the application process for licenses, certificates, registrations, and permits. The key feature of this bill is the requirement for the commissioner or a designated representative to ensure that a paper application form is available for individuals who object to submitting electronic applications due to personal or religious convictions. This aims to provide an alternative means of application for those who may feel excluded by an exclusively digital process.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment regarding HB57 appears to be supportive, particularly among stakeholders advocating for personal rights and accessibility. The bill is likely seen as a positive step in promoting inclusiveness within state licensing processes. However, there may also be voices of concern regarding the potential administrative burden that providing dual application processes could create for licensing boards, which some might view as an unnecessary complication in streamlining government operations.

Contention

While the bill seems straightforward in its intentions, there could be points of contention particularly around the implications of maintaining a dual application process. Some legislators or regulatory bodies may argue that the move could result in inefficiencies or increased costs. Others might express concerns about the clarity of the criteria under which individuals can claim a religious or personal conviction exception. The bill's passage would require careful consideration of how to implement these provisions in a way that satisfies both legal requirements and efficient governance.