SB3568Introduced in the Senate
DISABILITY-DECISION MAKING
Introduced by Sara Feigenholtz, District 6
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Amends the Probate Act of 1975. Requires that a guardian ad litem in a petition seeking a guardianship of an adult with alleged disability to inquire with the respondent before the hearing on whether a supported decision-making agreement is an appropriate alternative to guardianship or a limited guardianship is an appropriate alternative to plenary guardianship. Requires that the court make the same inquiry at the hearing and advise the respondent of the right to modify an adjudication of disability using a limited guardianship or termination of guardianship with a supported decision-making agreement. Amends the Supported Decision-Making Agreement Act. Allows the existence of a supported decision-making agreement to be entered into evidence for purposes other than as evidence of capacity or incapacity. Requires that a support decision-making agreement must be written in plain language and include the following: (1) a list of the areas in which both the principal requests support and the supporter agrees to provide support; (2) the supporter's agreement that the supporter is not disqualified from acting as a supporter under the Act; (3) the supporter's agreement that the supporter will complete the training required by the Act; (4) a statement that a supporter is not authorized to make a decision for the principal; and ( 5) information about how to report suspicion that an adult with a disability is being abused, neglected, or exploited by the supporter. Requires that a supported decision-making agreement must be signed by the principal and each supporter. Provides that the principal may use reasonable modifications, such as assistive technology or physical assistant, to sign the agreement. Provides that a supported decision-making agreement should be reviewed by the principal and all supporters every 2 years and, updated as needed, in the same manner as an initial supported decision-making agreement is executed. Makes other changes.
Where it stands
Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Assignments
April 17, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
SenateStage: Senate Judiciary Committee · April 15, 2026
9
Yes
0
No
0
Absent or Not Voting
9 senators recorded in this Senate vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each senator voted
| Senator | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Laura Fine | 9 | Yes |
| Robert Martwick | 10 | Yes |
| Elgie Sims | 17 | Yes |
| Michael Hastings | 19 | Yes |
| Darby Hills | 26 | Yes |
| Michael Halpin | 36 | Yes |
| Don Harmon | 39 | Yes |
| John Curran | 41 | Yes |
| Jil Tracy | 50 | Yes |
Bill history
Filed with Secretary by Sen. Sara Feigenholtz
First Reading
Referred to Assignments
Assigned to Judiciary
Do Pass Judiciary; 008-000-000
Placed on Calendar Order of 2nd Reading March 12, 2026
Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Sara Feigenholtz
Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Referred to Assignments
Second Reading
Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading April 14, 2026
Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Assignments Refers to Judiciary
Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Recommend Do Adopt Judiciary; 009-000-000
Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Assignments
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.