The problem this state (via the landlords’ lobbying for this change) is trying to fix is the scenario in which an evicted tenant gets a sympathetic judge in a jurisdiction with a long docket backlog and basically gets to squat in the property rent-free for however long they can stretch out the litigation

Classic case of the solution being many times worse than the problem.

Also, people too poor to afford rent don’t tend to be able to afford dragging out litigation either. Lawyers are expensive and even if you manage to get pro bono representation, there’s likely to be limits.

if the landlord can’t get a non-paying tenant off the property through legal means, they will pursue non-legal means instead.

So the solution to landlords breaking the law to get rid of poor people is to make it unaffordable for poor people to contest unfair evictions?

Sounds like landlord logic…

shotgun evictions are something we’d really like to avoid.

Then take the gun away from landlords in stead of pointing one at homeless or soon to be homeless people.