Transcript Highlights:

• So under that process, we implemented a very robust A stakeholdering process that started back in January
• I hear that you have quorum for the committee. I hear that a timeline is needed.
• To establish the first committee hearing.
• Is there a process set up to get that feedback back other than this committee hearing?
• This process is still under development, and we will be mirroring current processes that are allowed

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process is currently housed in a licensure bureau, but the department is in the process of transitioning
• Who has an established process?
• So I’m glad to hear that there’s the inclusion and processes for after-school programs so that parents
• So I’m glad to hear that as continuing.
• Chairman, and that's good to hear.

Summary: The committee began with a presentation on the 520 Native American Language and Culture certificate, created to let proficient tribal language and culture speakers teach in K-12 schools without a bachelor’s degree. LESC staff, PED, and HED described the certificate’s statutory basis, the role of tribes and pueblos in setting proficiency standards, and ongoing challenges such as uneven MOAs, limited professional development, rural access barriers, data gaps, and retention concerns. PED said oversight of 520 is moving from the licensure bureau to the Indian Education Division, and HED reported that the tribal education technical assistance centers authorized in 2023 are still in procurement but are expected to be awarded in early 2026. A student, Alonzo Hughes, testified about how learning Tewa from 520-certified teachers helped him understand his culture and speak with elders, and members praised the program’s role in language revitalization and asked about funding, teacher pathways, and whether similar models exist in other states. Committee members then discussed several PED rule updates. Staff reviewed an adopted rule implementing HB 54 on AEDs and cardiac emergency response plans, including staff training requirements and staggered compliance dates, and a proposed rule for school nurse licensure under HB 195 that would create a three-tier system and align nurse pay with teacher pay. They also reviewed proposed changes to the Community Schools Act rule, including a full-time community school coordinator requirement, updated grant language, and broader coalition membership criteria; PED said the broader language would not conflict with the Martinez-Yazzie work. A proposed bilingual teacher rule would standardize coursework requirements, add trans-languaging and culturally relevant curriculum competencies, and allow Native American language certification applicants to demonstrate proficiency using tribal standards. In questions, members raised concerns about AEDs being present at athletic events, the need for the amended school nurse bill to move experienced nurses directly into higher levels, and whether the community schools rule’s broader coalition language could affect current education litigation. Members also asked about funding for 520 programs, teacher residency or cohort models, and how to support advanced language instruction and sustainability. PED said the Indian Education Fund and school budgets can support some of the work, but additional strategic funding and cross-training are needed. The committee also heard that New Mexico’s 520 system is unusually robust compared with other states, and members encouraged staff to present the model at national conferences. The meeting ended with the director’s report, which noted a flat budget request of $2,024,300, staff turnover including Natasha Davalos’s departure, and appreciation for the committee’s work before adjournment for the holidays.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, for hearing this bill.
• Then one critical hearing was held without notifying us, the hearing where his sex offender registration
• Our office requested this change because we saw that in the pre-hearing process, where much of the negotiation
• Chair, for hearing this bill.
• Is that what I'm hearing?

Bills: HB2043, HB2045, HB2046, HB2048, HB2064, HB2074, HB2126, HB2133, HB2144

Keywords: felony murder, unborn child, homicide, Arizona Revised Statutes, life imprisonment, death penalty, drive-by shooting, gun violence, firearms, felony, vehicle forfeiture, driver license revocation, drive by shooting, public safety, criminal penalties, education, funding, school districts, state aid, education reform

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard a series of bills dealing largely with sexual exploitation, homicide, reproductive issues, child support, venue changes, domestic violence service of process, probation notice, and traffic offenses. HB 2133 would require websites distributing sexual material to verify age and consent for each depicted person, including AI-generated or altered images; it drew opposition from Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice over added complexity, and support from survivors and trafficking advocates, and passed 7-1. HB 2043 would expand felony murder to include the death of an unborn child; reproductive rights groups and defense attorneys raised personhood and abortion-related concerns, while prosecutors and victims’ advocates supported it, and it passed 6-2. HB 2144 would allow child support calculations to begin during pregnancy and limit pregnancy-related orders to medical and related expenses; supporters framed it as responsibility and support for pregnant women, while opponents warned about fetal personhood and abortion-related implications, and it passed 6-2.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, great to hear.
• Okay, great to hear.
• the budget must be an all-inclusive process.
• CEQA is all about public process. This process provides environmental justice communities a voice.
• The process is absolutely wrong here.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• process.
• “Shall hear.” I mean, scheduling is different than actually having the hearing.
• And if you timely filed a brief requesting a hearing... ...requesting a hearing.
• Now, I understand that under 3.2, it says if you request a hearing, you get a hearing.

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met to approve prior minutes and then worked through draft legislation related to a possible family court study committee. The group discussed the proposed 15-member committee’s makeup in detail, including whether to add parent representation, judges, family law section members, child support, clerks of court, domestic violence advocates, and other stakeholders. The task force ultimately agreed to keep the committee at 15 members, reduce the legislative membership from eight to six, add two judges from different districts, add two family law section members with rural and urban representation, include one parent subject to a custody order, and replace the mental health professional with a clerk of court representative appointed through the trial court administrator’s office. The draft was also revised to keep domestic violence advocacy representation and to clarify that the study could consider juvenile court issues as part of the family court umbrella. The committee voted to approve the revised draft and recommend it to Legislative Management, with one recorded “no” vote from Judge Hovey after the meeting resumed. The task force then turned to a second draft dealing with requiring participation in a family transition program, which was renamed in discussion to a parenting education course. Members debated whether the bill should simply refer to an existing program like Parents Forever or instead specify broader education about the court process, parental rights, co-parenting, and related issues. Some members supported the requirement as a way to reduce conflict and improve understanding of the system, while others raised concerns about vague language, cost to parents, lack of exemptions, and whether the bill was too open-ended or potentially duplicative of other legislation. The discussion became lengthy and unresolved, with the drafter noting that more specific direction would be needed to revise the bill. The transcript cuts off before a final vote or action on this second draft is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• , no due process, no due process in these settings.
• So, there is due process.
• And there are some states that require even more due process, for example, going through a court process
• Secret hearing, secret bureaucratic hearing. I had no idea that it happened.
• So they're deprived of a proper hearing.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You are shutting people out of the process, and you're not actually hearing from them.
• process and you're not actually hearing process and you're not actually hearing from<00:21:33.440
• , but in this bill, there's no process, but in this bill, there's no public<00:31:21.360> hearing<
• The current tax cap process in state law mandates a public hearing and, of course, for towns, whether
• Our process right now is process.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the hearing.
• the hearing.
• I was just going to give a very brief overview of the hearing process.
• , which is the PSSB process.
• I was going to say, do folks need a deeper dive on the STP process and civil commitment processes?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on January 12 to continue its review of DOC classification practices, with Senator Brownsberger and Representative Hunt co-chairing. After brief discussion of the prior hearing, members said there would likely be another opportunity for additional testimony, including possible video testimony from people inside facilities. The main presentation for the day was DOC’s classification system and a UMass Chan study of whether the system predicts institutional misconduct and whether overrides affect its accuracy or create racial/ethnic bias. DOC officials described the objective point-based classification system, its history, and the role of discretionary and non-discretionary overrides. They said the system is designed to balance public safety and reintegration, with initial classification emphasizing offense history and reclassification emphasizing institutional adjustment. DOC reported that, in the current population, about 16% are classified to maximum security, 74% to medium, and 10% to lower security. They also reviewed the non-discretionary restrictions that keep people out of minimum or medium security, and said discretionary overrides are used less often than the National Institute of Corrections’ suggested ceiling and are reviewed within six months. UMass Chan researchers said their analysis used historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, focused mainly on about 7,600 male reclassification cases, and found that the scored custody level accurately predicted institutional misconduct. They said the tool performed well on standard statistical measures, but predictive accuracy declined after overrides were applied, with overlap appearing between minimum and medium groups. In a supplementary analysis, they said the loss of accuracy was driven primarily by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. They also said the study did not find evidence of racial or ethnic bias in the tool itself, and that DOC’s current system is comparatively more lenient than many other states. Members and guests raised concerns about overclassification to medium security, the low share of people in minimum, the role of civil commitment restrictions, and whether the data captured historical bias or individual cases where overrides felt subjective. DOC and UMass Chan responded that the study was group-based, not case-specific, and that minimum-security rates are hard to compare across states because Massachusetts’ prison and county systems differ structurally. The commission did not take a vote or formal action, but asked members to send follow-up data questions by the end of the week for referral to DOC and the researchers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, hearing none. Seeing none, hearing none, Emily, want to call the roll. Senator Klein.
• The process look like.
• I think it's very narrowed down to the Ag Committee folks who hear it, and then they hear it.
• And to do that, you need people that are in at the beginning of the process and at the end of that process
• It's just all part of the budget process.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you not hear me?
• Seeing and hearing no one else, we'll go ahead and hear from—do we have a witness here in opposition?
• That is an issue with this process.
• So that process is an effective process for creating competition and driving down costs. to municipal
• So that process is an effective process for creating competition and driving down costs.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 13, which would restructure the CPUC to increase legislative oversight, add legislative liaisons, require more detailed and timely reporting on rate-setting decisions, and add a public advocate member. The author and supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and geographic diversity in CPUC decision-making amid rising utility rates. Witnesses from TURN, San Joaquin County, SDG&E, and former CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch offered support or support-in-principle, while no opposition testimony was presented. Members generally praised the bill’s transparency goals, and AB 13 passed 10-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee then adopted the 2025-2026 committee rules and approved three consent items: AB 61, AB 365, and AB 406. The next bill, AB 99, would cap investor-owned utility rate increases above inflation except for specified costs such as safety, modernization, and fuel/commodity costs. The author and supporters, including a representative of the California Senior Legislature, said the bill was needed to protect ratepayers, especially seniors and low-income customers, from repeated rate hikes. Opposition came from utility labor, utilities, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who argued the bill was too simplistic, could suppress labor costs, and did not account for major cost drivers such as wildfire mitigation, mandates, and net metering. Several members supported moving the bill forward as a starting point on affordability, while others criticized it as overly blunt. AB 99 passed 11-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open. The hearing then shifted to an informational panel on strategies to reduce California transmission costs. A Public Advocates Office staffer described a growing backlog of approved-but-unbuilt transmission projects, rising transmission access charges, and long project timelines driven largely by utility pre-application and construction periods. Panelists from Net Zero California and consulting firms presented research suggesting that public financing or public-private partnership lease models could reduce transmission costs by lowering financing, tax, and capital costs, with estimated savings of up to 57% and as much as $123 billion over 40 years. PG&E’s representative said the utility is already pursuing federal loan guarantees, grants, and a public-private partnership with Citizens Energy, but warned that state ownership could create tax, wildfire-liability, and governance risks. Members asked about the CPUC’s role, the causes of delays, and whether public financing could complement existing competitive solicitation processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Outside of the hearing process, which they're not getting paid for.
• juvenile hearings.
• So we have a lot of under hearings that we have twice a month, but we have hearings every single day
• Hearings. It does not.
• So we can only see 15 individuals if there's an evidentiary hearing involved in that process per week

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m calling this committee hearing to order.
• In order to facilitate the goal of the hearing and hear as much from the public within the limits of
• Sorry, our committee hearing went long.
• Existing law ensures that teachers receive due process, including a hearing and the ability to appeal
• Educators, teachers, have a binding process with an ALJ. It's an expedited process.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee heard a long slate of education bills, beginning with SB 685 on nonpublic schools for students with disabilities. Senator Cortese and the California Department of Education described the bill as a response to the Ninth Circuit’s Laughman decision, removing the obsolete “non-sectarian” requirement while preserving secular use of public funds, nondiscrimination protections, background checks, credentialing, and incident reporting. There was no opposition, and the bill later passed 7-0 to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 1181, a pilot grant program for violence prevention, student wellness, and school safety in Central Valley and other schools. Supporters framed it as a prevention measure, while opponents from EFF, ACLU Cal Action, and community advocates warned it could increase law enforcement involvement, surveillance, and use of fusion centers; despite those concerns, it ultimately passed 5-0 to Appropriations. Members then considered SB 1067, which would create a statewide framework for annual K-2 math assessments starting in 2028-29 to identify students needing early intervention. The author and supporters argued California faces a serious math achievement crisis and that early assessment would help close gaps, while CTA and several educators and administrators sought additional clarity and amendments to ensure alignment with existing diagnostic practices and limits on high-stakes use. The bill drew broad support from educators, parents, and advocacy groups and passed 7-0 to Appropriations. SB 1107, a school shade-structure bill, would expand eligible shade projects and allow bundling through design-build to reduce costs; it received support from LAUSD, school boards, and climate-focused groups and passed 7-0. SB 1128, on take-home devices and screen time for kindergarteners, was presented as a modest first step to give families more flexibility and reduce early screen exposure, with support from early childhood advocates and no opposition, and it passed 7-0. The committee also approved SB 1048, creating a voluntary State Seal of Climate Literacy for students who complete climate coursework and hands-on projects. Supporters, including Ten Strands, students, teachers, and county offices, said it would recognize real-world climate learning and green career readiness; it passed 7-0. SB 1140, sponsored by CFT, would require LEA construction contractors to follow campus security provisions during school projects to reduce unauthorized access; it drew support from labor and gun violence prevention groups and passed 7-0. SB 930, requiring end-to-end encryption for proctoring companies handling K-12 exam data, was presented as a student privacy measure in response to cybersecurity risks and passed 6-0. Finally, SB 1083 was introduced by Senator Perez as a follow-up to last year’s Safe Learning Environments Act, with extensive committee amendments to refine the statewide misconduct data system, disclosure rules, contractor fingerprinting, and access requirements; the transcript cuts off before the bill’s full hearing and vote are shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• kept in mind um throughout this process kept in mind um throughout this process from<00:17:23.839
• :17:27.039> stated, her confirmation hearing, she stated, her confirmation hearing, she stated
• What I saw in the multiple hearings What I saw in the multiple hearings we've<00:21:44.480> had
• He's participated in over 100 contested evidentiary hearings, detention hearings, suppression hearings
• , supervised release violation hearings, and sentencing hearings.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, public testimony is closed.
• Hearing none, public testimony is closed. The hearing is closed.
• In that process, they get to an immediate jeopardy of the future, a process which is managed by an independent
• It is an informal process.
• The process, the IDR process, really had no teeth. You couldn't get anything done.

Bills: SB623, SB1266, SB1310, SB1373, SB1580, SB1952, SB2032, SB2269, SB2544, SB2653, SB2796

Keywords: pharmacist, vaccine administration, COVID-19, exclusive authority, healthcare, Medicaid, provider enrollment, credentialing, administrative burden, Texas Health and Human Services, senior retirement communities, emergency response, residential safety, contract provisions, health and safety regulations, medical staff privileges, hospital administration, healthcare regulation, Texas Health and Safety Code, consistency in privileges

Transcript Highlights:

• What would the process be?
• It is a very long process.
• Yes, um, so the adoption process is a tough process, and then as Representative Chaston laid out, so
• That is the IDR process.
• dispute resolution process.

Bills: HB 2510, HB 3589, HB 4611, HB 4655, HB 4665, HB 4666, HB 4670, HB 4700, HB 4730, HB 4798, HB 4838, HB 5136, HB 5243, HB 5302, HB 5539

Keywords: assisted living, healthcare, licensing, criminal offense, personal assistance, group home, regulation, health and safety, inspections, resident care, criminal background checks, adoption, parental rights, registry, vital statistics, disclosure, counseling, foster care, independent living, financial literacy

Transcript Highlights:

• At this particular hearing, we will hear initiative petition 25-14, H5-004, an act to improve...
• Now we will hear from the proponents.
• We are all here for a hearing on this issue, and I would hope that this hearing would be fair and would
• We are all here for a hearing on this issue and I would hope that this hearing would be fair and would
• So we know that that will go through an appeals process that is an existing process.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with committee chairs explaining the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions’ role under Article 48 and outlining the process for initiative petition 25-14, H5-004, an act to improve access to public records. The first panel consisted of subject-matter experts. William Clark of the National Conference of State Legislatures gave an overview of public records laws across states, noting that all states have some form of open-records law but that exemptions for legislatures vary widely. He discussed common legislative exemptions, legislative privilege, and court cases showing that outcomes often turn on specific constitutional and statutory language. Rebecca Murray, General Counsel for the Secretary of the Commonwealth, described Massachusetts public records trends, saying state agency requests and appeals have risen sharply since the 2017 law update, with 2025 setting a record for appeals. She said the initiative would extend the public records law to the General Court and the Governor’s Office and add exemptions specific to those offices, while also noting resource concerns from the growing volume of requests and appeals.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, so ordered. Mr.
• Hearing none, so ordered.
• If you will, a process.
• During the Sunset process... process, they identified individuals who had been voted for parole but had
• Members of the public, this is a hearing, and a hearing is where we hear what you have to say about a

Bills: SB552, SB1099, SB1124, SB1208, SB1372, SB1506, SB1667, SB1804, SB1806, SB1870, SB1936, SB1937, SB2180, SB2405, SB2569, SB2570, SB1646

Keywords: community supervision, criminal justice, illegal alien, deferred adjudication, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, SB 1099, undocumented immigrant, unauthorized immigrant, immigration status, felony sentencing enhancement, criminal penalty increase, Texas Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, affirmative finding, judgment finding, deportation, public safety, immigration enforcement, sentencing reform, felony offense

Transcript Highlights:

• It says state review process and regulations.
• And talking with them, they have their processes, their internal processes.
• You'll hear more about that.
• So the legislature, in the process we end, and it is...
• Now let's talk about the state review processes.

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear me? Representative Steeby, are you introducing yourself? I was, can you hear me? Yeah.
• There was some very productive public process on...
• yesterday and hearing tomorrow.
• And we're comfortable taking those public hearings out of the process.
• The other point of view was... ...taking those public hearings out of the process.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Witness: I will speak to the process, the regional water planning process.
• So that's a question I have, and I'd love to, at the end of the day in this hearing and future hearings
• And- Kim Nygren: -something to note with both the landowner petition process and the PGMA process is
• But I was glad to hear the chairman talk we're going to have a hearing on that.
• So there are processes. There's a process in place that you've heard about, the PGMA process.

Keywords: 1184, house, all