Transcript Highlights:

• their legal rights.
• SDM addresses the process. Most of us already use it to make decisions.
• Guardianship cost us thousands of dollars in legal fees.
• She needs patience and time to process.
• We need a supported revocation process and stronger court backstops.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities held a hybrid hearing focused largely on DDS-related bills, with chairs Kennedy and Livingstone outlining strict time limits, accessibility procedures, and a 5 p.m. stop to preserve ASL and CART services. The committee heard testimony on several measures, including a bill from Sen. Mike Moore to create a centralized electronic education records system for students in out-of-home placements, which supporters said would improve communication, preserve IEP continuity, and reduce missed services. Paul DePaulo also testified in support, describing the educational and justice-system harms that can follow when foster youth do not receive coordinated records and supports. A major portion of the hearing centered on H. 242/S. 149, a bill to enhance standards of care for people with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Rep. Garballey and many advocates, parents, clinicians, and disability leaders supported the bill, saying it would require provider training, statewide standards, and better emergency department practices to reduce misdiagnosis, trauma, and unnecessary ER boarding. Testimony described sensory and communication barriers in medical settings, lack of provider training, and the need for continuing education and license-related requirements. Related testimony also supported H. 213/S. 111, which would improve access to behavioral health services for children involved with state agencies by requiring better discharge planning, coordination with hospitals and agencies, and more appropriate post-hospital placements. The committee also heard strong support for H. 256/S. 102, requiring universal changing stations in public buildings, from parents, advocates, and the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council. Witnesses said current restroom accommodations often force unsafe or undignified changes on floors, in cars, or in inaccessible spaces, and argued the cost of adding changing stations to new or renovated buildings would be modest compared with the benefits to dignity, safety, and community access. Another major topic was H. 261/S. 155 on supported decision-making agreements for certain adults, which supporters described as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship that preserves autonomy while providing trusted support. Finally, testimony on Tommy’s bill (S. 168/H. 282) described a preventable death after a hospital discharge and urged clearer communication and training requirements for residential staff handling life-sustaining equipment; the bill was presented as a safeguard for people with disabilities relying on such equipment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Restricting law enforcement to act as ICE agents and funding legal support.
• support for legal representation, Legislature as a whole to provide support for legal, continuing support
• , of their legal status.
• It is a public safety bill, a due process bill, a human dignity bill.
• As an attorney, due process is at the heart of everything I do.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the Safe Communities Act, House 2580 and Senate 1681, along with related proposals to limit local and state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, prohibit 287(g) agreements, and expand legal defense for immigrants. Most testimony came from advocates, attorneys, labor leaders, health care professionals, educators, and community members who argued that fear of ICE discourages immigrants from reporting crimes, seeking medical care, attending school, or cooperating with courts, and that a clear statewide policy would improve public safety, due process, and trust in institutions. Several speakers described personal or client experiences involving domestic violence, trafficking, workplace abuse, or children affected by deportation, and many emphasized economic harms to workers, families, and small businesses. Health care witnesses said immigration enforcement is causing patients to miss appointments, avoid emergency rooms, and delay preventive care, with resulting public health consequences. Labor and education representatives said immigrant workers and students are increasingly fearful, and that the state should not allow local police to act as ICE agents or enter 287(g) agreements. ACLU and coalition witnesses cited examples they said showed existing or recent collaboration between local agencies and ICE, including courthouse alerts, vehicle stops, and use of municipal spaces, while also arguing that the bill would still allow cooperation on criminal matters and public safety emergencies. One witness opposed the bill, arguing that serious criminal offenders should be deported and defending ICE’s role. Committee members asked several questions about whether the harms described were widespread or anecdotal, and about the distinction between assisting ICE in civil immigration arrests versus responding to violent or public safety emergencies. Witnesses said the bill was aimed at civil immigration enforcement, not criminal investigations or emergency situations. At the end of the hearing, a committee member requested a study on immigration enforcement’s effect on emergency room wait times, and the committee then adjourned without taking a vote on the legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an activity that's legal in the state under the old language, but may not be legal elsewhere.
• But so we don't mind sharing this data if somebody's investigating legal cannabis. investigating legal
• we've legalized. of legal marijuana was a perfect example or psychedelic mushrooms that we've legalized
• What Senate Bill 104 does is now add in a process for the governor.
• goes—the governor starts the process, and only the governor.

Bills: SB40 , SB104 , SB136 , SB164

Committee: Senate Senate Judiciary

Keywords: SB40, Driver Privacy and Safety Act, automated license plate reader, ALPR, license plate reader, vehicle surveillance, privacy, data sharing, law enforcement data, immigration enforcement, reproductive health care, gender-affirming care, civil liberties, surveillance, public records, Inspection of Public Records Act, New Mexico State Police, Department of Public Safety, data sovereignty, vehicle tracking

Transcript Highlights:

• process unfolds.
• During that time, individuals accused of misconduct... ...or legal process unfolds.
• The second thing is to improve our processes. The second thing is to improve our processes.
• and to guide our clients through this process.
• There is a process on the DHSMV side under which...

Committee: Senate Ethics and Elections

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to civil legal aid for homeless youth and child welfare.
• This provides pro bono legal funding for families to help them get their financial and legal affairs
• This provides pro bono legal funding for families to help them get their financial and legal affairs
• state funding for legal services for crime survivors.
• them recover and obtain legally enforceable protections.

Summary: The Senate Ways and Means Committee heard an overview from OFM Director Katie Chapman See on Governor Ferguson’s 2026 supplemental budget proposal. She said the budget was built in response to higher caseloads and inflation, a roughly $390 million revenue forecast drop, new federal costs tied to H.R. 1, and a relatively small ending fund balance. The proposal would increase near general fund spending by about $1.1 billion and solve an estimated $2.3 billion two-year gap through about $800 million in reductions, revenue shifts and tax preference changes, use of other funds, and about $1 billion from the budget stabilization account. She also noted the budget is balanced over two years but not fully over four years under the state’s outlook rules. Chapman See highlighted reductions in Working Connections Child Care, including a soft cap on enrollment and holding subsidy rates at the 75th percentile, delays to long-term care and developmental disability-related changes, and across-the-board reductions to higher education and administrative spending. She also described investments in wildfire suppression and preparedness, affordability programs like utility rebates and home energy assistance, housing-related planning and permitting support, One Washington IT replacement, behavioral health workforce programs, and continued support for some K-12 initiatives such as ninth grade success and homeless student stability. In response to questions, she said some proposed cuts were based on the governor’s subjective judgment about what was critically necessary, that current child care enrollees would not be cut off immediately, and that the budget would maintain services for about 500 highest-acuity Medicaid clients who lost eligibility under federal changes. Public testimony was largely critical of the proposed cuts in K-12, early learning, and higher education. School officials, educators, nurses, and advocacy groups opposed reductions to Transition to Kindergarten, Local Effort Assistance, Running Start, MSOC, school leadership and support grants, and higher education funding, arguing the cuts would worsen existing funding gaps and harm student outcomes. Several witnesses supported restoring or maintaining funding for ninth grade success, Treehouse’s foster youth graduation program, homeless student stability, and Science on Wheels. In early learning, child care providers and advocates opposed the Working Connections cap and subsidy-rate reduction, warning it would reduce access and destabilize providers. In higher education, campus leaders and labor representatives opposed across-the-board cuts and fund shifts, while some institutions and advocates supported targeted investments such as behavioral health workforce programs and DigiPen aid restoration. In human services, Planned Parenthood advocates praised restored abortion access funding and Medicaid reimbursements. The committee took no votes or final action in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• or any of the legal concerns surrounding that.
• with anybody about legal action after this.
• with anybody about legal action after this.
• And so I would expect a legal challenge to a decision...
• And it seems to me, if I remember that process right, that process seemed to go well.

Committee: Joint Legislative Management

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , right, a formal court process, right?
• But as you can see in these props here, if you were to a landfill, that's what you see: a legally processed
• But as you can see in these props here, if you were to a landfill, that's what you see: a legally processed
• Are seen in legal landfills.
• AB 1958 also makes clear that no stage of the criminal legal process, especially plea negotiations, is

Committee: House Public Safety

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Many people are doing the work to get status and trying to go through the legal processes, but changes
• We are beginning the process.
• We are beginning the process.
• We are beginning the process.
• We are beginning the process.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety held an informational briefing on findings from the deportation data project and possible policy responses to increased federal immigration enforcement in Hawaii. In opening remarks, the chair said the committee was concerned about changing federal executive orders, policies, and enforcement actions, and framed the issue as one involving due process and public safety. The chair and presenters described reports of ICE activity on multiple islands, including raids, courthouse presence, and fear in immigrant communities, and said the committee was considering whether state policies should be advanced more quickly. Mandy Fernandez of the ACLU of Hawaii presented updated deportation data and argued that increased immigration enforcement is creating fear, reducing crime reporting, and potentially making state and local agencies extensions of the federal immigration agenda if they accept federal funding with conditions. She said the deportation data project, housed at UC Berkeley Law with UCLA’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, uses FOIA requests and its latest data runs through late July 2025. She reported 153 ICE arrests in Hawaii from January through July 2025, up from 41 in the same period in 2024; 96 removals, up from 15; a federal detention center average daily population of 91 in June 2025 versus 31 in June 2024; and 111 ICE detainers issued in Hawaii from September 2023 through July 2025, with 49 issued in 2025. She also cited an immigration court backlog of 1,144 pending cases as of August 2025 and noted that about one in five Hawaii residents were born outside the United States. Haley Chang of the Office of the Public Defender said her office is seeing a marked increase in ICE presence around courthouses and more ICE contacts with clients, including reports of people being detained after court appearances or while on supervision. She emphasized that the office is not an immigration law office and that much of its information is anecdotal, but said the pattern appears new compared with prior years. In response to committee questions, she explained that ICE detainers are requests, not judicial warrants, and said local law enforcement is generally not required to honor them unless accompanied by a judicial warrant or other legal authority. She also said the public defender’s office had not yet seen new criminal charges arise solely from an ICE detention or failure to appear tied to immigration enforcement, though cases could be affected if defendants are removed from the criminal process.

Transcript Highlights:

• If they're going to exist in a legal setting, I think they should.
• If they're going to exist in a legal setting, I think they should be regulated.
• . what legal machines can be without the rest of this mess.
• How do I know if they're legal or not?
• “Get a sticker that says it’s legal and it isn’t.

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the prior day’s journal by a 134-0 roll call vote, and then moved through a series of introductions recognizing guests and student groups at the Capitol, including Turning Point USA chapters, CASA volunteers and staff, JAG students, university groups, nursing students, and several legislative interns. The chamber also handled a point of order about an unauthorized prop in the room, which was removed. The first major bill taken up was House Bill 1766, dealing with personal property tax treatment and new construction calculations. Supporters argued it would treat personal property more like real estate under Hancock-style limits and provide fairness to taxpayers, while opponents warned it could reduce revenue for taxing districts. After debate, the House passed HB 1766 by a vote of 94-50. The House then considered House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2989, a major gaming measure that would criminalize illegal gaming machines, create a regulated framework for video lottery terminals, give local governments an opt-out, and expand enforcement authority for the Attorney General and prosecutors. Members debated whether the bill was a needed enforcement tool or an inappropriate expansion of gambling, with concerns raised about addiction, local control, revenue distribution, and whether the bill should have gone to Fiscal Review. A motion to refer the bill to Fiscal Review failed 69-44, and the bill itself passed 83-66 with one present. The chamber next took up House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2014, the supplemental appropriations bill. The sponsor said it provided just over $3 billion in additional authority, including tax refund authority, disaster relief, St. Louis tornado recovery funding, and major MoDOT funding, along with other smaller items. Members from both parties supported the bill, while also noting concerns about reliance on supplementals and the need to budget more accurately in the future. The House adopted an amendment reducing some general revenue authority, then adopted the bill and perfected and printed it. The meeting ended with announcements, including a notice that the Super Committee on Tourism would meet immediately in Hearing Room 6.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, I don't, I think the process, we've gone through due process. The bill was filed.
• I don't, I think the process, we've gone through due process. The bill was filed.
• With that, you mentioned earlier about the legality that you believe your bill is legal.
• And we did the whole process. And in that process, the winner.
• And so it's legal processes, and it's not just pushing the paper and the person that has to push the

Bills: SB256

Committee: House Judiciary

Keywords: court consolidation, judicial administrative, Orleans Parish, civil district court, criminal district court, court clerk, judicial funding, 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's simply a limited appeal process.
• The payment process.
• And that's exactly how that process works.
• the due process clause itself allows.
• In your legal opinion, what is reputational risk?

Committee: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Talk a little bit about what that process was like.
• So, Todd Kaplan, Greater Boston Legal Services, apologize.
• The problem is they're not legal.
• The supposed legal organization that locked all those legal steps were these could scrutinize trust for
• Neither of them ever legally existed.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on several bills focused on consumer debt, mortgage regulation, credit unions, and foreclosure prevention. The Attorney General’s Office strongly supported the Debt Collection Fairness Act (S. 735/H. 1275), saying it would curb abusive debt collection, prevent stale claims, limit civil arrest warrants, modernize wage garnishment rules, and reduce judgment interest rates. Senator Eldridge and legal aid advocates echoed that support, while the Massachusetts Bankers Association and the Massachusetts Mortgage Bankers Association supported bills on credit union mission/competition, consumer privacy in mortgage applications, subprime loan definitions, UCC updates, and protections for vulnerable adults, but opposed foreclosure mediation proposals and several credit union expansion measures, arguing they would distort competition and add unnecessary burdens. A large portion of the hearing focused on foreclosure prevention bills (S. 765/H. 1090), with testimony from homeowners, housing organizers, and legal advocates describing predatory lending, confusing servicing practices, health harms, and displacement caused by foreclosure. Supporters said a statewide pre-foreclosure mediation program would give borrowers and lenders a chance to reach alternatives such as loan modifications or repayment plans, and cited local experience in Lynn where mediation reportedly produced high rates of foreclosure alternatives. Opponents from the banking industry argued Massachusetts already has strong foreclosure protections and that a new mandatory process could delay resolution without added benefit, though they also noted a 2024 pilot should be evaluated first. The committee also heard strong support for H. 1282/S. 684, which would update the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code. State Street and a bankruptcy attorney said the changes are needed to keep commercial law current with electronic transactions, tokenized assets, and blockchain technology, and to maintain competitiveness with other states. The hearing concluded after public testimony, with no bill votes taken during the session; the chair thanked speakers and the committee voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, the process for enacting comprehensive sunset legislation is ongoing.
• That has been the process typically in the state. Where is that?
• Do you understand mine regarding due process?
• I heard the point here that there's an expedited process.
• And I've seen firsthand the difference that a qualified legal workforce makes.

Bills: SB324 , SB1978 , SB2139 , SB2401 , SB2587 , SB2610 , SB2858 , SB3016

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Keywords: E-verify, employment verification, state contracts, immigration, labor compliance, ERCOT, Texas electric grid, interconnection, Public Utility Commission, PUC, Public convenience and necessity, electric cooperative, municipally owned utility, electric utility, transmission, generation facilities, grid reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, SERC

Transcript Highlights:

• Consumer legal funding is where a company gives a consumer who has a pending legal claim, in most cases
• </c> tlf one of which is Consumer Legal tlf one of which is Consumer Legal funding<00:46:16.440><c> the
• </c> consumer is protected and the legal consumer is protected and the legal system<00:49:08.559><c>
• </c> litigation funding and Consumer Legal litigation funding and Consumer Legal funding<00:52:24.079
• </c> high cost comes in the form of legal high cost comes in the form of legal fees<01:01:12.760><c>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 733-FN, a bill concerning third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors funding lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, increases litigation abuse, and contributes to higher insurance and consumer costs. He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with guardrails and reporting requirements on specified pages of the bill. He also noted a couple of drafting fixes, including adding the word “knowingly” and incorporating a missing section later. Members raised questions about the bill’s foreign-entity language, especially the provision allowing a governor or the Department of Safety to designate a country as a threat to critical infrastructure. Representative Cole said he would have lawyers review that issue. Another member asked whether the bill would prohibit a party from obtaining outside funding for a lawsuit; Cole clarified that the bill is intended as a reporting measure, not a ban, and that disclosure would be required. He also said the bill is aimed at American citizens rather than foreign-backed financing, and that some states had considered caps on such arrangements, though this bill does not. Brandon Gratz of the Attorney General’s office testified that the enforcement language appears too limited, because it would allow only civil penalties and not broader Consumer Protection Act remedies such as injunctions or restitution. He suggested the Attorney General may not have meaningful authority under the bill as written and raised possible insurance-law issues. Commissioner D.J. Benton-Court of the Insurance Department said the disclosure could help insurers better assess risk and potentially soften the hard insurance market by improving transparency, competition, underwriting, innovation, and claims management. He also said the bill likely needs further work on jurisdiction and enforcement, and that the committee may need to coordinate with the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and possibly banking regulators. No vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> process is probably similar. process is probably similar. &gt;&gt; Okay. &gt;&gt; Okay.
• &gt;&gt; Legal &gt;&gt; Legal &gt;&gt; Legal contracts conservation. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
• I'm Jennifer Bush with DHR Legal, and we have a 2-year legal services contract with Danielle Eaton of
• I'm Jennifer Bush with DHR Legal, and we have a 2-year legal services contract with Danielle Eaton of
• a 2-year legal Legal and we have a 2-year legal services<00:23:26.080><c> contract</c><00:23:26.559><

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It interferes with legally established processes and forces businesses to choose between complying with
• It interferes with legally established processes and forces businesses to choose between complying with
• That broad jurisdictional reach of AB 1930 seeks to invalidate legal processes, violate the Constitution
• to legal print jobs.
• I'm a legal advocate with ACLU Cal Action.

Summary: The Senate Public Safety Committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing a long agenda of bills. Early items included AB 2605, which would require statewide reporting on public defense services; supporters said California lacks basic data on how indigent defense is delivered and that the bill would help identify under-resourced counties, while no opposition appeared. AB 1650 would require rental vehicles used in law enforcement operations to display agency identification; supporters framed it as a transparency and community-trust measure in response to immigration enforcement tactics, while sheriffs and police groups opposed it unless amended, arguing it could compromise undercover and task-force operations and raise legal and indemnification concerns. AB 1930 would require notice to the Attorney General before business entities respond to subpoenas involving legally protected abortion or gender-affirming care information; supporters said it protects patient privacy and provider safety, while opponents raised constitutional, law-enforcement, and business-burden concerns. The committee also heard AB 458, directing state procurement guidelines for firearms and accessories so agencies buy from responsible vendors, with support from police chiefs, gun-violence prevention groups, and local officials, and no opposition testimony offered. The committee then heard AB 1588 on sideshows and street takeovers, which would update the definition of sideshows, include motorcycles and dirt bikes, and align penalties with street racing. Supporters, including police, city, transportation, and road-safety advocates, said the bill responds to dangerous events, property damage, and injuries; opponents from civil liberties and public defender groups argued higher fines and criminal penalties are ineffective and disproportionately harm low-income people, favoring roadway design and community-based prevention instead. AB 910, the Survivors Act, would expand affirmative defenses and vacature relief for survivors of trafficking, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence; supporters, including a survivor who described decades of abuse and wrongful conviction, said the bill gives survivors a chance to tell their stories and seek relief, while district attorneys opposed expanding relief to violent offenses and warned it could erase restitution and undermine victims’ rights. AB 2624 would expand Safe at Home confidentiality protections to immigrant service providers, employees, and volunteers; supporters described threats, doxxing, and harassment against immigrant-serving organizations, while opponents claimed the bill was prompted by investigative reporting on fraud and would chill journalism and transparency. The committee also heard AB 31, making the tribal police pilot program permanent and creating a missing and murdered Indigenous persons task force, which drew strong support from tribal representatives and no opposition. Later, AB 1959 sought to close a resentencing loophole tied to a 2001 Santana High School shooting case by restoring judicial discretion in resentencing for certain juvenile offenders; supporters said the current process can lead to automatic release even after parole denial, while opposition testimony began with concerns that the bill was responding to one case and lacked broader evidence. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly noted they supported several bills but could not formally vote because the committee lacked a quorum, so motions were held for later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• It actually slows down the process.
• It actually slows down the process.
• </c> prohibitive due to filing fees and legal prohibitive due to filing fees and legal expenses<00:21
• legal legal process<00:21:27.799><c> house</c><00:21:28.200><c> 69</c><00:21:28.600><c> 9</c><00:21:
• :21:31.480><c> ensure</c> proactive verification process to ensure proactive verification process to

Keywords: Consideration of HB 684 02:30 Consideration of HB 699 19:10, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Elections, Constitutional Amendments and Intergovernmental Affairs met with a quorum and considered two election-related bills. The committee first took up House Bill 684, sponsored by Representative Jennifer Decker, and adopted a committee substitute. Decker described the bill as a “continuous improvement” measure developed with election officials, clerks, legislators, and citizens. She walked through provisions addressing precinct officer staffing in vote centers, notice to school districts when schools are used as voting centers, absentee ballot replacement when a ballot is not received, retention and disposal timelines for election-related video surveillance, permanent voting assistance certifications, write-in candidate deadlines and posting restrictions, candidate filing details, witness requirements, public posting of candidate information, felony voting language, and school district closure rules for voting locations. Members discussed the school-related provision, the handling of mail-in ballots, and a committee-substitute change removing credit cards and debit cards as acceptable voter ID. Supportive comments emphasized election integrity and the collaborative drafting process. The committee then voted to report HB 684 favorably. The committee next considered House Bill 699, sponsored by Representative DJ Johnson, which would add a pre-certification verification process for candidate filings. Johnson said the bill was intended to prevent ineligible candidates from appearing on the ballot by requiring election officials to verify that a candidate’s residence is in the correct jurisdiction and, in partisan races, that the candidate is registered with the party sought, with appeals going to circuit court. He argued the current system relies on costly legal challenges after filing errors occur. During discussion, Representative Hancock voted no, saying the bill would create an unnecessary administrative burden and that filing paperwork should remain a basic responsibility of candidates, while other members voted yes. The committee ultimately reported HB 699 favorably. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other jurisdictions have upheld the award of attorney's fees for nonprofit legal organizations for legal
• To that point and go through that whole horrific process.
• There is a process.
• Continuances are a weighing process.
• Continuances are a weighing process.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee heard several election, victims’ rights, family court, and probation-related measures. SB 1425, an emergency bill moving Arizona’s primary election date earlier and adjusting related election timelines, was amended to move the primary to the second-to-last Tuesday in July and to remove the proposed compression of cure/ID deadlines; county officials supported it, and it received a do pass recommendation. SB 1289 and SCR 1013/SCR 1014 focused on foreign money in election administration and ballot measure campaigns, with supporters arguing the bills would close loopholes that allow foreign-backed funding to influence elections; some members raised concerns about breadth and enforcement, but both measures advanced. SB 1402 would require probationers on certain sex-offense-related monitoring to pay the cost of electronic monitoring; supporters said it would improve accountability and child safety, while opponents warned it could punish indigent people and divert money from treatment. It also received a do pass recommendation. The committee spent substantial time on family court bills. SB 1330 would allow a parent with less than 35% parenting time or no legal decision-making authority to request a jury trial in custody-related disputes; supporters described severe financial and emotional harm in family court and argued juries would provide a neutral check, while county and legal representatives opposed the bill as costly, slow, and ill-suited to specialized child-welfare decisions. Despite those objections, SB 1330 passed with a do pass recommendation. SB 1328, as amended, declared Arizona public policy to include protecting parents and a child’s right to equal access to both co-parents; supporters said it would clarify legislative intent, while opponents called it duplicative of existing law. It also passed. The committee also heard SB 1329, which would let parents sue court-appointed professionals in custody and parenting-time matters if the professional deviated from licensing ethics or standards. Supporters argued that quasi-judicial immunity and weak oversight have allowed harmful, expensive practices in family court, while opponents said existing malpractice and licensing remedies already exist and warned against expanding litigation. The bill received a do pass recommendation. SB 1326, allowing courts to award attorney fees and costs to victims when a party violates or worsens a victim-rights violation, also passed after supporters said it would help pro bono and victims’ attorneys enforce rights, and opponents said the term “exacerbates” was vague and the need was unclear. The committee approved the minutes and held SB 1285 and SB 1392 without hearing them.

Transcript Highlights:

• Consumer legal funding is where a company gives a consumer who has a pending legal claim, in most cases
• Consumer legal funding is where a company gives a consumer who has a pending legal claim, in most cases
• </c><00:46:47.880><c> claim</c> consumer who has a pending legal claim consumer who has a pending legal
• </c> litigation funding and Consumer Legal litigation funding and Consumer Legal funding<00:52:24.079
• </c> the acts of the you know the the legal the acts of the you know the the legal representation<01:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 733-FN, a bill on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors financing lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, and contributes to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs, and what he called a “tort tax.” He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with specific references to foreign-entity restrictions, consumer-protection guardrails, and reporting requirements. He also noted a few technical fixes to the draft, including adding the word “knowingly” and restoring a section that had been omitted. Committee members questioned how the bill’s foreign-entity language would work, including whether a governor or the Department of Safety would designate countries of concern, and whether the bill would bar foreign parties from using litigation funding. Cole and others clarified that the bill was intended as a reporting measure, not a ban on litigation funding itself, and that the goal was to disclose who is funding lawsuits and to what extent. Representative Sal asked whether the bill would prevent a litigant from getting outside financing; Cole answered no, emphasizing disclosure rather than prohibition. Brandon Grat of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau testified that the bill’s enforcement provisions were too limited. He said the draft appears to give the Attorney General only a civil-penalty remedy, likely too small to deter violations, and not the broader Consumer Protection Act tools such as injunctions, restitution, or investigation authority. He also raised concerns about whether the Attorney General or Insurance Department would have proper jurisdiction, given that the product may be financial or insurance-related. Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the department sees possible benefits from transparency because disclosure of litigation funding could help insurers assess risk, improve underwriting, and potentially ease hard-market pressures, especially for nonprofits and child care providers. He also said the bill’s language likely needs further work to clarify agency authority and suggested involving the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and banking regulators. Opposition testimony came from the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association. Marissa Chase and Samantha Hering argued the bill is one-sided because it requires disclosure only on the plaintiff side and not from defendants or insurers. They said New Hampshire already has court rules and discovery procedures that cover relevant disclosures, making the bill unnecessary, and questioned whether the existence of a funding contract is even relevant in litigation. The hearing ended with the committee continuing to discuss possible revisions and enforcement options, but no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legal product disappeared, but the environmental problem remained.
• For centuries, the legal code has recognized For centuries, the legal code has recognized that lawful
• ...clarify the process.
• They are legal tender.
• Almost a quarter of California’s nonprofits have utilized this process.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several tax-related bills, beginning with AB 760, which would exempt settlement payments tied to the Garden Grove chemical incident from California income tax. The author and a school district trustee described evacuations, school closures, and losses to residents, businesses, students, and staff, arguing the payments should make victims whole rather than be taxed. There was support from the Orange County Board of Supervisors, no opposition, and the bill passed 3-0 to Appropriations, with committee amendments accepted. Members then heard AB 2319, creating a California post-production tax credit for film and television work done in-state, even when principal photography occurred elsewhere or the project did not receive the existing film credit. The author and supporters from the Motion Picture Editors Guild, California Post Alliance, and others said post-production jobs and facilities are leaving California and that the bill would help retain high-wage work; opponents were not present. The committee members generally supported the measure, and it passed 3-0 to Appropriations. AB 2186 followed, excluding future reparations benefits for descendants of formerly enslaved people from state income tax. The author and NAACP California-Hawaii State Conference said taxing such benefits would undermine reparative justice; there was no opposition, and the bill passed 3-0. The committee also heard AB 762, which would ban the sale of disposable nicotine vapes and add enforcement tools. Supporters, including waste, recycling, local government, and public health groups, said disposable vapes create fire hazards, waste problems, and costs for local agencies; opponents argued the bill would mainly eliminate the legal market while leaving illicit products untouched and urged stronger enforcement instead. The author accepted committee amendments adding CDTFA enforcement, but the bill was not voted on because a motion was pending and members were absent. Later, AB 1519, AB 2172, AB 2222, AB 1793, AB 2089, and AB 1265 were heard and each received support from committee members and passed 2-0 or 3-0 to Appropriations, with amendments accepted where noted. AB 1519 clarified that the 20-year tax collection statute of limitations should not be reset by later fees or penalties; AB 2172 would let large counties use a single assessment appeals commissioner for complex property tax appeals; AB 2222 would create a temporary tax credit for local news organizations to retain and hire journalists; AB 1793 would authorize symmetrical cash rounding to the nearest nickel after the federal penny phaseout; AB 2089 would streamline the welfare exemption filing process for affordable housing; and AB 1265 would extend and revise the historic building tax credit to encourage adaptive reuse for housing and mixed-use projects.