Transcript Highlights:

• It's why we have a Constitution. The Constitution is there to protect the citizens. Utilize it.
• No amendments? We've got some public testimony.
• Chair: Okay, any questions on the amendment? Anyone else? Any public testimony on the amendment?
• Any other public testimony on the amendment? Chair: Any members want to debate on the amendment?
• The amendment is adopted and we will now be back on the bill as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's later pass amended. amended. amended. >> Thank<00:22:40.799> you.
• Senators, tell me about this constitutional amendment whenever you're ready.
• do I have to an amendment? do I have to an amendment?
• <00:51:53.839> amendment constitutional amendment constitutional amendment whenever<00:51:56.400
• Um, our constitution is a living document by definition, and since 1792 it's been amended 149 times.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the Constitution itself.
• the Constitution itself.
• "The fact that the government has cloaked what is effectively a constitutional amendment under the guise
• the Constitution itself.
• Now the Constitution says more...

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began by announcing that afternoon hearings, including House Bill 283, would be moved to Representatives Hall because of expected public interest. It then took up House Bill 671, which would establish a kindergarten literacy readiness program. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mark Pearson, described the measure as a way to close gaps in early reading readiness and said it was intended as a first step, with only a placeholder appropriation while details are developed. He framed it as a targeted effort to help children who are not entering first grade ready to read. Testimony on HB 671 was largely supportive. Representatives asked about the bill’s structure, whether a specific program had been identified, how it would interact with play-based learning, and why the provider was limited to a registered nonprofit. Waterford.org representatives Teresa Rosenberger and Rob Riley testified in support, describing Waterford Upstart as a home-based, evidence-based early learning program already used in New Hampshire. They said the program provides adaptive instruction, family coaching, and technology support, including computers, tablets, internet access, and translation services in more than 100 languages. They also said the model has been successful in New Hampshire, including a Nashua pilot and later statewide efforts, and that similar legislation has existed in other states. Rep. Jonah Wheeler also spoke in support of the bill. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 671. After a fiscal note for HB 671 was distributed, the committee moved to House Bill 781, which would require school districts to adopt policies for a cell phone-free education and includes an appropriation. The transcript cuts off as Rep. Litchfield was introduced to testify on that bill, so no testimony, debate, or vote on HB 781 is included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• . amendment. amendment.
• >> Amendment to the amendment is there. >> Amendment to the amendment is there.
• An amendment to the amendment >> Yeah.
• . amendment. amendment.
• amend a session law that gets amended amend a session law that gets amended and<03:36:42.720>

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• must show that their constitutional must show that their constitutional rights<00:09:16.240>
• proposing an amendment to this bill? proposing an amendment to this bill?
• That's what we're trying to amend. 5264. That's what we're trying to amend.
• it alleges a constitutional violation. it alleges a constitutional violation.
• Um so to the amendment happen.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 141, which would create a narrow exception to New Hampshire’s three-year deadline for motions for a new trial when a petitioner has newly discovered evidence, new forensic testing, or new scientific understanding. The prime sponsor’s representative and advocates from the Innocence Project and New England Innocence Project argued the bill is needed to help wrongfully convicted people access the courts, noting that exonerations often take many years and that outdated forensic science has contributed to wrongful convictions. The chair also said he had drafted a proposed amendment for committee review, but it had not yet been formally submitted. Witnesses supporting the bill emphasized that the measure would not guarantee relief, only allow a petition to be filed and reviewed under existing standards. They discussed examples such as arson science, explaining that some convictions were based on forensic methods later shown to be unreliable. Committee members asked about the scope of habeas corpus, whether the bill would create a new cause of action, and whether additional screening or pleading requirements should be added. The supporters said they would be open to requiring a petitioner to plead innocence, but opposed adding more burdensome preliminary procedures or counsel requirements at the filing stage. Thomas Farardi, from the Attorney General’s Office, testified in opposition or with caution, saying the bill was a “solution looking for a problem” because existing habeas corpus and coram nobis procedures already provide avenues for relief, and prosecutors can act when credible new evidence arises. He argued the current draft could invite additional litigation and create a new cause of action, and said he favored more screening before cases proceed. The discussion also touched on whether the statute applies in criminal cases, the current three-year limitation in RSA 526:4, and questions about posthumous petitions and petitions by deported individuals. No vote or executive action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment fixes the... All righty, let's go ahead and move the amendment for discussion.
• The amendment fixes the...
• H.J.R. 5, legislative compensation, would amend our Constitution to allow the people of New Mexico to
• But that's not something that would have to be in the constitutional amendment.
• But it is not and would not need to be part of a constitutional amendment. Okay.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Joint Resolution L, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the State Constitution of 1963
• Senate Joint Resolution L, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the State Constitution of 1963
• Are there further amendments? There are no further amendments.
• Are there further amendments? There are no further amendments.
• Are there further amendments? There are no further amendments.

Keywords: 983, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If we have the amendment, let's take care of it. Well, I don't have the final amendment.
• Well, I don't have the final amendment. Well, I don't have the final amendment.
• amendment plus a couple extra changes. amendment plus a couple extra changes.
• Bill as amended. Bill as the bill? Bill as amended.
• <01:32:08.159> All amended. You You are correct. Catch. All amended.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment established clearer standards for what constitutes malicious delay, made investigations
• I just don't think it ended up in the floor amendment before it got voted out.
• We deal in multiple constitutional areas of law.
• The exactions are basically under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which is the Takings Clause
• First, thank you for the Senate amendment. Our confusion on this bill is kind of twofold.

Bills: SB1254, SB1431, SB1478, SB1566, SB1787

Keywords: workers' compensation, industrial commission, safety regulations, employee protection, penalties, compliance, municipal planning, homeowners associations, design regulations, property rights, building permits, single-family homes, liquor, alcohol, spirituous liquor, liquor license, liquor licensing, Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, restaurant to-go cocktails, mixed cocktails

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 1566, which would prohibit municipalities and counties from maliciously delaying licensing, permits, or approvals, authorize the Attorney General to enforce the prohibition, and provide expedited judicial review. The sponsor said the bill is intended to address affordability by preventing intentional government delays in housing and business approvals. County representatives supported the goal but opposed the bill as drafted, arguing the county language differed from the city/town language and could sweep in ordinary processing delays or incomplete applications; the sponsor said a floor amendment would fix the county language. Testimony from supporters described long permit and parcel-number delays and argued the bill would give applicants a remedy against intentional obstruction. The committee recommended the bill do pass by a 7-3 vote, with one present and one absent. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1787, which would require written notice for exactions imposed on development projects, allow individualized determinations, and create an appeal path including judicial review. The sponsor framed it as a takings and affordability measure to stop unrelated or excessive exactions from being imposed on housing projects. Cities and counties opposed the bill, saying existing law already requires nexus and proportionality, already provides an appeal process, and that the bill would create a duplicative Attorney General review and confusion, especially for mixed-use projects. Supporters, including Pacific Legal Foundation, the Home Builders Association, and a homeowner who described a costly infrastructure demand on her property, argued the bill would curb extortionate demands and make the process fairer. The committee passed the bill 7-2 with one present and one absent. Senate Bill 1478, a liquor-regulation cleanup bill, was also heard and received broad support. The measure makes technical changes to liquor statutes, including clarifying interim permits, repealing a federal food-safety preemption provision, and updating definitions such as cider and production terminology. Industry stakeholders said the bill was the product of months of consensus work and mostly technical corrections. It passed unanimously, 10-0. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1431, which would limit municipal control over home design features and prohibit certain required shared amenities that would necessitate HOA maintenance. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would reduce housing costs by preventing subjective aesthetic mandates and unnecessary HOA-driven requirements, while opponents from cities and neighborhood groups warned it would undermine local control, crime-prevention design standards, neighborhood character, and quality. Home builders and property-rights advocates said the bill would expand consumer choice and reduce costs, while critics argued it could lead to lower-quality housing and remove local recourse. The bill was not reported out in the portion provided, and testimony continued with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• . amendments. amendments.
• . amendment. amendment.
• . amendment. amendment.
• Any questions on the amendment. Any questions on the amendment? amendment? amendment?
• The amendment to the amendment was put to a vote and adopted.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 2:00 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2893, a municipalities bill on zoning notice requirements. The committee substitute would require notice of proposed zoning changes to be posted on Facebook, Instagram, and X 30 and 15 days before the hearing, while also continuing newspaper publication, posting on a local website if available, making the proposal available at a government office or library, and extending the appeal period for landowners from 10 to 20 days. Members raised concerns about relying on social media for accurate notice and whether local governments would need accounts on those platforms, but the sponsor said the bill was meant to supplement, not replace, newspaper notice. The bill was described as supported by municipal interests, and the committee adopted a motion for a title sufficient, due pass committee substitute. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2027, which creates a rebuttable presumption that joint physical custody is in the best interest of a child. The sponsor and other senators said the bill is intended to add a tool to existing custody law, not replace the Albright factors or other custody standards, and would apply even where the parents were never married. Questions focused on paternity, how the presumption could be rebutted, and whether distance between parents would defeat equal time; the sponsors said paternity rules would remain unchanged and courts could deviate when joint custody is not feasible, such as when parents live far apart. Senators also asked about chancellors’ reactions, and the sponsor said he had discussed the measure with many of them and had revised the bill in response to prior concerns. The committee then passed the bill on a motion for title sufficient, due pass. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 2747, a consumer legal funding bill. The sponsor and a representative of the industry described the measure as regulating consumer legal funding, which provides small advances to injured plaintiffs for household expenses while litigation is pending, and distinguishing it from litigation financing, which pays litigation costs. They said the bill would impose consumer protections, require attorney review, prohibit quid pro quo arrangements between funders and law firms, bar law firms from operating side funding businesses, and block foreign money from entering the market. The discussion was informational at this stage, with the witness explaining that the bill is intended to regulate an existing practice and protect consumers and the legal system.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:36:08.800> which you know support this amendment which you know support this amendment
• Amendment who is the A3 Amendment Amendment who is the A3 Amendment that'll<00:37:03.800> be<
• sorry your A3 Amendment A4 Amendment I'm sorry your A3 Amendment A4 Amendment I'm sorry uh<00:38
• ask for a vote Yes on this amendment ask for a vote Yes on this amendment thank<00:42:26.079>
• A6 amendment.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1987, the Minnesota Starter Home Act, and first adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which made minor cleanup changes, removed sections two and three, adjusted ADU language, and tweaked density language. The bill authors described the measure as a bipartisan effort to address Minnesota’s housing shortage by allowing more starter homes, duplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, while also limiting some local zoning barriers and preserving city protections in certain sensitive areas. They emphasized that the state has a large housing gap, rising home prices, and that the bill is intended as one part of a broader housing package. Supportive testimony came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Housing First Minnesota, Habitat for Humanity, AARP Minnesota, and Americans for Prosperity. These witnesses argued that workforce and starter-home shortages are hurting families, employers, and economic growth; that restrictive zoning and lengthy approval processes raise costs; and that more middle housing and ADUs would expand options for older adults, caregivers, working families, and people seeking homeownership. Several supporters said the bill would reduce regulatory barriers, lower development costs, and help communities add needed housing supply. Opposition or cautionary testimony came from city and municipal representatives, including officials from Cambridge, Eagan, and Mankato, as well as the League of Minnesota Cities and related groups. They argued that local governments already are approving substantial housing growth and need flexibility to manage zoning, parking, infrastructure, stormwater, and community input. They warned the bill could weaken local control, remove practical standards, and create unintended impacts such as more rental conversion in some neighborhoods or development without adequate infrastructure. No final vote on the bill itself was shown in the transcript beyond adoption of the A1 amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it is constitutional and lawful. And we're doing this in compliance with constitutional law.
• The narrowing amendments of this bill do not... Fourth Amendment protections that keep us all safe.
• The narrowing amendments of this bill do not The narrowing amendments of this bill do not resolve the
• And CalECPA, and the United States Constitution, and also the California Constitution allow the government
• It violates the Fourth Amendment.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 56, which would require social media platforms to display a warning label about potential mental health harms from prolonged use, with amendments shortening the initial warning and allowing immediate access to the platform. The author and supporters, including a parent who lost a daughter to suicide and a therapist, argued that social media contributes to teen anxiety, self-harm, and other harms and that families need clearer public health information. Opponents from tech and civil liberties groups argued the bill would be ineffective, burdensome, and likely unconstitutional, saying it would create warning fatigue and should be replaced by more targeted tools and digital literacy measures. Several members discussed emergency access concerns, language access, and whether the warning should be more actionable; the bill was moved on a 9-0 vote to the Judiciary Committee. The committee then took up AB 358, which would amend CalECPA to allow law enforcement, with the victim’s consent, to inspect certain abandoned tracking or surveillance devices found in a victim’s home, vehicle, or personal property without first obtaining a warrant. The author and a San Diego prosecutor said the bill is narrowly tailored to devices used solely for spying and is intended to help stalking and domestic violence survivors act quickly before evidence is lost. Opponents from EFF and the ACLU warned the bill would weaken warrant protections, create a loophole around CalECPA, and reduce transparency and accountability. Members debated Fourth Amendment issues, abandonment, and the practical need for rapid access; the bill passed the committee on a 9-0 vote to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 1137, which builds on last year’s CSAM reporting law by allowing any user to report child sexual abuse material, requiring clearer reporting mechanisms, adding human review in some cases, and mandating third-party audits and public reporting. Supporters, including survivor advocates and a parent of a child victim, said the bill would reduce the burden on survivors and improve removal of abusive content. Tech industry opponents said they support the goal but objected to the human-review mandate, public audit disclosures, and enforcement provisions, arguing they could create security risks and compliance burdens. Members generally supported the bill’s intent but raised questions about audit frequency and human review; the bill was moved on call with seven votes at the time of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• And with this amendment, I was getting that 100,000.
• So that the amendment means nothing. So if you got ... the amendment means nothing.
• amendment.
• It existed by the constitution, just changing the operations that were in the constitutional set to bring
• amendments.

Bills: SB312, SB316, SB90

Keywords: alcoholic beverages, ABC Board, Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control, special event license, special events retail license, nonprofit special events retail license, special retail license, event storage license, government venue license, alcohol storage, alcohol transfer, beer, wine, liquor, on-premises consumption, public venue, government-owned property, municipal property, county property, state property

Transcript Highlights:

• Then there was a constitutional amendment passed, and we started until 1950.
• Then there was a constitutional amendment passed, and we started to meet annually.
• And that amendment is the same amendment that was passed in the previous committee?
• The amendment is adopted. Let's move the bill as amended. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you.
• The amendment is adopted. Let's move the bill as amended. Mr.

Bills: HB2014, HB2156, HB2180, HB2554, HCR2047, HR2002

Keywords: air emissions, fuel blends, environmental quality, feasibility study, Arizona Department of Agriculture, livestock, compensation, funding, ranching, agriculture, appropriation, University of Arizona, education, state budget, biennial budget, state funding, appropriations, budget procedures, fiscal years, Judea

Summary: The committee first took up HCR 2047 and the identical HCR 2002, both sponsored by the chair. The resolutions recognize the historical, biblical, and legal legitimacy of Judea and Samaria, encourage those terms in official state communications, and reject the term West Bank as a modern political construct. Staff and several proponents, including representatives of an Israel-Arizona business coalition, a rabbi, and a StandWithUs representative, argued the language is historically accurate and important for truth, legal clarity, and Arizona’s relationship with Israel. No one testified against either measure. HCR 2047 passed 10-6 with 2 not voting, and HCR 2002 passed 11-6 with 1 not voting, both with due pass recommendations. The committee then considered HB 2554, which would move Arizona to a biennial state budget process and biennial capital planning. The sponsor argued the change would make government smaller, more disciplined, and less prone to long budget fights and spending growth. JLBC staff provided historical context, explaining Arizona’s past use of annual, bifurcated, and biennial budgeting and noting that second-year budgets are often adjusted for revenue and caseload changes. Members raised concerns about legislative leverage, executive flexibility, and whether the state already effectively budgets on a multi-year basis. Testimony was mixed: one supporter said the change could improve budget clarity, while others voted present or no, citing uncertainty and the need for more study. HB 2554 received a due pass recommendation on a 9-7 vote with 2 present. Next, HB 2014 was amended and passed. The bill directs ADEQ and the Department of Agriculture to study gasoline blend emissions and feasibility for seasonal fuel use in certain areas, with appropriations for the studies. The sponsor said Arizona’s fuel supply is vulnerable because of federal EPA rules and reliance on out-of-state refineries, especially California. Some members supported the study as a way to address possible fuel shortages, while others said prior stakeholder work had shown little could be done and questioned the cost. After adopting the Livingston amendment, the committee gave HB 2014 a due pass recommendation on a 12-2 vote with 4 present. The committee also advanced HB 2180, which funds the University of Arizona’s AZ Reach program, after adopting an amendment reducing the appropriation from $2.5 million to $500,000. The sponsor and a rural physician testified that AZ Reach helps small hospitals coordinate patient transfers, freeing clinicians to focus on care and improving access for rural communities. A program director explained that AZ Reach handles the administrative logistics of transfers for sending hospitals. Some members supported the program but noted concerns about the amount and ongoing budget negotiations, while others said the receiving hospitals needed to be part of the discussion. The bill passed with a due pass recommendation. Finally, HB 2156, as amended, appropriates $250,000 for the livestock compensation fund to help ranchers with wolf depredation losses and conflict-avoidance measures. A Game and Fish representative said the current federal grant funding is insufficient and unstable, while members debated the use of general funds and the program’s priorities. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 10-7 vote with 1 not voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• the constitutional constraint. the constitutional constraint.
• Article 14 itself was passed as an amendment to the constitution in 1920.
• amendment to the constitution in 1920. amendment to the constitution in 1920.
• c> amendment.
• <01:05:34.400> Senator amendment to the amendment. Senator amendment to the amendment.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the framers
• > and First Amendment to the Constitution, and First Amendment to the Constitution, and the<00
• Next passage of SB 374. >> Yeah, this is a constitutional amendment.
• >> yeah, this is constitutional amendment.
• >> yeah, this is constitutional amendment.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• amendments. Thank you. amendments. Thank you. >> Thank<01:02:59.760> you.
• The first concern is that this bill raises First Amendment concerns under both the U.S. and Hawaii Constitutions
• pass with amendments. Any reservations? pass with amendments. Any reservations?
• amendments. Any reservations? amendments. Any reservations?
• the requested amendment by HBL.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Transportation heard several vehicle and traffic safety measures. HB 2347, which would require the director of transportation to adopt rules allowing mobile vehicle safety inspections, drew support from DOT and individual testifiers who said it would add convenience and efficiency for passenger vehicle owners. Committee members questioned how home or driveway inspections would handle safety standards such as headlight checks and whether added convenience would come with higher costs; DOT also said it would follow up on inspection fees and audit procedures. HB 182, which would exempt motorcycles and passenger cars from safety inspections, received opposition from DOT, the Hawaii Police Department, and the City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services, with Grassroot Institute in support. HB 2022, which would equalize county and state annual vehicle registration fees, was opposed by the Hawaii Transportation Association because it would raise costs that would likely be passed on to consumers. The committee also took testimony on HB 1708, which would make operating a vehicle under the influence at a high intoxication level a class C felony and add probation requirements. Prosecutors, police, DOT, and the Honolulu customer services department supported the bill, while the Public Defender’s Office opposed it, arguing that it would increase court workload, require more defense resources, and create collateral consequences, including possible immigration impacts. Several witnesses and members discussed a proposed HD1 that would change the bill to a graduated penalty structure, making a first offense a misdemeanor and a second offense a felony, while also addressing deferred pleas and DUI deferrals. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the bill’s intent but warned that Oahu lacks a reliable electronic or telephonic warrant system, which could lead to more refusals and additional court impacts. HB 2086, which would amend negligent injury in the first degree to include injuries negligently inflicted by intoxicated drivers, received support from DOT, county prosecutors, police, and the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office. Honolulu’s prosecutor supported the bill but recommended against the attached HD1, saying the current drafting better preserves negligent injury as a lesser included offense and avoids blending it with a separate statutory scheme. HB 2154, which would create a framework for intelligent speed assist technology and require a report to the legislature, was supported by DOT, county police, Smart Start LLC, AAA Hawaii, and others, with the Alliance for Automobile Innovation offering comments and proposed amendments. A testifier described the bill as a way to prevent repeat speeding by limiting vehicles from accelerating beyond the speed limit. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• When I first started in the Senate, I wanted to amend the Owner Resident Relations Act to give an out
• the definition of small business to conform to federal law, ...proposals, amending the definition of
• Senator Maestas, there’s more than one report if you’d like to amend your motion. Thank you, Mr.
• Senate Bill 3, do pass as amended. Respectfully submitted, Senator Joseph Cervantes, Chair.
• I'd also just say that I'm hearing there might be a tax bill that could be amended with this one, so

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , 290 without amendments, 429 without amendments, 522 without amendments, 71 without amendments, 91 without
• amendments, 204 without amendments, 205 without amendments, 207 without amendments, 213 without amendments
• , 214 without amendments, 216 without amendments, and 229 without amendments.
• , SCR 38 with amendments, and SCR 3 with amendments.
• Amendments. We have amendments. Amendment sent up by Senator Price. It is set number 3950.

Bills: SR125, SCR70, SCR12, HB4, HB251, HB623, HB819, HB944, HB986, HB1098, HB1222, HB1257, HB221, HCR58, SCR22, SCR24, SB29, SB30, SB32, SB41, SB42, SB43, SB47, SB84, SB93, SB113, SB192, SB199, SB219, SB220, SB221, SB222, SB241, SB253, SB255, SB289, SB292, SB306, SB314, SB351, SB399, SB404, SB14, SB102, SB133, SB151, SB165, SB169, SB170, SB200, SB217, SB280, SB291, SB300, SB303, SB330, SB449, SB489, SB521, SB45, SB156, SB181, SB203, SB274, SB304, SB379, SB396, SB410, SB425, SB427, SB436, SB424, SCR61, SCR9, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, HCR31, HB296, HB299, HB322, HB364, HB519, HB535, HB538, HB568, HB571, HB622, HB635, HB676, HB772, HB784, HB1006, HB1018, HB1043, HB1070, HB1134, HB1239, HB62, HB193, HB203, HB210, HB220, HB228, HB246, HB420, HB475, HB486, HB574, HB584, HB750, HB813, HB815, HB826, HB870, HB949, HB953, HB1045, HB1092, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1177, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB22, HB28, HB33, HB41, HB47, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB195, HB214, HB217, HB233, HB283, HB290, HB319, HB324, HB345, HB362, HB363, HB368, HB377, HB380, HB382, HB386, HB392, HB406, HB431, HB441, HB466, HB503, HB533, HB559, HB575, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB636, HB655, HB664, HB685, HB692, HB707, HB715, HB732, HB738, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB807, HB822, HB856, HB860, HB868, HB887, HB888, HB905, HB908, HB961, HB980, HB990, HB992, HB999, HB1000, HB1010, HB1146, HB1157, HB1233, HB1236, HB1243, HB54, HB137, HB180, HB192, HB310, HB321, HB396, HB512, HB552, HB578, HB638, HB663, HB708, HB717, HB718, HB1009, HB1082, HB1104, HB1107, HB1198, HB1246, HB1250, HB17, HB36, HB73, HB119, HB126, HB129, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB211, HB226, HB245, HB271, HB280, HB337, HB351, HB354, HB399, HB677, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB728, HB759, HB789, HB844, HB850, HB966, HB1036, SB149, SB382, SB441, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782

Keywords: SR125, Senate Resolution 125, MUSV, Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel, MASC, Modular Attack Surface Craft, Conrad Shipyard, Morgan City, Louisiana shipbuilding, U.S. Navy, Department of the Navy, unmanned naval vessels, autonomous ships, defense procurement, military contracting, shipyard jobs, maritime workforce, advanced manufacturing, robotics, software engineering

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:30:34.320> citizenship violates the 14th amendment citizenship violates the 14th amendment
• 32.720> violated<00:33:33.120> the the constitution and violated the the constitution and
• Constitution. The U.S.
• structure of our US constitutional structure of our US Constitution.<01:06:36.799> Um<01:06:37.119
• Um the the procedural Constitution.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held an informational briefing on the State of Hawaii’s affirmative litigation against the federal administration, with no public testimony. Attorney General Lopez and deputies said the office’s goal is to enforce the rule of law, not make partisan points, and noted that Hawaii is involved in 27 ongoing cases. They grouped the cases into four broad areas: immigration, funding freezes and grant terminations, federal agency dismantling/reductions in force, and protecting elections, health, and safety. Several immigration-related cases were discussed in detail. These included a challenge to the federal sharing of Medicaid data with DHS for immigration enforcement, a similar challenge to USDA’s demand for SNAP applicant and recipient data, and litigation over immigration-enforcement conditions attached to federal grants. The office also described the birthright citizenship executive order, saying it conflicts with the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent; lower courts granted preliminary relief, and the U.S. Supreme Court later addressed only the scope of nationwide injunctions, not the merits. In the Department of Transportation case, the court granted a preliminary injunction against the “Duffy directive,” finding the immigration conditions lacked statutory authority, were arbitrary and capricious, and violated the Spending Clause and APA. The briefing also covered multiple funding disputes. In the education funding freeze case, the Department of Education and OMB withheld about $6 billion in formula funds, including roughly $33 million for Hawaii; after suit was filed, the funds were released. Other cases included the termination of over $11 billion in public health grants, which affected Hawaii Department of Health grants, the NIH indirect cost cap case, and NIH grant terminations tied to DEI, transgender issues, and vaccine hesitancy. The speakers said some cases have already resulted in preliminary or permanent injunctions, while others remain on appeal or are still being litigated.