Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman Gress's amendment, excuse me. Chairman Gress's amendment, excuse me.
• And the floor amendment.
• committee amendment.
• committee amendment.
• amended.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, guest introductions, and recognition of Arizona School Board Association members and local school board representatives visiting the Capitol for Advocacy Day. Members also honored the House Doctor of the Day, Dr. Heather Serran, and approved the journal and attendance. The chamber then moved through a large number of Senate messages and House calendar items, including committee assignments and first and second readings of many bills. A major floor action was the unanimous adoption of SCR 1054 honoring former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, followed by remarks remembering his public service and consumer-protection work. The House also agreed to return SB 1278 to the Senate for reconsideration and referred several House bills to an additional Committee of the Whole for further amendment. In Committee of the Whole, members considered and advanced numerous bills, including HB 2055, 2150, 2426, 2456, 2457, 2728, 2755, 2918, and 2923, with several floor amendments adopted. HB 2728 drew the most debate over Department of Economic Security continuation and added policy changes affecting SNAP, unemployment, and eligibility verification; after a divided question and recorded vote, it received a do-pass recommendation by 32-25. The House also advanced HB 2134, 2142, 2289, 2290, 2331, 2379, 2397, 4026, and 4033 in later Committee of the Whole sessions, with discussion focused on school safety funding and governance, school board training, HOA disclosure reforms, tax sourcing clarity, and bond disclosure language. Several bills were retained on the calendar, including HB 4041, HB 2444, HB 4018, and HB 4070. In final third-reading votes, HB 2053, HB 2327, and HB 2416 passed; HB 2175 and HB 2492 failed; and HB 2805, which would make school board races partisan, was under debate at the end of the transcript amid strong arguments both for and against increasing partisanship in school board elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Collins's office amendment, which the clerk will read. Amendment number 575 by Mr.
• To withdraw Amendment number 861 without objection. Amendment number 861 is withdrawn.
• Senator Durant offers an amendment, which the clerk will read: Amendment 796 by Mr.
• Senator Durant offers an amendment, which the clerk will read: Amendment 877 by Mr.
• Amendment 1035 by Mr.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate met on the FY27 budget and began with several ceremonial introductions and brief amendment withdrawals. Senator Collins withdrew amendments related to restoring DCF social worker funding and educator pay. The chamber then ruled a package of tax-related amendments offered by Senator Tarr out of order on constitutional grounds, finding they would create money-bill provisions that must originate in the House; the Senate upheld that ruling by a vote of 35-4. Senator Tarr later offered amendments on a gas tax suspension and related tax relief themes, but those were not adopted. The Senate considered and rejected several other amendments, including proposals on commemorating Commonwealth history, naming a bridge, repeat offenders, and no-cost calls. One amendment by Senator Fattman to extend domestic violence leave protections to contract employees was adopted unanimously, with 39 votes in favor and none opposed. The chamber also adopted an amendment creating a special commission to study the adequacy, reliability, and distribution of unrestricted general government aid (UGA), after extended debate about inequities in municipal aid and local budget pressures. Members from across the chamber supported the commission, while some emphasized that adequacy of funding, not just redistribution, remains a concern. The Senate then took up Chapter 90, passing the municipal roads and bridges bill to be engrossed. It also adopted a community programming amendment and a Senate Ways and Means amendment, then adopted the Ways and Means budget amendment as amended and ordered the underlying FY27 appropriations bill to a third reading. After lengthy closing remarks from the Ways and Means chair, minority leader, and the Senate President praising the budget process and highlighting investments in local aid, education, public safety, and other priorities, the Senate voted 40-0 to pass the FY27 budget bill to be engrossed. The chamber then adopted an order to reconvene the following Tuesday at 11 a.m. and adjourned in memory of Trooper Kevin Thomas Traynor.

Transcript Highlights:

• amendments.
• to House Bill 54 as amended by the House and further amended by the Senate.
• to House Bill 143 as amended by the House and further amended by the Senate.
• amended.
• An amendment.

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:

• function call): of Texas and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
• To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutions of the United States and of this state.
• The reality is there is a failure across this state to follow the Constitution and laws of the United
• And that amendment set up a very important thing for the rest of our country.
• Senator [Betancourt](link from function call): And that amendment set up a very important thing for the

Bills: SCR7

Keywords: legislature, adjournment, permissions, Texas Constitution, session, legislative authority, 1185, senate, all

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:

• 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:

• 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