Transcript Highlights:

• </c> cost and strictest regulatory um process cost and strictest regulatory um process in<00:38:20.520
• Mahalo. on the grounds of legal historical and on the grounds of legal historical and jurisdictional<
• </c> beyond what would normally be legally beyond what would normally be legally available<01:39:45.080
• </c> if there's like a pre-approval process if there's like a pre-approval process for<02:11:34.920><
• </c><05:10:59.120><c> Services</c> witness a Volunteer Legal Services witness a Volunteer Legal Services

Committee: House Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• These legal resolutions often take several years.
• Physicians can actually assist injured patients in applying and navigating the process.
• This process allows harmed individuals to access equitable recovery.
• And had you thought about that as being one of the processes that need to occur?
• That is, it's an iterative process, and it's not perfect. Thank you, Senator Polk.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• laws and procedures, and to report to the legislature as required, to employ an executive director, legal
• To clarify, this board is limited in scope, primarily to governmental processes and functions.
• And so her notice was sufficient for us to start the process.
• Item 21 streamlines the technical check-in process for voters needing assistance.
• It just came across as it's speeding up the process.

Summary: The State Board of Election Supervisors met on February 5, 2026, with Secretary of State Nancy Landry presiding. The board approved the minutes from its March 11, 2025 meeting and then received a presentation from First Assistant Secretary of State Catherine Newsom and Deputy Commissioner Lainey Boyd on proposed technical changes for the 2026 elections omnibus bill. The board removed item 7 from consideration before the presentation began. The proposed provisions covered a wide range of election-administration topics, including ROV payroll timing, restrictions on ROV employees running for office, party affiliation clarification for voters marked “unaffiliated,” registration transfers, assistance for disabled voters, protection of pre-registrant information, removal from protected voter lists, absentee voting procedures, precinct boundary notices, candidate death notice procedures, nomination petitions, ballot design, watcher deadlines, overvote definitions, absentee ballot curing, nursing home voting timelines, procurement authority for voting equipment, and contest procedures for elections and constitutional amendments. Board members asked several clarifying questions, and staff explained the intent of various technical and procedural changes. Two items were specifically discussed as policy concerns. Board member Guidry objected to item 37, which would allow the Secretary of State to bring an election contest based on irregularities reported by an election official, and staff agreed to remove it from the omnibus bill for separate consideration. Item 38, concerning deadlines and causes of action for contesting the calling of a constitutional amendment, and item 39, clarifying that such a contest cannot be filed before election day, were explained as intended to align amendment contests with other election contest deadlines. After discussion, the board approved items 1 through 6, 8 through 36, and 38 through 39 for inclusion in the report and eventual omnibus bill. No public comments were submitted, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• of background, there are three methods that allow a child to be removed from a parent, guardian, or legal
• My name is Asani Chung, and I'm a director of legal services at Legal Counsel for Youth and Children,
• My name is Asani Chung, and I'm a director of legal services at Legal Counsel for Youth and Children,
• My name is Asani Chung, and I'm a director of legal services at Legal Counsel for Youth and Children,
• And there are due process protections to get those services.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2511, which would define “imminent physical harm” in the child welfare context as a substantial risk of serious harm arising from home conditions, caregiver conduct, neglect, substance abuse, unsafe environments, or other circumstances likely to cause significant injury. Representative Tom Dent, the sponsor, said the bill was intended to give caseworkers clearer tools to protect children while still recognizing the importance of keeping families together. Supporters, including some foster parents, kinship caregivers, advocates, and individuals with lived experience, argued that the current standard is too vague and has contributed to child fatalities and near-fatalities, especially in cases involving fentanyl exposure, chronic neglect, and abuse. They said clearer language would help courts and caseworkers intervene earlier and more consistently. Opponents, including legal aid, public defense, and child welfare policy groups, argued the bill is legally problematic, could conflict with existing statutes and ICWA-informed language, and would not address root causes such as service gaps, training, and inconsistent implementation. DCYF testified “other,” saying the bill could add clarity but that the language needed refinement; the sponsor said he was open to working on changes. No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2660, which would allow courts at shelter care hearings to order parents of children under age five to comply with safety-related conditions, evaluations, or services when the child is returned home, with referrals required within seven days and participation not treated as an admission of abuse or neglect. The sponsor, Representative Ortiz-Self, said the bill is aimed at critical incidents and would give caseworkers and courts more ability to require safeguards for very young children when families are not voluntarily engaging in services. DCYF and the Office of the Family and Children’s Ombuds supported the bill, saying it could help prevent tragedies by allowing earlier court-ordered services and safety conditions. Some advocates and parents also supported it, describing cases where removal or court intervention helped protect children. Opponents, including public defense and some family-support organizations, raised constitutional and due process concerns, argued that services are not the same as immediate safety, and warned the bill could shift problems without fixing underlying service shortages. The sponsor and DCYF discussed the need for follow-up on language and implementation, but no committee action or vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• meetings. process hearings where there and um process hearings where there and um throughout<00:23:41.760
• ><c> uh</c><00:23:45.520><c> um</c> throughout the due process um uh um throughout the due process um
• And that's because the younger and sharper legal mind on this committee is, I'm sorry, the legal mind
• And that's because the younger and sharper legal mind on this committee is, I'm sorry, the legal mind
• </c> committee is I'm sorry the the legal committee is I'm sorry the the legal mind<01:00:30.799><c>

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• The legal system must operate without bias.
• It's probably processes and where I'm going with these questions.
• And yes, if they go through the jail process, that's fine.
• Beyond its legal flaws, the provision undermines public safety.
• That regulates orderly and legal migration.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the pledge, and a moment of silence honoring former Senator and Judge Thomas Gallen. The chamber then moved to special order items focused on immigration and related enforcement measures. Senate Memorial 6C, urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements, passed by voice vote. The Senate then took up Senate Bill 4C, an immigration measure that would impose a mandatory death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of capital felonies and create state crimes for illegal entry and re-entry. Senators Pizzo, Polsky, and Sharief raised concerns about constitutional issues, plea bargaining, trial and penalty-phase procedures, prosecutorial discretion, and the effect on victims’ families. Supporters, including Senators Fine and Gruters, argued the bill was a strong deterrent and a response to serious crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. The bill passed 25-11. The chamber next debated Senate Bill 2C, a broader immigration enforcement package. The bill would create a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, expand local-federal cooperation, fund detention and enforcement efforts, strengthen pretrial detention rules for unauthorized aliens, and end in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Senators Davis and Pizzo questioned enforcement mechanics, jurisdiction, bond procedures, and whether local agencies were actually mandated to participate; supporters said the bill was designed to maximize cooperation with federal authorities and the Trump administration. A late-filed amendment by Senator Pizzo to preserve tuition waivers for current students failed 14-22, and a second amendment was withdrawn after discussion. Debate then continued on the bill, with opponents arguing it was costly, federal in nature, and harmful to Dreamers and other students, while supporters said it was necessary to crack down on illegal immigration and align state policy with federal enforcement priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the current process.
• Process to do that?
• This is because it's part of the maternal mortality process. I understand it's a process.
• Parents are just not challenged by this process.
• The process that is in place works.

Bills: HB 1106 , HB3284 , HB541 , HB713 , HB1403 , HB1586 , HB1942 , HB2070 , HB2844 , HB2851 , HB3151 , HB3749 , HB3940 , HB3963 , HB4454 , HB4466 , HB4795 , HB5154 , HB5394 , SB1357 , HB 1052 , HB4099 , HB4638 , HB5147

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> circumvent existing legal obligations. circumvent existing legal obligations.
• </c> circumvent the state's separate legal circumvent the state's separate legal processes<00:15:23.600
• process that already exists, which is through the DLNR and the BLNR, and that process needs to be upheld
• process that already exists, which is through the DLNR and the BLNR, and that that process needs to
• legal process that already through the legal process that already exists,<00:17:29.520><c> which</c><

Bills: SCR56 , SCR25 , SCR79 , SCR179 , SCR181 , SCR182 , SR54 , SR22 , SR81 , SR174 , SR176 , SR177

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The committee first heard SCR 56 and SR 54, which recognize open water lifeguards as first responders and acknowledge their role in emergency response and public safety. Testifiers from the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association, Hawaii Water Safety Coalition, Honolulu and Kauai Ocean Safety, and a junior guard all strongly supported the resolutions, describing lifeguards as often first on scene for drownings, cardiac arrest, spinal injuries, flooding rescues, and other emergencies. Several speakers said formal recognition would better reflect the work lifeguards already do and could improve training, support services, pay equity, and access to benefits such as retirement and trauma resources. Members asked about what legal or administrative changes would follow, and the discussion suggested the resolutions were a first step toward broader recognition and related policy changes. The committee then took up SCR 25 and SR 22, opposing federal condemnation or threats of condemnation to take control of Pohakuloa and other state land. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs supported the resolutions, saying Pohakuloa has deep historical, cultural, genealogical, and ecological significance and that any future decisions should go through existing state legal processes with meaningful consultation with Native Hawaiians. Members discussed the role of the governor’s advisory process, the need to follow DLNR/BLNR procedures, and concerns about environmental and health violations at the site. The committee also noted 14 written testimonies in support. Next, the committee heard SCR 79 and SR 81, urging the U.S. Navy to take responsibility for eradicating octocoral and other invasive species in Pearl Harbor waters, including West, Middle, and East Loch. DLNR supported the resolutions, and testimony focused on the spread of invasive coral, the difficulty of eradication, and the limited access state agencies have inside Pearl Harbor. Members raised concerns about contamination, responsibility for the problem, and whether the Navy should fund or carry out the cleanup; DLNR said it could not speak to broader contamination issues but supported the resolution as a way to encourage action. The committee then began discussion of SCR 179 and SR 174, which urge Maui County to enforce fire code provisions on brush clearance, fuel breaks, roadside vegetation clearing, and emergency access, with written support noted from Aloha Independent Living Hawaii.

Transcript Highlights:

• to make sure that if somebody comes into the process, they are properly processed.
• It’s the same process. I’m just... so if there’s any... It’s the same process.
• You know, one of the challenges is that we need to ensure that there’s due process in our civil and legal
• require due process?
• Now we're getting to enforcement and the enforcement actions that lead to the criminal legal process.

Summary: The joint Senate Public Safety and Transportation hearing focused on DUI, impaired driving, speeding, distracted driving, road design, and the broader traffic safety system in California. Chairs Jesse Arreguín and Dave Cortese said the purpose was to inform upcoming legislation and noted that no bills would be acted on at the hearing. They emphasized the scale of the problem, including thousands of fatal and serious injury crashes each year, and framed the discussion around a Safe System approach that combines infrastructure, enforcement, education, and technology. The first panel covered current DUI law and traffic safety research. Thomas Nozowitz of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code outlined California’s DUI penalty structure, including escalating misdemeanor and felony penalties, license suspensions, ignition interlock devices, Watson advisories, and homicide-related offenses such as vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and Watson murder. Stephanie Doherty of the Office of Traffic Safety described statewide crash trends, the role of alcohol, drugs, and speeding in fatalities, and state efforts such as the Safe System approach, safety corridors, and grant funding for impaired-driving countermeasures. Dr. Julia Griswold of UC Berkeley SafeTREC presented research favoring systemic interventions like self-explaining roads, safer speed limits, speed safety cameras, intelligent speed assistance, ignition interlocks, sobriety checkpoints, and treatment for chronic offenders, while noting that first-time DUI offenders account for a large share of fatal crashes. Members pressed the panelists on first-offense DUI treatment, ignition interlocks, speed governors, diversion, and whether tougher sanctions or vehicle technology would better reduce recidivism. Several senators raised concerns about repeat offenders, alcohol-use disorder, and the need for earlier intervention, while others questioned the effectiveness and cost of in-car devices. The panel also discussed data gaps and the need for better reporting and coordination between courts and DMV. The second panel, with DMV Director Steve Gordon and Judge Lisa Rodriguez, explained how administrative and court processes work in parallel: DMV receives court abstracts and can impose administrative per se suspensions quickly, while courts handle criminal cases, probation, and sentencing on a slower timeline. Both witnesses said the system is complex and paper-heavy but improving, and they acknowledged the need for better integration, clearer statutes, faster reporting, and more timely license actions to keep impaired drivers off the road.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> is appointed through a political process is appointed through a political process the<00:06:34.520
• </c> qualified for the job by his legal qualified for the job by his legal training<00:47:37.400><c>
• <00:48:01.640><c> uh</c><00:48:02.240><c> go</c> processes uh go processes uh go on<00:48:04.520><c>
• I was, uh, and as you've heard, the nomination process and the selection process is very lengthy.
• Thank you very much. process work so that way if that's the process work so that way if that's the process

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We should hold schools accountable when they fail to act on known bullying because schools have a legal
• This bill shifts the focus away from the individual committing the bullying and instead places legal
• Chair, I would also like to make a point about the cost of firearms legally in Arizona.
• Chairman, is the State Board of Education part of this process?
• This bill would expose schools to legal challenges and waste taxpayer resources.

Committees: House Education , House House Education Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• There is legal precedent for this.
• They are operating absolutely legally.
• So we are a country of immigration, but it's the legal way.
• I believe in legal immigration. I believe in legal immigration.
• Is the spaceman please take your legal name for the record, sir? Mr.

Bills: SB1047 , SB1365 , SB1474 , SB1618 , SB1620

Committee: Senate Military Affairs and Border Security

Keywords: National Guard, active duty, combat, Arizona, declaration of war, state law, military service, property tax, exemptions, veterans, disabilities, widows and widowers, Arizona Revised Statutes, immigration enforcement, local law enforcement, federal cooperation, law enforcement training, public safety, military affairs, funding

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to make those tax forms legal. Thank you. Final question. So, Mr.
• We need to pass this legislation in order to make it legal.
• We can't legally do it. A negotiation is nothing without us being in session.
• But it was, again, legal at the time, and it is now not legal anymore.
• Did it, but it was, again, legal at the time, and it is now not legal anymore. Thank you.

Committee: House House Ways & Means Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2785, a major Arizona tax conformity measure that would align state law with the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026 and apply retroactively to tax year 2025. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would make Department of Revenue tax forms legal, provide certainty to taxpayers already filing under those forms, and deliver about $440 million in tax relief through provisions such as no tax on tips and overtime, a larger standard deduction, a $6,000 senior deduction, and changes to deductions and the SALT cap. Opponents argued the bill would significantly reduce state revenue, disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers, and should not move forward without a broader budget plan. After an amendment addressing retroactivity and foreign dividend language was adopted, the committee approved HB 2785 on a 5-4 vote. The committee then heard several Arizona State Retirement System technical cleanup bills. HB 2089, clarifying the health insurance premium benefit subsidy, passed 9-0. HB 2090, changing the disability timeframe for long-term disability benefits, passed 8-1. HB 2092, allowing certain employees over age 65 to waive ASRS participation within 30 days of eligibility, also passed 8-1. These measures were described by staff and the sponsor as simple corrections, with little opposition. Finally, the committee considered HB 2477, which conforms Arizona’s 529 education savings plan to federal law, expands allowable uses, and adds rules for 529-to-Roth IRA rollovers and ABLE transfers. Supporters called it a cleanup bill that would simplify administration for families, while some members raised concerns about the Roth rollover and possible use of funds transferred from ESA accounts. The bill passed 5-3 with one member voting present. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can improve our processes.
• Um we have had our processes over time.
• </c> have a couple other uh uh processing have a couple other uh uh processing plants<00:31:37.760><c
• And I look forward to you processing.
• Um there was including legal immigrants.

Transcript Highlights:

• Persons disrupting legislative proceedings are subject to removal, arrest, or other appropriate legal
• She is double majoring in legal studies and political science. This is her first policy internship.
• SB 611 seeks to address a key barrier to progress: the unnecessary legal delays.
• This bill restores essential legal clarity and stability to the development process.
• The desk will remain open to process appropriate business.

Summary: The Assembly met after a quorum call and proceeded with prayers, the Pledge of Allegiance, journal approval, and a series of procedural motions, including suspending rules to allow same-day action on certain measures and guest introductions. Members also introduced interns, district staff, and visitors from their districts before moving to the daily file and concurrence calendar. The chamber took up several budget and policy bills. AB 104, a budget bill making technical and conforming changes to the 2025 Budget Act and extending loan repayment terms for two Imperial County hospitals, passed concurrence 53-1. AB 138, which ratified additional MOUs and contract addenda with estimated General Fund savings, also passed concurrence 53-4 after debate over whether the state was deferring costs and underfunding retiree health obligations. Other concurrence items passed unanimously or nearly so, including AB 1114 on private ambulance toll waivers, AB 642 on emergency-related provisions, AB 1051 on state highways, AB 1533 appropriating funds for state claims, AB 1459 on hazardous materials program technical changes, and SB 611 on housing and land-use litigation delays, which passed 66-0 on both the urgency and the measure. SB 251, another claims-appropriation bill, passed 64-0. The Assembly also adopted the consent calendar, with several items removed at the authors’ request, and approved additional consent measures such as ACR 13, SB 255, SB 387, SB 428, SB 602, SB 648, SB 652, SB 693, SCR 48, and SCR 79. Near the end of the session, members delivered adjournment-in-memory tributes to James Raymond Bell and Gail Yolanda McGowan. The House then announced summer recess, ordered the desk open for committee reports through July 18, and set the Assembly to reconvene on Monday, August 18, at 1 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lackey added insight to the budget and to the process that we went through.
• There are increases of funding for legal aid assistance. I believe, as Ms.
• You get legal protection services.
• the $5 million to Chispa for their legal services operations.
• And we are excited to move on to the next step in this process.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• [snorts] and you can learn more about [snorts] and you can learn more about our<00:08:05.599><c> process
• for drafting in the our process for drafting in the supplementary<00:08:08.080><c> materials</c><00:
• I serve as general counsel for True North Legal.
• </c> through the process. through the process.
• parents and like, right, like legal parents, and I think that's the kind of also difference I want to

Transcript Highlights:

• This rate of development poses a challenge for the existing legal framework for accountability.
• This rate of development poses a challenge for the existing legal framework for accountability: how to
• By categorically eliminating a possible legal defense...
• to provide suggestions to the author and the legislative process.
• to provide suggestions to the author and the legislative process.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard several bills on AI, social media, rental cars, and account deletion. AB 316 by Assemblymember Krell would bar defendants from avoiding liability by claiming an AI system autonomously caused harm. Supporters argued it would preserve accountability as AI grows more powerful, especially in cases involving children, while opponents said existing tort law already covers these issues and warned the bill could create uncertainty and overbroad liability. The bill passed the committee 8-1. AB 656 by Assemblymember Schiavo, sponsored by Consumer Federation of California, would make it easier for users to delete social media accounts and personal information, with amendments shifting the deletion prompt into settings rather than on every screen. Supporters said platforms use dark patterns and make deletion unnecessarily difficult; opponents raised concerns about unintended deletions and possible conflicts with existing privacy law, though the author said the bill was being aligned with CCPA. The bill passed 9-0. The committee also approved the consent calendar. AB 1197 by Assemblymember Calderon would address rental car theft and misuse by allowing limited geofencing in specific situations and revising rules around renter liability when keys are returned and a police report is filed. Rental car companies and other supporters said the bill would help recover stolen or abandoned vehicles, while an opponent warned about privacy and possible consumer harms in edge cases. The bill passed 11-0. AB 1374 by Assemblymember Berman would require more upfront disclosure of the total price of rental cars, including mandatory fees, to curb hidden charges; supporters said consumers still face surprise costs, while opponents argued current law already requires disclosure and that the bill’s new wording could invite litigation. It passed 13-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• This rate of development poses a challenge for the existing legal framework for accountability.
• This rate of development poses a challenge for the existing legal framework for accountability: how to
• to provide suggestions to the author and the legislative process.
• So I would... ...to provide suggestions to the author and the legislative process.
• And we hope that this will break those maze of walls down and make it clear and simple process.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard and advanced four bills focused on AI liability, social media account deletion, rental car theft prevention, and rental car price transparency. AB 316 by Assembly Member Krell would bar defendants from avoiding liability by claiming an AI system autonomously caused harm; supporters said it preserves existing tort standards while preventing AI from becoming a scapegoat, while opponents argued current law already covers these issues and the bill could create uncertainty. The committee ultimately passed AB 316, 8-1, with one no vote and the roll left open for absent members. AB 656 by Assembly Member Chiu would make it easier for consumers to delete social media accounts and personal information, with amendments shifting the deletion option into settings rather than requiring a message on every screen. Supporters, including Consumer Federation of California, said platforms make deletion unnecessarily difficult and that the bill helps users escape addictive platforms; opposition from TechNet was limited and described as a work-in-progress. The bill passed unanimously, 9-0, and the roll was left open. AB 1197 by Assembly Member Calderon would modernize rental car laws to address theft and misuse, including allowing limited geofencing in specific circumstances and revising the “keys” presumption for stolen vehicles. Supporters from rental car companies said the bill would help recover stolen or abandoned vehicles and reduce fraud, while consumer advocates raised concerns about privacy and possible unintended consequences. The committee passed AB 1197 unanimously, 11-0, with the roll left open. AB 1374 by Assembly Member Berman would require rental car companies to disclose the real price of a rental earlier in the booking process, including mandatory fees and taxes, to curb hidden-fee pricing. Consumer advocates supported the measure and cited examples of price increases late in the transaction, while rental car industry representatives argued existing law already works and that the bill could create confusion or litigation. The committee passed AB 1374 unanimously, 13-0. The committee also approved the consent calendar, and later reconfirmed the votes for the bills after quorum issues were resolved.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are reviewing our processes.
• Do you have the process for reckless driving? It's the same process.
• You know, one of the challenges is that we need to ensure that there's due process in our civil and legal
• require due process?
• Now we're getting to enforcement and the enforcement actions that lead to the criminal legal process.

Summary: The joint Senate Public Safety and Transportation hearing focused on DUI, impaired driving, traffic violence, speed management, and how criminal and administrative systems interact. Chairs Jesse Arreguín and Dave Cortese said the hearing was intended to inform upcoming legislation and noted that no bills would be acted on that day. They emphasized the scale of roadway deaths and serious injuries, the need for a holistic Safe System approach, and the importance of hearing from law enforcement, researchers, victims’ advocates, judges, and DMV officials. The first panel reviewed current DUI law and research. Thomas Nozowitz of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code outlined California’s DUI penalties, including escalating misdemeanor and felony consequences, ignition interlock device requirements, license suspensions, Watson advisories, and homicide-related offenses. Stephanie Doherty of the Office of Traffic Safety described statewide crash trends, the role of alcohol, drugs, speed, and vulnerable road users, and the state’s Safe System and safety corridor efforts. Dr. Julia Griswold of UC Berkeley presented research supporting systemic interventions such as self-explaining roads, safer speed limits, speed safety cameras, ignition interlocks, sobriety checkpoints, and treatment for chronic offenders; she also noted that many DUI fatalities involve first-time offenders and that punitive measures alone have limited effect on high-risk drivers. Members pressed witnesses on ignition interlocks, speed governors, DUI treatment, diversion, and whether current penalties are strong enough. Several senators, including Archuleta and Blakespear, argued for stronger immediate consequences and better use of in-car technology, while witnesses said chronic offenders often need treatment and that some existing programs may be underused or inconsistently effective. The discussion also touched on data gaps, the need to distinguish alcohol- from drug-involved crashes, and the possibility of allowing diversion for some first-time DUI cases while preserving consequences for repeat offenses. The second panel addressed DMV and court processes. DMV Director Steve Gordon said the department handles mandatory, court-ordered, and administrative actions, and that recent process changes have reduced DMV hearing delays from roughly 170 days to under 70 days in many cases. Judge Lisa Rodriguez explained that county-by-county court practices, case filing delays, sentencing timelines, and paper or mixed electronic systems can slow reporting to DMV, especially for misdemeanors and felonies. She said courts are reviewing reporting requirements, training, and case-management coding to improve transmission of DUI orders, while DMV said it is open to simplification and better coordination but is constrained by aging systems and the motor vehicle account’s financial limits. No votes or formal actions were taken.