Video & Transcript Research : 'voting procedures'
Page 109 of 500
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety - 04/13/26
Judiciary and Public Safety
Transcript Highlights:
- I'm trying to figure out procedurally where to go at the moment, Senator Hommerding.
- On a tie vote, the amendment Five hands.
- On a tie vote, the amendment does<01:31:23.600>
not <01:31:23.800>prevail. - procedure? Why why put that in statute? procedure? Why why put that in statute?
- um I think our rules of civil procedure um I think our rules of civil procedure are<01:35:38.000
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Election Laws Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm
Joint Committee on Election Laws
Transcript Highlights:
- It's not called the privilege to vote. Voting is not a privilege; it is a right.
- And how that vote actually worked is that we voted from our community, so our vote was counted from where
- to voting access.
- “Yes, in terms of how to vote.” “How I voted? It was really easy.
- So they said to disperse the vote, you know, to make, disperse the vote.
Summary:
The committee heard extensive testimony on S. 7 and H. 63, proposed constitutional amendments to restore voting rights to people incarcerated for felony convictions. Sponsors Rep. Erica Iderhoven and Sen. Liz Miranda argued that Massachusetts should reverse the 2000 disenfranchisement change, describing it as a recent and racially discriminatory policy that excludes thousands of residents—disproportionately Black and Latino—from civic participation. They said the amendment would put the question before voters, likely in 2028, and noted that implementation details such as domicile and where incarcerated people would register to vote would be handled separately through legislation and existing jail-based voting work.
A large number of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people testified in support, many speaking remotely from MCI Norfolk, MCI Shirley, and MCI Framingham. They said voting would affirm dignity, accountability, rehabilitation, and connection to community, and several described civic education programs inside the facilities that had helped them engage with public policy. Witnesses repeatedly characterized disenfranchisement as “civil death,” linked it to racial injustice and the legacy of slavery, and urged the committee to advance the bills favorably. A few speakers also addressed practical questions about voting location and domicile, with sponsors saying those issues are not specified in the constitutional amendment and would be worked out later.
Committee members asked several questions, including whether incarcerated people would vote in the community where they were incarcerated or where they previously lived, and whether future legislation could include carve-outs based on offense type or time served. Testifiers and sponsors generally said the amendment itself does not decide those implementation questions, and some said they would oppose carve-outs. One member raised a broader moral objection about allowing people convicted of serious crimes to vote; supporters responded that punishment should not erase democratic rights and that voting can support rehabilitation and reentry. No vote or final committee action was taken during the transcript provided.
The hearing also briefly included testimony on a separate matter, S. 521, a proposed ratification of the federal Child Labor Amendment. Witnesses supporting that measure warned against renewed child labor rollbacks in other states and argued Massachusetts should reaffirm protections for children and education. That portion of the hearing was separate from the voting-rights discussion.
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- I requested a roll call vote. You requested a roll call vote? Mr.
- We're talking about voting and voice votes on the adoption of any amendment.
- So with that, I'd encourage a no vote, and let's vote on this separately if we can.
- those opposed, vote nay.
- those opposed, vote nay.
Summary:
The House Committee on Government heard several measures related to property fraud, assisted living regulation, and memorials tied to free speech. SB 1479 would require photo identification and other identifying measures for deeds and real property documents notarized at county recorder offices, and would increase the penalty for knowingly submitting a false claim or forgery against real property from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class 5 felony. Testimony from a deed fraud victim, county assessors, the Attorney General’s Office, and an online notary stakeholder emphasized the prevalence of deed fraud and the value of parcel-specific notification systems; the chair also said he would run a floor amendment to tighten the bill. The committee voted 7-0 to return SB 1479 with a do pass recommendation.
SB 1473 would bar municipalities and counties from capping the number of residents in assisted living homes, restricting such homes on residentially zoned property, or imposing extra administrative requirements based solely on resident count. Supporters from the Arizona Assisted Living Homes Association and an assisted living home operator said recent local occupancy reductions, especially in Paradise Valley, threatened small homes, affordability, and access to care for seniors and vulnerable adults. Members discussed parking concerns and the need for residential care options; the bill was described as a property rights issue as well as a care-access issue. The committee approved SB 1473 on a 7-0 vote.
The committee then considered SB 1663, which creates a Freedom of Speech Monument Committee to nominate two deceased individuals each year from different political parties for recognition on a monument in the Governmental Mall. The sponsor’s statement framed the measure as honoring Arizonans who preserved free speech, while one public witness opposed it. The bill passed 4-1, with Rep. Márquez voting no. Finally, SB 1686, which renames Wesley Bolin Plaza and authorizes memorials for Charlie Kirk and Don Bowles, drew extended debate over whether the memorials should be combined. An amendment to separate the memorials failed 3-4, and after sponsor testimony and public comment both for and against, the committee approved SB 1686 on a 4-3 vote.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Floor Session Sep 4th, 2025
California House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- All members vote who desire to vote. Members, vote who desire to vote.
- All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
- All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
- All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
- All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote. desire to vote.
Summary:
The Assembly convened after a quorum call, prayer, and pledge, then handled a long consent and concurrence calendar. Early procedural actions included moving several bills to the inactive file, waiving the floor amendment deadline for certain measures, rescinding prior action on SB 733, and approving a motion to withdraw AB 710 from committee to the third reading file by a 42-12 vote. The chamber also re-referred AB 406 to Labor and Employment and later AB 754 to Housing, while taking up numerous Senate and Assembly measures out of order to accommodate authors and guests.
The body adopted several resolutions recognizing October 2025 as California Promotoras Month (HR 58), National Fried Rice Day and National Rice Month (HR 71), Direct Support Professional Recognition Week (HR 70), and All California Day (HR 67). Members also concurred in Senate amendments on a wide range of bills covering insurance, horses, emergency vehicles, health facilities, restitution, education, tribal regalia at graduation, behavioral health, air pollution, energy, dams, greenhouse gases, foster youth, court interpreters, tenancy language access, patient privacy notices, discrimination in school facility rentals, hospital visitation rights, diversion, agriculture, insurance studies, electricity, and environmental stewardship. Most of these measures passed with little or no opposition, though a few drew recorded noes.
Several higher-profile policy bills drew debate. SB 694 on veteran claim assistance generated the most extensive discussion, with supporters arguing it would stop predatory, unaccredited companies from charging veterans for VA claims help, and opponents warning it could reduce veterans’ choices and should be paired with broader fixes to county VSO access; the bill ultimately passed 46-0. Other notable actions included concurrence on SB 576 limiting loud streaming ads, SB 512 on transportation tax initiatives, and SB 785 creating a tax credit for durable medical equipment for children with complex medical needs. The Assembly also concurred in SB 250 on Medi-Cal provider directories, SB 831 on the Geological Survey, SB 788 on CPA regulation, SB 456 on muralist licensing, SB 72 on the California Water Plan, SB 76 on used-car fee protections, SB 246 on rural health workforce support, SB 484 on coastal affordable housing, SB 680 on sex offender registration, SB 695 on climate-resilient highway projects, and SB 783 on outdoor advertising. Votes were overwhelmingly favorable across the board, with the chamber repeatedly adopting Senate amendments and resolutions by voice vote or recorded roll call.
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
House Housing Finance and Policy Committee 3/12/25
Housing Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- <01:10:37.920>
maze zoning barriers but a procedural maze zoning barriers but a procedural - And I ask for your support and a yes vote.
- And I ask for your support and a yes vote.
- And I ask for your support and a yes vote.
- And I ask for your support and a yes vote.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Children and Family Law (02/10/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- Would you guys like to vote on that language, or do we have to vote?
- I agree, and I don't—we haven't voted on the other amendment that we brought in, so we could actually
- or or do we have to vote what do we well or or do we have to vote what do we well I<00:08:22.440>
- <00:29:03.480>
work goes over our policies procedural work goes over our policies procedural - It's not structuring policies or procedures; it's strictly definitions as a guideline.
Summary:
The subcommittee met on House Bill 553, which concerns the definitions of child abuse and neglect in RSA 169-C, including psychological maltreatment and the rebuttable presumption of harm. The chair and members emphasized that the bill is intended to clarify definitions rather than create punishments, and they discussed concerns that had arisen after the bill’s earlier drafting. Representative Eimon stated his view that the bill is constitutional, citing case law, and members noted that amendment 114 would restore language refined by the prior study committee and address trauma-informed wording, especially around substance use disorder and newborns.
A major portion of the discussion focused on whether the bill could be read to treat ordinary parental discipline or disagreements with a child—such as grounding, taking away car keys or a phone, or refusing gender-affirming care—as abuse or neglect. DCF Deputy Director Jen Ross explained that screeners look at the nature of the allegation and whether the parent’s conduct is likely to cause serious psychological or emotional harm; she said routine discipline or prudent parenting would not be screened in, while persistent ridiculing, terrorizing, bullying, isolating, threats, or similar conduct could qualify. She also said that denial of gender-affirming care, by itself, would not be treated as neglect, but the agency would consider the full context and any resulting harm or need for mental health care.
DCF General Counsel Susan Larby added that the legislature’s earlier definition of psychological maltreatment and related policy already focus on pervasive emotionally abusive behavior, and that the bill is meant to make the statute more understandable and transparent, not to change the core neglect standard. She and other speakers said the goal is to identify serious harm and provide services, not to remove children for ordinary parental decisions. Lisa Massio of the Office of the Child Advocate said the bill and related placement language are intended to preserve family unity and fill gaps where courts have interpreted neglect too narrowly or inconsistently. Members also discussed a proposed concise analysis from Representative Maral and asked about CPSW qualifications and training; DCF said staff generally have backgrounds in human services, social work, psychology, or education and receive a 12-week Core Academy on policy, law, investigations, and family engagement. No vote was taken in the portion provided, and members indicated they wanted to continue refining the amendment before sending anything to the Office of Legislative Services.
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
April 10, 2025 - 10:00 AM
Transcript Highlights:
- Representative Nix having closed on his bill, Nola, please call the roll on HB 361 and announce the vote
- under the insurance company required to be in the same specialty as far as what they're denying, the procedure
- And it's interesting when we talk about policy and procedure, because oftentimes, not to bring politics
- or whatever, but since questions and answers are over with, and since we're stretching policy and procedure
- Representative Gonzalez Pittman, having closed, Anola, please call the roll on HB 1341 and announce the vote
Summary:
The Health Professions and Programs Subcommittee met with a quorum present and considered two bills. HB 361, by Rep. Nix, would reclassify registered interns as registered associates for clinical social work, marriage and family therapy, and mental health counseling, and would streamline supervision rules by removing the requirement that licensed supervisors be physically present in private practice settings. Supporters said the bill would modernize terminology, reduce barriers to practice, and expand access to mental health care while maintaining supervision and public safety. Several members raised concerns about possible unintended effects on community health centers and Medicaid workforce issues, but the bill drew broad support and passed 17-0, reported favorably.
The committee then heard HB 1341, by Rep. Gonzales Pittman, which is aimed at preventing misuse of physician specialty titles and limiting those titles to practitioners who are actually board-certified in the specialty they claim. The sponsor emphasized that the bill does not address the general use of “doctor” or “physician,” only specialty designations such as dermatologist, gynecologist, neurologist, or plastic surgeon. Testimony in support came from medical and professional groups, including anesthesiologists and plastic surgeons, who said clearer titles help patients know who is treating them and improve safety. The Florida Optometric Association opposed the bill, arguing it could create confusion or omit optometric titles and other designations.
Two amendments were adopted without objection. One removed a hospital name-tag requirement from the bill. The other changed a claims-denial provision so that denial letters need only disclose that a Florida-licensed physician in good standing made the decision, while the insurer must retain the physician’s identifying information for potential litigation or discovery. Some members supported the privacy protections, while others questioned whether the amendment was germane to the bill. As amended, HB 1341 passed 13-4 and was reported favorably.
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
CPC Public Hearing - Tue Mar 3, 2026 @ 2:00 PM HST
Consumer Protection & Commerce
Transcript Highlights:
- vote.
- Voting on HB Okay, chair for the vote.
- Voting on Okay, vice chair for the vote.
- Voting on Okay, vice chair for the vote.
- Voting on Okay, vice chair for the vote.
Bills:
HB2323, HB2324, HB1509, HB2164, HB2165, HB2367, HB2619, HB1765, HB2187, HB1864, HB1452, HB2314, HB1898, HB2558, HB2319, HB1643, HB2121
Keywords:
workers' compensation, treatment plans, vocational rehabilitation, electronic submission, reporting requirements, occupational safety, hoisting machines, discrimination protection, Department of Labor, safety standards, treatment plan, injured worker, medical treatment authorization, employer response deadline, secure electronic transmission, facsimile, fax, mail submission, denial of care, medical necessity
Summary:
The committee heard several administration bills related largely to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance. On HB 2323 HD1, which would modernize workers’ compensation notice and filing procedures, DLIR and other agencies testified in support of the original bill language but said HD1 removed key components and weakened the bill’s clarity and continuity. HB 2324 HD1, which would repeal state hoisting-machine certification requirements and the separate crane operator certificate, drew support from DLIR; members asked about whether the change would affect safety or local operators, and DLIR said OSHA-compliant certifications already exist and the union supported the change. HB 1509 HD1, which would require faster employer responses to treatment plans and impose penalties for nonresponse, received support from DLIR and others, while DHRD said it wanted an amendment.
The committee also took up HB 2164 HD1 on compounded prescription drugs in workers’ compensation. DLIR supported the bill as a way to define compounded drugs and curb inflated pricing, but DHRD and a medical provider opposed it and asked for amendments. Testimony focused heavily on whether the definition should include 503B compounding facilities and whether physician dispensing should be limited to the first 30 days after injury. HB 2165 HD1, dealing with unemployment insurance eligibility and removing the two-year limit on recouping overpayments, was supported by DLIR but opposed by Unite Here Local 5, which argued it would make it harder for striking workers and other claimants. Members questioned the impact of changing reporting deadlines from calendar days to business days and raised concerns about future benefit offsets; DLIR said the bill was needed for federal conformity and that the committee would revisit the offset percentage and effective date.
Later, the committee heard HB 2367 on pay transparency, requiring salary ranges in job postings and removing the small-employer exemption. The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, AAUW, Hawaii Women Lawyers, and an individual testifier supported the bill, saying pay transparency promotes fairness, trust, and pay equity; one testifier described being underpaid compared with a predecessor and said posting ranges would save applicants’ time. HB 2619 HD1, concerning homemade food products and farm kitchens, received generally supportive comments from the Department of Health, which requested an amendment to preserve flexibility in future rulemaking. HB 1765 HD1, on spear-fishing safety warnings, drew support from a safety educator and comments from DLNR; supporters said warning labels would help prevent hypoxic blackout deaths and were low-cost and easy to implement. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.
AL
Alabama 2026 1st Special Session
Alabama Senate State Governmental Affairs Committee Apr 7th, 2026
State Governmental Affairs
Transcript Highlights:
- And I should be able to vote because 7% of voting-age adults vote in primaries and that decides 3% of
- Saturday voting, they ain't voting for it. Curbside voting, not voting for it.
- Saturday voting, they ain't voting for it. Curbside voting, not voting for it.
- Saturday voting, they ain't voting for it. Curbside voting, not voting for it.
- Saturday voting, they ain't voting for it. Curbside voting, not voting for it.
Bills:
HB541
Keywords:
PFAS, drinking water, public health, environmental management, liability, 923, senate, all
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
JHA Public Hearing - Thu Feb 12, 2026 @ 2:00 PM HST
Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs
Transcript Highlights:
- Voting on not, vice chair for the vote.
- Are there any additional no votes? votes? votes?
- chair for the vote. chair for the vote.
- Voting on >> Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.
- Voting If not, vice chair for the vote.
Summary:
The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2046, which would establish and fund an Olo Hawaii Commission to coordinate and promote initiatives supporting the use of Olo Hawaii. The Attorney General suggested adding an end date because the bill creates a temporary commission, and several supporters from the University of Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission said the commission could improve coordination, funding decisions, and consistency across agencies. Members discussed whether the commission should include broader representation, including expertise on Niihau dialect speakers and other stakeholders, and the bill was then set aside as the committee moved to the next measure.
The committee next considered House Bill 2438, creating the Hawaii Cultural Trust within DBEDT, authorizing an income tax credit for contributions to the trust and qualified cultural organizations, and creating a special license plate to support the trust. DBEDT said it would need additional resources, including staff, to administer the program. The Department of Taxation recommended changing the effective date to 2026 to allow time for implementation and adding a requirement that credits be claimed within one year. OHA supported the bill but objected to language that would require it to maintain a prequalified list of organizations, saying that could limit applicants and conflict with its grant process. The Tax Foundation said it supported cultural funding but preferred direct appropriations and grants over a trust fund and tax credit structure.
The final measure discussed was House Bill 2584, which would temporarily increase public land trust revenues transferred to OHA while reaffirming the state’s obligation to the 20% pro rata share, with a repeal date of June 30, 2028. The Attorney General recommended deleting the bill’s requirement that OHA receive a minimum amount equal to the 20% share, arguing the constitution and Admission Act do not specify a precise dollar amount and that the legislature must determine allocation. OHA strongly supported the bill, arguing the state currently pays only about 5% and that historical records show much higher amounts are owed; OHA also pointed to a carry-forward account it said held about $55 million. DLNR opposed the bill because the fiscal impact was unspecified and could affect land management and special fund budgets. Several OHA trustees and supporters urged the committee to pass the bill, and one testifier criticized the state for underfunding Native Hawaiian obligations. No votes were taken in the portion provided, and the committee continued hearing testimony on HB 2584.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- We have a board policy and procedure procedure procedure as<00:19:39.240>
it <00:19:39.360> - uh capitalizing on that serves as a vote uh capitalizing on that serves as a vote of<00:37:35.680
- Your honor, may I state the vote? Thank you so much, Senator.
- <01:08:15.600>
Thank Your honor, may I state the vote? - Thank Your honor, may I state the vote?
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on the Judiciary Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm
Joint Committee on the Judiciary
Transcript Highlights:
- Today, the House is in a rare Tuesday session, which may require us to get up and go vote.
- We'd love for this committee to vote this out favorably. Thank you guys.
- So again, I just hope that the committee can vote this out bravely.
- For these reasons, we strongly urge that this bill receive a favorable vote.
- I urge you to vote for regulations, not bans.” Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy hearing on several juvenile justice and parole-related bills, with much of the testimony focused on H. 2051/S. 1087 to end lifetime parole for juveniles and emerging adults, and H. 1923 to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to include 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds. Chairs Brandy Fluker-Reid and Lydia Edwards opened the hearing by noting the large number of bills and witnesses, the need to keep testimony moving, and special procedures for incarcerated witnesses and sensitive testimony. They also acknowledged the historic nature of the hearing being chaired by two Black women attorneys. No votes were taken during the hearing itself.
Many incarcerated speakers and advocates supported ending lifetime parole, arguing that young people can change, that lifetime supervision creates constant fear of technical violations, and that it undermines rehabilitation, family stability, employment, and reintegration. Several testified about their own trauma, youth, and growth in prison programs, while others emphasized the costs of decades of supervision and the racial disparities in the system. Support also came from elected officials, UTEC, the Transformational Prison Project, United Way, CPCS’s Youth Advocacy Division, the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, and others, who said juvenile systems are better suited to developmentally appropriate treatment and that the bills would improve public safety and reduce recidivism.
There was also opposition, including testimony from family members of a murder victim who argued that lifetime parole should remain for serious violent crimes and that some offenders are not sufficiently rehabilitated. One virtual witness described a family tragedy involving the kidnapping and murder of her infant nephew and warned that ending lifetime parole could remove needed long-term supervision for dangerous offenders. In addition to the juvenile justice bills, the committee heard testimony on H. 1867, a bill related to continuing care for severe mental illness, and H. 2063, which would increase penalties for assaults on correction officers and other prison staff; the correction officers’ union supported H. 2063 and related safety bills. The hearing continued with many more witnesses and bill topics, but no final committee action was announced in the portion provided.
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
US House Floor Proceedings (Tuesday, May 20, 2025)
US Federal House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- your eyes and vote for it. your eyes and vote for it.
- and voted no.
- Every Democrat voted yes. Every Republican voted no.
- Republican voted no. So, you see, this Republican voted no.
- Have all members voted? Does anyone wish to change their vote?
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
JLCAR Administrative Rules (04/18/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- Um, so I I'll be voting approval.
- I also know that Senator Pearl is holding that bill awaiting the outcome of this vote.
- I also know that Senator Pearl is holding that bill awaiting the outcome of this vote.
- <00:28:18.720>
Ah awaiting the outcome of this vote. - Ah awaiting the outcome of this vote.
Summary:
The committee first approved the minutes from the prior meeting and adopted the consent calendar without objection. It then postponed the Board of Licensed Dieticians item until next month after granting a waiver, and also postponed the Board of Accountancy item to next month so the agency could respond.
The Board of Registry and Optometry received conditional approval. Staff noted the board had addressed editorial comments, but flagged one substantive issue involving the drug formulary and whether it should be exempt from rulemaking requirements; the committee agreed to add that as a legislative suggestion for later review. The Department of Natural and Cultural Resources interim rule drew more discussion, focused on a provision regulating kindling size for Category 3 fires. Staff and committee members questioned whether the agency had authority over Category 3 fires under the statute, but agency representatives said the interim rules were needed because the prior rules had expired and forest rangers lacked enforcement authority while final rulemaking was pending. The committee ultimately granted conditional approval to interim rule 25-4, with one member voting against it over concerns about consistency with the law.
The Board of Examiners’ Dental 304 rules were presented next. The agency explained that it had revised the rules to address prior committee concerns about anesthesia and sedation for children, including creating a pathway for oral surgeons and dentist anesthesiologists to obtain exemptions for under-13 patients, setting a 20-patient-every-two-years threshold for certain permits, adding pediatric minimal sedation permitting, and loosening moderate sedation rules for pediatric dentists. Members also discussed whether the rules were compatible with House Bill 470, and staff said they appeared compatible and would not require additional rulemaking. The committee then approved the dental rules, and after that it adjourned after announcing it would cancel the continued meeting and take up remaining business next month.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Floor Session May 18th, 2026
California House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
- All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
- All members vote who desire to vote. This is a 54-vote bill. All members vote who desire to vote.
- All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
- All members vote who desire to vote. All members vote who desire to vote.
Summary:
The Assembly convened after a quorum call, heard a prayer from Rabbi Mona Alfie, and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The chamber then held its first official Jewish American Heritage Month ceremony, beginning with Assembly Concurrent Resolution 195 by Assembly Member Gabriel. Gabriel and several colleagues from multiple caucuses spoke in support, emphasizing Jewish Californians’ contributions, the diversity of the Jewish community, solidarity with other communities, and opposition to anti-Semitism. The resolution was adopted by voice vote after 67 co-authors were added, and the Assembly then recognized 14 honorees for their service and leadership in California.
After the ceremony, members offered guest introductions and the body moved to floor business. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 9 by Assembly Member Bonta, which would add affordability as a required factor in CPUC rate-making, remove telecommunications from the CPUC, create an Office of Broadband, and expand legislative appointments to the commission, was adopted. The Assembly also passed AB 1697 delaying implementation of a 2025 labor law, AB 2322 on stormwater permit definitions, AB 1653 on pupil instruction, AB 2274 and AB 2273 on criminal justice and child sexual abuse-related prosecutorial practices, AB 2512 on Anaheim Angels naming language tied to a potential land exemption, AB 1956 on suicide prevention for young men and boys, AB 1809 on job order contracting, AB 1970 banning step therapy for serious mental illness and substance use disorder medications, AB 1973 expanding authority for advanced practice clinicians, and AB 2055 on vessel law modernization.
The Assembly also adopted ACR 186 designating May as California Physical Fitness and Mental Well-Being Month and H.R. 111 recognizing the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Interphobia, and Transphobia, after extensive debate reflecting both support and criticism over LGBTQ rights and parental rights issues. Several measures were passed with recorded votes, while some items were passed and retained on file or continued. The transcript ends as the Assembly was moving into AB 2059, a CEQA-related bill on rural transportation projects, with the sponsor describing it as a narrow exemption for 21 rural counties.
MS
Mississippi 2026 Regular Session
MS Senate Floor - 7 January, 2026; 10:00 AM
Mississippi Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Cast that tough vote. vote. vote.
- Anyone object to that procedure? Anyone wish to be recorded as voting no?
- Anyone object to procedure? Mr. Cord's voting no. Bryan, no. Anyone else? Turner forward, no.
- Anyone object to procedure? requested. Anyone object to procedure?
- and ask you to vote no. and ask you to vote no.
Summary:
The Senate convened with a quorum present, heard an invocation from Reverend Chip Stevens of First Baptist Church in Jackson, and recited the pledge of allegiance. The body then dispensed with the reading of the journal, committee reports, and bill titles, and received several guest introductions, including the president of Mississippi University for Women, the physician of the day, and the session’s pages.
The main item of business was Senate Bill 2004, the Mississippi PERS Stability Act. Senator Sparks explained that the bill would provide a $500 million infusion to the PERS accumulated employers account on July 1, 2026, followed by $50 million annually for 10 years, with backup funding from unobligated general funds if needed. He said the measure was intended to help address the system’s roughly $26 billion liability and to support both state employees and local government employers, noting that the state had already taken other steps to strengthen PERS. The bill was advanced to engrossed status, read for the third time, and placed on the calendar for final passage.
Senator Norwood asked whether the funding would help local governments, and Senator Sparks said it would, because the liability is shared by all employers in the system and affects local balance sheets and bond ratings. Senator Bryan then spoke at length in opposition to the broader direction of retirement policy, criticizing the committee process, the fragmentation of retirement legislation, and what he described as incentives for privatization and unfair treatment of new hires. He said he would still vote for the bill because it sends money into the system, but argued that the state should focus retirement benefits on older retirees and avoid further benefit expansions. Senator Sparks responded that the bill was a necessary cash infusion to honor commitments to employees, stabilize the system, and avoid insolvency, and said more PERS legislation would follow.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Public Health Jun 21st, 2026 at 10:00 am
Joint Committee on Public Health
Transcript Highlights:
- Minors cannot consent to medical procedures, period.
- Please vote. Country, to top that. Thank you. Thank you. Please vote no for those bills.
- I urge you to vote no.
- Please vote no on these bills. Thank you for your time.
- Please vote no on these bills. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Public Health held a hearing on several vaccination-related bills, including proposals to eliminate non-medical or religious exemptions for school immunizations (notably H. 2554 and S. 1557), a bill to require or improve reporting and administration of immunization data and exemptions (described as the Community Immunity Act, S. 1618), and H. 2431, which would prohibit COVID-19, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccine requirements. The committee also heard testimony on H. 2463, which would classify funeral directors as public health workers for vaccine-priority purposes during emergencies. The chair reviewed testimony rules and repeatedly asked speakers to keep comments orderly and brief so the committee could hear as many people as possible. No votes were taken during the hearing.
Testimony on H. 2554 and S. 1557 was sharply divided. Pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, public health advocates, and groups such as the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, March of Dimes, Massachusetts Families for Vaccines, and several parents supported eliminating religious exemptions, arguing that vaccination protects medically vulnerable children and adults, improves herd immunity, and helps prevent outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and other diseases. They cited local school data showing pockets of lower coverage and incomplete reporting, and several speakers referenced outbreaks in other states and the need for stronger, more consistent reporting and exemption management. Opponents argued the bills would infringe on religious freedom and parental rights, force families to choose between faith and education, and unfairly target a small number of families; some also said Massachusetts already has high vaccination rates and that the real issue is incomplete data or the gap population rather than religious exemptions.
H. 2431 drew testimony from supporters who said COVID-era mandates caused job losses, privacy concerns, and harm, and that the bill would prevent future requirements for COVID, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccines in schools, workplaces, and public settings. Supporters described personal experiences with alleged vaccine injury or mandate-related hardship. H. 2463 was supported by the Massachusetts Funeral Directors Association, which argued funeral directors work in infection-facing settings and should be eligible for vaccine priority during public health emergencies. The hearing featured extensive public testimony but no committee action beyond hearing the bills and taking questions from members.
TX
Texas 89th Regular
Senate Select Committee on Disaster Preparedness and Flooding Aug 20th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- procedures to notify local emergency services, appropriate camp personnel, and the parents or legal
- I expect to hear that at 7 o'clock on Thursday night on the Senate floor, and it will be voted off the
- It didn't even cross my mind that a camp like Mystic wouldn't have a detailed emergency procedure in
- What were your, what are your procedures? Okay, thank you.
- Members, it's time to vote.
WY
Wyoming 2026 Regular Session
House Floor Session-Day 21, March 6, 2026-AM
Wyoming House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- By your vote, you have voted to concur >> By your vote, you have voted to concur with<00:43:20.880
- Closing vote. Vote closed. 59, 3 excused.
- Closing vote. Vote closed.
- Closing vote. Vote closed. 60 aye, 2 excused. Vote closed. 60 aye, 2 excused.
- <01:18:38.080>
motion you're voting on a vote you to a motion you're voting on a vote you to a
KY
Kentucky 2025 Regular Session
House Standing Committee BR Sub. on Justice, Public Safety, & Judiciary (3-4-25)
Transcript Highlights:
- The current Family Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 37 requires attorneys to undergo the initial
- We're not voting on anything today.
- us this is a discussion we're not voting us this is a discussion we're not voting on<00:31:50.039
- There's no bill to vote on.
- There's no bill to vote on.
Summary:
The subcommittee met to discuss the guardian ad litem system, including appointment qualifications, training, payment, and whether any changes are needed. Roll was called, the February 25, 2025 minutes were approved, and the chair emphasized that the meeting was informational only and no vote would be taken. Representatives from the Court of Justice, including Chief Justice Deborah Henry Lambert and several family and district judges, testified about how the system has evolved since concerns raised in 2019 about overappointment and fees.
Court witnesses said the judiciary responded to earlier concerns by requiring open appointment lists of trained and qualified attorneys, improving training, and increasing oversight of fee orders. They reported that statewide GAL fees have fallen from a little over $14 million in 2019 to about $12 million, even as caseloads have grown, and said the average payment works out to about $650 per case, with the statutory cap for trial-level GAL fees still set at $500 since 1986. They argued that the current local appointment model works well, especially in rural areas, and warned that moving to a DPA-style regional model would create serious scheduling and conflict problems because of overlapping dockets and related criminal cases.
Judges from rural districts described shortages of available attorneys, high burnout, travel burdens, and the difficulty of finding enough counsel in smaller counties. They also said the Court of Justice cannot seek certain federal Title IV-E reimbursements, but urged the legislature to encourage the Finance and Administration Cabinet and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to pursue that funding through an MOU. One judge noted that some appointed attorneys are effectively underpaid relative to private rates and that better compensation would help attract and retain lawyers.
The discussion also covered training standards adopted after the 2019 audit. Witnesses said Rule 37 now requires initial training and four hours of multidisciplinary continuing training every two years, with topics including child development, trauma-informed care, substance use, child welfare, forensics, ethics, and communication with clients. They said the Court of Justice has offered in-person regional trainings and remote options, and that the goal is to keep qualified attorneys on the appointment lists while improving representation for children and parents in dependency, neglect, abuse, and termination-of-parental-rights cases.