Transcript Highlights:

• Is that to only a judicial warrant.
• law and you look for those judicial law and you look for those judicial warrants<01:20:31.440>
• <01:34:55.920> and ICE activities including judicial and ICE activities including judicial
• Vice Chair Coulter: If that officer has a signed judicial warrant? No.
• Um, I also have a concern that now we're requiring a judicial warrant.

Bills: HF3432, HF3411

Keywords: resident tuition, employment, higher education, Minnesota, tuition rates, state universities, immigration status, immigration, postsecondary education, privacy, data access, federal officers, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That violates judicial discretion.
• That violates judicial discretion. That violates judicial discretion.
• why we brought it to the judicial why we brought it to the judicial council.<01:32:09.840> Uh
• judicial branch employs electronic judicial branch employs electronic reporters<01:34:45.040> for
• when we're dealing with the the judicial when we're dealing with the the judicial system,<01:38:

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee continued its hearing on enforcement and compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, first taking additional public testimony from Melissa Zimmerman and Matt Senot of the East Side Corridor residents in Owatonna. They described submitting roughly two dozen data requests across several government entities related to a proposed highway project, saying some agencies responded but others did not, and that even after they substantially prevailed in a data practices complaint and the court imposed a maximum civil penalty, they still did not receive meaningful access to the records. Zimmerman said the lack of access harmed their ability to comment on the project’s environmental review, and both witnesses argued that the law needs stronger enforcement, realistic timelines, better communication, and more accessible remedies for requesters who cannot afford repeated litigation. They also raised practical barriers such as inaccessible file formats, missing software on a county-provided laptop, and the need for electronic delivery options. The committee then heard from Eric Johnson of Anoka County, who testified about Chapter 13 issues involving third-party polygraph data used in probation monitoring. He argued that when the state relies on third-party-generated summaries, the responsible authority’s obligations for access, retention, and correction are unclear, and there is no effective remedy when the third party does not respond. Johnson said the county directed him to seek raw data from the third party, which had not responded, and he warned that short retention periods can make data subject rights unenforceable if the records are destroyed before a request is resolved. Members asked about statutory citations and retention schedules, and several commented that the issue may warrant review of data-retention rules. During member discussion, legislators broadly agreed that the Data Practices Act’s enforcement mechanisms are not working well enough and that many requesters cannot afford to pursue administrative or court remedies. Co-Chair Scott suggested staff compile the testimony into a report to identify possible legislative fixes, while Senator Lucero said there may be some “low-hanging fruit” that could be addressed quickly in the short session. The chair also floated the idea of involving the Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution in a mediation role to improve communication and reduce gridlock, though members noted that any process would still need to produce results consistent with the law. The committee then moved on to its next agenda item, a discussion of the BCA Fusion Center and its annual reporting requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe she deserves some resources, and not the judicial branch.
• Erin Krian, General Counsel for the judicial branch.
• <04:59:08.480> B<04:59:09.240> judicial talks about the the judicial B judicial talks
• about the the judicial B judicial branch<04:59:10.360> governance<04:59:10.760> Commission
• regularly faxed to and from the judicial regularly faxed to and from the judicial branch<05:04:32.558

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened with a hearing on CACR 7, a proposed constitutional amendment to explicitly state that defendants are innocent until proven guilty in all cases and suits brought by the state. The prime sponsor argued the amendment would strengthen due process, prevent government overreach, and extend the presumption of innocence beyond criminal cases into civil and administrative matters such as forfeiture and family court proceedings. In testimony and questioning, the sponsor cited New Hampshire constitutional provisions, historical examples, and concerns about courts shifting burdens onto individuals. Committee members raised questions about the amendment’s wording, its relationship to existing law, and whether it would have practical effect if current statutes already place the burden on the state. The hearing was then closed without further witnesses. The committee next moved to executive session on House Bill 480, which establishes a procedure for restoring competency and creates a pilot forensic liaison position in Merrimack or Strafford County to assist with that process. After discussion about prior concerns, including an email from the Disabilities Rights Center and whether enough members were present, the committee voted to adopt Amendment 2025-61H and then voted ought to pass as amended. The amendment passed unanimously, and the bill passed on a 10-1 roll call, with Representative Andrew voting no. The chair noted the bill would not go on consent and that no minority report was planned. Finally, the committee opened a hearing on House Bill 666-FN, which would add restitution for violations of library-use confidentiality and expressly include library cards and membership status among confidential records. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen privacy protections after a local dispute and to provide a remedy and deterrent for improper disclosure. Committee questions focused on whether the restitution penalty would apply to accidental disclosures, how the bill interacts with existing exceptions such as court orders or investigations, and whether the language was consistent with current confidentiality law. The hearing remained open at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• having uh been the subject of judicial having uh been the subject of judicial evaluations<00:38:
• It risks judicial independence.
• correct administration of the judicial correct administration of the judicial system<00:47:19.520
• >> I did I did not speak with the judicial >> I did I did not speak with the judicial
• Just our judicial branch is one. Just our judicial branch is one.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh you also there the judicial branch.
• Um so in all three parts of the judicial Um so in all three parts of the judicial branch.<00:33:
• c><01:00:45.680> provide retired judicial officers to provide retired judicial officers to provide
• Two, the retired judicial service.
• arbitration with a uh a judicial arbitration with a uh a judicial officer.<01:06:25.200> We

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to continue its review of recommendations for New Hampshire’s family court, with the chair emphasizing a collaborative approach and noting that the group would focus on the origins of the family division, recurring problems identified in earlier reports, and comparisons with other states. Members discussed organizing testimony into three broad topics: the court hearing process and pro se litigant preparation, mediation/arbitration/counseling, and the interaction of domestic violence issues with family court and related criminal proceedings. The chair also noted that the subcommittee would not meet again for two weeks and encouraged members to review materials from Judge Michael Mace and NCSL research on other states’ family court systems. Attorney Heather Culp, senior administrator for the judicial branch’s circuit court, testified about New Hampshire’s ADR programs. She explained that the Office of Mediation and Arbitration, created by statute in 2007, oversees more than 12 statewide ADR programs across the Supreme, Superior, and Circuit Courts, including family division programs such as divorce-parenting mediation, neutral case evaluation, guardianship, termination of parental rights, and voluntary adoption mediation. She said the divorce-parenting mediation program is the largest family division ADR program, with about 3,400 mediation sessions in 2023 out of roughly 6,700 cases, and that most cases involving minor children are referred to mediation soon after the first appearance session. Culp described the family division process as beginning with a first appearance session led by a case manager, who provides information, helps with paperwork, and schedules mediation, usually within 30 to 45 days. She said mediation is strongly encouraged in parenting and divorce cases, but there is no requirement to reach agreement, and parties may settle some issues while leaving others for court. She also explained that mediation is prohibited or limited in certain domestic violence cases: cases with active civil protection orders may proceed only with both parties’ consent and possible safeguards, while cases involving criminal protective orders are not sent to mediation. Mediators in court-referred family cases are contracted with the court and must be certified by the executive branch’s mediator certification board; mediators do not communicate with judges, except through a brief ADR report noting whether the case settled or what the next procedural step is. Members asked about referrals, timing, and the meaning of “neutrals,” and Culp said the court uses in-house contracted neutrals for family division ADR and does not refer divorce-parenting cases to outside providers.

Transcript Highlights:

• So where funding that the judicial race.
• <00:46:30.480> elections more people in the judicial elections more people in the judicial
• actually have some ideas about judicial actually have some ideas about judicial um<00:46:47.119>
• I don't think um the judicial branch.
• People always ask me judicial elections.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have an issue with staffing in a lot of areas, but judicial staffing.
• We have an issue with staffing in a lot of areas, but judicial staffing.
• We have an issue with staffing in a lot of areas, but judicial staffing.
• We have an issue with staffing in a lot of areas, but judicial staffing.
• We have an issue with staffing in a lot of areas, but judicial staffing.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met without a quorum and discussed how to proceed with its family court review work. The chair said preliminary, unofficial reports could be circulated and voted on by email, and noted that next year the work might continue as a full committee rather than a subcommittee. Members also discussed carrying unresolved issues into next year, including the long-standing “one judge, one case” concept. Later, the committee received additional materials from a member who could not attend, including a packet on state-funded transcript requests and background information on how different states structure family court systems. A major presentation focused on improving New Hampshire family court pre-trial and mediation practices. The presenters said current rules give judges broad discretion, which can lead to inconsistent discovery, evidence, and timelines, especially for self-represented parties. They raised concerns about uneven mediator training and oversight, lack of uniform domestic violence screening, and unclear information for families about their rights and how to exit mediation. They recommended standardized pre-trial case management orders, clearer plain-language deadlines, mandatory domestic violence screening, stronger mediator certification and continuing education, a mentorship program, an independent oversight board, and a pilot program in a few counties before any statewide rollout. Members and presenters also discussed existing court forms and practices, including mediation agreements, mediator preparation forms, first appearances, and the use of Zoom for mediation. One participant argued that mediation can work better when parties are better prepared and when cases are not sent too early, and suggested that neutral case evaluation is another useful alternative dispute resolution tool. The discussion also touched on the need for better educational materials for pro se litigants, with one member describing efforts to create a more accessible guide for people going to court. No votes were taken, and the session ended with plans to continue reviewing materials and refine recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1369 adopts reasonable common-sense reforms to our judicial recall process.
• for California's judicial recall process while preserving voters' constitutional rights.
• We think there's a problem with judicial recalls, and in general, the politicization of this.
• We think there's a problem with judicial recalls, and in general, the politicization of the judicial
• And none of them, in my view, are premised on any judicial misconduct of any sort.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• occasion, the branch of the General Court shall request an opinion of the justices of the Supreme Judicial
• he already stated, Our bodies already have the ability to seek advisory opinions from the Supreme Judicial
• The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them.
• The judicial shall never exercise legislative and executive powers, or either of them, to the end that
• The judicial power would be set aside as inconvenient entirely.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House first took up House Bill 58, a fiscal year 2025 supplemental appropriations bill. The chamber adopted a further amendment offered by Rep. Michael Witts of Boston, then concurred with the Senate as amended after a roll call vote of 128-23. The House then moved to the orders of the day and considered the proposed permanent joint rules for the 2025-2026 session (House No. 2026 / Senate No. 18), with Rep. Moran of Brighton presenting the package as a set of transparency and process reforms, including joint committee procedures, a 60-day reporting deadline, public posting of summaries and testimony, and revised formal session timing. A series of minority amendments offered largely by Rep. Jones of North Reading and others were debated and repeatedly rejected, including proposals to require roll call votes for post-July 31 formal business, require two weeks’ notice for such sessions, publish State Auditor audits on the legislative website, require SJC advisory opinions on constitutional disputes, extend poll windows to two hours, require advance notice of electronic polls, and lengthen amendment filing deadlines. Supporters argued these changes would improve transparency, accountability, and member access; opponents said they would slow the legislative process and reduce flexibility. Most of these amendments failed on roll call votes by margins of 128-23 or similar, while a technical amendment from Rep. Galvin was adopted. The House then adopted the joint rules package by roll call, 128-23. The chamber also adopted the House rules package for the 2025-2026 session (House No. 2024) after debate led by Rep. Galvin of Canton, who emphasized modernization, online transparency, in-person participation, and an outside audit and EEO officer. Additional minority amendments on committee reporting, timing of formal business, and poll procedures were debated and defeated, while one technical amendment was adopted. The House later returned to the issue of legislative audits, rejecting an amendment to require House audits by the State Auditor after a lengthy debate over Question 1, separation of powers, and the scope of the auditor’s authority. The session ended with a memorial tribute to former Rep. Carol Doherty and an order to adjourn until the next day at 11 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:49.680> districts three members from judicial districts three members from judicial
• We have 243 employees and currently 15 volunteers in the Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County.
• District um henan County um in Judicial District um henan County um in 2024<00:05:12.919> we<
• In the last few years, we successfully combined management of six of our 10 judicial districts.
• There were only large concentrations of volunteers in the Fourth Judicial District and the Second.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the January 21 minutes and then reviewed committee rules, emphasizing deadlines for handouts, testimony notices, and substantive amendments, along with a warning that disruptive signs, noise, or demonstrations could lead to removal from the hearing room. The chair said the rules would be shared with the full House and noted the committee would operate with quorum and not tolerate chaos. The committee then heard a presentation from Tammy Baker Olson, the state program administrator for the Guardian ad Litem Board, on the program’s structure and budget request. She explained that guardians ad litem are independent voices for children’s best interests in child protection and family court cases, not attorneys or direct service providers. She said the program operates statewide, with 243 employees, and in 2024 advocated for more than 12,000 children, attended over 30,000 court proceedings, and filed reports in over 16,000 hearings. She also described specialized Family Court and Indian Child Welfare divisions, efforts to address racial disparities, and training requirements for guardians. Members asked about mileage and travel demands, the distinction between a child’s attorney and a guardian ad litem, caseloads, re-entry outcomes, the move from contractor/volunteer models to employee-based staffing, and the role of volunteers. Olson said most guardians use personal vehicles and mileage reimbursement, average caseloads are about 24, and the program has not seen a statewide increase in cases but does face staffing vacancies and turnover in some areas. She said the board believes the employee model improved advocacy and supervision, while the program is rebuilding a modest volunteer pool. She also said the program supports Indian Family Preservation Act-related work and has a formal process for handling conflicts of interest, which should be raised immediately to a supervisor rather than waiting for a complaint process.

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, we're taking away judicial discretion.
• The fact of the matter is these individuals are protected by quasi-judicial immunity.
• But in judicial proceedings, one party prevails and one doesn't.
• Judicial immunity serves an important but narrow intention to protect those involved in the judicial
• Because right now they don't have to, under quasi-judicial immunity.

Bills: SB1285, SB1289, SB1326, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1392, SB1402, SB1425, SCR1013, SCR1014

Keywords: sentencing, correctional facilities, multiple sentences, death penalty, aggravating circumstances, juvenile offenses, class 2 felony, foreign donations, election administration, certification, Arizona Revised Statutes, transparency, public disclosure, victims' rights, attorney fees, government accountability, right to counsel, legal representation, parents' rights, family law

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the executive director of the Judicial Council.
• I'm the executive director of the Judicial Council.
• So judicial council has to interest.
• judicial council. judicial council.
• judicial Um, does the judicial council<00:21:49.039> have<00:21:49.280> the<00:21:49.520

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Put simply, judicial deference is a judicial doctrine which ties the hands of judges and forces them
• Judicial deference fits framework.
• > is<00:16:46.120> a Put simply, judicial deference is a Put simply, judicial deference
• /c><00:25:39.480> system judicial deference creates a system judicial deference creates a system
• Thank you. judicial branch's role judicial branch's role um<00:29:53.640> and<00:29:54.160>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• any timelines as far as how quickly it has to be done and whether or not the person is held without bond
• The timelines were generally, but they can always request a bond hearing.
• This bill does not eliminate judicial discretion but simply provides a judge with more information to

Bills: HJR1088, HJR1090, HJR1091, HB1370, SB2154, HJR1092, HJR1093, HJR1095, HJR1099, HJR1100, HB3021, SB893, SB206, SB248, SB259, SB423, SB563, SB604, SB633, HJR1077, SB667, SB1224, SB1257, SB1264, SB1319, SB1360, SB1437, SB1531, SB1543, SB1806, HB3004, SB1572, HB4342, SB1618, SB2, SB237, SB1632, SB1687, SB1726, SB1859, SB1894, SB1461, HB4432, SB1948, SB1589, SJR52, SR46, HCR1030, SB2071, SB2182, SB1451, HJR1088, HJR1090, HJR1091, HJR1092, HJR1093, HJR1095, HJR1096, HJR1099, HJR1100, SB2185, SB893, HB3021, SR46, SB206, SB237, SB248, SB259, SB423, SB563, SB604, SB625, SB633, SB667, SB1224, SB1257, SB1264, SB1319, SB1360, SB1378, SB1437, SB1531, SB1543, SB1572, SB1618, SB1632, SB1687, SB1726, SB1806, SB1859, SB1894, SB1948, SB2071, SJR52, HB1370, HJR1077, SB2, SB1451, SB2182, HCR1030

Keywords: education rules, administrative rules, joint resolution, Oklahoma State Department of Education, higher education, State Regents for Higher Education, Teachers' Retirement System, charter schools, Statewide Charter School Board, career and technology education, CTE, OEQA, rule approval, legislative oversight, permanent rules, school governance, teacher retirement, education agencies, Oklahoma Register, Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry

Transcript Highlights:

• courts to detain those who pose a clear and demonstrable risk to others or to the integrity of the judicial
• their constitutional right to release if they can pay monetary bail or secure the services of a bail bond
• Because when you go to a bail bond company, you have to come up with the 10% premium.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on draft constitutional amendment language from Representative Holland to create universal pre-trial release except in certain circumstances and eliminate cash bail. Representative Holland said the proposal is intended to make Minnesota’s pre-trial system fairer and more equitable by basing detention decisions on public safety and due process rather than a person’s ability to pay, and noted that a separate bill would later provide the detailed framework for an intentional release-and-detention system. He emphasized that no action would be taken at this hearing. Testifiers in support included Joshua Page of the University of Minnesota and the Pre-Trial Justice Minnesota Coalition, Alicia Gransee of the ACLU of Minnesota, Jess Palia of Violence Free Minnesota, and Ramsey County Attorney John Choi. Supporters argued that cash bail creates unequal treatment, contributes to racial disparities, harms families and communities, and does not reliably improve court appearance or public safety. They cited research and coalition findings about high pre-trial detention rates, overrepresentation of Black and American Indian Minnesotans, the impact of detention on housing and employment, and the need for courts to use individualized risk assessments, conditional release, and services instead of money-based release decisions. Palia focused on domestic violence cases, saying cash bail can pressure survivors to pay for abusers’ release and that current hearings often give little time to victim safety concerns. During member questions, concerns were raised that the amendment could remove an important tool for judges in the middle range of cases. Choi responded that conditional release and other protections could still be built into implementing legislation, and Page said detention would become an option but many cases would still involve conditional release and support services. He also argued there is no evidence that money itself motivates court appearance and said cash bail often shifts costs to low-income family members, especially women of color. The hearing ended without any vote or formal action, with members and testifiers noting that further legislation and discussion would follow if the amendment advances.

Transcript Highlights:

• and a judicial warrant. and a judicial warrant.
• c><00:53:59.520> would<00:53:59.600> be judicial warrant or that would be judicial warrant
• daycare employees to request a judicial daycare employees to request a judicial warrant.<00:54:12.200
• If there is a signed judicial warrant If there is a signed judicial warrant and<00:55:31.800> somebody
• I'm a big fan of judicial warrants.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, row 41 judicial branch budget reduction removed by the Senate.
• Um, row 41 judicial branch budget reduction removed by the Senate.
• Um, row 41 judicial branch budget reduction removed by the Senate.
• of about 7.8 million on the judicial of about 7.8 million on the judicial branch.<01:11:06.480><
• There was a reduction judicial branch.

Keywords: LBA Briefing on Budget, 928, house, all

Summary: The presentation was an LBA overview of Senate changes to the House-passed state budget, with Michael Kane explaining how Senate Finance updated revenue and spending estimates after April revenue figures and agency discussions. He said the Senate’s revenue outlook was higher than the House’s in some areas, but lower in others, especially video lottery terminal revenue, and that the biggest differences also came from changes to revenue splits between the general fund and education trust fund, lapse estimates, and several policy changes in House Bill 1 and House Bill 2. Kane highlighted several major revenue and policy differences: the Senate changed the business tax, tobacco tax, and real estate transfer tax splits; adjusted liquor revenue dedication; removed the House’s meals-and-rooms distribution cap; delayed the Lakes Region facility proceeds plan; altered the PECARD fund treatment; added a granite patron of the arts tax credit; and changed the treatment of unique funds and video lottery terminal revenue. On spending, he noted Senate changes to judicial, corrections, HHS, human rights commission, and other budgets, including additional settlement costs, higher lapse assumptions, and a different approach to Medicaid premium revenue and retirement savings. He also described Senate additions such as a nursing home bed fee, Hampstead Hospital transition funding, and changes to the YDC claims settlement fund. The presentation focused on comparing House and Senate surplus statements across fiscal years 2025 through 2027, including projected ending balances and rainy day fund transfers. Kane repeatedly emphasized that the numbers were still dependent on final revenues and lapse amounts, and that some balances would be carried forward and trued up later in the biennium. No committee vote or final action was described in the excerpt; it was an informational budget briefing and comparison of the two chambers’ proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Andres M-D-R-E-S, last name Moses, M-O-S-E, on behalf of the 8th Judicial District Court in
• Therefore, AB 344, in its first reprint, replaces the term “master” with “judicial officer” throughout
• And that was brought forward by two of our judicial officers from the state who had children in their
• The term “master” with “judicial officer” throughout the relevant statutes, providing a more accurate
• And that was brought forward by two of our judicial officers from the state who had children in their

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Court did reveal for the first time that Judge Goodman is undergoing a parallel proceeding in the Judicial
• of Judge Julie Muth Goodman be stayed indefinitely pending conclusion of an investigation by the Judicial
• of Judge Julie Muth Goodman be stayed indefinitely pending conclusion of an investigation by the Judicial
• of Judge Julie Muth Goodman be stayed indefinitely pending conclusion of an investigation by the Judicial
• of Judge Julie Muth Goodman be stayed indefinitely pending conclusion of an investigation by the Judicial

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate committee met under Rule 39 to consider proceedings related to the impeachment of Judge Julie Muth Goodman of the Fayette Circuit Court. Chair Storm explained that the House had transmitted impeachment articles on March 24, 2026, and that the Kentucky Constitution requires the Senate to address them. He also noted a preliminary Kentucky Supreme Court order issued April 6, 2026, in Judge Goodman’s separate lawsuit against the House, and said the Court revealed she is also facing a parallel Judicial Conduct Commission proceeding on the same issues. The chair emphasized that the committee’s actions were guided by constitutional duties and fairness to the defendant. Senator Howell moved that the committee recommend to the full Senate that impeachment proceedings be stayed indefinitely pending completion of the Judicial Conduct Commission investigation, with the understanding that the stay would not waive the Senate’s constitutional authority. Senator Carroll seconded the motion. Senator Chambers-Armstrong said she would vote yes on the stay but preferred the body explicitly dismiss the complaint or otherwise state it would take no further action, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling as unconstitutional for further action. The committee voted 7-0 in favor of the motion, with all members present voting aye. Chair Storm then directed staff to prepare the motion as a committee report to the full Senate and stressed that the action should not be construed as an acquittal or as the Senate relinquishing any constitutional rights or duties.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that this authority is a continuous power absolute
• The General Court, no more than the judicial branch, the office of the Governor, or the auditor herself
• So I think that the deliberative space that each Legislature enjoys, based on Supreme Judicial Court
• That they could compel records, that they could go to the judicial branch and force certain documents
• Each branch, to some extent, exercises executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.