Transcript Highlights:

• Constitution. Only Congress gets to implement that amendment, not the states.
• With the Florida Constitution, with the Fair Districts amendments?
• The Fair District Amendments to the Florida Constitution, enacted in 2010, were created to prevent mid-decade
• The Fair District Amendments to the Florida Constitution, St. John's County.
• The Fair District amendments to the Florida Constitution enacted in 2010 were created to prevent mid-dict

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• House bill 65, having a constitutional House bill 65, having a constitutional majority,<00:03:51.680
• <00:26:26.080> amended?
• This bill's been amended amended? Yes. This bill's been amended amended? Yes.
• what the bill does now as amended? what the bill does now as amended?
• amendment was also it reduced the cost. amendment was also it reduced the cost.

Keywords: House streaming session for Wednesday, March 18, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with a quorum and then moved through messages from the Senate, introducing several Senate bills and referring them to committees. It then took up multiple third-reading calendars and considered a large number of bills across public health, criminal law, education, estates and trusts, social services, and state government. Most bills passed with broad margins, including measures on fiduciary attorney-client privilege, food labeling and prohibited ingredients, human trafficking awareness training, pharmacy prescriber-pharmacist agreements, provisional social work licensure, structural racism training funding sources, youth delinquency prevention funding, menstrual hygiene product labeling, school resource officer sexual activity prohibitions, nurse licensure enforcement, physician delegation changes, child support income definitions, AI-related child sexual abuse material, trauma-informed care resources, restrictive housing for people with developmental or intellectual disabilities, open movie captioning, autism and dementia police training, gift card fraud, scholarship eligibility, retention proceeds, graduate scholarship eligibility, intercepted communications penalties, benefits for children in custody, juvenile supervision petitions, institutional debt reporting, contraception access reporting, surgical smoke evacuation systems, tax foreclosure notice requirements, special police officer study, child advocacy center standards, victim notification at charging, human trafficking reporting, drug dispensing cost surveys, school board nominating commission changes, the Henrietta Lacks Commission, ID card photograph requirements, and several others. A few bills drew substantive floor discussion. House Bill 963 on appointment of personal representatives was supported as a way to help families and heirs access assets, including in cross-border situations. House Bill 877 on institutional debt reporting prompted debate over whether the bill was useful and whether it would burden colleges; supporters said it would create needed aggregate data and a data dictionary to better understand debt incurred directly from institutions. House Bill 1076 on over-the-counter contraception access and reporting was clarified as a reporting measure that harmonizes prior reporting requirements and does not use taxpayer funds to purchase contraception, though grants had supported vending machine installation. House Bill 288 on extending a state of emergency for schools was explained as applying to natural disasters, civil disasters, public health emergencies, or specific security threats, with one member expressing concern about state involvement and learning loss from prolonged closures. House Bill 746 on the Medicaid/health insurance collaborative care model was briefly delayed by a computer issue, then passed after a short pause. Several members announced vote changes after the roll calls, including corrections on House Bills 65, 771, 769, 900, 1058, 1076, 1490, 1540, and 1554. Final actions on the floor were overwhelmingly favorable to the bills considered, with only a handful of measures drawing notable negative votes, including House Bills 410, 963, 1042, 1058, 1076, 1152, 1540, and 1554. The House also passed a number of local and policy bills with strong bipartisan support, and no amendments or motions to postpone were recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Martin: IT DOESN'T AFFECT FEDERAL LAW, ONLY THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
• FOR FIFTH AMENDMENT, FOURTH AMENDMENT. FLORIDA CONSTITUTION TRACKS THAT.
• THIS AMENDMENT, GOING BACK TO 2020, IT AMENDED WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY IN THE CONSTITUTION FROM DECADES PREVIOUSLY
• I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS IN CONTRADICTION TO FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT.
• IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, A BINDING LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, the first section is the proposed constitutional amendment.
• the last time we saw a constitutional the last time we saw a constitutional amendment<00:23:09.520
• put this kind of a constitutional put this kind of a constitutional amendment<00:24:10.560> and
• <00:24:52.000> And constitutional amendment um states.
• And constitutional amendment um states.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The conference committee on House File 3900 met with a quorum, introduced members and staff, and received a nonpartisan walkthrough of the bill. Staff explained that the proposal would change the permanent school fund’s distribution formula from interest and dividends to a statutory payout based on 4.5% of the fund’s average value over the previous three fiscal years, with the Commissioner of Management and Budget responsible for determining and transferring the distributable amount. The Senate version differed by adding language requiring a two-thirds vote of each legislative house to change the distribution policy or apportionment. Members then debated whether a future legislature could increase the payout and whether the constitutional language would sufficiently protect the fund’s purchasing power. Senator Farnsworth argued that a supermajority requirement would help prevent politicization and lock in the fund’s purpose, while Representative Long, Senator Kunesh, Representative Youakim, and Representative O’Driscoll opposed the supermajority as unnecessary and potentially politicizing, emphasizing existing constitutional protections, fiduciary duties, and the legislature’s track record of stewarding school trust lands for students. Staff indicated the language requiring preservation of purchasing power would be a strong safeguard, though the exact legal remedy was unclear. Senator Kunesh moved to adopt the House File 3900 second engrossment as the conference committee report. The committee took a roll call vote and approved the motion 7-1, with Senator Farnsworth voting no. After the vote, Senator Swedzinski offered brief remarks about the historical importance of school trust funds and public education.

Transcript Highlights:

• IF YOU THINK ABOUT THERE WERE 34 PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. IN 26 THERE IS 21.
• EVERYBODY THINKS ABOUT AMENDMENT THREE AND FOUR, LED BY CATEGORY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT
• WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO DO.
• THE RIGHT OF FLORIDIANS TO PROPOSE AND VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS NOT A PRIVILEGE.
• THE ABILITY TO, OUR FLORIDA CONSTITUTION IS SACRED. AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE EASY.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Go ahead and read the Payne floor amendment. Payne for amendment.
• Kavanaugh floor amendment: I read the following amendment to H.B. 2415, amendment to House Bill, signed
• And Senator Kavanaugh, all the bill is amended. The bill is amended. The whole bill is amended.
• Rogers floor amendment. I move the following amendment to House Bill 2573, Mr.
• ; House Bill 2249 do pass as amended; House Bill 2573 do pass as amended.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, and approval of the journal. The body then extended the session under Rule 27 and agreed to request House consent to adjourn until April 27, 2026. It moved into Committee of the Whole to consider several House bills, including HB 2170 (procurement code-related), HB 2415 (kratom regulation), HB 2700 (housing technology study committee), and HB 2950 (special districts/tourism improvement areas). Amendments were adopted on HB 2170, HB 2415, and HB 2950, and the committee reported HB 2170, HB 2415, and HB 2700 do pass; HB 2950 was later defeated on third read. The Senate also heard a brief welcome for visiting students and a personal privilege statement on Earth Day and environmental issues. The Senate then entered an additional Committee of the Whole for HB 2035 (child welfare and placement), HB 2249 (parental bill of rights), and HB 2573 (DUI/local referendum-related language). HB 2035 received a Warner amendment expanding the definition of extended family to include adoptive family members; HB 2249 received a Mesnard amendment adding liability and technical changes; and HB 2573 received a Rogers technical amendment. All three were reported out do pass as amended. On third read, HB 2573 passed 20-9, with several senators explaining opposition based on referendum and emergency-clause concerns tied to a Marana data center dispute; HB 2170 passed 17-12; HB 2415 passed 22-7; HB 2035 passed 26-3; and HB 2249 passed 17-12. HB 2950 failed 10-19. The Senate also considered House Concurrent Resolution 2043, substituting it for the Senate version and sending it to third read. The resolution, which calls for a convention to propose a federal constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms, passed 16-13 after several senators warned about the risks of a constitutional convention and the lack of limits on its scope. The House’s message on adjournment was read, committee meetings for April 27 were announced, and members made personal privilege remarks, including birthday wishes and an announcement about the annual legislative charity softball game. The Senate then adjourned until Monday, April 27, 2026, at 1:15 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• the 14th State Constitution and the 14th Amendment<01:37:26.920> to<01:37:27.040> the<
• 01:37:27.159> US<01:37:27.520> Constitution<01:37:28.520> by Amendment to the US
• Constitution by Amendment to the US Constitution by authorizing<01:37:30.280> uh<01:37:30.480
• constitution has been amended you'll constitution has been amended you'll find<02:43:28.479>
• <02:43:44.920> and amendments to the State Constitution and amendments to the State Constitution

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• amendment? amendment?
• amendments. Amendment one is technical. amendments. Amendment one is technical.
• . amendments. amendments.
• <01:17:12.800> Amendment amendment, Mr. President. Amendment amendment, Mr. President.
• . amendment. amendment.

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Monday, April 13, 2026, 960, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened on the final day of session, heard an invocation, recognized guests and pages, and outlined a tentative plan for multiple sessions and breaks through the day. The chamber then took up several messages between the Senate and House, including a refusal to concur in House amendments to Senate Bill 311 on the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future and the appointment of conferees, as well as a House message on House Bill 9007 establishing a conference committee on third-degree assault. The Senate also considered a series of second-reader bills. House Bill 6, requiring MHEC to collect data on pregnant and parenting students, was amended to exempt Maryland Global Campus and limit certain provisions to public senior higher education institutions and community colleges before being ordered to third reading. House Bill 182, concerning replacement of faithless electors, was amended to conform with Senate Bill 237 and then passed. House Bill 575, creating excused absences for student civic engagement, drew the most discussion; senators asked about the definition of civic engagement, county discretion, and whether students could use the bill for repeated protests. The floor leader explained that county boards would retain discretion and that the bill would not require weekly absences. The bill’s two amendments were adopted and it was sent to third reading. Additional measures passed with little or no opposition. House Bill 640 revised boards, commissions, and reporting requirements; House Bill 1335 required an independent study of IT and cybersecurity staffing and pay; House Bill 587 created a work group to review transportation procurement procedures; House Bill 854 established a nonpublic special education school renovation program; and House Bill 898 adjusted economic development provisions, including VLT proceeds and film tax credit language, after questions about the general fund impact. The Senate also advanced House Bill 1247 on Prince George’s County tax increment financing for an immersive entertainment venue, with amendments making it an emergency bill and addressing zoning and outdoor advertising issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposals for amendments to the Constitution are required to be reported on by April 30th, 2025.
• As you may know, there are multiple ways to amend the Constitution.
• These are constitutional amendments.
• These are constitutional amendments relative to agricultural and horticultural lands.
• I do not take amending the Constitution of Massachusetts lightly.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held its first hearing of the session, led by House Chair Adrian Madaro and Senate Chair James Eldridge. The committee explained the constitutional amendment process and the hearing procedures, then took testimony on four bills concerning proposed amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, with the main focus on S. 11 and H. 71, which would amend Article 99 relating to agricultural and horticultural land taxation. Senator Jo Comerford, Rebecca Miller of the Massachusetts Food System Collaborative, and Representative Natalie Blay all testified in support of the bills. They argued that the current five-acre minimum for farmland tax treatment is outdated and harms farmers, especially new, urban, and smaller-scale farmers, by forcing some land to be taxed at higher commercial rates. Supporters said the change would help preserve farmland, strengthen the local food system, and address economic pressures on farms, including high land values, climate impacts, and an aging farm workforce. In response to a question about abuse or false claims, Comerford and Miller said existing certification processes under Chapter 61A and municipal review help verify active farming, and Miller noted the bill requires land to be in production for two years before receiving the rate. Committee members asked about the status of the 21st Century Farm Commission, and Comerford said a report was expected in the spring. After testimony concluded, the chairs asked whether anyone else wished to testify and then entertained a motion to adjourn, which was made and accepted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Constitution. Only Congress gets to implement that amendment, not the states.
• The statement specifically omitted compliance with the Florida Constitution with the Fair Districts amendments
• With the Florida Constitution, with the Fair Districts amendments?
• Our constitutional... ...constitutional protections exist for this moment to stop this.
• The Fair District Amendments to the Florida Constitution, The Fair District Amendments to the Florida

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum and heard a Governor’s Office presentation on a proposed congressional reapportionment map. The governor’s counsel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be considered at all in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection law and should be treated as non-severable. The presentation also discussed the pending U.S. Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais and the Florida Supreme Court’s Black Voters Matter decision as part of the legal rationale for the map. Jason Parada, who said he drew the map alone, described the map as based on 2020 census block data, with county-level population estimates used only as a guide to identify faster-growing areas. He said the plan keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores similar to the current benchmark map, and uses traditional geographic and political boundaries such as roads, railways, county lines, and municipal lines. He walked through regional changes, emphasizing a race-neutral redesign that significantly altered South Florida, including changes to districts in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and the Everglades, while leaving several northern districts largely unchanged. Members questioned the witnesses extensively about the legal theory, the use of partisan data, the role of race, population growth, and the timing and review of the map. The witnesses said partisan data was considered along with other traditional redistricting criteria, but race was not used. They also said they could not speak to who else reviewed the map beyond EOG staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns about the map’s compactness, county and city splits, the apparent partisan effects, and the fact that the map was released shortly before the special session. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The only way in which the United States Constitution may be amended or changed is by the state legislatures
• of the Constitution.
• To respect the rights afforded to California and all states under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution
• , the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 24th Amendment, and the 26th Amendment of the Constitution
• , the 14th Amendment.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It was an amendment to the Constitution in Arizona, amending Article 7 of the Constitution of Arizona
• Chair, Senator Kuby, this is a constitutional amendment. It would change our Constitution.
• the Constitution of Arizona, amending Article 7 of the Constitution of Arizona by adding Section 19,
• So what would this ill-considered constitutional amendment do?
• This is a constitutional amendment.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 33-11-1.3, NMSA 1978, being Laws 1988, Chapter 78, Section 3, as amended.
• Section 31 Chapter 108, Section 6 as amended.
• Respectfully yours, Michelle Luan-Gurham, Governor. and as amended.
• A report, same with recommendation that it do pass as amended.
• Rules remain, pursuant to Article 4, Section 5B1 of the New Mexico Constitution.

Bills: HM19

Keywords: New Mexico Aviation and Aerospace Day, aviation, aerospace, space industry, missile programs, Spaceport America, White Sands Missile Range, White Sands Test Facility, Kirtland Air Force Base, drone, unmanned aircraft systems, commercial space transportation, NASA, aircraft, STEM education, research laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, flight testing, medical evacuation

Transcript Highlights:

• Constitution.
• It's not a bad amendment.
• Seeing none, so we're on the bill as amended. Any further questions? ...amended.
• The amendment also strikes a provision exempting the proposed amendment from constitutional requirements
• The amendment—the most recently dated amendment—the amendment that we're moving is going to be dated

Bills: SB1018, SB1037, SB1568, SB1687, SB1825, SCR1001

Keywords: foreign law, Sharia law, cultural practices, women's rights, marriage laws, domestic violence, honor killings, Arizona legislation, elections, voting systems, vote tabulation, election security, internet connectivity, offline voting, chain of custody, polling place equipment, counting center, central counting center, election management system, EMS gateway

Transcript Highlights:

• However, this is a state constitutional amendment.
• It would have to yield because this is a constitutional amendment. Senator Epstein, Mr.
• And the reason for that is that that is a statute and this is a constitutional amendment.
• So if the people choose to amend their constitution, that statute would have to yield.
• Chairman and members, I am a no vote on this constitutional amendment.

Bills: HCR2048

Keywords: elective officers, salary regulation, compensation, Arizona Constitution, voter approval, legislative commission, 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Education is key to understanding the complex landscape of constitutional amendments.
• a proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the November 2026 ballot.
• a proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the November 2026 ballot.
• a proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the November 2026 ballot.
• The legislature places this constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Summary: The House took up the special order calendar for a proposed constitutional amendment on property taxes, CS/HJR 1F, which would create a new homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property, and restrict how counties and municipalities may use ad valorem tax revenue. The sponsor, Rep. Overdorf, said the measure would give homeowners tax relief and argued local governments could adjust spending or use other revenue sources. Opponents repeatedly questioned the ballot language, the lack of a fiscal estimate or backfill, and the potential impact on local services, public safety, and debt obligations. The House adopted the special order report and then debated the resolution and a series of amendments. Several amendments were offered to carve out or protect specific services from the tax changes. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to protect Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was supported by members who said those entities fund early learning, mental health, aftercare, and other services for children and working families, but it failed 25-74. Rep. Cross offered an amendment to include water management districts in allowable ad valorem uses, warning of impacts on flood control, water quality, Everglades restoration, and water supply; that amendment also failed. Rep. Eskamani offered an amendment requiring the Legislature to backfill public safety funding if local revenues fall, arguing police and fire services, staffing, and response times would be at risk; it failed 25-71. The chamber then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other local senior programs, and opponents saying the proposal was outside the bill’s scope. Finally, Rep. Gant offered an amendment to protect veteran services, saying local governments fund housing, mental health, transition, and family support programs for veterans; debate emphasized the importance of honoring veterans and avoiding cuts to those services. The transcript cuts off during debate on that amendment, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 123 by Senator Morris is a constitutional amendment to require the governor to certify a
• they're allowed to do it pursuant to an amendment to the Constitution that we all, that we passed out
• It's a constitutional amendment. So the people may not want to. That should be done or not, right?
• My concern is this: it explicitly says that this constitutional amendment is to allow the governor to
• And so in order to have constitutional amendments on the ballot for next spring, it was suggested to

Summary: The House and Governmental Affairs Committee met on Senate Bill 123, a proposed constitutional amendment to create a legislative process for removing judges for cause. Senator Morris said the bill was needed because of uncertainty in the current Constitution about whether impeachment applies to judges, given the Judiciary Commission’s role in judicial discipline. He argued the measure would provide a clearer, higher-threshold accountability mechanism, and the committee adopted a technical amendment renumbering provisions and later clarified that the bill uses a majority vote in the House and two-thirds in the Senate, consistent with impeachment-style thresholds. Much of the hearing centered on testimony from Anna Carter and her family, who supported the bill after the murder of Jacob Carter in New Orleans. They described his death and other cases they said showed judges releasing dangerous offenders despite repeated violations, missed electronic-monitoring check-ins, and other warning signs. They argued the bill would create a last-resort accountability tool when judicial decisions or supervision failures lead to preventable harm. Several committee members expressed sympathy and said the testimony highlighted serious problems in the justice system, though some also suggested the bill should address district attorneys, electronic-monitoring oversight, or broader systemic issues. Opposition came from members who warned the proposal was overly broad, could become a political tool, and might conflict with existing constitutional provisions governing impeachment and judicial discipline. They argued the Judiciary Commission and Supreme Court already provide a disciplinary framework and that the bill could chill judicial independence or create due-process concerns. The ACLU’s Sarah Whittington also opposed the bill, noting technical inconsistencies in the draft, questioning why impeachment had not been tried first, and arguing the measure singled out judicial discretion while leaving other elected officials’ discretion untouched. The committee took no final vote on the bill during the hearing, but did adopt the technical amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• , Senate Bill 3 as amended, and request the concurrence of the House.
• Section 61-6-11.1, NMSA 1978, being Laws 2001, Chapter 96, Section 10, as amended.
• to Article 2, Section 13, of the Constitution.
• 13 of the Constitution of New Mexico.
• Senate Bill 2, as amended.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HJR 89, by Parker, proposing a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to override a veto of
• , by Raymond, proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Alzheimer's
• HAR 95, by Tepper, proposing a constitutional amendment to limit the time that a person may serve as
• HAR 96, by Jones of Dallas, proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the commissioner's court
• HJR 99, by Harris, proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad

Summary: The House met to read a large slate of newly filed bills and resolutions and refer them to committees. The measures covered a wide range of topics, including health care and insurance, public education, elections, criminal justice, public safety, taxes, transportation, agriculture, environmental regulation, higher education, housing, and local government. Several proposals focused on abortion and reproductive health, firearms, voter registration and ballot access, school curriculum and accountability, property tax and homestead issues, and state contracting and agency oversight. A number of constitutional amendments were also filed, including proposals on initiative and referendum, veto override authority, vaccination refusal, parental rights in education, gun rights, Medicaid expansion, and various tax exemptions. No substantive debate, testimony, or votes occurred during this portion of the meeting; the clerk simply read the bills and resolutions and announced their committee referrals. The list included both general legislation and joint resolutions, with many items sent to standing committees and several to subcommittees. The House then adjourned without objection until 2 p.m. on Tuesday.

Transcript Highlights:

• The House amended Senate Amendment 2, 387-786, to House Amendment 1, 376-033, with House Amendment 1,
• Senate Amendment 1, 68106, with House Amendment 1, 680391, and concurred in the same as amended.
• That is the amendment, Mr. President. There is an amendment to the amendment.
• Please read that amendment to the amendment.
• Show the amendment to the amendment adopted. We’re back on the amended amendment.

Summary: The Senate convened with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several member introductions of guests and staff. The chamber then took up returning messages from the House and acted on several bills, including transportation facility designations (SB 628), affordable housing/Live Local Act changes (HB 1389), utility services (HB 1451), education (HB 1279 substituted for SB 7038), data centers (SB 484), and land use/development regulations (SB 208/HB 399). Several other measures were temporarily postponed, including education, emergency services, and environmental rule ratification bills. On SB 628, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-4. On the affordable housing bill, senators discussed the fourth iteration of the Live Local Act, including a new provision allowing certain affordable housing on religious institution property, removal of accessory dwelling unit language, and changes to tax exemption and expiration provisions; the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 35-0. On the utility services bill, the House amendment shortened the surcharge phase-out timeline and advanced reporting dates; the Senate concurred and passed the bill 30-6. The education package was substituted with the House companion, amended to include agreed-upon provisions on student health and safety, early learning, math, virtual instruction, career and technical education, school choice, accountability, tuition protections, and financial aid, and passed 36-1. The data centers bill drew extensive debate over transparency and ratepayer protections. Senators questioned the removal of the Senate’s nondisclosure agreement prohibition, the 12-month confidentiality period, and whether costs could be shifted to residential and commercial customers. Supporters said the amendment strengthened ratepayer protections and maintained local land-use authority, while critics objected to the loss of transparency and the possibility of local NDAs. After debate, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-6. The land use and development bill generated the most contentious discussion. Amendments addressed a Fontainebleau/Miami Beach resort water park issue, a sunset provision, and a major rural boundary/property rights proposal affecting counties such as Orange and Seminole. Senators debated whether the rural boundary language protected property rights or undermined local planning and environmental safeguards, with concerns raised about takings, county liability, and the use of an Attorney General opinion. The transcript cuts off during extended debate on that amendment, so no final vote on the land use bill is shown in the excerpt.