Transcript Highlights:

• The same information is required to request a vote-by-mail ballot or to register to vote.
• This mirrors the vote-by-mail statute.
• That part of the bill tracks with our vote-by-mail.
• Political gerrymandering continues to dilute our votes.
• I encourage you to vote no on these bills.

Committee: Senate Ethics and Elections

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met to consider SPB 7016, a major bill revising Florida’s constitutional initiative petition process. Senator Grall presented it as a fraud-prevention and ballot-integrity measure that would add sponsor training, stricter circulator rules, more voter identification information, faster submission deadlines, notice to voters whose signatures are verified, and additional civil and criminal penalties. The committee also considered several amendments, including a $1 million bond requirement, font and page limits for petition forms, restrictions on incentive-based circulator pay, removal of a criminal-conviction prerequisite for certain fines, deposit and reimbursement procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, mandatory circulator training, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. All of the amendments were adopted, with some roll-call votes recorded and most passing on party-line or near party-line splits. The bill drew extensive questioning from senators, especially about the practical effects of the new requirements. Senator Polsky and Senator Rouson raised concerns about disenfranchising voters, burdening grassroots volunteers, the cost of bonds and deposits, the 10-day return deadline, and whether voters would be notified if a petition they signed was later invalidated. Grall said the measures were intended to protect the constitutionally significant initiative process, reduce fraud, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear administrative costs. Dave Ramba, speaking for supervisors of elections, supported the deposit and reimbursement concepts but warned that the bill’s implementation would be operationally difficult and that software vendors might not be ready for the changes by the effective date. He also said the process should avoid subsidizing petition drives with county taxpayer money. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with speakers from Common Cause Florida, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP Florida State Conference, Florida Rising, Equal Ground, Voices of Florida, and other civic groups arguing the bill would suppress direct democracy, criminalize volunteer activity, impose excessive costs, and create confusion and litigation risk. One speaker from the Florida Chamber of Commerce supported the bill, saying the initiative process should be protected from fraud and outside interests. During debate, Senator Polsky argued the Legislature has steadily made the initiative process harder after recent citizen-led amendments succeeded, while supporters framed the bill as a necessary integrity measure. The committee had not yet taken final action on the bill itself by the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we've already voted on conformity once.
• Members, I voted no. Everyone has voted for the bill.
• I mean, we see the vote. Any hands? I mean, we see the vote. Any hands? HB 2168, no. HB 2168, yes.
• As you see, we voted no on this bill. Yes, as you see, we voted no on this bill. Okay, thank you.
• As you see, we voted no on this bill. Yes, as you see, we voted no on this bill. Okay, thank you.

Summary: The committee worked through a long Minority Caucus calendar covering a wide range of bills, with many items on consent and several pulled for discussion. Early items included resolutions on Judea and Samaria, bullion depository bills, a produce incentive appropriation, a biennial budget proposal, and a veterans services appropriation. Members also heard transportation-related bills on driver permits, citations, boat insurance, English proficiency for commercial drivers and motor carriers, photo enforcement, and a measure restricting incarceration for unpaid fines and fees. Several members raised concerns about constitutional issues, public safety, or whether bills were duplicative or targeted at specific groups. A large portion of the meeting focused on education and school governance bills. These included proposals on school district bond advisors, restrictions on school property leases and purchases, public meeting requirements, term limits and training for school board members, patriotic youth group access to students, computer science proficiency, and a bill requiring fingerprint clearance cards for traffic school instructors. Members repeatedly criticized what they described as inconsistent treatment of public schools versus ESA/private school programs, and several education bills were pulled from consent for further discussion. Other bills addressed child safety and family law, including DCS credit freezes, recorded child interviews, parents’ rights notices, mandatory reporting of threats by minors, sex offender residency and GPS monitoring, and a bill on guardianship rights during DCS investigations. The committee also considered a number of social services, health, and labor/consumer bills. These included SNAP work requirement and verification measures, a SNAP error-rate audit, dementia care telemonitoring funding, a Braille transcription appropriation, court fee limits, a physician assistant compact, pediatric licensure compact, and a kratom regulation bill. Members debated an earned wage access licensing bill at length, with opponents calling it predatory and akin to payday lending, while supporters argued it provided a regulated consumer option. Other measures covered cash acceptance by businesses, 529-to-Roth IRA rollovers, AI rules for state agencies, and a bill on public nuisance actions by the Attorney General. Several of these drew warnings about constitutional problems, preemption, or burdens on vulnerable populations. Energy, water, and tax policy also featured prominently. The committee heard bills on fuel formulations, gas tax relief, data centers and small modular nuclear reactors, utility reporting, and a Commerce Authority mandate to reduce fuel prices. Members criticized some proposals as favoring industry, preempting local control, or lacking a clear funding plan. The meeting ended after additional items on veterans, sample ballot mailing dates, and other miscellaneous measures, with multiple bills noted as pulled from consent or subject to later votes; no final roll-call results were detailed in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I move that House Bill 2709 be voted due pass. Any discussion?
• You have voted House Bill 1759, do pass.
• They can collect that vote very fast.
• Yeah, I'm calling for a roll call vote.
• By a vote of 5 yes and 14 no... By a vote of five yes and 14 no, the amendment does not pass.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, I request recorded vote. >> Mr. Chairman, I request recorded vote.
• On this vote, the yeas are 127 and the nays are 29. Ms. Craig, vote no.
• Members will record their votes by electronic device. This will be a two-minute vote.
• </c> California electorate. California electorate.
• </c> anyone to sponsor it and vote for it. anyone to sponsor it and vote for it.

Bills: HB4553

Keywords: energy, water development, appropriations, fiscal year 2026, flood control, infrastructure

Transcript Highlights:

• Item number 24 is a technical clarification regarding nominating petitions for presidential electors.
• Item number 24 is a technical clarification regarding nominating petitions for presidential electors.
• Item 29 clarifies what constitutes over-voting.
• Item 35 extends the period of time for conducting in-person voting in nursing homes from the last day
• of early voting to four days prior to election day, providing more time for this process.

Summary: The State Board of Election Supervisors met on February 5, 2026, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the March 11, 2025 meeting. Chair Nancy Landry explained that the board was reviewing proposed technical and administrative changes for the Department of State’s 2026 elections omnibus bill, which would later go to the House and Senate Governmental Affairs Committees for public hearing. No public comment cards were submitted, and the board reiterated that comments could also be emailed to the acting secretary. First Assistant Secretary of State Catherine Newsom and Deputy Commissioner Lainey Boyd presented items 1 through 39, with item 7 removed before consideration and item 37 later removed after board discussion. The proposals covered a wide range of election-administration topics, including registrar salary payment timing, restrictions on ROV employees running for office, clarifying party affiliation for voters who select “unaffiliated,” technical updates for voter registration transfers and precinct changes, protections for pre-registrants’ personal information, removal from protected voter lists, absentee ballot procedures, nomination petition certification, notice requirements when a candidate dies, watcher deadlines, over-voting, ballot curing, nursing home voting timing, procurement authority for voting equipment, and deadlines for contesting constitutional amendments and election irregularities. Several items were explained as cleanup or consistency changes to align the election code with current practice and prior omnibus revisions. Board members asked multiple clarifying questions, especially about the meaning of “unaffiliated,” the timing language for pre-registrants, what counts as actual notice of a candidate’s death, and whether proposed rules would follow the APA. The most substantive disagreement involved item 37, which would have allowed the Secretary of State to bring an election contest based on irregularities reported by an election official; after discussion, the board agreed to remove that item from the omnibus recommendations. Members also discussed item 38, which would create a cause of action and deadline for contesting the calling of a constitutional amendment, and item 39, which clarifies that election contests cannot be filed before election day. The board then approved the remaining provisions—items 1 through 6, 8 through 36, and 38 and 39—and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And every voter who has an opportunity to vote should be allowed to vote.
• And every voter who has an opportunity to vote should be allowed to vote.
• And every voter who has an opportunity to vote should be allowed to vote.
• And every voter who has an opportunity to vote should be allowed to vote.
• Voting is a right.

Committee: House Ethics

Transcript Highlights:

• All those prepared to vote on the motion.
• Colleagues, I urge you to join me in voting down. Voting In voting down, voting no.
• The reason why I cannot vote for this bill today, Friend President Gates because I can't vote for this
• conscience and vote as we will.
• Secretary, I won't like the board and Senator proceed to vote. Have all senators voted?

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• All those prepared to vote on the motion...
• Colleagues, I urge you to join me in voting down. Voting In voting down, voting no.
• My constituents elected me by 405 votes.
• conscience and vote as we will.
• Secretary, I won't like the board and Senator proceed to vote. Have all senators voted?

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• All those prepared to vote on the motion.
• It dilutes their voting power on... racial cracking. It dilutes their voting power on purpose.
• The reason why I cannot vote for this bill today, ...friend President Gates because I can't vote for
• our conscience and vote as we will.
• Secretary, I won't like the board and Senator proceed to vote. Have all senators voted?

Transcript Highlights:

• machines or voting rosters without a court order.
• Or taking possession of voting machines or voting rosters without a court order.
• That is why I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 73.
• That is why I respectfully ask for an I vote on SB 73.
• We respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 73. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety heard one item, Senate Bill 73 by Senator Cervantes, and took up committee and Elections Committee amendments. The bill was described as strengthening protections against interference in elections by extending restrictions to military personnel at polling places, protecting the chain of custody of voted ballots, and limiting law enforcement access to voting machines and voter rosters without a court order. The chair explained that the committee amendments would remove certain criminal penalties for peace officers, restore a uniform requirement for some polling-place personnel, and clarify the effect of objections by the Secretary of State or Attorney General. The author and supporters, including API Force and CHIRLA, argued the bill was needed to respond to threats of intimidation and election interference, citing concerns about armed personnel at polling places and the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of ballots. Supporters said the measure would protect voters, especially immigrant communities and in-person voters, and preserve confidence in election administration. Opposition from the California State Sheriffs’ Association and CALA argued the bill was vague, could hinder lawful criminal investigations, and improperly restrict law enforcement and federal election oversight. After closing remarks, the committee voted to pass SB 73 as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The vote was 6-1, with one member not voting. The chair and another member recommended an aye, while one member voted no.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is how I'm going to vote and the teacher that there's an inference that I expect you to vote the
• A vote for this bill is a vote of conscience and it is a vote towards your legacy on how you viewed each
• With elections, I have never seen a constitutional amendment vote that's ever close enough that an electorate
• They have to be approved by y'all. by two-thirds vote, so you have both parties voting for these constitutional
• I ask you to vote in favor of this bill and push it to the full Senate for a full vote and eventual passage

Bills: SB29 , SB406 , SB447 , SB875 , SB893 , SB1033 , SB1346 , SB1362 , SB1539 , SCR22 , SB 29

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Please vote. Said it off. Thank you. Have you all voted? Thank you. Have you all voted?
• I vote no. Senator Kuby votes no. Senator Ortiz, Epstein, and Alston, how do you vote?
• The Senate will proceed to vote. Have you all voted? Have you all voted? Senator Rogers, Mr.
• I vote no. Senator Ortiz votes no.
• The Senate will proceed to vote. Have you all voted?

Transcript Highlights:

• I voted for you because I wanted to see you go to work, and now you're not.
• They have 67 votes, but we would offer that they would run the chamber as though they had a majority.
• We make decisions as a caucus, and I have to figure out when we have the votes and when we don't.
• There were not enough votes to pass it.
• There were about 1.5 million votes for House Democrats, about 1.5 million votes for House Republicans

Transcript Highlights:

• We like for people to vote who are eligible to vote.
• , that vote is a vote that will be counted.
• vote.
• vote.
• VOTE.

Summary: The Senate opened with routine business, including approval of the prior journal and several messages from the Assembly to discharge and substitute identical Senate bills. The chamber then took up a budget extender, Senate Print 10262/Assembly Bill 11295, which would appropriate $2.9 billion to keep state government operating through May 14 while budget negotiations continued. Senator O’Mara questioned the delay in reaching a full budget and criticized the lack of clarity on major policy issues, conference committees, school aid timing, and a proposed $1 billion utility ratepayer relief plan, arguing the state’s spending and affordability problems were worsening. Senator Serrano responded that negotiations were in the final stretch and that the extender was necessary to maintain government operations. The extender passed 59-1 after being restored to the non-controversial calendar. The Senate also considered a major election-law bill, Senate Print 88A, providing for automatic voter registration and pre-registration through DMV, Medicaid, and NYCHA-related transactions. Senator Walczyk’s proposed amendment to require voter ID was ruled nongermane, and his appeal was rejected. The bill prompted extended debate over whether the process would protect against non-citizen registration or instead remove barriers for eligible voters. Supporters, including Senator Gianaris, said it would streamline registration and help eligible but unregistered New Yorkers participate; Senator Zellner said it would strengthen the process. Opponents, including Senators Walczyk, Borrello, Helming, Rhoads, and Martins, warned it would shift responsibility away from bipartisan boards of elections, create administrative errors, and risk improper registration. The bill ultimately passed after being restored to the non-controversial calendar, with senators explaining votes along party lines. The chamber also adopted or advanced several resolutions and recognized guests. Senator Gallivan’s Police Week resolution drew remarks honoring fallen officers and law enforcement families, with Senators Chan, Rolison, Weik, Ryan, and Myrie speaking in support. Senator Sepúlveda’s resolution commemorating Dominicans in Albany was also discussed, with praise for the Dominican community’s contributions to New York and supportive remarks from Senator Chan. In addition, the Senate heard introductions for guests from Allen A.M.E. Church and the creators of the documentary “Teenage Wasteland.”

Transcript Highlights:

• . vote. vote.
• you to go into a voting place and vote. vote. vote.
• So you can get your rights restored to be an elector. You can get your rights restored to vote.
• Petition requirement for 2,000 or fewer registered electors entitled to vote for the officer: 40%.
• for</c> registered electors entitled to vote for registered electors entitled to vote for the<05:28:

Transcript Highlights:

• public bodies live broadcasting meetings, which in turn would lead to a more engaged and informed electorate
• :08.240><c> engaged</c><00:01:08.560><c> and</c><00:01:08.799><c> informed</c><00:01:09.360><c> electorate
• </c> more engaged and informed electorate. more engaged and informed electorate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Current votes 2 to 1, Chair voted aye, Vice Chair voted no. Allen, Umberg: aye.
• Current votes 2 to 1, Chair voted aye, Vice Chair voted no. Allen, Umberg: aye.
• Current votes 2 to 1, Chair voted aye, Vice Chair voted no. Allen, Umberg: aye.
• Current votes 2 to 1, Chair voted aye, Vice Chair voted no. Allen, Umberg: aye.
• Current votes 2 to 1, Chair voted aye, Vice Chair voted no. Allen, Umberg: aye.

Summary: The committee heard several election and democracy-related bills. AB 1116 would expand California’s online voter registration system to allow eligible voters without a DMV-issued ID to register using the last four digits of their Social Security number and an uploaded signature image. Supporters said it would improve access, reduce paper processing, and save money; opponents, including the Secretary of State’s office and county officials, raised concerns about cybersecurity, implementation, and identity verification. The bill was moved on a 2-1 vote to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 1539 would require political party representatives to certify, under penalty of perjury, that presidential and vice presidential nominees meet constitutional term-limit requirements. Supporters framed it as a safeguard against attempts to place ineligible candidates on the ballot, while opponents called it unnecessary and politically motivated. The committee voted 2-1 to send the bill to the Committee on Public Safety. The committee also approved AB 1562, which would let counties randomly select registered voters to serve as poll workers if their board of supervisors approves, and AB 1664, which would require prompt notice to the Secretary of State and Attorney General when election records or voting systems are subject to warrants, subpoenas, or investigations. AB 1562 passed 2-0 to the Committee on Transportation, and AB 1664 passed 2-1 to the Committee on Public Safety despite opposition from sheriffs’ representatives who argued it raised separation-of-powers concerns. Later, AB 1853, which would restrict candidate statements in voter information guides to factual background and qualifications and bar hateful or misleading content, passed 2-1 to the Committee on Rules for further consideration in Judiciary. AB 1919, allowing voters in the Santa Cruz Metro district to decide on transit funding procedures, and AB 2484, allowing San Diego MTS voters to authorize a local transit tax through initiative, also advanced on 3-1 votes to the Committee on Transportation. The committee additionally approved a consent agenda containing AB 1789, AB 2592, AB 2655, and AB 2785.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or if the DOJ demanded that New Mexico change our early voting procedures, or eliminate vote centers,
• , including early voting.
• So if there is a New Mexican ICE agent who is a qualified elector and is going to vote, they will be
• So if there is a New Mexican ICE agent who is a qualified elector and is going to vote, they will be
• Well, what about if one of the voting observers rightfully challenges a voter's right to vote?

Bills: SB264 , SB261 , SB264 , SB261

Committees: Senate Senate Rules , Senate House Rules & Order Of Business

Keywords: election integrity, voter coercion, public safety, emergency procedures, polling place security, health regulations, community welfare, peace promotion, legislative reforms

Transcript Highlights:

• Does anyone wish to change their vote? Staff, please announce the vote.
• Does anyone wish to change their vote? Staff, please announce the vote.
• Doer votes aye. Representative Doer votes aye. Zahn votes aye. Representative Zahn votes aye.
• Hall votes aye. Partially votes aye. Staff will announce the vote.
• Does anyone wish to change their vote? Staff, please announce the vote.

Summary: The House Local Government Committee heard public testimony on HB 2588, which would let county ferry districts exercise broader authority over ferries rather than being limited to passenger-only ferries. The sponsor and county officials from Whatcom, Pierce, and Skagit described rising operating and capital costs for county-run vehicle ferries and said the bill would give local governments a needed funding tool. Opponents argued it would create another tax burden and that county councils do not directly represent voters on such decisions. The hearing on HB 2588 was later reopened for additional testimony, but no vote was taken in the hearing portion. The committee also heard HB 2094, which would require non-charter counties to appoint coroners rather than elect them, unless they use appointed medical examiners. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address accountability and staffing problems, citing Yakima County as an example and arguing that coroner positions are technical and should be filled through hiring rather than partisan elections. Supporters said appointment would reduce ballot complexity and allow for professional management, while opponents, including elected coroners and the Washington Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners, argued that elected coroners provide independence, public accountability, and the ability to order inquests without political pressure. The public hearing on HB 2094 was closed without committee action during the hearing. In executive session, the committee advanced several bills. HB 2451 on local tax increment financing passed with three adopted amendments and a 7-0 vote. HB 2298 on county title protection programs also passed with one adopted amendment and a 7-0 vote. HB 2566 on local government procurement passed 7-0 without amendment. HB 2267 on urban forest management ordinances passed 4-3 after a substitute was adopted, with some members expressing concern about state guidance becoming too regulatory. HB 2530 on public facilities districts for regional aquatics and sports facilities passed 7-0 after removing the deadline for forming such districts, and HB 2388 on siting distributed energy generation on agricultural lands passed 7-0 after an amendment narrowing the bill’s scope. The committee then returned to public testimony on HB 2094 and HB 2588 before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• then to draw those districts and would there be a vote on the ballot to approve those districts once
• So however the election goes this next year, whoever is on the commission by majority vote, they're going
• The electorate or the state won't have anything to do with it.
• Look forward to voting yes. Chair: Any further debate? Debate on the bill?
• And so I'm looking forward to really voting up on this bill and I can't wait. Chair: Thank you.