Transcript Highlights:

• but again, I leave all these decisions but again, I leave all these decisions to<00:41:47.640>
• So I leave it up to Senate Energy to make that decision or Senate Finance to make that decision whether
• decision by this committee.
• So any decisions you make in that So any decisions you make in that partners<00:52:57.359> in<
• Definitely, Senator Lang, that was one of the final decisions that House Finance made because they were

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But businesses have decisions to make.
• But businesses have decisions to make.
• But businesses have decisions to make.
• But businesses have decisions to make.
• Who's who their own career decisions?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And when you say make decisions in the future, is there language that speaks specifically to that as
• Decisions in the future.
• Well, I think this just brings me to the final point around AB 177.
• So credit is applied against your final calculated liability after all. So net income.
• We know that you will do everything you can to include it in the final budget. Thank you.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We can have effective deliberation and decisions on critical issues facing California.
• decision.
• decision.
• And so we meet those decisions, right?
• All right, we're moving to our final bill of the day.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 86, which would extend and expand the CAEATFA sales and use tax exclusion program through 2031, raise the annual cap from $100 million to $200 million, and add fusion energy. Supporters, including the State Treasurer and industry and labor representatives, cited billions in clean-tech investment, job creation, and environmental benefits; county groups opposed the bill over local revenue losses. The committee approved SB 86 on a 12-0 roll, holding the roll open for additional members. The committee then heard SB 545, which would require Go-Biz to study economic development opportunities along the California high-speed rail corridor, including land value, development incentives, and public-private partnerships. Labor, Fresno’s mayor’s office, and other stakeholders supported the bill as a way to spur corridor development and future funding opportunities, while one business group moved from opposition to neutral after amendments. The bill passed on a 9-1 vote, with the roll held open. Members next considered SB 63, a Bay Area transit funding measure authorizing a regional revenue measure to support transit operations amid looming fiscal shortfalls. The author and witnesses described severe service cuts that could follow without new funding, while committee members raised concerns about the bill’s structure, county participation, polling, and whether other revenue options should be considered. The bill advanced on a 9-3 vote, with the roll held open, and the committee also approved SB 263, directing a state study of tariff impacts on California’s economy and supply chains, on an 11-0 vote. Finally, the committee heard SB 661, which would redirect aviation-related tax revenues back to airports for aviation purposes and bring the state into compliance with federal requirements; testimony focused on airport modernization, rural access, and allocation formulas, but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally there's two repeals.
• There was a finally there's two repeals.
• soft pilot launch and then the final soft pilot launch and then the final launch<00:30:19.360>
• <00:45:55.920> and determination uh you know decisions and determination uh you know decisions
• budget reflects those those decisions. budget reflects those those decisions.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to make some really tough decisions.
• We need to make some really tough decisions.
• I just, yeah, just a final comment.
• But some hard decisions are going to have to be made.
• That's really a county decision. Follow-up. Thank you.

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The Emergency Board met on June 17, 2026, and approved a series of subcommittee recommendations, mostly on consent, related to federal grant applications, agency funding adjustments, and position authority. Early actions included approval of four federal grant applications from natural resources agencies, three public safety grant applications, a one-time increase for Judicial Department court security, retroactive approval for an AmeriCorps volunteer-generation grant, and a $7.5 million allocation to Southern Oregon University from a special appropriation for short-term financial stability. Members supporting the SOU item emphasized the university’s structural deficits, declining enrollment, and the need for a long-term higher education plan; several members voted no or raised concerns about sustainability, but the motion passed. The board also approved a federal apprenticeship expansion grant for the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, a school nutrition equipment grant for the Department of Education, and an Oregon Health Authority request tied to Medicaid community engagement requirements under H.R. 1. Public safety items included funding for Oregon Military Department readiness facilities, a report on the stalled juvenile justice information system modernization project with a follow-up viability report due in 2026, and a statewide evacuation planning tool for emergency management. The evacuation tool drew strong support as a wildfire preparedness measure, with members noting it could significantly reduce alert times and save lives. A major point of debate was the Department of Justice request to add 16 permanent positions and increase other funds limitation for antitrust enforcement. Supporters argued the federal government has pulled back and Oregon needs capacity to pursue active cases and protect consumers; opponents objected to the process, the size of the expansion, and the incentive structure tied to settlements and awards. Despite those concerns, the motion passed. The board also approved Water Resources Department requests for the Water Well Abandonment, Repair and Replacement program, an assistant water master position in Washington County, and federal funding for Lower Umatilla Basin groundwater data collection. The water master item prompted questions about county cost shifts, but staff said the position would remain externally funded and would not be filled without those resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, if a decision follows that, for instance, a denial, that decision itself can be challenged
• When a decision is made, it is a clear decision that the agency makes, and then the applicant can go
• and make decisions.
• When a decision is made, it is a clear decision that the agency makes, and then the applicant can go
• and make decisions.

Bills: HB2026, HB2027, HB2028, HB2031, HB2078, HB2094, HB2095, HB2101, HB2102, HB2103, HB2260, HB2278, HB2827, HB2932, HB2933, HB2934, HB2986, HCM2009, HCR2038

Keywords: assured water supply, groundwater, commingling, commingled water, water supply, Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR, active management area, AMA, subdivision plat, development approval, water rights, municipal provider, private water company, certificate of assured water supply, written commitment of water service, groundwater savings credits, gray water reuse, replenishment district, Central Arizona Project

Transcript Highlights:

• OK, the final witness will be M. Scott Norman Jr. Chairman: Thank you for being here today.
• We finally got the shot clock legislation and worked with TML and others on HB M.
• Look, those decisions with 14 million to some people might not be a lot of money.
• Finally, I wanted to share a couple of data points.
• Yeah, Final Four.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:37.360> at<00:04:37.600> about doing that, um, DOC is finally at about doing
• And we tried to do that before, and we finally got it through.
• tried to do that before and we finally tried to do that before and we finally got<00:14:09.839><
• And I'm sorry to report to you that when our leaders made their decisions, that did not happen.
• To report to you that when our leaders made their decisions, that did not happen.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This has culminated in the court's shameful recent decision in Louisiana v.
• But recent Supreme Court decisions, including Louisiana v.
• Supreme Court decisions, including Louisiana v.
• And then my final... recognize that as well.
• I have the right to make that decision and everything in between.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on civil rights, housing, public safety, and administrative process. Early items included SB 46, which would authorize the Secretary of State to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential and vice presidential candidates from California ballots; SB 1078, requiring notice to the Civil Rights Department when court filings involve civil rights violations; SB 989, expanding access to Care Court by letting first responders refer cases through county behavioral health agencies; SB 998, clarifying and expanding discrimination prevention coordinators in the new Office of Civil Rights; SB 1146, requiring disclosure for AI-generated health advertisements and giving physicians a limited private right of action; SB 1164, a California Voting Rights Act expansion responding to federal voting-rights rulings; SB 1256, a housing bill aimed at limiting repeated litigation over the Harmony Grove Village South project; SB 1267, addressing HOA liability and indemnification for EV charger installations; and SB 1425, authorizing an encroachment permit program for high-speed rail right-of-way management. The committee also later heard SB 873, restricting ICE arrests near courthouses, and SB 1160, requiring eviction data reporting by zip code. Most bills drew support from sponsors, advocacy groups, labor organizations, or local officials, while opposition centered on concerns about county workload, due process, fire safety, civil liberties, or the scope of the policy changes. Members generally expressed support for the bills while noting unresolved issues and the need for amendments or further stakeholder work, especially on SB 1164, SB 1256, SB 1267, SB 1425, and SB 1160. The Judicial Council opposed SB 1160 because of the burden of adding zip-code reporting to court systems, while the author and supporters argued the data would help target eviction-prevention efforts. SB 873 drew strong support from public defenders, immigrant-rights groups, and court-related stakeholders, with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department opposing. SB 989 drew support from firefighters and family advocates, while Disability Rights California opposed, arguing Care Court is too costly and diverts resources from community-based services. SB 1164 received broad civil-rights and voting-rights support, with cities opposing unless amended over definitions, cure periods, and litigation risk. SB 1256 drew support from housing and labor interests and opposition from local residents and environmental groups concerned about fire safety and evacuation. SB 1267 was supported by the HOA and utility stakeholders after amendments addressing liability concerns. After quorum was established, the committee voted to pass a consent calendar and then approved the listed bills, sending them to the appropriate committees or to Appropriations, including SB 46, SB 873, SB 989, SB 998, SB 1078, SB 1146, SB 1164, SB 1256, SB 1267, and SB 1425. The transcript ends with SB 1160 still under discussion, with members indicating support for the bill’s goals but acknowledging the Judicial Council’s implementation concerns and the need for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:54.400> do as a legislator I can finally do as a legislator I can finally do something
• One final question. >> Thank you. One final question. Representative<00:23:48.559> Boger.
• Representative Edgar, final checklist. Representative Edgar, final question. question. question.
• that decision and trying to overturn<01:11:04.320> that<01:11:04.640> decision?
• overturn that decision? overturn that decision?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So my first question to you on the Calais decision is: are you aware that the Calais decision... ...question
• to you on the Calais decision is: are you aware that the Calais decision does not strike down Section
• So interesting that the decision dropped today, isn't it?
• And we have the final decision. We have the final vote. And so this is not the governor's decision.
• It sure is not the president's decision. It's not any political party's decision.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we do want to focus on the Calais decision.
• Make decisions?
• So interesting that the decision dropped today, isn't it?
• And we have the final decision. We have the final vote. And so this is not the governor's decision.
• It sure is not the president's decision. It's not any political party's decision.

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:

• I'm not going to judge who is an attorney and would be held accountable for the decision made to issue
• So the final order shall be done by the court, an actual judge. By an elected judge, yes, sir.
• And then at some point it would work its way, hopefully quickly, to some decision maker who will say,
• hearing, and where the information goes and who makes the final decision.
• It's still not final.

Summary: The committee first took up SCR 30 by Senator Connick, which memorializes Congress to compel the Department of Justice to release unclassified Epstein-related records. Senator Connick gave personal remarks about child sexual abuse and the need to hold powerful people accountable. Representative Newell supported the resolution, and the committee reported it favorably without opposition. Next, the committee considered SCR 40 by Senator Selders, urging Congress to timely pass defense appropriations that fully fund and align with the National Defense Authorization Act. The measure was briefly explained as a statement of support for military readiness and proper appropriations, and it was moved favorably with no opposition. The main substantive discussion centered on SB 259 by Senator Barrow, which would authorize an online portal for civil protective order applications. A Supreme Court protective order registry representative explained that the portal would let domestic and dating violence survivors complete petitions online, with the same judicial review, service, and hearing process that exists now; the bill would not eliminate manual filing. Members asked about fees, guidance for applicants, verification, judicial review, public access, and the risk of false filings. The witness and several members emphasized that the process remains temporary and ex parte at the outset, that final orders are issued by judges, and that the registry is not public. A domestic violence coalition representative also testified in support. Representative Newell moved favorable, Representative Edmondson objected, and the committee reported the bill favorably by a 10-1 vote. Finally, Representative Baham presented HR 245 condemning political violence in the United States. He cited recent and historical examples of political attacks and argued that violence against public figures and activists is harmful regardless of party. Members voiced support, no one objected, and the resolution was adopted before the committee adjourned, with the chair noting it was the last meeting of the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally, on page four, we talk about if you lose eligibility for the program...
• And finally, in cases of fatal overdose involving fentanyl, it also establishes that the presence of
• Final questions: As with striking title, are there some changes that you want to potentially look at
• So it's not my final committee, but this is the final policy.
• So it's not my final committee, but this is the final policy one. And thank you all.

Bills: HB2299, HB2939, HB2941, HB2960, HB3062, HB3087, HB3114, HB3244, HB3262, HB3304, HB3345, HB3386, HB3431, HB3498, HB3581, HB3645, HB3648, HB3764, HB3852, HB3974, HB4141, HB4144, HB4227, HB4237, HB4343, HB4425

Keywords: Article V, convention, amendments, criminal penalties, legislative authority, absentee voting, electronic communication, facsimile device, voting materials, military voters, fentanyl, overdose, first responders, drug reporting, immunity, controlled substances, penalties, firearm liability, tort reform, manufacturers

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee considered a large slate of executive nominations and bills. The nominations of Kevin Buchanan to the Oklahoma State Council of Interstate Adult Offender Supervision, Bobby Raines to the Polygraph Examiners Board, and Colton Richardson to the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System Board were each advanced to the full Senate without opposition. The committee then heard and advanced several measures on elections, criminal law, public safety, and civil procedure, including bills on Article V convention commissioner guardrails, precinct official terms and oaths, fraud and identity theft, treatment screening for arrested individuals, electronic monitoring eligibility, press access to certain arrest information, foreign terrorist organization-related offenses, CDL eligibility tied to the meth registry, sheriff service fees, fentanyl overdose reporting and presumptions, corporate law updates, appraiser fees in condemnation cases, child sexual abuse reporting protections, eviction mediation, garnishment response deadlines, retired municipal judges carrying firearms, critical mineral ownership restrictions, removal of a sunset on a sexual assault nurse examiner coordinator, enhanced riot and assault penalties, ability-to-pay hearings at sentencing, firearm component liability protections, hospice admission authority, government tort claims coverage for OU Health Authority, and tort claims coverage for county jails housing inmates for other entities. Several bills drew notable questioning and amendments. House Bill 2299, dealing with Article V convention commissioners, was advanced after debate over the bill’s “intimidation” language and its potential effect on political speech; Senator Jett opposed it on vagueness grounds. House Bill 3852 on precinct officials was amended to reflect Election Board recommendations, including changing a disqualification period from three to six years, before advancing. House Bill 2939, removing obsolete fax-machine references from election law, was amended to strike a repealed-law reference and then advanced. House Bill 4343, setting a $350 fee for court-appointed appraisers, prompted extended concern about fixing a market rate in statute; the title was stricken so the measure could be worked on further, but it still advanced. House Bill 4227, the child sexual abuse NDA bill, advanced after the author recognized concerns and agreed to strike the title for further work, and House Bill 3386 on same-day eviction mediation also advanced after the author struck title to revisit discrimination concerns. Other measures advanced with little or no opposition, including House Bills 3244, 3345, 3114, 4144, 3764, 3304, 3262, 2941, 3498, 4141, 4237, 3062, 3431, 3581, 3648, and 3974. Some bills generated focused policy questions, such as whether the fentanyl overdose presumption would be rebuttable, whether the meth registry is lifetime or time-limited, whether the electronic monitoring bill would be too restrictive, and whether the riot-mask felony language could affect law enforcement officers operating in an official capacity. The committee also restored title on several measures before advancing them. The meeting concluded with Chairman Howard thanking the committee and staff and noting it was his final policy committee meeting as chair before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, the final... ...with this, it's no different than the previous request.
• Again, the final decision is not going to be made by the committee. So, thank you.
• This is a huge decision to make, and I want to ask the committee to please not rush this decision today
• And then I'll follow up with some final comments. Okay.
• I guess finally, I just wanted to make the final comment that SB 78 doesn't mandate nuclear.

Bills: SB47, SB195, SB196, SB197, SB198, SB78

Keywords: food recovery, composting, waste management, solid waste surcharge, organic waste reduction, environment, grants, advisory group, soil conservation, water resources, training services, outreach programs, environmental protection, animal care, veterinary services, spay and neuter, Las Vegas, community funding, animal welfare, animal shelter

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd also like to take a moment to recognize that this will be the final hearing before the committee
• This would be a mistake and I believe a harmful decision.
• Ma'am, that of course would be a policy decision.
• In contrast to, historically at least, maybe Germany is finally going to show up and do their part.
• They've finally reached 2% of GDP on defense by some metrics, but they're still not a very force.

Keywords: committee meeting, legislation, public testimony, SB4, HB2214, bipartisan support

Summary: The committee convened to discuss various bills and hear testimonies related to legislative matters, including public concerns and implications surrounding the proposed legislation. Notably, the members engaged in a vigorous debate over SB4, where several representatives shared differing viewpoints on its impact on local communities and the environment. Public testimonies were heard, with advocates arguing for the bill's potential benefits, while opponents raised significant concerns regarding the fiscal implications and land use. Following these discussions, the committee moved to vote on HB2214, which passed without issue, illustrating the bipartisan support for certain initiatives tied to public welfare.

Transcript Highlights:

• I move final passage. Members, Senator Paxton moves final passage of HB 4129.
• You're recognized on final passage. Final passage. The bill is finally passed. Thank you.
• I move final passage. Senator Hughes moves final passage of House Bill 1851.
• It's in litigation, the courts are making decisions, and the final settlement is pending. ...is in October
• The bill is finally passed.

Bills: SB393, SB731, SB801, SB867, SB1232, SB1798, SB2082, SB2717, SB2919, SB3074, HJR133, HB2, HB18, HB24, HB26, HB35, HB43, HB49, HB75, HB103, HB120, HB126, HB143, HB163, HB180, HB216, HB413, HB647, HB700, HB748, HB851, HB1422, HB1445, HB1481, HB1545, HB1562, HB1586, HB1732, HB1828, HB1851, HB1916, HB1991, HB2014, HB2026, HB2038, HB2067, HB2193, HB2282, HB2293, HB2310, HB2464, HB2508, HB2516, HB2518, HB2524, HB2530, HB2674, HB2713, HB2715, HB2974, HB3016, HB3057, HB3062, HB3071, HB3120, HB3161, HB3180, HB3214, HB3234, HB3250, HB3463, HB3512, HB3556, HB3627, HB3680, HB3732, HB3801, HB3824, HB3833, HB3966, HB4044, HB4129, HB4226, HB4230, HB4263, HB4377, HB4384, HB4395, HB4396, HB4535, HB4668, HB4690, HB4751, HB4903, HB5033, HB5149, HB5154, HB5247, HB5331, HB5436, HB5667, HB5688, HB5693, HCR9, HCR40, HCR59, HCR127, SJR5, SB3, SB4, SB9, SB20, SB21, SB23, SB27, SB33, SB34, SB36, SB38, SB40, SB75, SB213, SB269, SB379, SB458, SB528, SB647, SB648, SB650, SB681, SB740, SB777, SB840, SB843, SB924, SB1061, SB1120, SB1121, SB1150, SB1188, SB1198, SB1202, SB1253, SB1318, SB1333, SB1398, SB1405, SB1423, SB1448, SB1535, SB1566, SB1574, SB1621, SB1709, SB1723, SB1789, SB1862, SB2037, SB2078, SB2268, SB2405, SB2406, SB2407, SB2544, SB2570, SB2601, SB2778, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB2308, HB2525, SB1538, SB1749, SB2603, SB3038, SB3062, SB3065, HB24, HB128, HB216, HB388, HB519, HB609, HB685, HB766, HB1237, HB1314, HB1445, HB1458, HB1522, HB1592, HB1606, HB1612, HB1633, HB2011, HB2025, HB2061, HB2259, HB2273, HB2358, HB2421, HB2434, HB2464, HB2518, HB2563, HB2637, HB2697, HB2713, HB2791, HB2856, HB3114, HB3126, HB3161, HB3233, HB3395, HB3424, HB3487, HB3505, HB3510, HB3597, HB3745, HB3803, HB3804, HB3806, HB4224, HB4310, HB4396, HB4738, HB4945, HB5084, HB5155, HB5180, HB5667, HB5686, HCR9, HCR10, HCR135, HCR142, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3038, SB3045, SB1538, SB3071, SB3065, SB3062, HJR133, HB2715, HB3627, HB5033, HB2282, HB26, HB388, HB1633, HB685, HB1606, HB1458, HB2791, HB2061, HB647, HB4738, HB2563, HB128, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB5180, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB5652, HB2025, HB3395, HB18, HB2516, HB2713, HB24, HB519, HB609, HB1592, HB120, HB2421, HB2273, HB2464, HB5084, HB4396, HB43, HB5686, HB2518, HB4310, HB180, HB3745, HB4044, HB5155, HB5667, HB1445, HB1306, HB2637, HB5436, HB3966, HB2026, HB3487, HB4226, HB216, HB49, HB4112, HB3233, HB2310, HB2674, HB322, HB1481, HB126, HB3062, HB3180, HB2530, HB2524, HB1916, HB5650, HB4894, HB3120, HB1629, HB103, HB3234, HB3680, HB5698, HB3171, HB5693, HB2694, HB5664, HB3732, HB2508, HB2293, HB1991, HB2014, HB5331, HB5247, HB4751, HB4690, HB4668, HB4464, HB4395, HB4063, HB3833, HB3623, HB3214, HB3512, HB3250, HB3016, HB2520, HB2221, HB2213, HB3824, HB2067, HB1732, HB1562, HB700, HB1545, HB252, HB146, HB5596, HB1851, HB3619, HB3071, HB3556, HB851, HB4230, HB5320, HB5651, HB5670, HB5665, HB5437, HB5679, HB5699, HB5661, HB5662, HB5654, HB5672, HB5656, HB5149, HB4903, HB4743, HB4666, HB4377, HB4535, HB4129, HB3812, HB3801, HB3595, HB3057, HB2035, HB721, HB35, HB346, HB2974, HB2512, HB5695, HB5694, HB5671, HB5674, HB5688, HB1586, HB5154, HB2038, HB163, HB413, HB3463, HB3185, HB2761, HB2593, HB2348, HB2073, HB1828, HB1422, HB75, HB1871, HB108, HB2306, HB2017, HB1135, HB144, HB3689, HB5308, HB101, HB2193, HB5666, HB5677, HB5682, HB5680, HB5658, HB5696, HB4144, HB3159, HB3254, HB3866, HB3010, HB4520, HB3642, HB3928, HB3815, HB2686, HB2012, HB1960, HB227, HB654, HB1690, HB2128, HB4158, HB4530, HB4630, HB5659, HB1523, HB2078, HB2427, HB145, HB1973, HB3333, HB3697, HB3546, HB3225, HB3181, HB3133, HB3053, HB2885, HB2820, HB2294, HB2253, HB1661, HB1506, HB1234, HB640, HB621, HB551, HB521, HB493, HB272, HB229, HB223, HB201, HB186, HB119, HB2080, HB2818, HB5394, HB4795, HB4466, HB4454, HB3940, HB3749, HB3151, HB3284, HB1403, HB1106, HB2844, HB2851, HB1500, HB4488, HB4264, HB4, HB4170, HB3909, HB4081, HB4145, HB4157, HB4281, HB4285, HB4463, HB4749, HB4995, HB5081, HB5115, HB5138, HB5624, HB1449, HB3711, HB2598, HB3629, HB4361, HB824, HB1868, HB4848, HB2243, HB40, HB117, HB2313, HB3686, HB500, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB1056, HB42, HB4486, HB3000, HB100, HB2240, HB718, HB27, HB4904, HB4202, HB2853, HB5129, HB5093, HB4765, HB4748, HB4559, HB4350, HB4214, HB3388, HB3112, HB5196, HB4211, HB3516, HB3092, HB4233, HB4687, HB705, HB1094, HB2037, HB3005, HB3848, HCR141, HCR118, HCR127, HCR40, HCR59, HCR10, HCR135, HCR142, HCR9, HCR76, HCR108, HJR133, HB18, HB35, HB43, HB49, HB75, HB103, HB120, HB163, HB216, HB413, HB647, HB851, HB1422, HB1481, HB1545, HB1562, HB1586, HB1732, HB1828, HB1851, HB1916, HB1991, HB2014, HB2026, HB2067, HB2193, HB2293, HB2310, HB2464, HB2508, HB2524, HB2530, HB2974, HB3062, HB3071, HB3120, HB3180, HB3214, HB3234, HB3250, HB3463, HB3512, HB3680, HB3732, HB3801, HB3824, HB3833, HB4044, HB4129, HB4226, HB4230, HB4377, HB4395, HB4396, HB4535, HB4668, HB4903, HB5149, HB5154, HB5247, HB5331, HB5436, HB5688, HB5693, HB2282, HB2715, HB3627, HB5033, HB2674, HB3556, HCR127, SB3, SB21, SB379, SB1405, SB1538, SB1749, SB3038, SB3062, SB3065, HB24, HB128, HB388, HB519, HB609, HB685, HB766, HB1237, HB1314, HB1445, HB1458, HB1522, HB1592, HB1606, HB1612, HB1633, HB2025, HB2061, HB2259, HB2273, HB2358, HB2421, HB2518, HB2563, HB2637, HB2713, HB2791, HB2856, HB3114, HB3126, HB3233, HB3487, HB3505, HB3597, HB3745, HB3803, HB3804, HB3806, HB4224, HB4310, HB4738, HB5084, HB5155, HB5180, HB5667, HB5686, HCR9, HCR10, HCR135, HCR142, SB2603, HB3395, HB636, HB5655, HB5689, HB5690, HB636, HB5655, HB5689, HB5690

Keywords: SB 393, Sparks, Middleton, local government, political subdivision, public securities, government debt, municipal bonds, general obligation bonds, certificates of obligation, anticipation notes, debt maturity, weighted average maturity, economic life, useful life, tangible personal property, real property improvements, public finance, Texas Government Code, Chapter 1253

Transcript Highlights:

• Question for the body now is final Question for the body now is final Question for the body now is final
• Question for the body now is final Question for the body now is final Question for the body now is final
• Final passage. Recognize adopted. Final passage. Recognize adopted. Final passage.
• Uh final pass. Question for the bodies. Uh final pass. Question for the bodies. Uh final pass.
• Final passes of HB 443. The bodies. Final passes of HB 443. The bodies. Final passes of HB 443.

Bills: SB 1, HB 500, SB 1, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HB 500

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, state budget, mental health funding, education funding, infrastructure improvements, public safety, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• Cases pending for lengthy periods of time do not provide the finality that all parties need.
• <00:23:11.520> and informed choice for their decisions and informed choice for their decisions
• And then finally, of outcomes uh occur.
• shape the decisions of their lives. shape the decisions of their lives.
• <01:03:30.640> Is ahead and roll into decision- making.

Bills: SB2444, SB2446, SB2450, SB2453, SB2461, SB2457, SB2462, SB2313, SB2528, SB2532, SB2571, SB2678, SB2529

Keywords: real property, exemption, attachment, execution, consumer protection, financial security, inflation adjustment, head of family, senior citizens, Intermediate Court of Appeals, judges, Hawaii judiciary, court membership, legal system, presidential preference primary, elections, political parties, Hawaii voting, 2028 election, voting

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 2444 would raise the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution, which the Attorney General said could create vague retroactivity language and litigation risk; the committee noted the exemption had last been adjusted around 1978. SB 2446 would add a seventh associate judge to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Judiciary staff testified in opposition, saying recent internal restructuring and a pending vacancy had improved output and that it would be prudent to wait and see the effect before adding another judge. The Public Defender supported the goal of faster appellate resolution but said it would defer to the court’s assessment and had no objection to revisiting the issue later. The committee also discussed current appellate timelines, with staff saying at least 225 days is built into the process before a case reaches a merit panel, and that a two-year delay from panel assignment was realistic under the current structure. The committee then heard SB 2450, which would establish a presidential preference primary for the 2028 cycle. The Chief Election Officer said the election would cost about $4 million, less if combined with the regular primary. Several opponents argued the bill would add bureaucracy, duplicate or undermine party-run processes, and waste taxpayer money; one speaker estimated the total cost could be closer to $6 million when county costs are included. Supporters and committee members discussed that the measure would not require parties to use the results and that Hawaii remains one of the few states still using caucuses. The committee also asked whether counties could staff the election and whether the results would be useful given Hawaii’s current primary timing. SB 2453 would require the Office of Elections to include a notice with each ballot that a digital and printed voter information guide is available, with the notice in 32-point font as a separate insert. The Chief Election Officer said the insert would cost about $90,000 and asked for an effective date of January 1, 2027 because mailing preparations for the primary would already be underway. The Disability and Communications Access Board, League of Women Voters, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, and others supported the bill. The committee also began hearing SB 2461, which would have the Office of Elections prepare a questionnaire for candidates and publish responses online and in the voter guide; the Chief Election Officer said the office did not think it should be the agency to shape campaign questions, though he said it could work if the questions were specified in statute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2457, which would require a criminal conviction before seized property could be forfeited. The Attorney General and Honolulu Police Department opposed the bill, arguing it would prolong cases, increase storage costs, and make forfeiture less effective against crime, especially where owners flee, die, or hide assets through shell companies. The Public Defender strongly supported the measure, saying forfeiture should be tied to convictions and that people challenging forfeiture often lack counsel. The Honolulu Prosecutor also opposed the bill, but said it supported transparency, due process, and even a right to counsel; it argued conviction-only forfeiture would fail in cases involving fugitives, deceased suspects, or hidden ownership structures. The committee questioned what would happen to property if an owner could not be found, and the prosecutor said the outcome would depend on the type of property and could involve abandonment or interpleader proceedings.