Transcript Highlights:

• <00:47:46.000> uh<00:47:46.160> for candidate filing for office. uh for candidate filing
• filing<00:47:47.200> an candidates who aren't filing an candidates who aren't filing an affidavit
• filed by local government<00:49:01.520> candidates.
• <00:58:42.240> filings provide access to all candidate filings provide access to all candidate
• <00:59:08.079> have other candidates have to file that have other candidates have to file

Bills: HF3884, HF3881, HF3882, HF3883, HF3363, HF3362

Keywords: tribal governments, Metropolitan Council, grant programs, funding, local government, small business, contracting, veteran-owned businesses, compliance, government contracts, housing finance, reporting requirements, regional development, city programs, elected officials, campaign access, multiple unit dwellings, residential access, voter registration, 1183

Summary: The committee met on March 4, 2026, and first approved the minutes from March 2 by voice vote. It then took up several Metropolitan Council agency bills, with members repeatedly moving to lay them over for possible inclusion or, in one case, to re-refer a bill to another committee. The first three bills discussed were House File 3884, House File 3881, and House File 3882, all presented as administrative or programmatic changes intended to streamline Met Council processes. House File 3884 would allow tribal governments and tribal development entities to apply directly for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act grants and community tree planting grants, rather than applying through a city or other local government. Testimony from Met Council staff said the bill would simplify access and align the Met Council’s tree-planting program with existing DNR authority. House File 3881 would expand the Met Council’s contracting authority to include small businesses more broadly, require an annual report to the legislature on small-business contracting, and repeal a duplicative statute on certificates of compliance. House File 3882 would make a range of administrative cleanups, including removing an obsolete housing-bond review role, clarifying outdated statutory language, extending the review cycle for metropolitan significance rules from every two years to every 10 years, clarifying reporting and Livable Communities Act provisions, changing regional parks operations-and-maintenance reimbursements to rely on audited financial statements, and clarifying agricultural preserves procedures. The committee also considered House File 3883, which was amended with an A1 amendment before adoption. That bill updates appointments to the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee, known as MOSAC, including direct appointments for certain county representatives and adding a tribal representative appointed by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, while also cleaning up outdated language and eligibility provisions. A former MOSAC member spoke in support of the committee’s work, and the chair said the bill was common-sense and renewed the motion to lay it over as amended. Finally, the committee began House File 3363, a bill described by the author as a response to safety concerns after the June events, aimed at removing public access to legislators’ home addresses from Campaign Finance Board materials; discussion had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair Steiner, so multi-candidate statewide multi-candidate committees are required to disclose their
• It does not say a statewide multi-candidate committee formed on behalf of a statewide candidate.
• statewide candidate.
• And is multi-candidate committee currently... Candidate committee.
• A multi-candidate committee formed on behalf of a statewide candidate. Is currently doing it?

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review amendments to a campaign finance bill, focusing on reporting requirements for ending balances and annual statements. Members and staff worked through whether the language should apply to all multi-candidate committees or only statewide multi-candidate committees, and whether the addition of non-statewide political parties created any unintended change from current law. Dustin Richard from the Secretary of State’s office explained that the draft needed to be tightened to mirror existing law by inserting “statewide” where appropriate, while keeping the new non-statewide political party provisions as intended. The committee also discussed an effective date and application clause. Staff explained that an effective date of January 1, 2026 would align with the new reporting requirements, and that 2025 transactions would still be reported under the old law while 2026 transactions would follow the new rules. Members asked for plain-language clarification about how the application clause would work and whether any statutory cleanup would be needed afterward. A motion was made, seconded, and approved to adopt the amendments, with the motion then rephrased to refer to the “Dustin amendments.” The meeting concluded with scheduling discussion about reconvening later in the week to keep the bill moving before the deadline, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section one of the bill does require candidates to file a statement of organization with the relevant
• You will see a candidate committee for each person that has filed their statement of organization.
• Notify the candidate committee if a written complaint is filed by another candidate.
• <00:35:07.680> Uh<00:35:08.000> secretary filed by another candidate.
• Uh secretary filed by another candidate.

Keywords: Elections - Room 210; 29 January, 2026: 2:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 250, which would require disclosures for political advertisements that are generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence. Senator Blackman explained that the bill applies to video, image, and audio ads, with specific disclaimer requirements and exemptions for bona fide news coverage, documentaries, and certain distributors that require AI disclosure from submitters. Members asked about the bill’s scope, including that it would not cover written mailers. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion for title sufficient and do pass, and the bill was reported out. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2386, which would prohibit political candidates from using grand jury or jury proceedings as a captive audience for campaign activity. Senator Tate said the measure had been passed before and was intended to prevent politicizing trials. With no questions, the committee again voted title sufficient and do pass, and the bill was reported out. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2096 from the Secretary of State’s office, a technical elections bill establishing minimum cybersecurity standards for access to SIMS by election officials and clerks; counties would have to pass an assessment or use election support funds to fix deficiencies. That bill was likewise reported out on a title sufficient, do pass motion. Next, the committee took up Senate Bill 2588, the Shield Act, which would require citizenship verification through the federal SAVE system for certain driver’s license or ID applicants who identify as noncitizens or do not provide verifiable information, and would also run the voter rolls through SAVE annually. Supporters said it would strengthen election integrity and add confidence that voters are citizens, while Senator Blunt argued the bill could lead to unnecessary purges based on database mismatches and that existing systems already address the issue. The Secretary of State’s office said SAVE is used with safeguards, does not automatically remove voters, and that voters flagged in error can provide proof and remain eligible. Despite the debate, the committee voted title sufficient and do pass committee substitute, and the bill was reported out. Finally, the chairman began explaining Senate Bill 2558, a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. He described provisions requiring candidates and committees to file statements of organization before accepting contributions or making expenditures, defining corporate contributions and coordinated expenditures, separating candidate committees from PACs, requiring more detailed reporting and electronic filing, setting rules for termination reports and anonymous contributions, and imposing tiered fines for violations. The transcript cuts off before the committee finished its discussion or took final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• As Chair Fryberg said, nominating petitions are an alternate way of a candidate filing for office for
• candidates who aren't filing an affidavit of candidacy or representing a specific political party.
• The A8 deals with retroactive redaction of existing reports filed by local government candidates.
• caucus candidates? caucus candidates?
• Garing: Madam Chair, as drafted here, this would provide access to all candidate filings.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3363, a bill focused on protecting the privacy and safety of legislators and other candidates by limiting public access to home addresses and related information in campaign finance and election filings. The author said the bill was prompted by the events of June 14 and was intended to make temporary Campaign Finance Board changes permanent. No public testimony was offered, and the author explained that the bill had been narrowed and reorganized after a Senate delete-everything amendment expanded its scope. Members then considered a series of amendments. The A1 amendment, which added security devices and security services as allowable non-campaign disbursements, was adopted after questions about family relationships and whether payments to relatives could qualify. The A2 through A9 amendments were also adopted, covering data classification or redaction of street addresses in Campaign Finance Board reports, lobbyist gift reports, candidate affidavits of candidacy, nominating petitions, local government candidate reports, and retroactive redaction of existing reports. The A4 amendment was modified by A12 to apply city, state, and ZIP code reporting to political committees, political funds, and party units. The A13 amendment removed a proposed misdemeanor penalty tied to disclosure violations, and the A14 amendment was adopted to give caucus and chamber leaders access to actual candidate addresses, though members noted the language still needed refinement and that the intent was to continue working on it. There was discussion about whether the address-access language in A14 would apply to all candidates or only legislative candidates, and whether it would affect residency disputes; staff said it would not change complaint or court processes, but could be a data point. Several members said they had concerns about the breadth of the language but were willing to keep working on it. After the amendments were adopted, the committee moved to the bill as amended and recommended that House File 3363 be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• who are filing for office using the absent candidates section of statute.
• So this is for candidates who will be out of the state for the entire filing period or in certain circumstances
• Section 14 extends the proof of residence requirements to candidates who are filing for certain local
• c><00:04:38.400> office candidates who are filing for office candidates who are filing for office
• <00:05:00.560> local candidates who filing for certain local candidates who filing for certain

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And we also had the January filed.
• <00:08:49.519> system not work with the online filing system not work with the online filing
• answer any questions for the candidates. answer any questions for the candidates.
• So, we're pursuing it. phase of trying to get the candidate to phase of trying to get the candidate to
• candidate. So, we're pursuing it. candidate. So, we're pursuing it. >> Okay.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission met on March 9, 2026, with a quorum present in person and one commissioner participating from Florida. The meeting began with the swearing-in of new commissioner Joe Palumbo, who briefly introduced himself and his family and business background. The commission then approved the February 2, 2026 minutes and approved the staff budget report, with staff noting the office remained within spending parameters. Staff gave an update on the heavy workload from re-registration and reporting season, saying roughly 4,500 re-registrations and about 10,000 total forms had been processed. They credited the new online payment portal with reducing manual work and discussed ongoing LRC technology work to build a new system for desktop use, online re-registration, payment processing, and a searchable register. Commissioners asked about the timeline and current paper-based process; staff said the system is being built from scratch and that, for now, forms are still often downloaded, completed, emailed or mailed, and manually entered by staff. The commission also reviewed financial disclosure processing. Staff said all required disclosures had been received except one outstanding candidate filing, and that the candidate was still officially running, so notice was being sent by certified mail under the statute. Staff explained that their review is for completeness rather than audit-level accuracy, and that disclosures from legislators, candidates, and certain upper-management/LRC officials are posted for public access. The commission then discussed its informal advisory opinions, including how staff tracks and organizes them, and praised staff for quick turnaround before voting to enter executive session to discuss confidential complaints and informal opinions.

Transcript Highlights:

• is filed with the Legislature.
• of that candidate.
• or no candidate at all.
• or no candidate at all.
• candidates.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, I think the way other offices have done it is they take their candidate filing information and
• done it is they take their candidate done it is they take their candidate filing<00:18:33.039>
• filings if a candidate provides their own website.
• Um, and candidates can update that information either with our office or with their local filing officer
• filings if a well as in the candidate filings if a candidate<00:21:19.280> provides<00:21:19.760

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• filings because that system currently supports the publicly accessible list of candidate filings.
• filings because that system currently supports the publicly accessible list of candidate filings.
• <00:26:18.720> filings requirements around candidate filings requirements around candidate
• <00:43:36.280> filing registration as well as candidate filing registration as well as candidate
• candidate filings on primary election candidate filings on primary election day<01:37:37.239>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Candidates are forced to file for a specific numbered seat. The system is highly confusing.
• Voters are frequently forced to arbitrarily choose between two preferred candidates who happen to file
• file<00:16:09.680> for<00:16:09.880> a Candidates are forced to file for a Candidates
• c><00:16:41.520> for<00:16:41.640> the candidates who happen to file for the candidates
• they prefer less, or even an unchallenged candidate who happened to file for another seat.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . candidates. candidates.
• This is the candidate. This office, this is the candidate.
• This is the candidate. This office, this is the candidate.
• This is the candidate. This office, this is the candidate.
• a candidate. a candidate.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• candidates are standing for election. candidates are standing for election.
• how a candidate may obtain a recount. how a candidate may obtain a recount.
• This deals with the affidavit that is filed by a losing candidate when they are requesting a recount.
• File 113 does do just that. Mr. File 113 does do just that. Mr.
• Um Senate file 127 I believe. Um, time. Um Senate file 127 I believe.

Bills: SF0028, SF0030, SF0031, SF0032

Keywords: voting, elections, electronic voting systems, transparency, public testing, voter registration, qualified elector, residency requirements, voting rights, mortgage modification, priority, electronic signatures, real property, financial covenants, 911 services, emergency response, grant funding, next generation technology, government accountability, public safety

Transcript Highlights:

• who are filing for office using the absent candidates section of statute.
• to candidates who are filing<00:36:26.359> for<00:36:26.560> certain<00:36:26.920>
• First, it changes the statement of economic interest deadline to be 14 days after the candidate filing
• files and that which date the candidate files and that that<01:32:25.760> creates<01:32:26.119
• <01:32:50.560> it<01:32:50.679> does candidate filing period so that it does candidate

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:18.920> candidate election period to a candidate candidate election period to a candidate
• gets a fee charge, but the fee isn't specifically set out in statute like the candidate filing fee is
• of candidate of candidate nominations<00:20:08.880> furthermore<00:20:09.799> the
• <00:21:49.279> filing<00:21:49.600> fee in statute like the candidate filing fee in
• statute like the candidate filing fee is<00:21:52.120> oh<00:21:52.279> so<00:21:52.400

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills covering criminal justice, elections, and wildfire-related settlement funding. HB 103 would raise the age cutoff for life-without-parole eligibility from 18 to 21; supporters included the Public Defender and others, while prosecutors and some others opposed it. HB 11 would allow civil claims against people or businesses profiting from sexual exploitation or sex trafficking; it drew mostly support but was not ready for a vote and was deferred for further questions. HB 132 would expand a state-initiated expungement pilot to include possession of any Schedule V substance; the Public Defender, ACLU, and oversight groups supported it, with one opponent, and committee questions focused on what substances and how many cases would be affected. HB 145 would require the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center to transmit expungement orders to the Judiciary to implement Act 159; the Judiciary and Public Defender supported it, and members discussed technical issues involving multiple defendants and multiple charges. HB 369, a campaign finance housekeeping bill on excess cash contributions, and HB 408, which aligns voter registration-by-mail deadlines with current law, both received support and no opposition of note. The committee also heard HB 1175, which creates appropriations and a trust fund for Maui wildfire settlement claims; the Attorney General’s office, Maui County Council, and Tax Foundation supported it, while one senator said he would vote no because of concerns about House leadership. HB 386, which conforms drug possession thresholds for methamphetamine, heroin, morphine, and cocaine, was supported by law enforcement and prosecutors. HB 134 would require electronic filing of nomination papers; the Elections Office supported it but asked that any convenience fee be authorized in statute, while one witness opposed it over security and cost concerns. After testimony and questions, the committee took up decision-making and passed HB 103 with amendments, deferred HB 11, and passed HB 132, HB 145, HB 369, HB 408, HB 1175, HB 386, and HB 134, with HB 134 amended to clarify no additional charge for electronic filing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I talked to the Chair in the past about when you file to be a candidate, there's a 700 form that is due
• I talked to the chair this in the past of when you file your, to be a candidate, there's a 700 form that
• File item number four, AB 1789. Gallagher, aye. El-Hawari, aye. File item five, AB 2230.
• On 10, I'm going back on file item number 10, AB 20484. File item number 10, AB 20484.
• File item number 15, AB 2691 by Addis. Gallagher, aye. File item number 16, AB 2753.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met as a subcommittee until quorum was established, then heard a series of election- and public-trust-related bills. Early items included AB 2592, which would move lobbyist training from legislative ethics committees to the FPPC starting in 2029 and make it available online on demand; it drew support from the FPPC and an oppose-unless-amended request to make the training public and ensure lobbyists pay fees. AB 2573 would refine California’s confidential voter registration protections for candidates and elected officials, with support from the Secretary of State and county election officials after amendments narrowed some family-member coverage. AB 2753 would bar registered sex offenders from running for or holding local or state office; it prompted extended debate about public trust, second chances, and where to draw the line, but was ultimately advanced on a 5-0 vote with one member not voting. AB 2691 similarly would expand disqualifying felony convictions to include sexual assault and human trafficking, and it also passed 5-0 after testimony from victim advocates and discussion about survivors, restorative justice, and the power dynamics involved in public office. The committee also advanced AB 2413, which would prohibit public funds from being used for large-format ads featuring elected officials, and AB 2281, which would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to assess replacement resources after federal cybersecurity support cuts and allow consultation with academic researchers. AB 1664 would require local election officials to notify the Secretary of State and Attorney General within one business day of warrants, subpoenas, or investigations involving election records or voting systems; supporters said it would help the state respond quickly to improper seizure of election materials, and it passed 5-0. AB 2484, concerning San Diego MTS, would let voters authorize a local sales tax initiative for transit funding and exempt it from an existing cap; it drew support from transit leaders and labor, opposition from the Realtors, and a lengthy exchange over Prop. 13, Prop. 218, and whether the measure created a special deal, before passing 6-1. The committee then heard AB 2230, which would create buffer zones around voting centers and child care facilities to keep immigration enforcement away from those locations. The author said the bill was meant to reduce fear and intimidation for voters and families, while the opposition argued it was unenforceable, lacked evidence of a problem, and would interfere with federal officers doing their jobs. Members supporting the bill cited reported ICE profiling and intimidation in California communities, while others raised jurisdictional and practical concerns. The transcript ends during this debate, with no final vote shown for AB 2230.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate File 1854.
• Senator wesland moves that Senate file Senator wesland moves that Senate file 1854<00:08:14.759>
• Senator Balden uh it's Senate file Senator Balden uh it's Senate file 1915<00:08:51.279> and<
• spending limits that apply to candidates spending limits that apply to candidates who<00:10:01.360
• <00:10:35.440> choose<00:10:35.680> to aware when candidates choose to aware when candidates

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We welcome the opportunity to provide an electronic candidate filing system.
• <01:38:24.560> filing provide a electronic candidate filing provide a electronic candidate
• <01:38:41.119> filing<01:38:41.400> does not 2026 because candidate filing does not
• 2026 because candidate filing does begin<01:38:41.880> on<01:38:42.040> the<01:38:42.239
• , and candidate committees, and other individuals required to file organizational reports.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs held its first hearing of the 33rd Legislature and heard several measures, beginning with HB 131, which would allow agencies to disclose government records to researchers for certain purposes and direct the Office of Information Practices to adopt uniform rules. OIP supported the bill, saying it would help researchers access government records, while DLNR questioned whether the bill was necessary, raised concerns about costs and exemptions, and suggested a definition change regarding media. The Public First Law Center and other supporters said the bill would not remove existing exemptions or create new disclosure requirements, but would simply authorize rulemaking to create a clearer process for research access. Common Cause Hawaiʻi raised concern about including news media in the measure. The chair emphasized that the rulemaking process would allow agencies and the public to work through details, and the committee moved on without a recorded vote in the transcript. The committee then heard HB 411, which would create uniform administrative penalty procedures under the state ethics code and lobbyist law, and HB 412, which would expand lobbying definitions to cover certain communications with high-level executive officials about procurement and make some contracts voidable if awarded through unethical lobbying. The Ethics Commission supported HB 411 as an efficiency measure that would streamline the charge process without changing substantive rights, while HB 412 was described as a narrow transparency measure modeled on other states. The State Procurement Office warned that voiding contracts could cause delays, warranty issues, third-party complications, and higher reprocurement costs. The Ethics Commission responded that any contract revocation would be at the Attorney General’s discretion and likely reserved for egregious cases, and that the threat of voiding a contract would help deter noncompliance. The committee also heard HB 413, which clarifies that lobbyist campaign contribution prohibitions apply during periods when both houses of the Legislature are in session; the Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission both supported the bill and the Ethics Commission requested amendments to clarify jurisdiction between state and county lobbyist enforcement. Finally, the committee took up HB 149, which would require domestic and foreign corporations to report independent expenditures and political contributions to shareholders. The only testimony noted in the transcript was written comments from Matson, which said the requirement would be expensive and cumbersome and that the information is already publicly available through existing campaign finance reporting websites. No votes or final committee actions on the bills were recorded in the provided transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• filing deadline has occurred.
• Is this have to do with with candidates that have filed or is this something that has to do with the
• Is this have to do with with candidates that have filed or is this something that has to do with the
• Is this have to do with with candidates that have filed or is this something that has to do with the
• candidate filing deadline has occurred. candidate filing deadline has occurred. candidates<00:14

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Thursday, February 5, 2026, 960, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, heard an invocation from Reverend Carissa Serber, and journalized her remarks. Members then welcomed several guests and groups in the gallery, including Maryland Community Action Partnership advocates, Cecil College students and Dr. Mary Bolt, Cecil County Executive Adam Strait, the Maryland Association of Justice, Faith Baptist School students, and several interns and staff members. The chamber also introduced Senate Bill 585 and a bond initiative for the Active Achievers Youth Center, both of which were referred to the appropriate committees or subcommittees. The main floor debate centered on Senate Bill 255, the Voting Rights Act of 2026 for counties and municipal corporations. Senators questioned the bill’s scope, especially whether it would affect county commissioner election methods, who could bring suit, what “vote dilution” means, and whether the measure was tied to district maps or candidate filings. The sponsor explained that the bill creates a state framework for the federal Voting Rights Act, provides standing rather than a remedy, and applies when a protected class believes its vote has been diluted; political party was said not to be a protected class. The committee amendment was adopted without objection, and the amended bill was ordered printed for third reading. On third reading, Senate Bill 5 and Senate Bill 29 passed with constitutional majorities. Senate Bill 93 also passed. Senate Bill 141, dealing with election misinformation, disinformation, and deep fakes, was moved back to second reader for a technical amendment and then special ordered to Tuesday. The Senate also held a lighthearted recorded vote on Seahawks versus Patriots, with the Seahawks winning 28 to 8, and then received committee scheduling announcements for upcoming hearings and voting sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• official side so when we as candidates or<00:26:40.360> when<00:26:40.919> candidates<
• Those signatures must be collected during the candidate filing period in the regular election scenario
• <00:41:01.640> endorsed candidate to get the candidate endorsed candidate to get the candidate
• for for candidate filing there's time for for candidate filing there's time for voter<00:43:35.160
• um it's the time for the candidate um it's the time for the candidate filing<00:47:28.200> which

Bills: HF72, HF66, HF69, HF73

Keywords: campaign finance, state funding, political activity, nonprofits, government transparency, HF66, Minnesota second-degree murder, unintentional murder, protective order, order for protection, harassment restraining order, domestic violence, victim protection, cross-jurisdictional orders, out-of-state restraining order, tribal court order, Canadian protective order, public safety, criminal law, homicide

Transcript Highlights:

• Our office also maintains the candidate filing database and the election reporting system for the statewide
• <00:24:59.279> filing<00:24:59.720> database<00:25:00.520> and the candidate
• filing database and the candidate filing database and election<00:25:01.120> reporting<00:25:
• candidate filings website on Election candidate filings website on Election night<00:25:16.720><
• There were 84 cases in the '22 cycle, filed in 2022, and 43 filed in 2024.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Minnesota House Elections Finance and Government Operations Committee met to begin its session with member and staff introductions, then heard an overview from Secretary of State Steve Simon and elections director Paul Linnell on the state’s elections administration and budget needs. Simon said the office’s committee-jurisdiction budget request was for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) election security grant match: Minnesota received about $1 million in federal funds in 2024 and needs a $200,000 state match to unlock the money for election security navigator work. He also previewed the office’s broader presentation on the 2024 election, outreach efforts, and election security. Simon described the 2024 election cycle as successful, saying his administrative goals were high turnout and low drama. He reported that Minnesota had very high turnout in the November election, with more than 3.27 million ballots cast and about 76.4% turnout, and noted that more than 1.3 million voters cast ballots before Election Day. He also highlighted outreach and accessibility efforts, including the Students Voting Program, Youth Day at the Capitol, National Voter Registration Day activities, expanded online voter tools in additional languages, and work to inform eligible Minnesotans about the Restore the Vote law for people leaving prison. He emphasized that elections are a team effort carried out largely by counties, cities, townships, and election judges. Linnell then explained the state’s election administration structure and responsibilities, including the Statewide Voter Registration System, candidate filing and election reporting systems, voting equipment certification, and post-election performance reviews. He said counties are central to voter registration updates and ballot preparation, and noted that in 2024 there were a handful of counties with ballot errors that required court action, with a vendor process change identified as a contributing factor. Committee members asked for more detail on the number and identity of the affected counties. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.