Transcript Highlights:

• respond, just to your point, a great point, Senator King, and I do want to say that I do have a judicial
• reform bill that is tied to the judicial pay raise, by the way.
• So this is not a judicial issue. This is a funding issue by local government.
• Because it undermines due process, the presumption of innocence and judicial discretion, it would keep
• We also ask the bill to define the word pending because the judicial interpretation of pending is the

Bills: SB9, SB1047, SB1048, SJR17, SJR49, SB40, SJR1, SJR5, SB 9, SB 40, SJR 1

Keywords: bail reform, defendants, pretrial detention, public safety, criminal justice, charitable bail organizations, criminal procedure, public safety report, victim notification, family violence, bail bonds, public funds, political subdivision, injunction, taxpayer rights, violent crimes, sexual offenses, community safety, constitutional amendment, trafficking

Transcript Highlights:

• But right of a right of judicial remedy, section 14. This will surely go to court.
• <00:33:49.200> remedy,<00:33:50.080> section of a right of judicial remedy, section
• of a right of judicial remedy, section 14. 14. 14.
• ,<02:14:49.360> legislative<02:14:50.079> or state or local, judicial, legislative
• of able to have judicial interpretation of of<02:24:54.319> the<02:24:54.479> law.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Remember, as you've heard, the unanimous consent request, without objection, that will be the order.
• You have heard the unanimous consent request without objection.
• Members, you've heard the unanimous consent requests without objection. That will be the order.
• Senator Murdock asked unanimous consent that the bill be advanced without objection.
• Now, Senator Hays asked unanimous consent.

Bills: HB1937, HB2153, HB3674, HB2978, HB3885, HB3671, HB3261, HB3021, HB3029, HB4274, HB3701, HB3076, HB2299, HB3852, HB3244, HB3345, HB3114, HB3764, HB4144, HB3304, HB2939, HB4227, HB3262, HB2941, HB3498, HB4343, HB4425, HB3386, HB3087, HB3062, HB3431, HB4141, HB3581, HB4237, HB2960, HB3645, HB3648, HB3974, HB3045, SCR18, HCR1024, SJR39, SJR49, HB4486, SB1130, SB1131, SB1132, SB1133, SB1134, SB1142, HB1823, HB4476, HB3378, HB3880, HB3031, HB3369, HB3429, HB3657, HB4215, HB3624, HB1170

Keywords: HB1937, Oklahoma schools, student communications, electronic communication, digital communication, parent notification, legal guardian, school personnel, teachers, coaches, administrators, charter schools, public schools, administrative leave, corroborated report, investigation, employee file, discipline, termination, school board

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill will remove the informed consent process.
• 50.079> informed remove the informed from the informed remove the informed from the informed consent
• 52.119> will<00:51:52.319> insert<00:51:52.720> a<00:51:52.920> party consent
• process it will insert a party consent process it will insert a party that<00:51:53.839> has<
• The circumstances surrounding abortions are vast, and there should not be judicial claim over an individual's

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened with procedural remarks, including notice of an overflow room and a brief apology from Representative Andress about returning to his seat after introducing HB 114. The committee then took up HB 476, a proposed 15-week abortion ban. Chairman Lynn explained that a request to withdraw the bill had been filed, but because the bill was already scheduled for hearing, the committee would proceed with testimony and the withdrawal would require later House action. The chair also reminded witnesses to keep remarks to three minutes and asked the audience to remain respectful. Most testimony focused on abortion access, maternal health, and the likely effects of a 15-week limit. Opponents, including Nancy Pariser, Dr. Cynthia Rasmussen, Dr. Young, Bonnie Bruno, and others, argued that abortion restrictions increase maternal mortality, worsen miscarriage care, create “OB deserts,” and can delay emergency treatment in cases such as sepsis or ectopic pregnancy. Several speakers cited experiences from Texas and Georgia and warned that HB 476 contained no exceptions for rape, incest, or maternal health. Supporters of the bill, including Paul Galasso and Lynn Hill, framed abortion as the loss of unborn life and argued that 15 weeks still allows most abortions while saving lives; they also said New Hampshire’s current law is already adequate and that the bill should be strengthened rather than abandoned. Other witnesses emphasized practical and economic concerns, saying unwanted pregnancies can worsen poverty, childcare burdens, housing insecurity, and women’s lifetime earnings. Some speakers urged lawmakers to focus instead on affordable housing, childcare, and family support. No committee vote or final action on HB 476 occurred during the hearing; the meeting consisted of opening remarks and public testimony only.

Transcript Highlights:

• um adding judicial um adding judicial official<01:34:38.480> to<01:34:38.719> the<
• 01:34:39.360> judicial<01:34:40.320> doxing official to the judicial doxing official to
• the judicial doxing provision.
• it's they are a judicial officer, but it's they are a judicial officer, but they<01:35:59.520> have
• it in in more judicial it in in more judicial foreclosures,<03:17:40.640> I<03:17:40.880>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But I do like the opt-in, and then the taxpayer, we'd also have a record that the taxpayer has consented
• You know, we want to be a little, well, we want to be judicious in terms of you're asking exactly what
• You know, we want to be a little, well, we want to be judicious in terms of you're asking exactly what

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met to begin its study of the feasibility and desirability of revising the content of the real estate tax statement to improve property tax transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the study directive under House Bill 1176 and the statutory requirements for tax statements, including required line items such as true and full value, mill levy, legislative tax relief, primary residence credit, and the Legacy Fund portion of that credit. The Tax Department then explained how the current uniform statement is prescribed and approved, and noted that changes are typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual tax cycle, from county budgeting and valuation notices to budget hearing notices, levy certification, cap calculations, and final tax statement mailing. They emphasized that counties and auditors do extensive coordination with taxing districts and neighboring counties, and that the process is labor-intensive and often manual. Members discussed the limited public response to budget notices and tax statements, the difficulty of explaining the legislative tax relief line, the 3% cap and valuation issues, and whether more frequent assessments or different timing would improve understanding. Several members and witnesses noted that many taxpayers only engage when they receive their final bill, and that clarity may be more important than adding more detail. NDACO also presented a rough cost survey from eight counties, estimating an average tax statement cost of about 74 cents and a statewide total near $600,000 for printing and mailing tax statements alone, with outsourcing generally cheaper than in-house printing. Witnesses noted that House Bill 1176 added other mailings and notices, increasing county workload and cost beyond the statement itself. The committee then heard from software vendors, who explained how their systems handle tax billing, budget notices, valuation notices, primary residence credit processing, and tax levy calculations, and they identified the 1600/1685 primary residence credit and discount interaction as a current programming challenge. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and I believe it passed out of the Senate last session, didn't change anything when it came to judicial
• And juvenile judicial discretion allows the courts to determine eligibility.
• provisions of Article 46C of the Code of Criminal Procedure have removed the requirement to obtain consent

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In other words, the Judicial Branch has substantially addressed this information. Okay.
• In other words, the Judicial Branch has substantially addressed this information. Okay.
• status, perdem judges, and then judicial status, perdem judges, and then judicial referees.<01:53
• That actually violates our judicial ethics to do that.
• that actually violates our judicial that actually violates our judicial ethics<02:05:08.080>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Children and Family Law Committee met on April 15, 2025, and opened a hearing on Senate Bill 269, which would remove references to “bride and groom” and replace them with “applicants” in the Vital Records Act. The bill was described by the sponsor’s designee as a housekeeping update requested by the Secretary of State to modernize and standardize the language in light of same-sex marriage and to make the statute gender-neutral. Members asked whether the change would affect the substance of marriage law, marriage ceremonies, age and residence requirements, or open the door to polygamy; the response was that it would not change the law, would still apply to two adults, and would not supersede New Hampshire’s ban on polygamy. Some members noted the bill had passed the Senate unanimously and 18-0, while others questioned whether the change was necessary given existing forms and statutes, and whether it could create confusion with other laws such as alimony or divorce paperwork. The discussion became lengthy and somewhat informal, with members debating whether the terminology update was merely clerical or whether it should be postponed for more information from the Secretary of State’s office. Several members expressed frustration that no representative from that office was present. One member, speaking as a family law attorney, argued the bill was redundant because similar information already appears on vital statistics forms and could potentially create unintended issues; others countered that the Legislature should keep statutes consistent with current law and modern terminology. The committee also briefly discussed how marriage certificates and licenses are labeled and how same-sex couples are designated under current law. After a Republican caucus break, the chair called for a nonbinding thumb vote on whether to postpone the bill. The committee voted to come back to the bill later, and the hearing on SB 269 was closed and postponed to a later executive session date. The chair then shifted to other committee business, including preparations for a later discussion with Chief Administrative Justice Ellen Kristo and a family court subcommittee exercise, but no further action was taken on SB 269 during this segment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh just to for the judicial branch.
• But I have on the judicial branch.
• <00:47:32.560> branch forward if say if uh the judicial branch forward if say if uh the judicial
• Judges are part of the judicial branch.
• So that I wonder how it judicial branch.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chiefs of Police; Scott Kirkpat, Chiefs of Police; and Brad Burghett, District Attorney in the 7th Judicial
• Attorneys Association, in support, not wishing to speak; Brad Burkett, also district attorney, 7th Judicial
• We also have Brad Burgett, who's the district attorney in the 7th Judicial District, Darren Alamon, the
• And then we have two other cards, Brad Burgett, District Attorney for the 7th Judicial District, in support

Summary: The Senate Committee on Judiciary C met on May 19, 2026, with a quorum present and first deferred House Bill 276 at the sponsor’s request. The committee then heard and advanced several bills, largely focused on criminal justice, domestic violence, victims’ rights, probation/parole, and critical infrastructure protections. HB 160, by Rep. Knox, would increase the penalty for domestic abuse battery and battery of a dating partner involving strangulation from three to six years, with at least one year without probation or suspension; it drew strong support from prosecutors and domestic violence advocates and was reported favorably. HB 769, by Rep. Boyd, would create a 24- to 72-hour cooling-off hold in domestic violence cases, with an amendment to make the hold concurrent with other detention periods and to avoid stacking with existing law; it was reported with amendments. The committee also reported favorably HB 1234, which creates mandatory jail time for fleeing the scene after striking a person and failing to render aid, and HB 158, which restores custodial inpatient treatment as an option for probationers and increases the allowable treatment period from 90 to 180 days. HB 169, allowing courts or the parole board to assess extradition costs against absconders based on ability to pay, was also reported favorably. HB 251, requiring notice to a victim or designated family member before resentencing or final conviction hearings, drew support from the Attorney General’s office and opposition from the ACLU, which argued that victim involvement at that stage could be inconsistent with post-conviction standards; it was nevertheless reported favorably. Additional measures advanced included HB 289, which removes a redundant 24-hour delay between denial of a new trial motion and sentencing; HB 394, extending the conditional parole period from nine months to 24 months to allow completion of required programming; and HB 330, increasing penalties and restitution for vandalizing churches and graves, which was supported by the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops. HB 429, expanding critical infrastructure protections to oil and natural gas facilities and related operations and increasing penalties for unauthorized entry, drone activity, and cyber interference, was reported with amendments after discussion about harmonizing the definition with another bill and ensuring coverage of water-related facilities. The committee also approved the minutes from the prior meeting before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• majority accepted by a voice vote on February 20th and then referred to Finance. floor if it was consent
• calendar or what floor if it was consent calendar or what it was<03:06:42.520> sure<03:06:42.920
• Was it like on the consent calendar or something? So it was ought to pass. 198 to 180.
• like there's some concern from<05:17:38.638> the<05:17:38.920> the<05:17:39.160> judicial
• Since the introduced bill expanded the scope, the judicial branch anticipated there could be more cases

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ontania, and commonly speak about: Senate 1391, House 2225, an act of harm reduction in judicial justice
• Senate 1391, House 225, an act of harm reduction in judicial justice. You just heard about that.
• behavior without it coming from the Attorney General or the district attorney's office and/or with judicial
• I have been a human who struggled in making the choice to seek treatment because they fear to consent

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use, and Recovery held a public hearing on several harm reduction bills, including measures to decriminalize simple possession and paraphernalia, authorize overdose prevention centers, and expand access to naloxone for first responders. Chair Mindy Domb and Senator John Velis opened by describing harm reduction as an evidence-based public health strategy and noting Massachusetts’ recent decline in fatal overdoses. They emphasized that testimony would help shape whether and how the bills advance, and explained the hearing process, including time limits and written testimony. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including Rep. Kate Donaghue, Sen. Cindy Friedman, Rep. Marjorie Decker, Rep. Manny Cruz, public health professionals, recovery advocates, and people with lived experience, argued that harm reduction saves lives, reduces stigma, and can connect people to treatment. They supported overdose prevention centers and decriminalization as tools to keep people alive long enough to enter recovery, and several speakers described personal losses to overdose or family experiences with addiction. Some supporters also framed the bills as racial justice measures, arguing that criminal penalties for possession have disproportionately harmed Black and brown communities. Opponents, including Sen. Nick Collins and several South End residents, argued that overdose prevention centers and decriminalization would worsen public drug use, crime, and neighborhood disorder, especially around Mass and Cass. They said current approaches such as Section 35, diversion, and police leverage into treatment are more effective, and they urged more treatment beds and recovery facilities instead of harm reduction sites. Committee members questioned witnesses about research, local siting, crime data, and the relationship between harm reduction and treatment, and several members said neighborhood impacts must be considered alongside overdose prevention. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing; it continued receiving testimony and announced a later break before resuming on H. 2196 and S. 1393.

Transcript Highlights:

• the<00:27:29.039> local need both uh consent from the local need both uh consent from the
• All right, see you guys at 10:40. consent that must be sought should it be consent that must be sought
• your bill expand that consent to an abutter?
• without the owner's consent without the owner's consent and<04:03:15.040> and<04:03:15.239
• It came just short of the 67% that was on the judicial retirement age.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from considering persons charged with bail-restricted offenses eligible for release on unsecured judicial
• /c> offenses eligible for release on offenses eligible for release on unsecured<00:12:43.839> judicial
• <00:12:45.279> And<00:12:45.440> so unsecured judicial release.
• And so unsecured judicial release.
• This just gives of a judicial procedure.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee took up several criminal justice and public safety bills. Senator Sparks explained SB 2416, which would let a law enforcement officer who tests positive on an initial drug screen obtain a more invasive follow-up test at the officer’s expense; if the second test is negative, the first result would be treated as a false positive and the officer’s certification would not be put at risk. The committee also heard SB 2228, which would reduce the waiting period for certain felony expungements from five years to three years, following a recommendation from the criminal justice task force. Members discussed how expungement remains discretionary with the court and does not change which offenses are eligible; the bill passed committee after a motion and voice vote. The committee then considered a committee substitute for SB 21108, a combined bail bill. Counsel said it would require suspension of a bail agent’s license when there is a civil judgment, exclude credit card transaction fees from authorized bail fees, clarify requirements for cash deposits in lieu of surety or property bonds, bar unsecured judicial release for bail-restricted offenses, and allow courts to assess service-of-process costs against bail agents in certain failure-to-appear cases. A reverse repealer was added, and the committee voted to pass the committee substitute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2114, which would expand state immigration enforcement efforts by allowing DPS to collect information on illegal aliens, codifying participation in the federal 287(g) program, and creating state penalties for certain unlawful entry and criminal conduct by undocumented persons, including enhanced penalties for violent or sex offenses. The sponsor and counsel said the bill is intended to work with federal law and includes exemptions for certain federal immigration statuses and a provision allowing some nonviolent defendants to agree to deportation in lieu of prosecution. Members raised concerns about enforcement, probable cause, and unintended consequences, but the sponsor said the bill would require proof of entry through the Gulf of Mexico for the new entry offense and that the measure would enhance cooperation with federal authorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• I ran a bill last year about judicial referrals, and there was still a little confusion with the Department
• It seems like the bill says if you’re being referred from the judicial system and you’re doing substance
• This bill is to address those situations where the judicial agency may refer an individual to, let’s
• We're the only judicial referral center in the state. We work with all 68 parishes.
• We're the only judicial referral center in the state. We work with all 68 parishes.

Summary: The House Committee on Health and Welfare met on May 12 and considered a wide range of health, social services, and licensing measures. Early in the meeting, the committee reported favorably HCR 98, which asks the Louisiana Department of Health to study whether SNAP recipients should be allowed to use benefits for grocery delivery fees. The author said the proposal would not change SNAP rules directly, but would examine access issues for elderly, disabled, rural, and transportation-limited residents. The committee also advanced SB 273, a hospice patient-protection bill requiring documentation of hydration, nutrition, and care decisions in inpatient licensed facilities where hospice is provided, with LDH oversight and enforcement authority; members discussed how responsibility is shared between facilities and outside hospice providers, and adopted technical amendments. The committee then approved SB 415, creating the Empower Louisiana Food Purchase Program, a privately funded charitable food-card program intended to let nonprofits distribute food-only cards to people in need. Members and the author discussed whether the cards would be reloadable, which retailers could accept them, and whether prepared foods could be included; LDH said the program could use all SNAP-authorized retailers, and the bill was reported favorably with amendments. SB 437, a cleanup bill for judicially referred residential substance abuse treatment facilities, was also reported favorably with amendments after LDH clarified that facilities providing treatment must be licensed, while residences only housing individuals would not be. SB 451, updating newborn hearing screening terminology and reporting requirements, was reported favorably after testimony that the bill would strengthen early detection and follow-up for deaf or hard-of-hearing children. Later, the committee advanced SB 426, which modernizes the addictive disorder regulatory authority and creates a formal peer support specialist licensing pathway. Supporters said the bill would strengthen the behavioral health workforce, improve accountability, and create a progression from peer support to higher credentials; the committee adopted technical and transition amendments and reported the bill favorably with amendments. SB 236, requiring LDH annual reviews and reports on kidney disease treatment services in Medicaid, was also reported favorably with amendments. Additional measures approved included SB 39, allowing provisional licenses for massage therapy graduates; SB 190, which tightens oversight of poor-performing nursing facilities in the CMS Special Focus Facility Program and sets an 18-month improvement timeline; SB 124, allowing hospitals within the same health system to share peer review records without waiving privilege; HR 174, urging study of fenbendazole as a possible cancer treatment; SB 270, allowing terminally ill patients to use medical marijuana in health care facilities; SB 359, changing terms for certain Morehouse Parish hospital district commissioners; and HR 194, requesting de-identified school visual acuity screening data for research. The committee adjourned after reporting all measures favorably, several with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, this bill ensures that the BCA receives necessary information in order to protect from the judicial
• But in some instances, there are also reports that during some of the hearings, the judicial officer
• But in some instances, there are also reports that the during some of the hearings, the judicial officer
• I certainly hope and trust actually that our judicial officers are not so subjective and loosey-goosey
• >> Our judicial officers are not so subjective and Lucy QC that they would take a hypothetical

Bills: HF3489, HF3990, HF3825, HF3826, HF3827, HF3822

Keywords: grooming, child protection, student safety, sexual exploitation, educator licensing, teacher discipline, mandatory reporting, mandated reporter training, school misconduct, predatory offender, child abuse, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, child sexual abuse material, child pornography, position of authority, school employee, school administrator, license revocation, license suspension

Transcript Highlights:

• It exempts the legislative and judicial branches from prohibition against nepotism and public employment
• It exempts the legislative<00:02:53.840> and<00:02:54.160> judicial<00:02:54.640> branches
• <00:02:54.959> from legislative and judicial branches from legislative and judicial branches
• to take care of potentially 704 claimants and seeing whether or not we can divert them out of the judicial
• them<00:25:14.240> out<00:25:14.559> of<00:25:15.440> the<00:25:15.679> judicial

Bills: SB2418, SB2568, SB2661

Keywords: drug paraphernalia, overdose prevention, public health, substance use, harm reduction, criminal justice reform, public servants, harassment, safety, government, criminal offense, nepotism, transparency, public officials, accountability, government ethics, 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first took up three previously heard measures in decision-making. SB 2418, which repeals the law prohibiting drug paraphernalia under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, was amended to keep prohibitions on manufacturing-related paraphernalia and then passed. SB 2568, which elevates harassment against certain public officials to a misdemeanor, was amended to place it in the harassment statute, narrow the nexus language, and extend coverage to all public employees; it passed with amendments. SB 2661, dealing with nepotism rules in the code of ethics, was amended so the ethics restrictions would apply more broadly to legislators and judges as well, and it also passed with amendments. In each case, the committee reported no no-votes or reservations and adopted the measures. The committee then heard Governor’s Message 684, the nomination of Judge Stephanie Char to the Fifth Circuit Court on Kauai. The governor’s office testified in strong support, and the Hawaii State Bar Association representative said the usual review process found her qualified. Judge Char described her Kauai roots, 17 years as a public defender, and service as a district family court judge since December 2020, saying she would bring hard work and continued commitment to access to justice. Members questioned her about recusals on a small island, her experience handling criminal and civil matters, sentencing repeat offenders, administrative appeals, and how she would approach competency and fitness issues under HRS 704. Char said she had recused only a few times, emphasized case-by-case sentencing and probation conditions tailored to underlying problems, and said she would rely on preparation and education for unfamiliar administrative matters. On 704 cases, she said defendants awaiting evaluation should generally remain in custody, with possible diversion or strict release conditions in appropriate cases, and that those found unfit would need to be sent to Hawaii State Hospital. No vote was taken on the nomination; the committee announced it would decide on Monday, February 23, at 10:45 a.m. in Room 016.

Transcript Highlights:

• banks, had nothing to do with legal aid; it had to do with the separation of powers between the judicial
• banks, had nothing to do with legal aid; it had to do with the separation of powers between the judicial
• Within 20 days, a business may seek judicial review of the emergency suspension order.
• Within 20 days, a business may seek judicial review of the emergency suspension order.
• Nevertheless, how will negating the need for a judicial process...

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and heard several insurance and banking bills. HB 1399, relating to property insurance affiliates, would increase Office of Insurance Regulation oversight of transactions between property insurers and affiliates, require fair-and-reasonable documentation, review of dividends and asset pledges, contract termination clauses, affiliate registration, and penalties for violations. Members from both parties generally supported the goal of transparency and accountability, though some raised concerns about costs and whether the bill would actually return money to insureds. The bill was reported favorably. HB 427, on public adjuster contracts, would allow vulnerable adults or their legal representatives to rescind public adjuster contracts without penalty, reflecting the sponsor’s personal concerns about protecting elderly and otherwise vulnerable family members from predatory contracting. Public testimony included support from several industry and elder-law groups, while the public adjuster association warned the bill could unfairly target one profession and urged broader language. Members debated whether the bill should be expanded to cover other solicitations and whether legal representatives should be treated differently, but the bill was ultimately reported favorably. The committee also approved HB 893, which aligns bank handling of law-firm trust accounts with Florida Supreme Court rules and supports legal aid funding, and HB 767, a transparency bill requiring insurers to provide consumers with plain-language explanations of rate increases and related factors. Members emphasized consumer education and clearer disclosures, and HB 767 passed 2-0. Later, HB 381, the Office of Financial Regulation agency bill, was amended and reported favorably; it updates financial regulation provisions including cybersecurity-related requirements, money services business rules, credit union and financial institution provisions, and fee timing. HB 777, a related public-records bill protecting nonpublic personal information submitted to OFR, was also heard and moved forward without opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• and patterned, as the legislation kind of, kind of prodded us in that direction, patterned on the judicial
• As Carl mentioned, um, yesterday, we did approve, um, the, the approval of the judicial districts was
• , uh, approved for the behavioral health regions, and I continually say judicial districts, but really
• And as far as the responses we've received, most responses were in line with the judicial districts.
• Um, lastly, I'll just say, Madam Chair, um, the intent of this is not judicial or criminal by any means

Transcript Highlights:

• The judiciary in California and Maryland have opposed it because it attempts to remove judicial discretion
• We have multiple bills flowing through this house, and I'm talking both chambers, for judicial accountability
• We have multiple bills flowing through this house, and I'm talking both chambers, for judicial accountability
• This is for judges, but until we have judicial accountability ruling on the rule of law, that's when
• This is for judges, but until we have judicial accountability ruling on the rule of law, that's when

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support

Summary: The committee heard several House bills, most of them relating to family law and court procedure, and left each bill pending after testimony. House Bill 1916 would clarify that the court that issued a final divorce decree retains exclusive jurisdiction over later actions involving undivided property. House Bill 1973 would require a certified birth certificate, if reasonably available, to be filed with a SAPCR petition or allow alternative proof of parentage while keeping the information confidential. House Bill 2530 would add qualifications and procedural safeguards for appointing amicus attorneys in SAPCR cases, including notice and hearing requirements, minimum qualifications, conflict rules, and limits on what amicus attorneys may do. House Bill 2524 would make Family Code references to attorney’s fees consistent by using “reasonable and necessary” language. House Bill 3180 would correct a scrivener’s error in the civil discovery rules by changing “settlement” to “statement.” The committee also heard House Bill 4213, which would change the interest rate on overdue child support from the current 6 percent simple interest to a fixed 5 percent and require the Attorney General to report on the impact of the change. Testimony was sharply divided: supporters argued lower interest could improve collections and help low-income obligors catch up, citing research and the size of child-support arrearages; opponents said lowering the rate would reduce incentives to pay and harm custodial parents and children. The Attorney General’s office raised implementation concerns about a House version that would have created a variable rate, while the committee substitute was described as restoring a simple fixed rate. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee also discussed House Bill 40, updating business court provisions and supplemental jurisdiction; House Bill 3421, streamlining probate procedures for original wills and copies; and House Bill 417, clarifying venue for lawsuits involving private transfer fees on real property. Each drew limited testimony and was left pending. Finally, House Bill 3783 drew extensive testimony on court-ordered counseling and reunification therapy in family cases. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would protect children and abuse victims from coercive, unregulated reunification practices, while opponents argued it was too broad, could interfere with legitimate therapy and judicial discretion, and might affect military families and other high-conflict cases. The committee heard testimony from judges, therapists, parents, survivors, and advocates, but took no final action and left the bill pending.