Transcript Highlights:

• These are dismissed cases.
• These are dismissed cases.
• if the entire case qualifies.
• if the entire case qualifies.
• if the entire case qualifies.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• People on the ground that know the most about the case.
• The number of cases or charges that it has.
• Um, we had a case in August of 22, um, that you, that you guys know, golf course, a golf cart case that
• And then we had this case that happened.
• Um, obviously, Mason and Sam's case is very close to my heart.

Transcript Highlights:

• These cases may not go to trial, door.
• what the kind of the prototypical case what the kind of the prototypical case here,<00:20:45.600
• They would still have a good case here.
• frivolous litigation is often the case frivolous litigation is often the case here,<00:21:49.120
• case on defining<00:36:06.640> that.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 2567, a Judiciary package measure concerning temporary restraining orders for threats and harassment tied to a public employee’s official actions. Representatives from the Attorney General’s Office and the Judiciary said they had worked out a compromise to address earlier concerns, including a two-year pilot project, broader coverage for state officers and employees across all branches and counties, a special fund to pay for private counsel in some cases, and authority for Judiciary staff attorneys or Judiciary funds to represent Judiciary personnel. Members asked about coverage for retired judges, funding limits, and whether the measure could be used for workplace disputes; the witnesses said retired judges and per diem judges could be covered if the harassment related to their work, the fund would be limited and subject to available appropriations, and petitions would not be allowed between employees in the same branch. The chair recommended passage with amendments, and the committee adopted the recommendation unanimously. The committee then heard SB 2448, which creates a civil remedy for the unauthorized disclosure of intimate images under the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act. The bill’s proponent from the Uniform Law Commission explained that a plaintiff would need to show intentional disclosure or threat of disclosure of a private intimate image without consent, and said the privacy question would be fact-specific. Supporters, including the Commission on the Status of Women and Imua Alliance, favored giving survivors civil recourse. Opponents from the Sex Abuse Treatment Center and others warned that the term "private" could invite victim-blaming and broad discovery into a survivor’s past, while still acknowledging the need for some privacy limitation to avoid overbreadth, especially for people who intentionally distribute intimate content online. Committee members questioned whether the definition of "private" should be tightened. The bill’s proponent said the term should remain because it aligns with the related criminal statute and helps keep the measure focused on classic revenge-porn situations, while still allowing Hawaii-specific changes if needed. The committee did not take final action on SB 2448 in the portion provided, but testimony and discussion centered on balancing survivor protections with concerns about discovery and the scope of liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• That study found that 57% of people involved in those ITA cases had a prior ITA case. 24% of the people
• in those ITA courts had three prior ITA cases.
• And 7% of the people in those ITA courts had at least 10 prior ITA cases. 28% of the people with cases
• of the community-based case management work.
• And then enhanced case management.

Summary: The committee met for what was described as its final meeting, with members and staff reflecting on the work of the Joint Legislative Executive Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care and noting that future work would likely shift to standing health and wellness committees. The meeting began with introductions and then moved into updates on major initiatives that originated from the committee, including Washington Cares, the Dementia Action Collaborative, and Medicaid long-term care programs. Presenters emphasized that these efforts were developed through long-term legislative-executive collaboration and were intended to help Washington prepare for the state’s aging population. On Washington Cares, DSHS described the program’s development from a 2014 research effort to its 2019 enactment, premium collection beginning in 2023, portability improvements in 2024, and 2025 changes including a grandfathered opt-out fix and a framework for supplemental private long-term care insurance. The agency said benefits are expected to go fully live next summer, with a pilot of up to 400 applicants planned for next January. On dementia policy, the Dementia Action Collaborative reported on the state dementia plan, Project ECHO training for providers, and pilot dementia-capable community programs at area agencies on aging, citing preliminary results that about 85% of family caregivers said services helped people remain at home. DSHS also reviewed Medicaid Transformation Project initiatives, including Medicaid Alternative Care, Tailored Supports for Older Adults, presumptive eligibility, and health-related social needs benefits such as rental assistance, nutrition support, and home modifications. The committee then heard an emerging issues panel from ombuds and disability advocates. Patricia Hunter of the long-term care ombuds program raised concerns about staffing shortages, resident rights, surveillance technology, private equity ownership of facilities, and illegal discharges or evictions. Betty Sweeterman of the Developmental Disabilities Ombuds discussed people stuck in hospitals without medical need, gaps in behavioral health services for people with developmental disabilities, and the need for better workforce training. Todd Carlyle of Disability Rights Washington urged expansion and bundling of community supports such as PACT, GOSH, and peer bridgers to reduce repeated institutionalization and support discharge from inpatient psychiatric settings. Provider and labor panels followed, with nursing home, assisted living, supported living, and union representatives all emphasizing workforce shortages, low wages, Medicaid rate inadequacy, case management bottlenecks, behavioral health complexity, and the need for more flexible care models and stronger accountability for rate increases. No formal votes were taken; the meeting ended with public comment on manufactured housing and closing remarks thanking staff and participants for the committee’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of them apply in civil cases depending on the nature of the case.
• they want contentious cases.
• they want contentious cases.
• they want contentious cases.
• So, I think in most cases, cases, cases, they<04:21:09.279> don't<04:21:09.439> need<04

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have do we have more case lines? We have do we have more case loads?
• So, in some cases we do. Um, yes. So, in some cases we do. Um, yes.
• And we know that most of the cases are labor cases, cases that involve industrial cases, where the people
• So right at the audit time, uh, 259 pending cases: employment cases, 227; housing, nine cases; public
• So right at the audit time, uh, 259 pending cases: employment cases, 227; housing, nine cases; public

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee worked through several HB 2 budget amendments, focusing first on energy-related transfers and then on judicial funding. For the energy item, members discussed moving remaining money from the renewable energy fund into the general fund for the biennium, with later-year amounts going to the general fund rather than ratepayers. They noted the proposal was based on prior House Bill 111 language, that the exact amount was still being worked out with the Department of Energy, and that some language about “incentive payments” was being removed or clarified. Amendment 1211H was moved and adopted on a 5-4 vote. The committee then considered amendment 1040 on the governor’s scholarship fund, which would eliminate the program and sweep uncommitted funds. Members supporting the program argued it helps New Hampshire students afford in-state college and should be reworked rather than repealed; opponents said the remaining balance was limited and the program should be ended. Amendment 1040 was defeated 4-5. The committee then turned to a judicial council request tied to a Franklin Pierce criminal justice clinic that had previously used ARPA funds. Supporters said the clinic cleared 323 cases in nine months, provided training for future attorneys, and could reduce more expensive assigned-counsel costs by helping the public defender system handle cases more efficiently. The amendment would add $100,000 to the judicial council line for that purpose. There was some confusion over the line item and whether the request should be attributed to the judicial branch or judicial council, which was corrected during discussion. Members also discussed a larger issue: the judicial council’s budget request appeared lower than intended because of a possible clerical error in how prior-year funding was calculated, especially after the last budget combined HB 1 and HB 2 funding. The committee compared the public defender line and assigned counsel line, noting that if public defender funding is cut, more cases would shift to assigned counsel, which is more expensive. No final vote on the judicial council amendment is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I said your name in case your mom was watching.
• An applicant's case is considered open for several reasons.
• Currently, everything would have to be— we'd have to manually go through each case and assess each case
• by case examiners and by the judges.
• As we at CWOP build more cases and build more evidence, we'd be able to move cases to the state that

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So what case-by-case becomes in reality is inequitable.
• I've heard there's been some case-by-case—” “Like the Lahaina wildfires. That is now—that was 2023.
• I've heard there's been some case-by-case, right?
• Which is good, but you're saying case-by-case is not adequate.
• it's a case-by-case basis, that does not mean that if, you know, I bring my case to X bank, that they're

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Minneapolis and I'm a supervisor of case Minneapolis and I'm a supervisor of case managers<01:19
• c> management case management waiver case management case management waiver case management rates
• was preventable with consistent case was preventable with consistent case management<01:20:51.080
• <01:42:04.280> managers solution allowing waiver case managers solution allowing waiver case
• this bill would allow waiver case this bill would allow waiver case managers<01:46:55.000> to

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My question revolves around the case, this bill forward my question revolves around the case the young
• Because she's not the only case.
• Real quick, when I was a case manager back in the day, I used to work with these cases, ongoing cases
• When I was a case manager back in the day, I used to work with these cases, ongoing cases where we worked
• Two percent of criminal cases go to trial. Two percent; the rest are resolved. Cases go to trial.

Bills: SB1012, SB1099, SB1234, SB1392, SB1489, SB1535, SB1570, SB1609, SB1627, SB1634, SB1661, SB1709, SB1723, SB1725, SB1743, SB1829, SCR1027, SCR1040, SCR1048

Keywords: concealed carry, firearms, restaurants, liquor licensing, public safety, defamation, private figure, public concern, statute of limitations, internet defamation, juvenile court, legal representation, appointed attorney, guardian ad litem, child welfare, election canvass, canvassing board, governing body, election inspection, election access

Transcript Highlights:

• occurred. uh which would mean in cases occurred. uh which would mean in cases like<00:15:28.959>
• Uh this was a case the law is written.
• And that's with any case, because if the cases is where this domestic violence continues to rise, they're
• And our and to improve case outcomes.
• <01:05:16.160> by particularly in capital cases by particularly in capital cases by restoring

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• fix the hellscape of case management. fix the hellscape of case management.
• My case is complex.
• My case is complex. I in my community. My case is complex.
• for doing case management. for doing case management.
• Case management has not.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know why that necessarily was the case.
• court would be considered, we could say, identification of the types of cases, to be types of cases,
• comma, including cases currently or presently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile including cases
• That is in this case.
• And then if I find there's no prima facie case, it's done with.

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met to approve prior minutes and then worked through draft legislation related to a possible family court study committee. The group discussed the proposed 15-member committee’s makeup in detail, including whether to add parent representation, judges, family law section members, child support, clerks of court, domestic violence advocates, and other stakeholders. The task force ultimately agreed to keep the committee at 15 members, reduce the legislative membership from eight to six, add two judges from different districts, add two family law section members with rural and urban representation, include one parent subject to a custody order, and replace the mental health professional with a clerk of court representative appointed through the trial court administrator’s office. The draft was also revised to keep domestic violence advocacy representation and to clarify that the study could consider juvenile court issues as part of the family court umbrella. The committee voted to approve the revised draft and recommend it to Legislative Management, with one recorded “no” vote from Judge Hovey after the meeting resumed. The task force then turned to a second draft dealing with requiring participation in a family transition program, which was renamed in discussion to a parenting education course. Members debated whether the bill should simply refer to an existing program like Parents Forever or instead specify broader education about the court process, parental rights, co-parenting, and related issues. Some members supported the requirement as a way to reduce conflict and improve understanding of the system, while others raised concerns about vague language, cost to parents, lack of exemptions, and whether the bill was too open-ended or potentially duplicative of other legislation. The discussion became lengthy and unresolved, with the drafter noting that more specific direction would be needed to revise the bill. The transcript cuts off before a final vote or action on this second draft is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• with his position in a case. ...but that the Arizona Bar took issue with his position in a case he filed
• Well, that's the case if it's 200 also. That's the case if it's 200 grams also.
• In the Heller case, Scalia drove that case, and in that case—can you speak closer to the mic?
• This principle has gone through the most recent case and was retained in the Bruen case.
• That's making our case.

Bills: SB1003, SB1006, SB1029, SB1037, SB1038, SB1039, SB1040, SB1053, SB1057, SB1060, SB1061, SB1068, SB1069

Keywords: election, canvass, certification, ballot tabulation, write-in candidates, registration, voting procedures, campaign finance, contribution limits, reporting requirements, political action committees, elections, campaign contributions, candidate committees, posthumous provisions, termination process, Arizona Revised Statutes, voting systems, vote tabulation, election security

Transcript Highlights:

• The Center started with cases involving cards given at gas pumps and began receiving cases that involved
• As a detective, we see these cases day in and day out.
• In Galveston, we had a case where the...
• In this particular case—and we've had more than one case of it—it includes zip ties, sometimes duct tape
• And that's, obviously, the extreme case.

Bills: HB316, HB353, HB 1160, HB1414, HB1422, HB1443, HB1713, HB1789, HB1902, HB2073, HB2666, HB2695, HB316

Keywords: motor fuel, criminal offense, metering device, organized crime, Texas Penal Code, trespassing, school safety, day-care centers, education, trespass, public safety, utility employees, criminal penalties, assault, harassment, public duties, safety, law enforcement, driving offenses, license regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• Any case, but that I for divorce cases?
• cases.
• I have been prosecuting sex assault cases, sex trafficking cases, cases involving families who are in
• I have been prosecuting sex assault cases, sex trafficking cases, cases involving families who are in
• I have been prosecuting sex assault cases, sex trafficking cases, cases involving families who are in

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee hearing covered three judicial confirmations for the First Circuit family court. The first nominee, Maria F. Penn, was introduced for confirmation to a six-year term as a district family court judge. Testimony from family law attorneys and the Hawaii State Bar Association was strongly supportive, emphasizing her courtroom demeanor, preparation, knowledge of family law, respect for litigants and counsel, and ability to manage emotionally difficult family court matters. Judge Penn also spoke about her background, including her legal career, prior service as a PDM family court judge, and her view that family court requires both legal judgment and empathy. The chair noted that the committee would not vote that day and would take up votes the next morning. The second nomination was Wilson Aunga for a district family court judgeship. Supporters described his character, community involvement, and suitability for family court, including testimony from the Honolulu prosecutor, longtime friends, classmates, community members, and others. Speakers highlighted his work with youth, his leadership in the prosecutor’s office, his calm and impartial temperament, and his commitment to education and public service. The chair reported 105 supporters, no opposition, and one comment from the Hawaii State Bar Association. Additional testimony continued from members of the public, including a speaker discussing mental health and personal support for Aunga. Throughout the hearing, the chair enforced a two-minute limit on oral testimony and explained that the committee was short on time and would recess as needed. No votes were taken during the hearing; the chair announced that voting would occur the following day in the same room.

Transcript Highlights:

• In this case it was, of course, the highest court in the land.
• Should cases arise in the Justice Department involving the same cases in which you represented him?
• And my colleague on the other side of that case was asked...
• you, if it fell to you, to dismiss that case?
• However, I am aware that there is a line of cases holding that.

Keywords: Department of Justice, nominations, Assistant Attorney General, civil rights, enforcement, committee discussion

Summary: The meeting covered important discussions surrounding key nominations in the Department of Justice, specifically for the roles of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the Office of Legal Policy. Various committee members took turns to express their views on the nominees, emphasizing the implications of their potential confirmation on civil rights enforcement in the country. Alongside the committee discussion, the nominees provided insights into their professional backgrounds and how their experiences align with the responsibilities of the positions for which they have been nominated.

Transcript Highlights:

• That case is still Future itself.
• jurisdiction to bring a criminal case jurisdiction to bring a criminal case against<00:21:44.799
• So I just case for several of them.
• Um in some situations where the case.
• ended up being this major case for us. ended up being this major case for us.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• case in your district.
• I took over pro bono as an attorney in a case, a pretty complicated case in your district.
• First, we were told this was necessary because of a pending Supreme Court case, a case that was going
• That is his theory of the case.
• And you can look at that case, you can look at that case, and you can read it.

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:

• In this case, a mother with cognitive issues and mild autism had lost her parental rights through the
• matter was uh highlighted um with a case matter was uh highlighted um with a case from<00:04:41.840
• Judge, and I believe that's the case, Senator.
• 1,000% increase in SE extortion cases 1,000% increase in SE extortion cases involving<00:30:00.159
• <00:33:41.760> led 5% 5% of sex tortion related cases led 5% 5% of sex tortion related cases

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:05 Roll Call: 00:00:14 SB 26: 00:01:50 SB 64: 00:18:29 SB 73: 00:22:54, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee met with a quorum and heard three bills. Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Chair Storm, would protect parents and prospective parents with disabilities by barring disability alone from being the sole basis for denying an adoption petition or terminating parental rights. Testimony from Judge Marcus Vanover and Crystal Adams described the bill as a product of the Kentucky Judicial Commission on Mental Health and its work groups, cited Kentucky and national cases and federal ADA guidance, and said the bill would require consideration of supportive services, clearer documentation, retention of records, and conforming language changes. Senator Carroll asked how the bill would apply to a hypothetical adult child with special needs; witnesses said the bill is aimed at adoption and termination proceedings where the Cabinet is already involved, not proactive service requests. The committee approved SB 26 by a unanimous 7-0 vote and sent it to the floor with favorable expression. The committee next considered Senate Bill 64, also sponsored by Chair Storm, which would expand the definition of key infrastructure assets to include telecommunications services such as telephone lines and broadband and make damaging, tampering with, or rendering those services inoperable a Class D felony. Representatives from Charter/Spectrum and AT&T testified that copper theft and vandalism have increasingly damaged fiber and other facilities, citing more than 20 incidents in Kentucky in 2024 affecting over 30,000 customers and diverting resources from broadband expansion. The committee adopted a committee substitute and then passed SB 64 by a 7-0 vote with favorable expression. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 73, sponsored by Senator Julie Adams, which would create a felony offense for sexual extortion, allow victims or their representatives to bring civil actions, include the offense in Kentucky’s sex-crime definitions, and require school-based notification and education efforts along with resource information for students. Senator Adams and witness Lady T. Thompson described sextortion as a fast-growing online crime targeting minors, often through social media, gaming, and messaging apps, and argued that stronger penalties and prevention efforts are needed. The transcript cuts off before any committee action on SB 73.