Transcript Highlights:

• This creates problems for candidates in these smaller districts.
• This creates problems for candidates in these smaller districts.
• All our statewide candidates now filed online as well for this cycle.
• favors well-funded political candidates.
• favors well-funded political candidates.

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:01.720><c> are</c> responsible for what um candidates are responsible for what um candidates
• </c><00:06:24.800><c> and</c> now which is why holding candidates and now which is why holding candidates
• The last election I had one candidate who was a very aggressive campaign attacking the candidate whom
• That was Lugar Julo as a Republican candidate and Al Chiller as the Democratic candidate.
• election, nor did six Senate candidates and one Executive Council candidate. percentage of candidates

Committee: House Election Law

Transcript Highlights:

• of speeches and the color of light on the voting machine for each candidate.
• To be elected Speaker, a candidate must receive 76 or more of the votes cast.
• Of the three candidates, Ana Maria Rodriguez-Ramos is the only candidate for Speaker who has consistently
• What should we be looking for in a candidate to lead this House?
• I have always advocated relentlessly for the causes and candidates that I believe in.

Transcript Highlights:

• People saying this is electioneering for the town, you know, making one candidate or another candidate
• one candidate or another candidate<00:19:33.039><c> or</c><00:19:33.200><c> another</c><00:19:33.720
• </c> own rules on candidate own rules on candidate signs<00:25:24.159><c> then</c><00:25:24.799><c> the
• </c> the individual that's is the candidate the individual that's is the candidate they<00:48:21.680>
• and the candidate than another candidate and the candidate who<01:00:02.480><c> got</c><01:00:02.720

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> would provide for an online candidate would provide for an online candidate filing<00:14:52.800>
• Um 2020 there was a Hawaii candidate.
• Um, you can go to that to see who your candidates are and read up on your candidates before you vote.
• are um and read up on your candidates are um and read up on your candidates<00:42:01.440><c> before<
• </c> candidates before you vote. candidates before you vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• candidates or small PACs, but not both concurrently.
• The amendment exempts candidate special purpose PACs, so your treasurer can run your... ...candidate
• So are we impacting the candidates and PACs?
• Can they serve as a treasurer for a candidate and a PAC as long as that PAC is a candidate special purpose
• Of candidates.

Bills: HB200 , HB541 , HB1803 , HB30 , HB175 , HB249 , HB721 , HB851 , HB897 , HB 1128 , HB1904 , HB1916 , HB5560 , HB3071 , HB5627 , HB5435 , HB3913 , HB2921 , HB2695 , HB2688 , HB3045 , HB3483 , HB3673 , HB4213 , HB4226 , HB783 , HB4373 , HB4735 , HB5155 , HB5057 , HB4984 , HB4944 , HB4813 , HB5339 , HB5196 , HB5033 , HB4853 , HB3486 , HB4211 , HB74 , HB4670 , HB4730 , HB4743 , HB4603 , HB4463 , HB3892 , HB4139 , HB4752 , HB4520 , HB4517 , HB4486 , HB4437 , HB4426 , HB4396 , HB4263 , HB3487 , HB3418 , HB2284 , HB2266 , HB2229 , HB4912 , HB2189 , HB4506 , HB5269 , HB5224 , HB5195 , HB3317 , HB4166 , HB3947 , HB3358 , HB3370 , HB4438 , HB3745 , HB3602 , HB3697 , HB2001 , HB1968 , HB3371 , HB3909 , HCR7 , SB1744 , SB1364 , SB1316 , HB2026 , HB3302 , HB3368 , HB1639 , HB5652 , HB4655 , HB5654 , HB5658 , HB5656 , HB4894 , HB4996 , HB5088 , HB5650 , HB4464 , HB3751 , HB5665 , HB5661 , HB 1237 , HB2802 , HB5437 , HB2703 , HB5666 , HB5667 , HCR113 , HCR86 , SB2196 , SB463 , SB856 , SB1245 , SB1169 , SB509 , SB985 , SB305 , SB552 , HB1535 , HB 123 , HB1804 , HB426 , HB1773 , HB1871 , HB2035 , HB2492 , HB1411 , HB4753 , HB4666 , HB4529 , HB1499 , HB1610 , HB2028 , HB1506 , HB886 , HB3546 , HB796 , HB223 , HB3556 , HB2448 , HB4638 , HB 111 , HB180 , HB 1027 , HB 1178 , HB610 , HB 1277 , HB1615 , HB1620 , HB5342 , HB4885 , HB4751 , HB4530 , HB4488 , HB2149 , HB2071 , HB2282 , HB2248 , HB2243 , HB2522 , HB2310 , HB2513 , HB2300 , HB1902 , HB1813 , HB3719 , HB4284 , HB3743 , HB3778 , HB5153 , HB5147 , HB4877 , HB4850 , HB3261 , HB3005 , HB3033 , HB2849 , HB2967 , HB3531 , HB1768 , HB333 , HB2914 , HB2613 , HB3717 , HB3704 , HB2697 , HB3801 , HB3099 , HB3488 , HB3477 , HB3466 , HB3396 , HB3469 , HB2594 , HB2776 , HB2564 , HB2298 , HB5331 , HB5646 , HB5247 , HB5323 , HB4384 , HB3896 , HB4014 , HB3627 , HB3594 , HB2524 , HB510 , HB561 , HB5111 , HB5446 , HB 1181 , HB3963 , HB2785 , HB1661 , HB2460 , HB200 , HB541 , HB1803 , HB30 , HB175 , HB249 , HB721 , HB851 , HB897 , HB 1128 , HB1904 , HB1916 , HB5560 , HB3071 , HB5627 , HB5435 , HB3913 , HB2921 , HB2695 , HB2688 , HB3045 , HB3483 , HB3673 , HB4213 , HB4226 , HB783 , HB4373 , HB4735 , HB5155 , HB5057 , HB4984 , HB4944 , HB4813 , HB5339 , HB5196 , HB5033 , HB4853 , HB3486 , HB4211 , HB74 , HB4670 , HB4730 , HB4743 , HB4603 , HB4463 , HB3892 , HB4139 , HB4752 , HB4520 , HB4517 , HB4486 , HB4437 , HB4426 , HB4396 , HB4263 , HB3487 , HB3418 , HB2284 , HB2266 , HB2229 , HB4912 , HB2189 , HB4506 , HB5269 , HB5224 , HB5195 , HB3317 , HB4166 , HB3947 , HB3358 , HB3370 , HB4438 , HB3745 , HB3602 , HB3697 , HB2001 , HB1968 , HB3371 , HB3909 , HCR98 , HCR92 , HCR126 , HCR7

Keywords: juvenile offenders, parole eligibility, youth justice, criminal justice reform, inmate rehabilitation, direct patient care, healthcare, physicians, medical services, insurance regulation, dentist, dental hygienist, interstate practice, licensure, compact privilege, public health, military members, disaster relief, tax rates, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• And this requires officials that receive candidate filings to notify the officials that prepare the ballots
• accept Senate section 49, and this changes the timelines for requesting the counting of write-in candidates
• And this requires officials that receive candidate filings to notify the officials that prepare the ballots
• </c><00:09:06.720><c> filings</c> officials that receive candidate filings officials that receive candidate
• </c> um the counting of writein candidates. um the counting of writein candidates.

Summary: The State and Local Government and Elections Conference Committee met on May 13, 2025, to adopt agreed-upon provisions from the elections article. The chair noted they initially lacked a quorum on both sides, but later confirmed quorum was present. Members and staff walked through a grid of proposed sections, covering voter registration and student proof-of-residence rules, public voter information list deadlines, electronic rosters for combined polling places, absentee ballot procedures, candidate filing and ballot preparation notices, write-in candidate timelines, municipal boundary adjustments, emergency polling place signage, county election training, special election filing periods for legislative vacancies, school district election timing, voting system testing, town elections, hospital board elections, and repeal of the voting equipment grant account. Several items were described as technical or clarifying changes, including wording fixes, consistency edits, and updated effective dates, with many provisions set to take effect January 1, 2026. One item, line 15, involving a cannabis-related provision, was set aside because an amendment had not been posted and printed in time; members agreed to take it up later. The committee also discussed a mix of House-only and Senate-only provisions, including third-party presidential electors, phonetic spelling on affidavits of candidacy, notification of ballot preparers when candidate names change, emergency polling place procedures, training requirements, and rules for temporary polling places on tribal land. After the staff walkthrough and brief questions, Vice Chair Aldenorf moved to adopt the provisions in the document titled “Elections Provisions Proposed Sections for Adoptions, May 13, 2025,” excluding line 15, and include them in the conference committee report. The motion passed on a voice vote with no opposition recorded. The committee then adjourned, with members noting that work on remaining elections provisions could continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Opportunity to elect their preferred candidate when compared to the current CD 29.
• The population should be able to elect their candidate of choice for Congress.
• I hope that everybody has the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice.
• Nine would be able to regularly elect their candidate of choice. So, let every matter matter.
• Hispanic voters can elect their preferred candidate to Congress in this newly drawn CD35?

Bills: SB 2 , SB 5 , SB 9 , SB 7 , SB 17 , SB 4 , HB4 , HB1 , HB3 , HB20 , HB22 , SB9 , SB7 , SB17 , SB4 , HB4 , SB2 , SB5

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments

Transcript Highlights:

• This removes the section that designates the amount of the presidential candidate filing fee.
• This removes the section that designates the amount of the presidential candidate filing fee.
• The alternate delegate pledge to the same candidate shall fill the vacancy.
• It's Republicans preferring their candidate. The Democrats preferring their candidate.
• and the Democrats are choosing the Democrat candidate.

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The Elections Committee met in executive session first and adopted a House Committee substitute for House Bill 2387, which combined HB 2387 and HB 2480. The substitute removed provisions on extending no-excuse in-person absentee voting and shortening the absentee voting window, shifted the presidential candidate filing fee to be set by state party committees, and added language to bind presidential delegates to primary results while allowing national party rules to control where required. Members discussed the legal basis for delegate binding, party input on the substitute, and the role of closed primaries, then the committee voted 10-2-1 to do pass HB 2387 as substituted. The committee also passed House Bill 1987 and House Concurrent Resolution 23 without opposition, and passed House Bill 1802 after members discussed election transparency and concerns about applying the measure uniformly across counties; the vote was 11-2. In public hearing, the committee heard House Bill 2605, which would update election notice requirements, especially for bond elections. Sponsor Rep. McGaugh and the State Auditor’s office said the bill would address technical publication errors that had jeopardized voter-approved bond issues by allowing notice defects to be cured if no election contest is filed within 30 days, while also allowing one newspaper publication and one direct mailing notice. Testimony from county clerks, school administrators, a fire district, the Missouri Press Association, and others generally supported the bill as a practical fix, though one witness urged broader website posting of notices. The hearing also covered House Bill 2301, a campaign finance cleanup bill that would clarify definitions and reporting rules in Chapter 130, especially for continuing committees and indirect political spending; the sponsor said it was intended to fix ambiguity from prior law, and the only testimony in favor called for additional restrictions on recurring donations and more transparency. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1787, which would require schools used as polling places to treat election days as school holidays beginning in the 2026-27 school year. The sponsor said the bill was intended to improve child safety and could also help with staffing and voter participation, while members raised concerns about school calendars already being set and whether the mandate should instead be optional or delayed to a later school year. A witness in favor supported the safety goal but asked for local control and a later effective date. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee adjourned after the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The definition of a candidate is referenced on the last page of The definition of a candidate is referenced
• So that would be a candidate, not just a sitting legislator.
• He noted that the candidate filing deadline had been two weeks earlier, and there had been multiple candidates
• So they would be indicating that on their candidate paperwork.
• You know, it's tough enough to get candidates now.

Summary: The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up a draft bill to make legislators’ and candidates’ residential addresses confidential in public records. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State explained the proposal was prompted by security concerns and would protect residential addresses while still allowing election officials to verify residency and keep candidate names and offices public. Members raised concerns about unintended consequences, transparency, and how the change would affect rural districts and residency enforcement. The Secretary of State suggested an amendment to end the confidentiality when a candidate’s term ends, and the committee agreed to hold the bill over for further discussion at the next meeting. The committee also reviewed follow-up materials on legislator security and best practices, including advice on situational awareness, internet hygiene, varying routines, and reporting threats, along with NCSL materials comparing capitol security practices in other states. Members discussed a recent security incident and the need to keep alert contact information current, and staff said they would continue working with the Highway Patrol on legislative-specific notifications. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to Garrity Consulting’s final report on mitigating the effects of legislative term limits. The consultants summarized survey, focus group, and stakeholder input showing concerns about loss of institutional knowledge, leadership turnover, onboarding demands, and workload pressures, while also noting public support for term limits and annual sessions. Recommendations included considering annual sessions or shifting biennial sessions to even-numbered years, restructuring organizational session and interim committee work, creating office hours and more structured orientation and mentorship, expanding ongoing training and staff support, improving public communication and virtual testimony rules, and addressing barriers to service such as employer support and travel costs. Members discussed the tension between making the legislature more effective and preserving a citizen-legislature model, and the report was received as a roadmap for future implementation rather than immediate action.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> political candidates. political candidates.
• I would think incumbent or candidate.
• </c> political committees, and candidates. political committees, and candidates.
• Candidates are time of the election.
• of who the candidates are going to<03:10:06.800><c> be.

Committee: House Election Law

Transcript Highlights:

• Folks, these are qualified candidates and who serve publicly, so I ask your iPhone. Thank you.
• These are qualified candidates who are willing to serve publicly, so I urge your aye vote.
• These are qualified candidates who are willing to serve the public, so I urge your aye vote.
• So I am optimistic and encouraged by all three of the candidates.
• One candidate, as we've heard, is our highly respected Coos Bay superintendent.

Summary: The Senate convened with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation by Senator Starr, followed by several courtesies recognizing Pride Month, a staff birthday, and later a retirement and a community celebration. Senator Robinson then used remonstrances to warn against expanding surveillance through school bus camera systems, arguing that leaked plans from a vendor could create commercial databases of drivers’ movements and erode privacy. The main business was confirmation of numerous gubernatorial appointments and reappointments to boards and commissions. Senators debated the process at length, with several minority members objecting that the volume of nominees, limited hearing time, and lack of transparency made meaningful advice-and-consent review difficult. Supporters responded that the nominees were qualified public servants and that the Senate should work with the Governor’s office on reforms. The Senate first confirmed a large block of appointments, then confirmed two Sustainability Board appointees, and later confirmed three Quality Education Commission appointees after extended debate. The Quality Education Commission nominations drew the most substantive policy discussion. Opponents argued the commission needs more technical research expertise and broader representation, while supporters emphasized the nominees’ education experience and direct knowledge of Oregon schools. Several senators described Oregon’s education system as in crisis, citing low reading and math proficiency, chronic absenteeism, and the need for urgent reform of the Quality Education Model and school funding. The Senate also received a proposed rule amendment creating an official Senate seal, which was distributed and held on the table, and the chamber adjourned without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Third, the amendment requires candidates to disclose dual citizenship.
• if that candidate is not putting that out there.
• Just curious, why only federal candidates?
• Why not apply to all candidates, including ourselves as state candidates?
• gets targeted or how voters treat a candidate.

Summary: The House met with a quorum present, heard prayers and ceremonial remarks, and then took up a series of returning messages from the Senate. The first major item was CS/CS/HB 1503 on computer science education and certification. Members explained that the House concurred in a Senate amendment that restored teacher certificate language, kept computer science and AI-related content in the bill, and delayed implementation to give the Department of Education time to develop curriculum. The House adopted the amendment and then passed the bill 105-0. The House also considered CS/CS/HB 1085 on local government cybersecurity. Members adopted a House amendment allowing local governments to buy into the cyber grant program even if they do not receive a grant, adding a five-year sunset and reporting provisions. The House then concurred in the Senate amendment shifting grant administration from a university to the Florida Digital Service, and passed the bill 104-1. Several other returning messages were rejected or sent back to the Senate. The House refused to concur in Senate amendments to CS/HB 351 on concurrent legislative jurisdiction over military installations and HB 6011 on reporting gifts or honoraria, as well as CS/HB 851 on professional learning for instructional and school administrative personnel. The most contentious debate came on CS/CS/HB 1471, which concerns systems of law and terrorist organizations; the Senate amendment defined “promote,” refined notice and timeline requirements, and retained references to Sharia law. Opponents argued the bill was overbroad, lacked due process and evidentiary standards, and threatened First Amendment rights, while supporters said it targeted conduct, not speech, and protected against terrorist support. The House adopted the amendment and passed the bill 80-25. The House then took up a related public records bill, CS/CS/HB 1473, which made a technical conforming change to align with HB 1471; debate focused on transparency and due process concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• State law requires all candidates and political committees engaging in Washington elections, including
• Each contributions and expenditures report filed with the Public Disclosure Commission by a candidate
• As you heard in Desiree's summary, the federal law already prohibits foreign contributions to candidates
• campaigns but would ensure that Certifications at $6,000, which would exclude candidate campaigns, but
• This includes requirements for write-in candidates and skipped rankings.

Summary: The committee opened with member introductions and then heard House Bill 2123, which would change Washington’s foreign-national certification requirements for election contributions and political advertising. Staff explained that the proposed substitute would only require certifications for campaigns or sponsors exceeding a $5,500 threshold, with an amendment raising that threshold to $6,000, which would largely limit the requirement to ballot measure activity. Prime sponsor Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon said the current paperwork burden makes campaigns harder without solving a real problem, and that his proposal would preserve protections where federal law does not already cover ballot measures. Testifiers supporting the bill, including campaign treasurers, said the certification requirement is burdensome and ineffective; one witness raised concern that a related repeal provision might unintentionally allow foreign participation in state elections, and staff/leadership indicated follow-up would occur. The hearing on HB 2123 was then suspended and later reopened with additional supportive testimony from campaign professionals and others before the committee moved on to other bills. The committee then took up House Bill 2210 on ranked-choice voting for local elections. Staff said the bill would replace the current top-two primary structure with a top-five process for jurisdictions using ranked-choice voting, allow counties and other local governments to adopt the system through 2032, and set ballot, tabulation, rulemaking, and public education requirements; Seattle would be exempt because it is already moving toward ranked-choice voting. Rep. Gregerson, the sponsor, framed the bill as a temporary tool to protect free and fair elections amid federal uncertainty and potential Voting Rights Act changes. Supporters from Fair Vote Washington, the Washington Bus, Sightline Institute, and others argued ranked-choice voting can improve representation, reduce vote splitting, and help young, military, overseas, and underrepresented voters. Opponents, including Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, county auditors, and several citizens, said the system is confusing, costly, harder to audit, and may increase ballot rejection or lower participation, especially among communities of color and voters with limited English proficiency. The committee heard extensive debate but took no final action during the transcript. The committee also heard House Bill 2411, which expands the state shared leave program to cover employees who are victims of hate crimes or whose absences stem from immigration enforcement actions affecting themselves or family members. Rep. Osman Salahuddin said the bill responds to real cases where state workers faced detention or family separation and could not use shared leave under current law. OFM, the Office of Equity, and the Washington Federation of State Employees supported the bill, describing it as a humane, low-cost way to help employees remain employed during traumatic disruptions. A Republican member asked whether the change would apply to people not legally present or working under a visa; witnesses said they believed it would not, or would be extremely unlikely, and would follow state hiring documentation requirements. The hearing then closed on HB 2411. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2281 on government-to-government consultation with tribes regarding state actions affecting tribal traditional cultural places. Staff said the bill would require mutually agreed consultation processes, timely notice, meaningful consultation before action, and a heightened legal standard requiring the state to show a compelling interest and least restrictive means if it would burden tribal cultural practices; tribes could sue in superior court. Rep. Chris Stearns said the bill is intended to protect Native identity, sacred sites, and religious practices from further loss, while tribal leaders and faith advocates strongly supported it as enforceable protection for sacred places and sovereignty. Some business and industry groups said they supported the goal but worried the bill’s broad definitions and cause of action could create permitting uncertainty, project delays, and significant costs, especially for clean energy and industrial projects. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 2206, which would adopt the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act; supporters said it would streamline absentee voting for overseas and military voters, while opponents argued it could allow never-residents or duplicate registrations and raised constitutional concerns. No votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• '</c> commission to answer candidates' commission to answer candidates' questions<01:03:11.080><c> and
• </c><01:05:58.280><c> the</c> upon contact by a candidate the upon contact by a candidate the commission
• </c> the candidate may prefer. the candidate may prefer.
• </c><01:06:53.760><c> disclosure</c> how to best manage candidate disclosure how to best manage candidate
• </c> guess the question if if a candidate guess the question if if a candidate doesn't<01:10:57.760><

Transcript Highlights:

• And, you know, we're assuming one qualified candidate per office.
• </c><00:14:26.279><c> per</c> assuming um one qualified candidate per assuming um one qualified candidate
• But there's part of the pot that the candidate or the non-candidate committee—I can't remember where
• The pot that the candidate or the non-candidate committee—I can't remember where that applies to—would
• </c> election period uh to a candidate election period uh to a candidate candidate<01:22:09.880><c> committee

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The committee heard several election-related bills first. SB 51, a comprehensive public financing bill for candidates, drew strong support in testimony but also concerns from the Campaign Spending Commission that the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund has only about $2.2 million, far short of what would be needed, and that the program could not realistically start in 2026 because of staffing and system changes; the commission asked for a start date no earlier than 2028. SB 118, which would create a full-time investigator position at the Campaign Spending Commission, was supported by the commission, which said it has lacked staff growth since 1995 and that an investigator is needed to handle investigations instead of having the commission’s attorney do that work. SB 255, a housekeeping bill on excess cash campaign contributions, was supported by the commission and several county officials and would require excess cash contributions over the limit to be returned within 30 days or turned over to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund. SB 345, which would expand the current partial public financing program, was supported by the commission but drew questions because it would still allow private fundraising; the commission said that under its assumptions the bill would provide more total public funds than SB 51, with a maximum of a little over $20 million versus a little over $15 million for SB 51. Testimony counts were reported as 125 support/48 oppose for SB 51, 26 support/0 oppose for SB 118, 30 support/49 oppose for SB 255, and 30 support/49 oppose for SB 345. The committee then discussed SB 176 on recount thresholds. The Office of Elections said it would stand on written testimony, and the East Hawaii Republican Party was listed but not present. The Office of Elections explained in response to questions that the bill’s recount trigger would be based on the final election-day count, not the early 6 a.m. tabulation, because the initial count is not complete until later in the day and cured ballots are counted later; the office said it does not want to begin recounts before all election-day ballots are counted. The reported testimony count was 4 support, 50 oppose, and 2 comments. Finally, the committee heard SB 260, the Judiciary’s biennial budget bill. Judiciary staff requested about $6.17 million in FY 2026 and $6.25 million in FY 2027 for operations, 17 permanent positions and one temporary position, plus $11.9 million for capital improvements. The Judiciary said the request would support specialty courts such as Women’s Court, Truancy Court, and DWI Court, a new Wahiawa District Court unit, an additional district court judge in Kona, cybersecurity, the Criminal Justice Research Institute, and facility projects including South Kohala design work and a Kauai chiller replacement. Civil legal services providers, including Volunteer Legal Services Hawaii, Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, the Legal Clinic, Kuikahi Mediation Center, the Domestic Violence Action Center, the Hawaii State Bar Association, and the Hawaii Access to Justice Commission, all supported the bill but asked for an additional $1 million for the civil legal services line item, saying demand is high and the funding is spread across more providers than before. The Judiciary clarified that some of its requested positions would support Wahiawa and Women’s Court, and that the civil legal services funding goes to organizations serving low-income residents on issues such as immigration, domestic violence, evictions, and foreclosures. The committee also briefly took up SB 279 on fentanyl possession thresholds, where the prosecuting attorney’s office supported the bill and said fentanyl is already driving overdose deaths and that the proposed thresholds target distribution-level quantities rather than personal use.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those candidates can be placed... Placement of presidential primary candidates on our ballots.
• Those candidates can be placed unilaterally, individually by the chair of either political party or the
• So I had no choice at that point but to concede the election, ...candidates without any investigation
• They would ask, who are the candidates? What are the questions on the ballot? What do we mean?
• Who are the candidates? What are the questions on the ballot? What do we mean?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Election Laws

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on several election-related bills, with most testimony focused on voting access, ballot administration, and election procedures. Senator Driscoll testified for S. 509, a Randolph home rule petition to require bilingual ballots in English and Haitian Creole, and Randolph officials and community members strongly supported it, saying it would improve access, confidence, and participation for Haitian Creole speakers. Other speakers, including advocates and residents, described language barriers as a form of voter suppression and urged favorable action. Leader Donato testified on H. 822, which would remove the word “physical” from the absentee voting disability standard, and on a bill to raise the signature threshold for creating political designations and allow dormant designations to be dissolved. Senator Rausch testified on several bills, including one expanding the State Ballot Law Commission’s jurisdiction over presidential primary candidate placement and a broader elections infrastructure bill that would change registration deadlines, primary dates, reporting systems, ballot design, mail voting procedures, and voter outreach. Representative Cattelda also testified on a bill to rename the ballot title for governor’s councilor to “governor’s counselor.” The Massachusetts Town Clerks Association, through Tom Joyce and Ben Kaufman, said it supported a number of the bills and offered local election administration expertise. Former Representative Lenny Mera and Sandra Cato testified for S. 536, a bill on accountability for defective and spoiled ballots, citing a disputed 2022 Revere recount and arguing that spoiled ballots should be documented and publicly inspectable so improperly rejected ballots are not lost. Emma Chinman of Partners in Democracy supported multiple reforms, including the elections infrastructure bill and a bill allowing unenrolled voters to serve on boards of registrars. After testimony concluded, the committee accepted written testimony by email and then adjourned without taking any votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Here, we have 20, or possibly 21, disenfranchised voters and a margin between the two candidates that's
• It would enable them to sell the office to the candidate offering the highest price for it because they
• A because that's who they supported, that's a strike against their candidate.
• of their choosing, Candidate A, results in an increased likelihood that the candidate they support is
• And again, she found the voters to be sincere, candid, and honest in their testimony.

Committee: House Ethics

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> dollars to other Democrat candidates. dollars to other Democrat candidates.
• </c> ARCAC has scre or or or candidates ARCAC has scre or or or candidates screamed<00:18:41.440><c>
• </c> candidates recommended by the ARCAC. candidates recommended by the ARCAC.
• </c><00:20:20.080><c> coming</c> acceptable qualified candidates coming acceptable qualified candidates
• The candidates to the joint committee.

Summary: The committee took up House File 4252 and first heard a walkthrough of a DE2 amendment that largely incorporated Office of Higher Education technical and statutory cleanup items, including reporting consolidations, updates to postsecondary registration and licensing statutes, and an anti-fraud provision. New provisions in the DE2 would require public postsecondary institutions to explain developmental courses before enrollment and obtain a written acknowledgement, revise the state grant tuition cap, add a $1.5 million ongoing appropriation in FY 2027 for an identity verification system to combat enrollment fraud, and provide $5,000 one-time funding for reforestation at Bemidji State University. Fiscal staff also noted additional special revenue fund revenue and expenditures tied to licensing and registration litigation response. The main debate centered on the A8 amendment offered by Representative Rarick, which would require the governor to appoint University of Minnesota regents only from candidates recommended by the joint legislative committee if the legislature fails to elect regents. Rarick argued the amendment was needed to address what he described as conflicts of interest and pay-to-play concerns in recent gubernatorial appointments. Several members questioned whether the language was constitutional, whether it actually addressed conflicts of interest, and whether it should instead refer to ARCAC-screened or ARCAC-recommended candidates. Nonpartisan staff said the governor’s appointment power is addressed in the university charter, not directly in the constitution, but could not definitively assess constitutionality if challenged. Members were divided: some supported the goal of cleaner governance but said the amendment was not ready or did not match the problem being described; others argued the legislature had failed to complete its own regent appointments and that the amendment was a response to that failure. No vote on the A8 amendment or the bill was reached in the portion provided, though a roll call was requested on the amendment and the chair indicated the bill would continue through amendment consideration before final discussion and vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• The definition of a candidate is referenced on the last page of— The definition of a candidate is referenced
• So that would be a candidate, not just a sitting legislator.
• But we just had our candidate filing deadline two weeks ago.
• So they would be indicating that on their candidate paperwork.
• You know, it's tough enough to get candidates now.

Committee: Joint Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee