Transcript Highlights:

• So, who's reviewing the data?
• </c> But who's reviewing it? But who's reviewing it?
• Your comments just said they can review it, as opposed to they are reviewing it.
• </c> of review is that consistent. of review is that consistent.
• . review. review.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Cicorum, our first item up for agenda is a consideration for review and approval of actions by
• It is the review of an EBD contract with Boston Consulting Group. This is a contract for $280,000.
• So with that, I need a motion to review the contract. I have a second.
• These are migraine medications, and we have found that after review, almost 100% of these members are
• The response was that, after the article came out, they had Navitus review Rule 118, which was said to

Committee: All ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• We reviewed the two salary adjustments, find no issues with those two.
• That's still under review. That would go forward to the JLBC when it's ready. Okay, thank you.
• CDCR was selected to participate in this review, and as part of the initial high-level analysis, the
• For the categories reviewed, which were food, laundry, clothing, and furniture, a like-for-like item
• We have not done a complete legal review of it.

Transcript Highlights:

• And what happens with that process is that the Juvenile Justice Grants Committee meets and reviews the
• </c><00:14:43.360><c> Um</c> and reviews the grant applications.
• Um and reviews the grant applications.
• Results from both screeners are reviewed by trained staff.
• Results from both screeners are reviewed Results from both screeners are reviewed by<00:42:51.119><c>

Summary: The Juvenile Justice Oversight Council approved the minutes from its November 8, 2024 meeting and welcomed new member Representative Nick Wilson. The council also heard an update from the Administrative Office of the Courts on a school attendance awareness campaign aimed at reducing truancy referrals to court, and a member requested a future, more detailed presentation on truancy trends. The council then received an update from the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board from Dr. David Frink and Elsie Berger. They described the board’s membership, meeting schedule, public access, annual report and three-year plan, and its role in helping Kentucky remain compliant with federal juvenile justice requirements so the state can receive Title II funding. They said the board reviews grant applications for community-based services, substance use, and early intervention programs, with about $584,000 in federal funds this year and a little over $600,000 expected next year. Members asked about participation, board vacancies, and how to engage with the board, and the presenters emphasized the importance of statewide representation and community input. The Department of Juvenile Justice then provided a broader update through Commissioner Randy White and Deputy Secretary Mona Wamik. White said DJJ is under an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation focused on conditions in detention facilities, including use of force, isolation, abuse, mental health care, and special education, and said the department has cooperated with repeated information requests and site visits. He also reviewed recent legislative and administrative changes, including 2023 Senate Bill 162, regional detention planning, facility segregation requirements, staffing and salary investments, improved staffing levels, reduced mental health vacancies, and training efforts related to security threat groups. He said DJJ has made progress but continues to work on staffing, safety, and facility improvements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do I have a motion to consider review.
• :31.760><c> without</c> the contracts reviewed without the contracts reviewed without objection?
• Um, all documents cabinet for review.
• So it's um the we may review in a year.
• I I I just will be reviewing the budget.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the June 10 minutes, and then handled a routine agenda of contracts and agreements. It deferred one Kentucky Educational Television contract to the August 2025 meeting because the vendor was not registered with the Secretary of State, and then approved the remaining routine items on the PSC green list and related contract lists without objection. The most detailed discussion involved two personal service contracts for the Kentucky Employees Health Plan. Officials from the Personnel Cabinet and Department of Employee Insurance explained that the contracts were designed to identify claims errors and overspending, with vendors paid a percentage of validated savings recovered for the plan. Senators asked how the savings were calculated and whether the contracts had changed plan processes; staff said the contracts had produced realized savings, some errors had been corrected going forward, and the vendors report quarterly. The committee approved those contracts. The committee then took up a retroactive Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority contract for a customized College Info Road Show bus. Members questioned why the contract was being presented months after execution, why it involved an out-of-state vendor, and whether the purchase was reasonable and timely. KHEAA staff said the delay stemmed from the need to finalize sustainability and safety details after the RFP, and acknowledged internal process and staffing issues. Several members criticized the retroactive approval process and said they could not validate the purchase from the information provided, but the committee ultimately approved the contract after debate. A final KHEAA discussion focused on the purpose and value of the mobile outreach bus. Staff said the bus supports college and financial aid outreach, especially in rural areas, and has been used for 26 years. Some members questioned the return on investment and whether the state should rely more on broadband and remote outreach, while others supported the program as a way to reach students and families. The committee approved the KHEAA contract, with Senator Douglas voting no and explaining concerns about whether such outreach programs are the proper role of government and whether they are the best use of public funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just wanted to speak for myself that, yes, I have had an opportunity to review this amendment and am
• </c><03:34:19.239><c> every</c> writing with the bureau I review every writing with the bureau I review
• </c><04:42:41.840><c> the</c><04:42:42.040><c> paper</c> that means manually reviewing the paper that
• </c><04:58:38.840><c> of</c><04:58:38.958><c> the</c> besides an actual manual review of the besides
• One more: do you have any idea of how many years this review would cover?

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened with a hearing on CACR 7, a proposed constitutional amendment to explicitly state that defendants are innocent until proven guilty in all cases and suits brought by the state. The prime sponsor argued the amendment would strengthen due process, prevent government overreach, and extend the presumption of innocence beyond criminal cases into civil and administrative matters such as forfeiture and family court proceedings. In testimony and questioning, the sponsor cited New Hampshire constitutional provisions, historical examples, and concerns about courts shifting burdens onto individuals. Committee members raised questions about the amendment’s wording, its relationship to existing law, and whether it would have practical effect if current statutes already place the burden on the state. The hearing was then closed without further witnesses. The committee next moved to executive session on House Bill 480, which establishes a procedure for restoring competency and creates a pilot forensic liaison position in Merrimack or Strafford County to assist with that process. After discussion about prior concerns, including an email from the Disabilities Rights Center and whether enough members were present, the committee voted to adopt Amendment 2025-61H and then voted ought to pass as amended. The amendment passed unanimously, and the bill passed on a 10-1 roll call, with Representative Andrew voting no. The chair noted the bill would not go on consent and that no minority report was planned. Finally, the committee opened a hearing on House Bill 666-FN, which would add restitution for violations of library-use confidentiality and expressly include library cards and membership status among confidential records. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen privacy protections after a local dispute and to provide a remedy and deterrent for improper disclosure. Committee questions focused on whether the restitution penalty would apply to accidental disclosures, how the bill interacts with existing exceptions such as court orders or investigations, and whether the language was consistent with current confidentiality law. The hearing remained open at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• This year, we decided to expand to include our special reviews work.
• Rodriguez, some of them are financial audits, and some are special reviews.
• Rodriguez, some of them are financial audits, and some are special reviews.
• </c><01:00:14.880><c> the</c> acknowledging that they've reviewed the acknowledging that they've reviewed
• </c><01:02:24.119><c> that</c> leadership involved in reviewing that leadership involved in reviewing

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• um being announced by the focused review um being announced by the vice<00:15:37.440><c> president</
• </c> related to uh to uh program reviews related to uh to uh program reviews looking<00:47:47.359><c>
• piece to the pass on the document review piece to the site<01:02:34.720><c> visit.
• what happened, review and try to<01:13:09.760><c> rectify.
• Now you're getting the prepayment review holding money back. DHS. DHS.

Committee: Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• it, the Surveillance Review Unit reviews it, we tell them whether we think it’s legally sufficient or
• it, the Surveillance Review Unit reviews it, we tell them whether we think it’s legally sufficient or
• it, the Surveillance Review Unit reviews it, we tell them whether we think it’s legally sufficient or
• it the surveillance come to us we review it the surveillance review<02:00:14.520><c> unit</c><02:00:
• :16.520><c> them</c> review unit reviews it we tell them review unit reviews it we tell them whether<

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee met on March 13, 2025, and took up several firearms and fireworks measures. On SB 227, which would create an illegal fireworks enforcement division in the Department of Law Enforcement and appropriate funds, DLE supported the bill, saying fireworks enforcement has become a full-time job requiring dedicated staff rather than a collateral-duty task force. Members discussed whether the bill and the related task force bill were both needed; DLE said yes, explaining that the new division would provide full-time state employees while the task force funding covers interagency costs such as transportation, storage, overtime, and personnel. Testimony on SB 227 was reported as 12 in support and 6 in opposition. On SB 222, which would fund the illegal fireworks task force and extend its sunset to June 30, 2030, DLE and the Honolulu Police Department supported the measure, emphasizing continued enforcement pressure and interagency coordination. An opponent from the Libertarian Party of Hawaii argued the bill was a waste of time, criticized fireworks prohibition as cultural overreach, and performed a song in opposition. Representative Shimizu asked about results from the extra enforcement effort, and DLE said enforcement has driven up street prices and made investors think twice, which they described as a goal of pricing people out of the market. The chair reported 13 testimonies in support and 6 in opposition. The committee then heard SB 1324, a more comprehensive fireworks bill that would revise definitions and penalties, create first- and second-degree fireworks offenses, add infractions, and increase penalties for serious injury or death. DLE and the Attorney General strongly supported it, saying the bill would improve enforcement, address black-market activity, and help prosecutors when fireworks have already exploded and evidence is destroyed. The Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing existing laws already punish these offenses and that the real issue is enforcement; the office also raised constitutional concerns about the bill’s concurrent civil infraction and criminal trial process. Honolulu Police supported the bill, while the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office said the alternative definitions would help in cases involving exploded versus seized fireworks. The chair noted 17 testimonies in support, 7 in opposition, and 3 comments, and members discussed whether the bill could be amended to address the public defender’s concerns. The committee also began hearing SB 308, which would expand the state’s magazine-capacity restrictions to firearms with detachable magazines over 30 rounds, with a grandfathering provision for certain magazines obtained before January 1, 2026. DLE supported the bill as a fair balance that would grandfather existing magazines while preventing new high-capacity acquisitions. Opposition testimony from Jerry Yuan of the Pool, Oil, Rifle, and Pistol Club argued the proposal was another shifting restriction and opposed magazine bans generally. The hearing continued with additional testimony not fully captured in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• General Court, the petition proposes to grant the judicial branch new and unprecedented authority to review
• powers of the courts, and insofar as it grants the judicial branch new and unprecedented authority to review
• take note of, while the Attorney General did certify these for the ballot, we all know now that her review
• recently to many members of the committee and many members of the Senate, quite frankly, were not reviewed
• But again, it should be noted: the Attorney General's review, when it comes to moving ballot initiatives

Summary: The Senate began with ceremonial items, including the Pledge of Allegiance and a welcome to Tri-County High School’s championship football and boys’ cross-country teams. The chamber then adopted a resolution commending the town of Auburn and the Robert and Esther Goddard Centennial Committee for recognizing the 100th anniversary of the first liquid-fueled rocket launch. Several local bills were taken up and passed to be enacted, including measures authorizing payment by the City of Revere, adjusting the senior property tax deferral income threshold in Wellesley, amending the Hopedinton charter regarding library trustee appointment powers, and later engrossing bills affecting the Cotuit Fire District, the Salem licensing board, and validating Bourne’s May 20, 2025 annual election. The Senate also suspended Joint Rule 12 to refer House petitions to committees and, on committee recommendation, advanced two Cotuit Fire District bills to third reading and engrossment. A major portion of the session focused on two Senate orders seeking advisory opinions from the Supreme Judicial Court on pending initiative petitions. One order concerned a public records initiative that would extend public records law to the General Court and the Governor’s office; the other concerned a legislative stipends initiative that would alter internal legislative procedures and compensation rules. Senator Feeney spoke in support of both orders, saying they were meant to inform the committee’s work and were not votes on the merits of the ballot questions. Both orders were adopted without objection. The Senate also received a Ways and Means report on a bill banning the retail sale of dogs, cats, rabbits, and pet sharks, with a new draft and amendment pending, and adopted an order placing the bill on the Orders of the Day for second reading on March 19, 2026. The session concluded with an order to adjourn to Monday at 11 a.m., which was adopted, and the Senate adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So one question after reviewing the member said that was adopted in reference in Senate committee, and
• So I guess my question to you guys at the table, and I know you did review the timeline as far as how
• That defines what can be a capital A project and what qualifies through the review process that we do
• the bill because we don't think they qualify based on that definition, but I think maybe we should review
• I think we received 1,900 and some odd requests last year, and part of our requirements are to review

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on May 26 and first took up Senate Bill 406, which authorizes the city of Slidell to seek voter approval for a local hotel and motel occupancy tax. The bill was described as a local measure giving the city council authority to place the tax on the ballot, with members noting that similar taxing authority exists in many other municipalities. Representative Wiley moved favorable passage, there was no objection, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee then received an update from the Division of Administration’s Office of Facility Planning and Control on capital outlay savings identified through cash-flow review and project “scrubbing.” Officials said they found about $50 million in savings from updated cash flows, over-appropriations, projects bid under budget, and reduced appropriations in bundled projects. They explained that bundling projects, including some LED-related projects, allows agencies to shift savings within a bundle and manage overruns or underruns more flexibly. Members praised the savings work but asked whether the process could be moved earlier so the House could benefit sooner, and whether similar reviews could be expanded to other administering agencies and non-state projects. One member raised concerns about whether some projects, including schools and certain NGO-related items, should qualify for capital outlay funding at all, and urged a review of the statutory definition and project approval criteria. Staff said they would look at the definition, review recommendations from prior discussions, and consider ways to tighten the process. The committee then adjourned without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• that several of you have not been here in previous meetings, so we can take just a minute, uh, to review
• Uh, and we are working continuously with uh HED to work on a review process where HED has their agencies
• We'll be um working in parallel as we are also working with the city of Albuquerque and the historic Review
• Um, so we had to, uh, basically work with the subcommittee from the historic review board, so that way
• Once we get their comments, then we'll go back before the historic review board.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this bill proposes moving that review under the Secretary of State.
• These are rules that are currently not going up to the governor to review.
• So if you're a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy, you want the process to review these actions.
• But it gives somebody in that world the ability to engage with this whole review of licensing that's
• It's under review currently. Will this be a big cost to the counties for this assessment?

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 419, as amended to update the effective date to 2026. The bill would allow the State Treasurer and the Department of Wildlife Conservation/Wildlife Conservation Commission to employ or appoint attorneys, joining other entities already authorized to do so. Supporters argued the treasurer’s office handles highly specialized financial matters and large state assets, and that in-house counsel could provide faster, more specialized advice. Members questioned possible conflicts with the Attorney General’s role, the fiscal impact, and why Wildlife was included; the sponsor said Wildlife’s inclusion was tied to similar specialized needs and indicated willingness to remove it if needed. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 7-2 vote. The committee then heard Senate Bill 835, also amended to update the effective date to 2026. This measure would require qualifying licensing boards and commissions to submit proposed non-rulemaking actions with anti-competitive implications for review, shifting oversight from the Attorney General to the Secretary of State. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address antitrust concerns raised by the North Carolina dental board case and to provide earlier executive-branch review of potentially anti-competitive board actions. Members raised concerns about whether the Secretary of State should be the arbiter of anti-competitive conduct and whether existing court remedies or current executive-order processes were sufficient. The bill passed on an 8-2 due pass vote. Senate Bill 1618 would require courts to conduct pretrial risk assessments early in criminal cases. The sponsor said the assessments would be one tool judges could use in setting bond and determining release conditions, and that the bill was intended to make the practice available statewide rather than only in some counties. Questions focused on who would validate the assessments, whether counties already could do this, whether it would delay release in smaller counties, and whether it would add costs; the sponsor said counties could tailor the process, that it was already being done in some places, and that the fiscal impact would be minimal. The committee voted 6-4 to report the bill due pass. Finally, the chair presented Senate Bill 262, which had been amended and had its title and enacting clause struck as part of ongoing work. The bill was described as an effort to reduce county jail overcrowding by allowing certain inmates awaiting transfer to the Department of Corrections to be handled differently, with further amendments expected. Members discussed concerns about fairness and the use of factors such as community ties in release decisions, and the sponsor said the measure was still being refined and was intended to solve a practical jail-capacity problem. The committee voted 8-1 to pass the bill out.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, it establishes court requirements for an expedited judicial review of a malicious delay claim
• Additionally, the bill provides an appeal process for individualized determinations and a judicial review
• The bill also requires DHS and AHCCCS to review their rules and policies relating to behavioral health
• So I've sent language that's being reviewed at 10 o'clock today to see if we can get a COW amendment.
• The bill also requires DHS and AHCCCS to review their rules and policies relating to behavioral health

Summary: The caucus reviewed a long list of Senate bills and memorials, mostly on consent calendars, covering housing, elections, health care, public safety, land use, transportation, and water. Several measures focused on housing and local government regulation, including limits on municipal interference with home design standards, restrictions on alleged “malicious delays” in permitting, and rules on exactions. Election-related bills addressed internet access for voting equipment, timekeeping requirements for election systems, primary election timing, precinct committeeman vacancies, and other election administration changes. Other topics included liquor law updates, assisted living facility rules, deed and title fraud prevention, a Freedom of Speech Monument committee, renaming public spaces, and a bill restricting gender transition procedures for minors. Health and human services bills drew discussion on behavioral health technician definitions and AHCCCS/DHS coordination, Medicaid billing during facility ownership changes, breast cancer screening cost-sharing, naturopathic physicians administering IV antibiotics and similar drugs, safe-haven newborn surrender at hospitals, and reporting requirements for dialysis social workers. In public safety and judiciary, members considered bills on probation for dangerous crimes against children, sex offender registration limitations, victim restitution costs, unlawful alerting, increased penalties for unlawful flight, and a new offense for motor fuel theft. One member noted a no vote on extending the Vulnerable Adult System Study Committee, saying it would become a long-running study committee, while supporters said the committee had produced useful recommendations. The caucus also heard land, agriculture, energy, water, and transportation measures, including creation of a foreign entity land review commission, restrictions on transporting Mexican gray wolf pups with state resources, water reuse and banking provisions, solar installation disclosures and roof inspections, a larger revolving fund loan cap, and several congressional memorials. Transportation items included roadable aircraft registration, motor vehicle booting rules, military property signage, a towing and impound study committee, and photo enforcement penalties. Public safety bills included extending traumatic event counseling programs and requiring state data sharing with the federal government regarding unauthorized aliens. No formal votes were taken in the transcript; members mostly asked clarifying questions and several sponsors explained the intent and practical effects of their bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't believe this bill deteriorates chart review or anything like that, does it?
• I think under current law, they have to review 10% of the charts, and then if there's some controlled
• So they're only kind of spot-checking the chart reviews right now, and that doesn't change under this
• I'm going to look to chart review. It's just chart review, I guess.
• If nothing is changing, really, if the reviews are going to be the same, you said 10 percent on spot,

Committee: House General Laws

Transcript Highlights:

• about three years ago, I sat down, and as part of the membership on that committee, we were asked to review
• every one of our official recommendations that we give back to our colleges and universities after reviewing
• So yes, we did talk to them as part of that review process.
• They are asked to review at least annually to see if there are qualified accreditors that exist.
• I see it being burying on that, and I think it would slowly just a quick review.

Bills: HB3700 , HB3315 , HB3242 , HB3379 , HB3129 , HB3132 , HB2950

Committee: House Postsecondary Education

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we're reviewing a law that we already have on the books to cap excess profits in auto insurance
• So it's a wider geography, and that's reviewed as kind of a rating factor, but not specific zip codes
• So I will, so in underwriting, we don't review each underwriting specifically because that's kind of
• We review an overall underwriting approach and policy for a carrier, and so in there we will look and
• We review an overall underwriting approach and policy for a carrier, and so in there we will look and

Committee: Senate Banks

Summary: The Senate Banking Committee met for its first meeting of the session, with Chair James Sanders Jr. and Ranking Member George Borrello opening the hearing and noting a collaborative approach to committee work. The committee first considered and advanced several bills: S.114, which would prohibit state-chartered banks from investing in or financing private prisons; S.2040, which would require money transmitters to provide a consumer warning; S.5473, which would require disclosures in advertisements involving virtual tokens; and S.8406, Sanders’ bill to amend the community bank deposit program. Each bill was moved and approved by committee, with S.8406 passing unanimously. The committee then heard from Caitlin Azar, Acting Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services (DFS), who outlined her background and DFS priorities. She emphasized affordability, consumer protection, stability, and innovation, and discussed DFS-led initiatives in the governor’s budget, including Banking Development Districts, non-bank mortgage CRA regulations, CDFI investment guidance, and consumer restitution. She also said DFS plans to issue buy-now-pay-later regulations in February, expand student lending protections and borrower education, and continue work on insurance affordability, including auto and homeowners insurance reforms, anti-fraud efforts, and discounts tied to telematics, dash cameras, and safe-driving courses. Members questioned Azar about the balance between regulation and access, especially in crypto, buy-now-pay-later, and insurance markets. She said DFS aims to preserve competition while preventing discriminatory or excessive practices, and described existing oversight of virtual currency, including coordination with federal regulators. Another member asked about AI in auto insurance underwriting and pricing; Azar said DFS requires transparency, bias review, governance controls, and consumer recourse, and that credit scores cannot be used to deny or increase rates. The chair also raised concerns about foreclosure in Southeast Queens, improving BDD paperwork and data collection, and increasing the number of state-chartered credit unions. Azar said DFS is working on process improvements, community input, and maintaining open communication with the committee, but no additional votes or formal actions were taken during the DFS hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for
• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for
• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for
• All right, let's move on to the review of the draft interim work plan.
• This is your regular opportunity to review the work plan and then make adjustments as you look ahead

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy Executive Committee approved the June minutes and received a brief update from Assistant Attorney General Jesse Yoder, who had no litigation updates but offered to answer questions. Actuary Michael Harbour then previewed the September full committee meeting, which will include a report on the financial condition of the DRS-administered pension plans and the state actuary’s recommended economic assumptions. He also cautioned that any actuarial pricing done over the summer could change if assumptions are updated, and suggested taking votes on potential legislation later in the interim, possibly in November or December. A discussion followed about the Left 1 benefit improvement and where the funding came from. Harbour said the benefit tied to SSB 5791 (2022) was paid from the Left 1 trust fund, while a separate Left 2 benefit improvement was in SHB 1701, and he agreed to double-check the issue with DRS after members raised conflicting information. Members then discussed the broader Left 1 study, including whether IRS approval is a key barrier and whether options are limited to merger or closure. Several members asked to hear from Ice Miller, which has been advising on the tax issues, and staff said the committee should receive a written response in the next couple of weeks and could have Ice Miller appear in October. The committee reviewed and adjusted its interim work plan. September will include the actuarial presentations, a more detailed Left 1 study update, and a presentation on PERS and TERS Plan 1 COLAs, including a recap of the bill recommended this year and initial considerations for an ad hoc COLA. October is expected to include DRS administrative and performance updates, with November reserved for the State Investment Board update and a final Left 1 study update, and December may include an educational presentation on excess compensation. Members also requested a future briefing on the month-of-death benefit discussion. The September agenda was adopted, correspondence materials were noted, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Had a bathroom bill in this chamber last week that explicitly prohibits state courts from reviewing its
• this legislature ever said, we're gonna pass a law and tell the court, you don't have the right to review
• What's next when the courts can't review what a legislature does?
• when you think it's not the correct one, and we pass a law that says, by the way, the courts can't review
• We all rely on a judiciary that has the power to review the legislative branch of government.

Bills: HCR35 , SJR59 , SJR84 , SCR30 , SB127 , SB317 , SB324 , SB457 , SB506 , SB511 , SB529 , SB547 , SB584 , SB619 , SB636 , SB646 , SB659 , SB715 , SB732 , SB735 , SB771 , SB784 , SB800 , SB801 , SB904 , SB1026 , SB1049 , SB1065 , SB1181 , SB1224 , SB1250 , SB1383 , SB1467 , SB1524 , SB1528 , SB1531 , SB1568 , SB1585 , SB1640 , SB1681 , SB1754 , SB1757 , SB1777 , SB1972 , SB1980 , SB2007 , SB2041 , SB2046 , SB2050 , SB2055 , SB2069 , SB2080 , SB2119 , SB2138 , SB2139 , SB2154 , SB2201 , SB2225 , SB2268 , SB2306 , SB2308 , SB2310 , SB2330 , SB2366 , SB2375 , SB2392 , SB2401 , SB2422 , SB2480 , SB2514 , SB2530 , SB2533 , SB2543 , SB2544 , SB2589 , SB2610 , SB2615 , SB2623 , SB2660 , SB2662 , SB2693 , SB2695 , SB2707 , SB2722 , SB2742 , SB2753 , SB2807 , SB2843 , SB2844 , SB2858 , SB2880 , SB2885 , SB2891 , SB2925 , SB2938 , SB2986 , SJR3 , SJR18 , SB5 , SB914 , SB963 , SB1197 , SB1415 , SB1437 , SB1786 , SB326 , SB767 , SB769 , SB783 , SB1035 , SB1271 , SB1619 , SB1637 , SB1806 , SB1 , SB260 , HB135 , HB 1109 , HCR35 , HCR64 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SJR84 , SJR59 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SCR48 , SCR19 , SCR30 , SCR3 , SB2023 , SB619 , SB2742 , SB646 , SB1026 , SB2880 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB1502 , SB507 , SB1434 , SB1376 , SB1585 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1163 , SB1122 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB261 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB529 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB1999 , SB511 , SB2309 , SB510 , SB584 , SB1085 , SB2046 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB1524 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB884 , SB517 , SB1200 , SB1845 , SB1863 , SB2681 , SB2200 , SB2199 , SB1757 , SB2050 , SB2458 , SB2201 , SB2660 , SB2662 , SB1065 , SB801 , SB2533 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB1721 , SB2366 , SB1013 , SB2797 , SB2383 , SB1754 , SB2119 , SB2448 , SB1777 , SB1283 , SB2392 , SB2076 , SB2786 , SB2876 , SB2284 , SB2225 , SB1540 , SB2929 , SB1972 , SB2540 , SB2595 , SB2217 , SB715 , SB2330 , SB1383 , SB500 , SB1640 , SB2001 , SB2080 , SB506 , SB2514 , SB2753 , SB2398 , SB1241 , SB2927 , SB2173 , SB2538 , SB898 , SB1449 , SB2529 , SB1531 , SB2846 , SB2476 , SB986 , SB1181 , SB2075 , SB2154 , SB2864 , SB1359 , SB2386 , SB771 , SB2844 , SB2550 , SB1351 , SB1423 , SB1931 , SB2245 , SB2589 , SB2707 , SB2807 , SB410 , SB659 , SB2776 , SB2693 , SB2580 , SB1980 , SB1886 , SB1234 , SB739 , SB456 , SB127 , SB1666 , SB2843 , SB2801 , SB800 , SB2055 , SB784 , SB2986 , SB735 , SB1012 , SB324 , SB2926 , SB2938 , SB2007 , SB2138 , SB1242 , SB2615 , SB1049 , SB2310 , SB1224 , SB2972 , SB1568 , SB2841 , SB2885 , SB3016 , SB2858 , SB2610 , SB2139 , SB1856 , SB2035 , SB2308 , SB2306 , SB2041 , SB1528 , SB1681 , SB1141 , SB2401 , SB2530 , SB2375 , SB547 , SB1266 , SB1373 , SB1467 , SB2069 , SB2269 , SB2480 , SB2544 , SB672 , SB904 , SB2695 , SB2891 , SB2422 , SB2543 , SB1854 , SB317 , SB2539 , SB2532 , SB2925 , SB1250 , SB2082 , SB2203 , SB457 , SB2357 , SB2721 , SB243 , SB1285 , SB2568 , SB1959 , SB1442 , SB1454 , SB2520 , SB2541 , SB1708 , SB1237 , SB1844 , SB1586 , HB1392 , HB22 , SB1551 , SB3039 , SB2819 , SB66 , SB629 , SB1015 , SB2342 , SB2903 , SB2933 , SB1965 , SB2477 , SB3029 , SB2605 , SB2419 , SB1957 , SB375 , SB250 , SB777 , SB628 , SB2523 , SB2367 , SB2703 , SB2608 , SB2778 , SB3044 , SB2965 , SB2521 , SB865

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, we actually need a day to re-review the CD on this one. effective date for electronic voting
• So um we actually need a day<00:02:49.760><c> to</c><00:02:50.000><c> re-review</c><00:02:50.480><c>
• </c> day to re-review the CD on this one. day to re-review the CD on this one. Okay. Okay. Okay.
• We're sending you an updated CD1 that you can review, and then we do need you to approve that updated
• The substance of the bill is being sent in an updated CD1 for review and approval.