Transcript Highlights:

• Is that under your name, or do you use another name for the music?
• My name is Elva Mendoza.
• Good evening, my name... My name is Lon Pendragon.
• My name is [Name], and I represent the Transgender Education Network of Texas.
• My name is Ash Hall.

Bills: HB186, HB201, HB229, HB796, HB1506, HB2702, HB2885, HB3225, HB3909, HB4285, HB5138

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, financial crime, card fraud, motor fuel theft, law enforcement, criminal activity, skimmers, prevention, training, biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, federal directives, state authority

Transcript Highlights:

• Name and affiliation, please. Hi, my name is Lurray.
• Name and affiliation, please. Hi, my name is Lurray.
• My name and affiliation, please. Hi, my name is Kim Mill. My name is Kim Mills.
• Say, “Hi, my name is Ernie.” “Hi, my name is Ernie.” You can say, “Hi, my name is Ernie.”
• Name and affiliation, please. My name is Guillermo. Name and affiliation, please.

Summary: The hearing began with opening remarks on the Governor’s May Revision for child care and human services, with committee members and advocates stressing that the budget should not be balanced on the backs of low-income families, children, and providers. Legislative members and public witnesses strongly opposed the proposed suspension of the child care COLA, reductions to the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program, and the lack of codified rate reform tied to the alternative methodology. Several speakers also urged more support for providers affected by the Eaton fire and other disasters, and called for child care to be funded at the true cost of care and for additional slots to be restored. Administration, LAO, and Department of Education staff described the child care proposal as maintaining existing funding levels while adding administrative resources to prepare for federally required prospective payment changes and single-rate reform. The administration said the May Revision would suspend the 2025–26 COLA and reduce Bridge Program funding to align with utilization, while the LAO raised questions about the size and purpose of the proposed rate-reform and prospective-payment funding and recommended rejecting a Department of Technology exemption. CDE supported continued early education investments but said it would need additional resources if prospective pay were extended to state preschool, and it objected to a proposed reallocation of preschool funds for inclusive education grants. The committee then moved to the IHSS portion of the May Revision. DSS outlined five major proposals: capping provider work hours at 50 per week, eliminating IHSS for undocumented adults age 19 and older, shifting certain Community First Choice reassessment penalties to counties, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test as a conforming IHSS reduction, and automating the termination of IHSS when Medi-Cal eligibility ends. DSS also discussed funding to implement a federal HCBS access rule and a separate reassessment of IHSS administrative methodology that found counties would need additional administrative funding. Finance said the proposals were intended to slow program growth and improve sustainability, while the LAO said it was still analyzing the package and raised concerns about implementation, county workload, and the potential loss of services. Committee members and public commenters criticized the IHSS cuts, especially the overtime cap and the elimination of services for undocumented adults and people affected by the asset test. Advocates argued that IHSS workers and recipients depend on these services, that county administration is already underfunded, and that the proposals could destabilize vulnerable consumers. The chair closed by saying the committee would continue to fight for child care and would not pause on child care, and the meeting recessed before moving on to the remaining May Revision items.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please state your name for the record and proceed. My name is Susan Schubert.
• Hello, my name is Jeff Burchham. I'm a Hello, my name is Jeff Burchham.
• My name is Amario Boleno.
• My name is Laura Price.
• My name is testimony. Good afternoon. My name is Laura<00:31:37.519> Price.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1012, as amended by the A1 amendment, and the author moved the bill to be laid over for possible inclusion in a future bill. The amendment, adopted on a voice vote, changed the timing for public input in trail planning, removed language on decommissioning trails, and combined the measure with another ATV-fee bill. The author said the bill would unify ATV trail signage policy statewide, align statute with DNR best practices, and not affect the forest trail inventory, existing ATV-accessible miles, or hunting exemptions. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives of the Minnesota Public Lands Coalition, tribal officials from the Max Band and Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, a retired DNR conservation officer, a retired wildlife manager, and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, argued the bill would better protect wetlands, wildlife habitat, and culturally significant areas, improve transparency and tribal consultation, and make trail planning and enforcement more workable. The EQB said the amended bill’s rulemaking timeline was more workable, and the DNR described its existing multi-step trail review and consultation process. Opponents, including ATV Minnesota, county commissioners from northern counties, and a representative of the Minnesota Trappers Association, argued the bill would burden or restrict existing trail systems, increase costs, and threaten tourism and local economies. They said current trail development already involves DNR and local review, and that the bill could reduce access for riders, trappers, and other users. In member questions, the author and a Minnesota Association of Townships representative said the bill was intended to codify DNR best practices and bring local governments into the process earlier, while confirming that hunting exemptions were not removed.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name... Thank you. Good evening. My name... Thank you for having me here.
• Name and affiliation, please. My name is Glenni Sujewa. My name is Jose.
• My name is Alicia Rico.
• Name and affiliation, please. Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Salas.
• Name and affiliation, please. Hi, my name is Maribel Baez. Thank you. Hi, my name is Maribel Baez.

Summary: The committee heard a series of child care, social services, immigrant support, disability services, and language access bills, with many measures drawing strong support and no opposition. Early in the hearing, AB 450 proposed a Department of Aging task force to study and recommend policies for undocumented adults age 55 and older; AB 593 would let CDSS identify data-sharing opportunities to improve CalFresh administration and participation; and AB 904 would clarify child care subsidy eligibility so families do not lose care during pregnancy leave, family leave, caregiving, or job search periods. All three were presented as ways to reduce barriers and improve access to essential services, and AB 904 was moved out on a 1-0 call after support testimony from child care advocates and a member of the public. AB 617, which would expand and standardize respite care access for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by requiring licensing and registry participation, drew both support and significant opposition from respite providers and disability service organizations concerned about added regulation, cost, and possible delays; the author said she would continue working with opponents, and the bill was moved out on a 2-0 call. The committee also heard AB 1220, which would require regional centers to document denials, notices of action, and appeals in individual program plans and include that data in annual reports to improve transparency and equity in developmental services. The bill drew extensive public support from parents, advocates, and disability organizations, with no opposition, and passed 5-0. AB 752 would make child care centers by right in certain residential zones when co-located with multifamily housing or institutional uses, and supporters argued it would reduce zoning barriers and help expand child care capacity; it also passed 5-0. AB 1242 would create a CalHHS language access director, require human review of machine translation, and improve language coverage determinations for state and local agencies; supporters emphasized health equity and the need for better access for limited-English communities, and the bill was moved out on a 4-0 call. Later, AB 548 would continue and expand the Asylee and Vulnerable Non-Citizen Program, which provides case management and integration services for asylees and certain visa holders; supporters said the program had been effective but had run out of funding, and the bill passed 4-0. AB 495, the Family Preparedness Plan Act, would strengthen family safety planning for immigrant families, standardize acceptance of caregiver authorization affidavits, and create a joint guardianship process for temporary separations; testimony focused on fear of family separation and the need for clear school and medical procedures, and the bill passed 4-0. AB 1357 would exclude guaranteed income payments from being counted as income for state public assistance eligibility, with supporters arguing it would prevent recipients from falling off the “benefits cliff”; it passed 4-1. Finally, AB 1201, the Reunity Act, was introduced to require individualized court assessments before denying reunification services to parents with certain violent felony convictions after a five-year period, with the author and a witness describing the bill as a trauma-informed approach to family reunification.

Transcript Highlights:

• I forgot his name, so I can't tell you his name, but I really wanted to introduce them because they're
• I forgot his name, so I can't tell you his name, but I really wanted to introduce them because they're
• I forgot his name, so I can't tell you his name, but I really wanted to introduce them because they're
• I forgot his name, so I can't tell you his name, but I really wanted to introduce them because they're
• names into the journal. So ordered. names into the journal. So ordered.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Will Rodriguez.
• My name is Max Prado.
• Again, my name is.
• My name is Tim Rubel.
• My name is Dr.

Bills: SB 37

Keywords: fetal development, education, public health curriculum, middle school, age-appropriate instruction, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Jamie Dudensing.
• My name is Jennifer Woolley.
• My name is Nicholas Schroeder.
• My name is Genevieve Collins.
• My name is Carmen Tilton.

Bills: HB163, HB216, HB721, HB2035, HB2038, HB3057, HB3153, HB3233, HB3595, HB3801, HB3812, HB4076, HB4129, HB4377, HB4535, HB4666, HB4730, HB4743, HB4903, HB5149, HB5155, HB1534, HB163, HB216

Keywords: epinephrine, healthcare, emergency response, administration, medical policy, health care, itemized billing, patient rights, provider regulations, Texas Health and Safety Code, cost disclosure, insurance, benefit plan, administrators, chemical dependency, treatment facilities, minor admissions, parental notice, mental health, medical licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• Your name, ma'am? My name is Sylvia B. Johnson.
• Your name, ma'am? My name is Shelly Scraver. Okay, you can go ahead. Hi. My name is Shelly.
• Your name, ma'am? Go ahead. Hi, my name is Donna Lawrence.
• What is your name? My name is Emily Kidd.
• My name is Janie.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Will Rodriguez.
• My name is Dr.
• My name is Brian Mattis.
• My name is Max Brado.
• My name is Tim Rubble.

Bills: SB 37

Keywords: fetal development, education, public health curriculum, middle school, age-appropriate instruction

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Soren Aldaco.
• My name is Levi Fiedler.
• My name is Ash Hall.
• My name is Mary Elizabeth.
• If you would, state your name for the record, who you're with. My name is Sheila Hinton.

Bills: SB95, SB268, SB493, SB619, SB660, SB922, SB984, SB1098, SB1188, SB1307, SB1332, SB1822

Keywords: immunization, written informed consent, civil liability, health care provider, vaccine compensation, administrative penalty, health care, licensing, complaint procedure, disciplinary action, law enforcement, pharmacy benefit manager, PBM, gag clause, prescription drug pricing, out-of-pocket cost, cash price, pharmacist, pharmacy, prescription drug benefit

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Phil King.
• My name is Phil King.
• My name is Ellen Katz. I'm a law professor. My name is Ellen Katz.
• My name is Savant...
• My name is John Shepard.

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting held its first regional hearing, focused on South and Central Texas, including Bexar County, Travis County, and the Rio Grande Valley. After establishing a quorum, the committee adopted its rules on a 6-3 roll-call vote, with Senators Alvarado and Miles voting no. Chair Phil King explained the regional-hearing format, the use of 2020 census data, the online testimony process, and the availability of written comments and future hearings. Several members then gave opening remarks, with Republicans emphasizing public input and Democrats arguing the special session and mid-decade redistricting were unnecessary and aimed at minority districts. A major procedural issue arose over whether the committee should invite or subpoena the DOJ attorney who authored the July 7 letter that prompted the redistricting discussion. Senator Miles moved to subpoena the attorney; the motion was seconded but then set aside after the chair said the committee could not take formal action on a non-procedural matter during a regional hearing under the adopted rules. The chair said he would consult legal counsel about issuing an invitation, and members discussed the August 7 deadline referenced in the DOJ letter. The committee then moved on to public testimony. Witnesses, including Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, law professor Ellen Katz, and Texas NAACP president Gary Bledsoe, argued that the DOJ letter misread the law and that the targeted districts were lawful opportunity or coalition districts. They said the Fifth Circuit’s Pettway decision was limited to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and did not declare coalition districts unconstitutional, and they cited Bartlett v. Strickland as warning against intentionally dismantling effective minority districts. Garcia and Bledsoe said the hearing was politically motivated and would harm Black and Latino representation; Katz said Texas would act illegally if it followed the DOJ letter’s instructions. Members asked questions about the legal status of coalition districts, the 2021 map-drawing process, and the difference between opportunity, coalition, and crossover districts. The hearing continued with additional public witnesses, including labor representative Emily Amps, who said workers and communities of color were being harmed by the proposed redistricting effort.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Martin Devlin.
• an Irish Gaelic name.
• So we decided on the name Dahi. Dahi is an old Irish name.
• My name is Jose Escobedo.
• My name is Jorge. I is driving for Cardia Health. Thank you. My name is Jorge.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on March 25, 2025, with Chair Mia Bonta presiding and initially operating as a subcommittee until quorum was established. The committee heard several health-related bills, including AB 73 on creating a Black Mental Health Navigator certification, AB 499 on lowering the state reimbursement trigger for the Robert F. Kennedy Farm Workers Medical Plan, AB 843 on aligning California health insurance language-access rules with federal standards, AB 257 on a specialty care network using telehealth and virtual services for Medi-Cal and underserved communities, AB 64 on allowing diacritical marks on vital records, AB 315 on the Home and Community-Based Alternatives waiver, and AB 40 on clarifying that emergency services include reproductive health services such as abortion. Testimony generally emphasized disparities in access, culturally competent care, language access, rural provider shortages, and the importance of preserving or expanding programs that help vulnerable populations. Supporters included authors, state and local health organizations, advocacy groups, and affected individuals. AB 73 was backed as a way to address stigma, mistrust, and culturally competent mental health access for Black Californians. AB 499 was described as helping keep a self-insured farmworker health plan operational while maintaining a low-cost, labor-management model. AB 843 was supported as a way to prevent children and families from having to translate sensitive medical and insurance information and to protect limited-English-proficient Californians. AB 257 drew support as a demonstration project to improve specialty care access through California-based clinicians and virtual care, with examples of reduced wait times and costs. AB 64 received emotional testimony from the author, a child and his family, and others about the importance of accurately recording names with accents and other marks. AB 315 was presented as a cost-neutral or cost-saving way to expand home- and community-based care for medically fragile people, with strong support from disability, health, and provider groups. AB 40 drew support from reproductive health and medical organizations, while one opposition witness argued it could conflict with emergency care standards and overburden emergency departments. The committee took roll-call votes and advanced AB 499, AB 73, AB 843, AB 257, AB 64, AB 315, and AB 40 to Appropriations, with AB 40 receiving some no votes. The committee also adopted its 2025-26 rules and approved a consent calendar that included AB 225, AB 304, AB 403, AB 688, and AB 951. Several measures were initially placed on call and later lifted and recorded as passing out of committee before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The nominations will be read by board name only. Please, Mr.
• All of the segments retain their name.
• I know there's a name that's on part of the loop... ...entire loop when I know there's a name that's
• State Board on Geographic and Historic Names, which has a policy not to name something after people
• I mean, to name a few, Hasan Piker, right? Like an actual...

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then heard several points of personal privilege introducing guests, including visitors for Disability Day at the Capitol and the pastor who delivered the prayer. The chamber then moved into the Committee of the Whole to consider two bills: SB 1010, relating to historic names and the renaming of Loop 202, and SB 1439, relating to special plates and recycling-related provisions. SB 1010 received a floor amendment clarifying that the underlying freeway segments would retain their existing names, and SB 1439 received a Government Committee amendment before both bills were recommended do pass. On third reading, SB 1010 passed 16-9 with two not voting. Debate centered on whether renaming the entire Loop 202 to honor Charlie Kirk would erase or overshadow existing memorials, especially the Congressman Ed Pastor Freeway segment, and whether the bill bypassed the usual geographic naming process. Supporters said the amendment preserved existing segment names and clarified legislative intent; opponents argued the measure politicized highway naming and ignored established procedures. Several senators explained their votes on both sides. SB 1439 then passed 16-12 with two not voting. The bill’s sponsor described it as a tribute to Charlie Kirk, and one senator asked whether the sponsor or affiliated companies had received compensation from a beneficiary organization; the sponsor said no. After both measures were sent to the House, the Senate announced upcoming committee meetings and adjourned until the next scheduled session.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Miguel Perez.
• My name is A.J.
• My name is A.J.
• My name is Landon.
• My name is Ashall.

Bills: HB186, HB201, HB229, HB796, HB1506, HB2702, HB2885, HB3225, HB3909, HB4285, HB5138

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, financial crime, card fraud, motor fuel theft, law enforcement, criminal activity, skimmers, prevention, training, biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, federal directives, state authority

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 186, which would require social media platforms to verify users are 18 or older before allowing account creation. Invited witnesses in support, including Mary Elizabeth Castle and David Dunmoyer, argued the bill would protect children from harmful algorithms, addictive design, bullying, sexual exploitation, and mental health harms, and emphasized parental rights and the idea that minors should not enter binding contracts with platforms. Committee members questioned them about how algorithms work, whether parents could realistically monitor content, and whether the bill would still allow educational use; the witnesses said the bill was narrowly aimed at harmful social media use and not educational content. Public testimony on HB 186 was largely in opposition, though several student witnesses said they supported the bill’s goals but wanted the age lowered to 16 or the bill amended to allow parental consent or joint accounts. Opponents argued the bill would be ineffective because teens could bypass age checks, would cut off access to educational tools, school communications, recruiting and NIL opportunities, and would burden free speech and privacy. Some witnesses also said social media helps teens with mental health, community, and creative or professional opportunities, while others warned the bill could disproportionately harm disabled and marginalized users. After public testimony closed, HB 186 was left pending. The committee then heard House Bill 5138, which Chairman Hughes said would respond to a court ruling limiting the Attorney General’s authority to prosecute election crimes unless invited by local prosecutors by changing the statute to require AG prosecution. Public testimony on HB 5138 was brief and opposed by at least one witness who argued it would further erode local control and expand state preemption. The bill was left pending after testimony. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 3225, a library bill aimed at keeping sexually explicit books and materials out of children’s sections in municipal libraries and requiring age verification for checkout, including digital access, with parental consent and other revisions added in the House. Supporters said the bill would protect children from explicit material and keep such content in adult sections, while opponents argued it would amount to censorship, be costly and difficult to implement, and could be used to target LGBTQ+ or other marginalized content. Library workers, parents, students, and advocates testified that existing library sections already separate age-appropriate materials and that the bill could reduce access to books, burden libraries, and infringe on parental choice and free expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Lenita Robinson.
• My name is Gwen Baroud.
• My name is Rodney LaBruce.
• My name is Savant Moore.
• My name is Christy King.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Tony Lopes.
• My name is Amy Troop.
• My name is Judy Holmes. I was born and raised... My name is Judy Holmes.
• My name is Ben Wood.
• My name is Donya.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a long public hearing focused mainly on two sets of issues: proposals to amend or repeal the MBTA Communities Act, and bills to allow local rent stabilization. Committee chairs opened by explaining the hearing would be tightly managed because of the very large number of speakers, with testimony limited to two minutes per person and written testimony still accepted by email. Members and witnesses were called in a mix of in-person and virtual order throughout the hearing. On the MBTA Communities Act, several legislators and local officials argued the law is too rigid and should be revised to account for local conditions. Speakers from small, rural, or infrastructure-limited communities such as Hanson, Halifax, Marshfield, Winthrop, Dracut, Carver, Rehoboth, and others said the law’s one-size-fits-all approach does not fit towns with limited water, sewer, transit access, or buildable land. Some filed bills would repeal the law, exempt certain communities, or create appeals processes based on infrastructure, environmental, or historical constraints. Supporters of the law’s changes emphasized local control and the need to avoid forcing development where communities believe it is impractical or inconsistent with town character. A large portion of the hearing was devoted to rent stabilization legislation, especially S. 1447 and related House bills. Supporters included legislators, city councilors, tenant advocates, labor leaders, housing nonprofits, public health organizations, and residents who described sharp rent increases, displacement, homelessness risk, and the strain on working families, seniors, students, and people with disabilities. They argued local-option rent stabilization would let municipalities cap excessive increases and prevent no-fault evictions while preserving flexibility for local conditions. Opponents, including small landlords and property owners, said rent control would discourage investment, worsen housing quality, burden responsible owners, and drive small landlords out of the market. Some witnesses also supported a Cape Cod/Island transfer fee bill and a suburban infrastructure fund, arguing those would provide local revenue for housing or roads. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Sharon Fells.
• My name is Stephanie Davis.
• My name is Alberto Flores. I don't support. Thank you. Hi, my name is David Durand.
• My name is Kathleen Knave.
• My name is Kathleen Knave.

Summary: The Assembly Agriculture Committee met as a subcommittee at first because a quorum was not yet present, then adopted its committee rules for the 2025-2026 legislative session by a 5-0 vote. The committee heard a series of agriculture-related bills, with most measures receiving broad support and moving forward. AB 1142 by Assemblymember Hoover would raise the fee thresholds for small public horse events that are exempt from equine medication monitoring rules; supporters said the current limits are outdated and hurt small riding clubs, and the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 411 by Assemblymember Papin would allow ranchers to compost livestock carcasses on-farm; supporters cited cost, environmental, and predator-control benefits, while rendering industry representatives asked for amendments to protect existing services and limit the bill’s scope. The bill passed to Natural Resources. AB 482 by Assemblymember Solache would modernize the California Table Grape Commission law and raise assessment caps without increasing assessments themselves; it passed to Appropriations. AB 312 by Vice Chair Alanis would shorten the holding period for ag theft property from six months to three months; it also passed to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 937 and AB 947 by Assemblymember Connolly. AB 937 would make technical changes to the Organic Transition Pilot Program to improve access to organic transition support, with testimony from a farmer who said the program helped him pursue organic certification; the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 947 would expand and refine technical assistance under the Healthy Soils/Climate Smart Agriculture programs, including training, grant writing, matching funds coordination, equipment sharing, and outcome monitoring; supporters said the changes would help small and organic producers access state climate programs, and it also passed to Appropriations. AB 1486, presented by the chair, would use Proposition 4 funding to start grants for public postsecondary agricultural research farms focused on climate resiliency; members praised the role of CSU and UC research farms, and the bill passed to Natural Resources as amended. The most extensive discussion centered on AB 928 by Assemblymember Rogers, the California Cockfighting Cruelty Act. Supporters argued the bill would help law enforcement target cockfighting and rooster trafficking, reduce avian disease risks, and protect public health and animal welfare; opponents, including poultry hobbyists, breeders, and 4-H-related participants, said it would overreach into lawful poultry keeping and harm heritage-breed and youth programs, urging instead that cockfighting penalties be increased to a felony. Committee members echoed concerns about unintended impacts on legitimate poultry owners and requested continued work on exemptions and language. The bill passed to Judiciary on a 5-2-1 vote, with one no vote and one abstention, and the chair noted that further committee review would continue as the bill advances.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is John Vaz.
• My name is Annie.
• My name is Annie.
• My name is Jennifer Craen. I'm the My name is Jennifer Craen.
• My name is Monica Frasier. opportunity. My name is Monica Frasier.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: This joint informational briefing focused on Act 310 grants and aid, with committee members hearing one-minute testimony from organizations first in person and then by Zoom. At the outset, the chairs explained there would be no Q&A during the briefing and asked testifiers to focus on how federal cuts were affecting their work. The meeting was organized by registration number and included both neighbor island and Oʻahu applicants. Testimony centered on organizations seeking state support to offset federal funding losses or anticipated reductions. Health and social service providers described impacts from Medicaid, SNAP, ACA subsidy, Title X, and other federal changes, including Aloha Care, Community Clinic of Maui, Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies, West Hawaiʻi Community Health Center, Hawaiʻi Disability Rights Center, Hawaiʻi Youth Services Network, Alcoholic Rehabilitation Services of Hawaiʻi, and Kokua Kalihi Valley. Other groups highlighted losses affecting food security, housing, disaster preparedness, and climate resilience, including the Kohala Center, Feeding Hawaiʻi Together, Hawaiian Lending and Investments, Dynamic Community Solutions, and the Pacific Tsunami Museum. Several arts, youth, and education organizations also testified, including Hawaiʻi Literacy, Hawaiʻi Youth Symphony, Honolulu Theatre for the Youth, Sounding Joy Music Therapy, Big Brothers Big Sisters Hawaiʻi, Girl Scouts of Hawaiʻi, Kids Hurt Too Hawaiʻi, and US Vets, each requesting funding to preserve programs and staffing. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the briefing. The only action was procedural: the chairs moved through the applicant list, limited testimony time, and then transitioned from neighbor island in-person testimony to Oʻahu and later Zoom participants.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Phil King.
• My name is Kirsten Zundel.
• My name is Rachel Preston.
• My name is My name is Dwayne Idello.
• My name is Letitia Torres.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Screen name matches the name you used to register.
• I will have you state your name and your name... Your testimony to the committee.
• My name is Nina Perales.
• My name is Alex Arnal.
• My name is Nancy Ruff.

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting met virtually for its West Texas regional hearing, established a quorum, and explained that the hearing was part of a series of statewide information-gathering sessions before any map was filed. The chair outlined the Zoom procedures, the two-minute testimony limit, and the availability of written comments through the committee’s public portal. Senators also discussed the logistics and transparency of the process, including the expectation that any proposed map or amendment would be made public once filed and that additional hearings would follow. Senator Blanco, whose district includes West Texas and the border region, said the area’s communities of interest should be kept together and warned against repeating the loss of representation that followed the last redistricting cycle. Senators Alvarado, Hinojosa, Miles, and others debated the value of virtual hearings versus in-person hearings, the number of people who had testified, and whether the committee could subpoena witnesses after the regional hearings ended. The chair said he was awaiting legal guidance and would consider a subpoena motion at a formal meeting the next day. A lengthy exchange also occurred over the tone of public testimony and the chair’s view that some comments directed at Republicans and the president had been offensive or historically inaccurate. Invited witnesses and public commenters largely opposed mid-decade redistricting and argued that any new map should reflect population growth, especially among Latino and other minority communities, and comply with the Voting Rights Act. Nina Perales of MALDEF said the hearings were not meaningful without a draft map and testified that Texas has a long history of discriminatory redistricting; senators questioned her about litigation, DOJ’s July 7 letter, and the 2021 congressional map. Tania Chavez Camacho, Luis Figueroa, and several El Paso residents emphasized that maps should preserve communities of interest, avoid cracking and packing, and be transparent and participatory. A smaller number of witnesses supported redistricting, including one El Paso resident who said the current districting leaves the area underrepresented and another who argued that some communities want to return to a map closer to the earlier District 16 configuration. Several witnesses also criticized the DOJ letter as inconsistent with the state’s position that the 2021 maps were drawn race-blind, while others said the current process was too rushed and lacked sufficient public input.