Transcript Highlights:

• Imagine a ballot initiative providing for increased penalties for left-handed people in case of motor
• Rank-and-file legislators are insufficiently resourced.
• But so it's too late for that now in this audit? Yes. Yes. Yes. I mean, to sort of back out...
• I know we're running late this afternoon, but I do appreciate your perspective.
• Ray for your testimony I appreciate you hanging in there I know we're running late this afternoon but

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• filed did not get care through Care Court.
• One of the things that I'll add: the Care Court base their assessment on whether or not to file this
• An additional concern is that this bill references the death master file.
• The death master file, Social Security's death master file, is not perfect.
• And I had found in his file cabinet a stack of passbooks this big.

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> much rather that time in um late August. much rather that time in um late August.
• It’s going to be hotter in late June.
• So I in late August early September.
• </c> It's going to be hotter in late June. It's going to be hotter in late June.
• </c><00:20:30.480><c> I</c> late Labor Day falls this year. I late Labor Day falls this year.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• uh</c> rate both pre-filing and post filing uh rate both pre-filing and post filing uh of<00:54:36.319
• </c><04:20:19.040><c> the</c> the office uh the time of filing the the office uh the time of filing the
• When you file and you're wrapped into that TurboCourt and Odyssey system for filing, it's pretty darn
• When you file, and you're wrapped into that TurboCourt and Odyssey system for filing, it's pretty darn
• That's very helpful. filings in the Superior Court System filings in the Superior Court System since<

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met for its first meeting of the new session with opening remarks, member introductions, and a discussion of committee logistics. Members described their backgrounds and priorities, including criminal justice, right-to-know and privacy issues, domestic violence, death-with-dignity legislation, abortion, firearms, landlord-tenant policy, housing, and technology/privacy concerns. The chair noted there were already 34 bills assigned to the committee and expected more, and said the committee would likely continue to have a heavy workload this session. The chair also outlined how the committee would operate: meetings would generally be on Wednesdays, with possible Mondays as needed; hearings would not require a quorum, but executive sessions would; and members were asked to provide updated phone numbers and email addresses, especially cell numbers. He explained that the committee would continue its practice of seating members in a mixed partisan arrangement to encourage communication, and that the new clerk had joined the committee. A significant portion of the meeting focused on procedures for executive sessions and meeting times. The chair said the committee would follow the traditional rule allowing executive sessions on bills heard that day if proper notice was given, but he would avoid taking up controversial matters without full attendance. Members then discussed whether meetings should start at 9, 9:30, or 10 a.m., with concerns raised about long commutes, evening obligations, and winter driving after dark. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the chair indicated he would try to accommodate the committee’s preference while balancing the workload.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> fixed until as late as September 1st. fixed until as late as September 1st.
• This is a penalty bill, not a graduated license bill. See no further questions.
• This is a penalty bill, not a this.
• </c> important penalties under RSA 265A. important penalties under RSA 265A.
• retroactively through this the penalty retroactively through this bill?

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> statute the penalty statute the penalty for<01:47:47.080><c> not</c><01:47:47.400><c> paying</c>
• It changes this one-time $1,000 penalty to, after a grace period of 90 days, a daily penalty of ...
• The penalty is a daily penalty of $1,000 until the restitution is paid, and the total penalty can't exceed
• </c> followup and the because of the penalty followup and the because of the penalty and<01:51:33.119
• Have you been to Gly Park lately? Been to Gly Park lately?

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• They also shared that the sponsors of this late missing valuable instructional time.
• filing complaints.
• filing complaints.
• filing complaints.
• filing complaints.

Committees: House Education , House House Education Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• We also review forms and rate filings to ensure the product offerings are fair and reasonable, and the
• In homeowners and auto, they operate by a system called file and use.
• We also review forms and rate filings to ensure the product offerings are fair and reasonable, and the
• In homeowners and auto, they operate by a system called file and use.
• and I would just know we'll penalties and I would just know we'll talk<00:15:09.759><c> about</c><00

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• I know this amendment came out late yesterday. Um, I have had a chance to look at it.
• </c><00:37:36.079><c> And</c><00:37:36.400><c> importantly</c> penalties if necessary.
• And importantly penalties if necessary.
• We're running late, but we are under a deadline today to get the fiscal note bills out.
• Uh, although it was a late bill. Uh, it did have 14 senators on it, um, seven from my caucus.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• of eligible public elective office penalties, is referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
• of eligible public elective office penalties, is referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
• of eligible public elective office penalties, is referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
• of eligible public elective office penalties, is referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
• Penalty for a crime of election fraud increasing a criminal penalty is referred to the Committee on Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• Why are we so late in getting that going if we could have started this last year?
• Well, so it is a state penalty that is required under law.
• They tend to do the penalty revenues.
• could see more penalty revenue as a result of more uninsured people.
• Did we see any penalties accrued from that, or any assessed penalties?

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• House File 327 strengthens the penalties for introducing contraband, sending a clear message these actions
• </c><00:04:46.080><c> 327</c> within the jail house file 327 within the jail house file 327 strengthens
• <00:04:47.639><c> the</c><00:04:47.759><c> penalties</c><00:04:48.199><c> for</c> strengthens the penalties
• </c><00:05:03.080><c> for</c> deterrence increasing penalties for deterrence increasing penalties for
• </c><00:14:43.000><c> though</c> actually have a higher penalty though actually have a higher penalty

Summary: The committee took up House File 327, which would increase penalties for introducing contraband into correctional facilities, especially drugs and other dangerous items sent through the mail or brought in by outside actors. Representative Ingan described the bill as a response to a sharp rise in violations and staff exposures in DOC facilities, arguing that stronger felony penalties are needed to deter people from sending in illicit substances. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the committee omnibus because it has a fiscal note. The committee adopted the DE1 author’s amendment after Representative Ingan explained it was intended to clarify language that could otherwise create a catch-22 for people arrested or booked into jail who already have contraband on them. Members then raised concerns about the breadth of the bill, including overlap with an existing DOC statute and the possibility that the language could sweep in incarcerated people in situations involving prescription medication or minor exchanges. House nonpartisan staff and members suggested the DOC provisions should be reconciled with existing law before moving forward, and some suggested narrowing the bill to focus more specifically on jails. Sheriff Brad Wise of the Minnesota Sheriffs Association testified in support, saying contraband in jails threatens staff, inmates, visitors, and administrators and that current penalties are not enough to deter smuggling. Commissioner Paul Schell of Corrections also testified, noting that DOC already has a separate statute with a higher felony penalty for certain contraband, described the department’s mail-scanning contractor process, and said it has reduced suspected drug incidents by about two-thirds. An A2 amendment tied to medication intake practices was offered by Representative Curran but then withdrawn after discussion, with members agreeing the issue of medication access in facilities should be handled separately.

Transcript Highlights:

• sent some information The committee, you are probably all well aware, and I sent some information late
• would also just note we did not start moving on this $14 million prior to, let's say, the events of late
• I'm flipping through my notes because I'm happy to report some late-breaking numbers on our payment error
• Again, very similar to Medicaid and error rates, we could face penalties if that error rate goes over
• Again, very similar to Medicaid and error rates, we could face penalties if that error rate goes over

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• Did you file this just today?
• </c> legal action, have instituted penalties. legal action, have instituted penalties.
• </c> those kind of penalties. those kind of penalties.
• </c><00:04:02.080><c> does</c> the power to institute penalties does the power to institute penalties
• That's the point of a penalty. salary. That's the point of a penalty.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify in connection with Senate File 9?
• Chair, and that Senate File 11 be recommended to pass and re-refer to the Committee on Taxes.
• </c><00:09:58.240><c> 11</c> um Mr chairman um Senate file 11 um Mr chairman um Senate file 11 um<00:
• Is there any discussion on Senate File 11 as amended?
• </c> proposal to increase criminal penalty proposal to increase criminal penalty for<00:46:18.640><c>

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> which establishes uh penalties which establishes uh penalties penalties<00:19:35.480><c> and</c>
• </c><00:19:36.480><c> Uh</c> penalties and fines and liens. Uh penalties and fines and liens.
• We'd like to add in reasonable LUC authority to impose penalties for non-compliance.
• <00:21:35.160><c> for</c> penalties for penalties for uh<00:21:36.480><c> non-compliance.
• </c> late to local or state standards. late to local or state standards.

Bills: HB1700

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The joint committees heard several housing, land use, and infrastructure bills. HB 6019 HD2 on electric vehicle infrastructure and HB 1728 HD1 on rainwater catchment systems both drew limited testimony and were advanced. For HB 1728, the chairs said they would designate the Department of Health as the regulator and incorporate suggested technical amendments from plumbing and rainwater industry groups. Both measures were reported out with recommendations to pass, with HB 6019 passed unamended and HB 1728 passed with amendments. HB 1844, which would have required the Land Use Commission to reclassify lands designated for urban growth, drew significant opposition from the Hawaii Farm Bureau and Sierra Club, who argued it would bypass land-use review and threaten agricultural land, water planning, and long-term resilience. Grassroot Institute supported the bill, and the Land Use Commission said the bill raised concerns. After discussion, the chairs deferred the measure in one committee and later the recommendation to pass it with amendments was not adopted in the other committee. HB 1990 on penalties and liens for unresolved residential zoning violations was advanced with amendments. The chairs adopted Grassroot Institute’s suggested changes requiring any county sale of such property to be at no less than fair market value and requiring excess proceeds to be returned to the owner. HB 2424, which would allow county planning agencies to petition for temporary reclassification of certain agricultural lands to rural, also drew mixed testimony; the Land Use Commission raised due process concerns, and agriculture interests opposed it. One committee advanced it with amendments, but in the other committee the recommendation failed after members cited lack of county support. The later portion of the hearing began on HB 1738 and HB 1739. HB 1738 would expand county authority to amend district boundaries for housing on parcels over 15 acres; OHA, Sierra Club, and the Hawaii Farm Bureau opposed it, while Grassroot Institute supported it. HB 1739 would require transit-supportive densities in county TOD areas and limit local restrictions; DPP raised concerns about timing, permitting, and conflicts with existing TOD frameworks, while OPSD and Grassroot supported it. The transcript cuts off before final action on these later bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• So Representative Anderson moves House File 5040.
• So if 100% tax and one is a penalty.
• She said there is often a significant lag time between filing periods and when a penalty is incurred,
• In in the penalty situation, Right. In in the penalty situation, right?
• </c> fraudulent, that's when that penalty fraudulent, that's when that penalty would<00:12:50.480><c>

Summary: The committee heard House File 5040, the “Take It Back Act,” presented by Representative Anderson. The bill, as amended by the DE1 amendment, would impose a 100% tax on amounts a person is convicted of stealing through fraud against Minnesota public programs, with the stated goal of recovering taxpayer dollars. Anderson said the measure is bipartisan, has many co-authors, and was developed with the Department of Revenue to ensure it could be administered without undue burden. Joanna Bears of the Department of Revenue testified in support of the bill’s administration and thanked the authors for working with the department. She explained that the bill has two parts: a conviction-based tax that would be assessed after a fraud conviction, and a penalty piece tied to fraud identified through the department’s existing review and tip processes. In response to member questions, Bears said the department already receives tips and information from other agencies, reviews them carefully, and would use the bill as another tool to address public fund fraud. Members also asked about timing, restitution, and whether the bill could be misused by bad-faith tips; Anderson and Bears said the conviction-based portion is not tip-driven and that the bill is intended to be administered legally and efficiently. Representative Smith asked about the relationship to the Fraud Restitution Fund and whether the bill would apply to private-sector tax fraud. Bears said restitution would likely be collected first depending on statutory priority, and clarified that the new 100% penalty would apply only to public fund fraud, not general tax fraud, and only to the fraudulent public-fund amount. Representative Witty and others expressed support for the bill as a tool to combat fraud. At the end of the hearing, Representative Anderson renewed her motion to lay over House File 5040, as amended, for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill, and the chair indicated that was the plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• It creates penalties and inspection powers and we hope that these and these penalties will then go back
• </c><00:03:59.120><c> It</c><00:03:59.240><c> creates</c><00:03:59.560><c> penalties</c><00:04:00.120
• It creates penalties and that directory.
• It creates penalties and inspection<00:04:00.760><c> powers</c><00:04:01.360><c> and</c><00:04:01.520
• So, as the bill is outlined right now, there's civil money penalties and there's also seizure authority

Bills: HB1573 , HB1645 , HB1875 , HB1898 , HB2121

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1573, which would create state enforcement authority over unauthorized e-cigarette products and related tobacco enforcement. Supporters including SHPDA, the Department of Health, the Attorney General’s office, Hawaii Public Health Institute, and others said the bill would help protect youth from unauthorized vaping products, give the state tools to enforce an FDA-authorized product list, and add penalties and inspection authority. A committee member asked whether enforcement staff were available and what penalties would apply; the response was that existing tobacco investigators would take on the work, and the bill includes civil penalties, seizure authority, and possible license revocation referrals. The measure drew both support and opposition testimony, but no vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 1645, relating to liability for child welfare service providers. The Insurance Division said it was aware of the insurance-cost problem, had raised the issue with the NAIC, and was exploring a captive insurance option, while suggesting the legislature consider additional appropriations to DHS to cover higher contract costs. Supporters, including Parents and Children Together and Hawaii Insurance Council, argued the bill would help child welfare providers obtain insurance and continue critical services. Opponents, including the Hawaii Association for Justice, warned that removing joint and several liability could leave victims undercompensated and might not actually lower premiums. The insurance commissioner said other states have done tort reform in this area, but the committee was told it is not clear the bill would reduce insurance costs. Finally, the committee heard extensive testimony on HB 1875, which would protect access to gender-affirming care in Hawaii and shield patients and providers from out-of-state legal actions. Support came from the Hawaii State Youth Commission, LGBTQ+ and public health groups, medical professionals, ACLU Hawaii, Planned Parenthood, and others, who said gender-affirming care is evidence-based, medically necessary, and important for patient privacy, provider stability, and continuity of care. Several witnesses asked for amendments to the bill’s definition language. Opposition testimony came from individuals and groups including Hawaii Christian Coalition, Leeward Republican Women’s Club, and others, who argued the bill could expose children to irreversible decisions and that more research is needed. The chair noted roughly 176 supporters and about 40 opponents testified. No final action or vote was reported in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• a $500 minimum penalty.
• The maximum penalty for a second or subsequent infraction is $5,000.
• And the department has, in rule, an escalating penalty schedule to impose penalties within those...
• In rule, an escalating penalty schedule to impose penalties within those statutory ranges.
• Waiting for corrective actions until after a suspension of a certificate or license seems too late.

Summary: The Labor and Workplace Standards Committee held public hearings on three bills. HB 2524 would create a State Security Guards Industry Standards Board within L&I to set minimum standards for security guard pay, leave, benefits, and training, funded in part by a $25 transfer from security licensing fees. The bill’s sponsor and labor supporters said it would professionalize the industry, improve safety, and address high turnover and inadequate training. Security workers described unsafe conditions, retaliation, and being expected to handle crises without enough support. Opponents from business and security companies argued the bill duplicates existing licensing and training rules, would raise costs, and gives too much authority to an unelected board; L&I said it had administrative concerns about timing and fee handling. The hearing on HB 2524 was then closed. HB 2513 would change plumbing license suspension rules by keeping the current three-infractions-in-three-years standard for residential work, while creating a five-infractions-in-five-years standard for non-residential plumbing violations. The sponsor and supporters from mechanical contractors and labor said repeat violators undermine safety and fair competition, and that the bill gives L&I a stronger enforcement tool against bad actors in commercial work. Several plumbing contractor groups opposed the bill as written, focusing on a new subsection they said was vague and could create an undefined corrective process or overly broad discretion for L&I; they asked that the subsection be removed or the bill be delayed for more stakeholder work. L&I requested an effective date of January 1, 2027 to allow time for rulemaking. HB 2611 would reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours starting January 1, 2028, and would also change paid sick leave accrual from one hour per 40 hours worked to one hour per 32 hours worked. The sponsor and labor supporters said a shorter workweek would improve work-life balance, reduce burnout and turnover, and could increase productivity, citing examples from San Juan County and other places. Business, hospitality, grocery, construction, agriculture, and janitorial representatives opposed the bill, saying it would raise labor costs, reduce hours and flexibility, complicate scheduling, and hurt industries with thin margins or seasonal demands. The committee heard no votes or final action on HB 2611 before closing the hearing and ending business for the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• decides appeals from state and local government agencies on a wide variety of environmental permits and penalty
• decides appeals from state and local government agencies on a wide variety of environmental permits and penalty
• Shoreline Hearings Board hears and decides appeals of shoreline building and construction permits and penalty
• I believe it was about 11 months between a permit appeal being filed and that permit appeal process beginning
• I haven't been following NIST lately. I know they had a presentation a couple of years ago.

Bills: HB2426 , HB2606

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, data protection, privacy, performance measures, reporting requirements, office of privacy