Transcript Highlights:

• It's information that we request from cities, counties, etc. that comes in as proof.
• The Attorney General's representation to the state or state agency or official.
• Those deliberations that they're having amongst themselves from the agency... to agency are covered by
• Agencies give us stuff, and I know that that's probably what happened here.
• Or state agency or official during discovery, hearing, or trial.

Bills: SCR46 , SB31 , SB39 , SB227 , SB330 , SB401 , SB407 , SB467 , SB482 , SB500 , SB506 , SB512 , SB527 , SB584 , SB619 , SB636 , SB646 , SB647 , SB648 , SB659 , SB663 , SB715 , SB732 , SB758 , SB801 , SB816 , SB847 , SB870 , SB884 , SB1020 , SB1055 , SB1065 , SB1137 , SB1169 , SB1181 , SB1283 , SB1383 , SB1395 , SB1410 , SB1433 , SB1490 , SB1558 , SB1574 , SB1626 , SB1666 , SB1718 , SB1727 , SB1756 , SB1757 , SB1845 , SB1924 , SB1964 , SB1972 , SB2018 , SB2031 , SB2075 , SB2076 , SB2080 , SB2111 , SB2117 , SB2154 , SB2161 , SB2173 , SB2206 , SB2225 , SB2253 , SB2268 , SB2314 , SB2322 , SB2351 , SB2371 , SB2476 , SB2533 , SB2540 , SB2570 , SB2589 , SB2623 , SB2658 , SB2660 , SB2692 , SB2693 , SB2717 , SB2722 , SB2753 , SB2779 , SB2877 , SB2880 , SB2900 , SB2920 , SB3031 , HJR4 , SB5 , SB260 , SB1786 , SJR3 , SJR18 , SB1 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SJR84 , SJR59 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SCR46 , SCR48 , SCR19 , SB2023 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB1502 , SB507 , SB1026 , SB1433 , SB1434 , SB1376 , SB1585 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1163 , SB619 , SB1122 , SB732 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB261 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB529 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB1999 , SB511 , SB2309 , SB510 , SB1924 , SB2253 , SB2018 , SB2206 , SB584 , SB1085 , SB1490 , SB2314 , SB2046 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB1524 , SB1137 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB1558 , SB884 , SB227 , SB517 , SB1200 , SB1410 , SB1626 , SB1845 , SB1863 , SB2681 , SB2200 , SB2199 , SB1757 , SB2050 , SB2458 , SB2201 , SB1055 , SB2660 , SB2662 , SB1065 , SB801 , SB2533 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB648 , SB647 , SB512 , SB1721 , SB2268 , SB2366 , SB1013 , SB2692 , SB2570 , SB2797 , SB2111 , SB2371 , SB2383 , SB646 , SB1169 , SB1754 , SB1718 , SB2779 , SB2004 , SB1756 , SB2119 , SB527 , SB2322 , SB2448 , SB1777 , SB1283 , SB407 , SB2392 , SB2076 , SB2786 , SB3031 , SB2877 , SB2876 , SB2284 , SB2225 , SB1540 , SB2920 , SB2929 , SB1395 , SB1972 , SB2540 , SB2742 , SB2595 , SB2217 , SB2117 , SB715 , SB2330 , SB1964 , SB1383 , SB500 , SB1640 , SB2001 , SB2080 , SB2722 , SB506 , SB2514 , SB2623 , SB2658 , SB1574 , SB2900 , SB2753 , SB2398 , SB401 , SB1241 , SB2927 , SB2173 , SB2538 , SB898 , SB467 , SB1449 , SB2529 , SB1531 , SB2846 , SB2476 , SB2031 , SB986 , SB1181 , SB2075 , SB2154 , SB2864 , SB31 , SB2880 , SB1359 , SB2386 , SB771 , SB2844 , SB2550 , SB1351 , SB1423 , SB1931 , SB2245 , SB2589 , SB2707 , SB2807 , SB2351 , SB410 , SB659 , SB816 , SB2776 , SB2693 , SB2580 , SB1980 , SB1886 , SB1234 , SB739 , SB482 , SB456 , SB127 , SB1666 , SB2843 , SB2801 , SB800 , SB2055 , SB784 , SB2986 , SB735 , SB1012 , SB324 , SB2926 , SB2938 , SB2007 , SB2138 , SB1242 , HJR4 , HB135 , HB 1109 , SCR30 , SCR3 , 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 , HCR35 , HCR64

Transcript Highlights:

• the county county city or the county the county county city or the county the county county decided
• county in Mobile County and Mon County, County, County, but that bill failed.
• Mon County, Jefferson County, and Mobile County, Jefferson County, and Mobile County, Jefferson County
• County. County.
• . counties. counties.

Bills: HB 200 , HB 541 , HB 1803 , HB 30 , HB 175 , HB 249 , HB 721 , HB 851 , HB 897 , HB 1128 , HB 1904 , HB 1916 , HB 5560 , HB 3071 , HB 5627 , HB 5435 , HB 3913 , HB 2921 , HB 2695 , HB 2688 , HB 3045 , HB 3483 , HB 3673 , HB 4213 , HB 4226 , HB 783 , HB 4373 , HB 4735 , HB 5155 , HB 5057 , HB 4984 , HB 4944 , HB 4813 , HB 5339 , HB 5196 , HB 5033 , HB 4853 , HB 3486 , HB 4211 , HB 74 , HB 4670 , HB 4730 , HB 4743 , HB 4603 , HB 4463 , HB 3892 , HB 4139 , HB 4752 , HB 4520 , HB 4517 , HB 4486 , HB 4437 , HB 4426 , HB 4396 , HB 4263 , HB 3487 , HB 3418 , HB 2284 , HB 2266 , HB 2229 , HB 4912 , HB 2189 , HB 4506 , HB 5269 , HB 5224 , HB 5195 , HB 3317 , HB 4166 , HB 3947 , HB 3358 , HB 3370 , HB 4438 , HB 3745 , HB 3602 , HB 3697 , HB 2001 , HB 1968 , HB 3371 , HB 3909 , HCR 7 , SB 1744 , SB 1364 , SB 1316 , HB 2026 , HB 3302 , HB 3368 , HB 1639 , HB 5652 , HB 4655 , HB 5654 , HB 5658 , HB 5656 , HB 4894 , HB 4996 , HB 5088 , HB 5650 , HB 4464 , HB 3751 , HB 5665 , HB 5661 , HB 1237 , HB 2802 , HB 5437 , HB 2703 , HB 5666 , HB 5667 , HCR 113 , HCR 86 , SB 2196 , SB 463 , SB 856 , SB 1245 , SB 1169 , SB 509 , SB 985 , SB 305 , SB 552 , HB 1535 , HB 123 , HB 1804 , HB 426 , HB 1773 , HB 1871 , HB 2035 , HB 2492 , HB 1411 , HB 4753 , HB 4666 , HB 4529 , HB 1499 , HB 1610 , HB 2028 , HB 1506 , HB 886 , HB 3546 , HB 796 , HB 223 , HB 3556 , HB 2448 , HB 4638 , HB 111 , HB 180 , HB 1027 , HB 1178 , HB 610 , HB 1277 , HB 1615 , HB 1620 , HB 5342 , HB 4885 , HB 4751 , HB 4530 , HB 4488 , HB 2149 , HB 2071 , HB 2282 , HB 2248 , HB 2243 , HB 2522 , HB 2310 , HB 2513 , HB 2300 , HB 1902 , HB 1813 , HB 3719 , HB 4284 , HB 3743 , HB 3778 , HB 5153 , HB 5147 , HB 4877 , HB 4850 , HB 3261 , HB 3005 , HB 3033 , HB 2849 , HB 2967 , HB 3531 , HB 1768 , HB 333 , HB 2914 , HB 2613 , HB 3717 , HB 3704 , HB 2697 , HB 3801 , HB 3099 , HB 3488 , HB 3477 , HB 3466 , HB 3396 , HB 3469 , HB 2594 , HB 2776 , HB 2564 , HB 2298 , HB 5331 , HB 5646 , HB 5247 , HB 5323 , HB 4384 , HB 3896 , HB 4014 , HB 3627 , HB 3594 , HB 2524 , HB 510 , HB 561 , HB 5111 , HB 5446 , HB 1181 , HB 3963 , HB 2785 , HB 1661 , HB 2460 , HB 200 , HB 541 , HB 1803 , HB 30 , HB 175 , HB 249 , HB 721 , HB 851 , HB 897 , HB 1128 , HB 1904 , HB 1916 , HB 5560 , HB 3071 , HB 5627 , HB 5435 , HB 3913 , HB 2921 , HB 2695 , HB 2688 , HB 3045 , HB 3483 , HB 3673 , HB 4213 , HB 4226 , HB 783 , HB 4373 , HB 4735 , HB 5155 , HB 5057 , HB 4984 , HB 4944 , HB 4813 , HB 5339 , HB 5196 , HB 5033 , HB 4853 , HB 3486 , HB 4211 , HB 74 , HB 4670 , HB 4730 , HB 4743 , HB 4603 , HB 4463 , HB 3892 , HB 4139 , HB 4752 , HB 4520 , HB 4517 , HB 4486 , HB 4437 , HB 4426 , HB 4396 , HB 4263 , HB 3487 , HB 3418 , HB 2284 , HB 2266 , HB 2229 , HB 4912 , HB 2189 , HB 4506 , HB 5269 , HB 5224 , HB 5195 , HB 3317 , HB 4166 , HB 3947 , HB 3358 , HB 3370 , HB 4438 , HB 3745 , HB 3602 , HB 3697 , HB 2001 , HB 1968 , HB 3371 , HB 3909 , HCR 98 , HCR 92 , HCR 126 , HCR 7

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll recuse myself for Prince Edward County.
• The agency is required to publish its own policies and procedure documents approved in writing by agency
• You are the governing board of the agency.
• The agency is a bona fide state agency, offices, staff, operations, procurement, all of that.
• The agency, of course, has, you know, procurement act. agency, of course, has, you know, Procurement

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of the work coming out of places like Harris County, Williamson County, Collin County exemplifies
• I'm the Chief JPO for Wichita County, Texas.
• My whole career has been in Wichita County.
• I would also say this: I can't speak for all counties. I'm here for Randall County.
• Linda Garcia: significantly in El Paso County.

Bills: HB31 , HB3360

Committee: House S/C on Juvenile Justice

Keywords: juvenile justice, community supervision, felony offenses, treatment of children, juvenile facilities, chemical dispensing device, solitary confinement, rehabilitation, criminal proceedings, delinquency

Transcript Highlights:

• This ensures that all agencies are complying.
• But can you tell us simply: are all law enforcement agencies, state, local, and county, required to fully
• This ensures that all agencies are complying.
• are all law enforcement agencies, state, local county, required to fully comply with 287 programs?
• I called every single major sheriff of a major county, except Orange County, because I couldn't reach

Summary: The House convened with prayer, pledge, quorum call, approval of the journal, and adoption of the Rules and Ethics Committee’s special order report for the day. The chamber then took up House Bill 1B, the immigration bill, and members were told they would have one opportunity to question the sponsor on both the House version and the anticipated Senate changes. Representative McClure described the bill as a major immigration-enforcement package creating a chief immigration officer housed in the Department of Agriculture, an Office of State Immigration Enforcement, a local law enforcement grant program, a state immigration council, and new penalties and enforcement tools. He also outlined anticipated Senate language, including stronger 287(g) participation requirements, enhanced penalties for unauthorized aliens, a mandatory death penalty provision for certain capital offenses, and additional coordination with federal agencies. The bill drew extensive questioning from Democrats about due process, constitutional issues, school and workplace impacts, and the treatment of people whose immigration status changes over time. Members asked about birthright citizenship, TPS, asylum seekers, pretrial detention standards, the lawful basis for detaining someone based on suspected status, and whether teachers, social workers, school resource officers, and even children could be required to cooperate with immigration enforcement. McClure and Representative Garrison repeatedly said the bill would require cooperation with federal authorities, that status determinations would be handled under existing court procedures, and that the Senate death-penalty language was intended to fit within Hurst by requiring a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was an unauthorized alien. They also said the bill did not provide DMV funding, did not address teacher shortages, and included appropriations such as $25 million for the local law enforcement participation incentive program and broader funding for enforcement and training. Several amendments were considered. Representative Chambliss offered an amendment to protect schools, churches, and places of worship from enforcement activity; supporters argued it would preserve trust in sacred and educational spaces, but the amendment failed. Representative Escamani offered an amendment to preserve in-state tuition for Dreamers; supporters emphasized the educational and economic contributions of Dreamers and the hardship of higher tuition, but that amendment also failed. The debate ended with no bill vote in the excerpt, but the House completed the amendment votes and continued consideration of the immigration measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and Pacific counties, showing the statewide and regional benefit of this.
• , and Pacific counties showing the statewide and regional benefit of this.
• I don't care about the agency. The agency is not who I represent.
• So basically like a federal agency almost.
• Counties are no longer funded for their Working Connections child care.

Bills: HB2289

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: appropriations, budget, fiscal matters, state spending, general fund, supplemental budget, biennial budget, substitute bill, public defense, civil legal aid, courts, judicial branch, homelessness, supportive housing, affordable housing, behavioral health, juvenile rehabilitation, youth services, child welfare, foster care

Transcript Highlights:

• Excuse me, Alpine, Calusa, Imperial, the other counties. Why aren't all counties included? It's...
• Counties are taking on increased costs related to County finances are taking on increased costs related
• and the counties' assumptions?
• San Diego County is the second most populous of California's 58 counties and the fifth largest county
• workers and county human service agencies, California's county-run safety net has delivered for our

Summary: The committee held its second hearing on CalFresh enrollment and nutrition, focused on the effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, administration, and food access in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Social Services outlined major federal changes: expanded work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, narrowed eligibility for certain lawfully present non-citizens, and new state and county cost-sharing for both administrative and benefit costs. Officials said about 665,000 Californians could lose benefits under the work requirement, roughly 72,000 non-citizens could lose eligibility, and California could face hundreds of millions to billions in new costs depending on error rates and implementation details. DSS described its mitigation efforts, including county guidance, trainings, automation, outreach materials, and coordination with workforce programs, while county representatives argued the workload is larger than current funding assumptions and that staffing and training needs are urgent. Members also heard from a CalFresh recipient, Lauren Keltz, who described how benefits helped her family during her daughter’s medical crisis and how a clerical error led to the loss of food, health, and cash assistance, contributing to homelessness and food insecurity. Her testimony was used to underscore the consequences of administrative errors and benefit disruptions. Grocery and agriculture representatives said CalFresh is not only an anti-hunger program but also a major economic driver, with benefits spent locally at grocery stores, farmers markets, and farm stands. They warned that cuts would reduce demand for fresh food, hurt independent grocers and small farmers, and increase reliance on food banks, while urging continued support for market match and farm-to-food-bank programs. In the second panel, advocates and local administrators emphasized the human and operational impacts of the federal changes. The California Immigrant Policy Center called for expanding the state-funded California Food Assistance Program to cover more immigrants excluded by H.R. 1. A San Francisco eligibility worker and a San Diego county administrator said the new rules will add substantial casework, require more client outreach and exemption screening, and strain already limited staffing. Justice in Aging stressed that CalFresh is a key anti-hunger tool for older adults and people with disabilities, especially as housing and health costs rise, and supported outreach funding for seniors. Throughout the hearing, members discussed the need for state funding, better automation, and stronger county and community partnerships to reduce disenrollment and protect access to food.

Transcript Highlights:

• In Yakima County in particular, it's the second-largest county geographically in the state, 4,300 square
• But I think the agencies can talk about their plans.
• I won't list every agency here, but a big shout-out...
• However, for those 26 counties, trying to do their county-level estimates, they are not reliable estimates
• such as King County.

Bills: SJM8016 , SB6230 , SB5234 , SB6081 , SB6265 , SB6170 , SB6131 , SB6155 , SB6176 , SB6238 , SB6253 , SB6311 , SB6032 , SB6262

Committee: Senate Transportation

Keywords: bridge repair, infrastructure, emergency funding, transportation, public safety, cash transactions, pennies, currency, economic efficiency, financial regulation, snowmobile, snowmobile registration, vehicle registration fees, registration fee, Department of Licensing, DOL, recreational vehicles, winter recreation, vintage snowmobile, parks and recreation

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, members... to an agency um you can't spend more to an agency um you can't spend more than<00
• The same is true for city, county, and urban county ABC investigators.
• The same is true for city, county, and urban county ABC investigators.
• County counterparts in their County County counterparts in doing<00:26:55.919><c> so</c><00:26:56.120
• ABC</c> for City County and Urban County ABC for City County and Urban County ABC investigators<00:27

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 6, sponsored by Rep. Wade Williams, which would require administrative regulations with a major economic impact of $500,000 or more over two years to go through the legislature. Williams argued the bill would rein in regulatory overreach, improve transparency, and still allow emergency regulations. Several members raised concerns about executive-branch authority and the role of subject-matter experts, while others supported the bill as a way to improve communication and legislative oversight. The bill passed on a roll call vote and was sent to the House floor. The committee then considered House Bill 87, sponsored by Rep. Emily Callaway, with a committee substitute adopted first. The bill is aimed at reducing barriers for people with felony records who are seeking occupational licenses, while preserving existing public hiring practices for cities and counties. Callaway said the changes were mostly technical and intended to make the process more transparent, with no fiscal impact. The committee approved the bill, and it passed with the committee substitute. House Bill 255, sponsored by Rep. Amy Neighbors, also passed with a committee substitute. The measure updates and modernizes the Kentucky Board of Physical Therapy statutes, which sponsors said have not been substantially revised since 1958. Supporters said the bill clarifies outdated language, defines terms more clearly, and better reflects current practice, including physical therapist assistants. The chairman noted the long effort to update the practice act and praised the work of the stakeholders involved. Finally, House Bill 437, sponsored by Rep. Tony Hampton, was presented as a cleanup bill for alcohol beverage control law. It would limit state and local ABC administrators and investigators from making arrests unless they are POP certified, while leaving their other authority intact. Hampton and supporting witnesses said the change would align the statute with other law enforcement certification requirements and help keep civilian administrators from being put in harm’s way. The transcript ends during discussion of this bill, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• 58 counties.
• John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of our 40 member counties.
• My home, Imperial County, is one of those regions.
• California's own energy agencies confirmed in their 2021 joint agency report that nuclear meets SB 100
• They represent multiple counties. LA County has one county.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Transcript Highlights:

• District 42, Lee, Eddy, and Chavez Counties.
• I represent the beautiful people of District 62 in Lake County.
• Which is the southern half of Santa Fe County and the Placitas area of Sand Hill County. Thank you.
• County, and Socorro County, they are all really struggling to be funded, and I hope that we put some
• I know of a county.

Committee: House Water & Natural Resources Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Small agencies will struggle to comply.
• This bill simply requires federal, state agencies, and universities not to share data with federal agencies
• or the state agency doesn't have to treat it as a human being.
• Kent on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in support.
• Paul Yoder, on behalf of the county supervisors from the counties of Napa, Shasta, and Fresno, in support

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> So, we put in place that school districts work with the agency or work with the county, and then there's
• work with the agency or work with<00:04:16.720><c> the</c><00:04:16.880><c> the</c><00:04:17.359><c>
• county</c><00:04:18.079><c> and</c><00:04:18.320><c> then</c><00:04:18.560><c> there's</c> with the
• the county and then there's with the the county and then there's reporting<00:04:19.199><c> that</c><
• </c> &gt;&gt; Yeah. and we reported it to our county &gt;&gt; Yeah. and we reported it to our county

Transcript Highlights:

• Rob Kupec, Senate District 4, which is most of Clay County and a good chunk of Becker County, more head
• Rob Kupec, Senate District 4, which is most of Clay County and a good chunk of Becker County, more head
• Rob Kupec, Senate District 4, which is most of Clay County and a good chunk of Becker County, more head
• Rob Kupec, Senate District 4, which is most of Clay County and a good chunk of Becker County, more head
• Rob Kupec, Senate District 4, which is most of Clay County and a good chunk of Becker County, more head

Committee: Senate Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• all these kind of public agencies all these kind of public agencies all these kind of resources so we
• will have to that Center to get counties will have to that Center to get counties will have to that
• in the county to bring BR back agencies in the county to bring BR back agencies in the county to bring
• be using this law enforcement agencies be using this law enforcement agencies all of our agencies that
• uh that are all of our agencies that uh that are all of our agencies that uh that are government agencies

Bills: SB 2

Transcript Highlights:

• I am the CEO of Just Advocates and formerly the CEO of Seneca Family of Agencies, which is one of the
• largest children-serving agencies in the state.
• Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, as well as Fresno County, both in support
• by January 31, 2027. ...EMS agency by January 31, 2027.
• Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, and began by taking up a large consent calendar, moving a first group of bills to the floor consent calendar and a second group by due pass. The committee then heard and advanced a series of measures covering housing, public safety, health care, education, and local government issues. Among the bills discussed were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions, AB 2525 on a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park, AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the Affordable Homes Bonus Law, AB 2055 on boating safety and enforcement, AB 1579 on children’s crisis residential services, AB 2139 on a Surplus Lands Act amendment for an Inland Empire soccer project, AB 2041 on EMS reporting, AB 1973 on reproductive health scope for advanced practice clinicians, AB 1929 on health plan investment disclosures, AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation, AB 1809 on school job order contracting, SB 73 on election security, AB 2418 on commercial building permit timelines, AB 1970 on step therapy limits for serious mental illness and substance use treatment, AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability, AB 1976 on bike and pedestrian project approvals, AB 2110 on tax increment financing for workforce housing, and AB 2146 on supportive housing documentation and vacancy rules. Testimony was generally supportive for the measures heard. Authors and sponsors emphasized consumer fairness, housing production, public safety, access to care, and administrative streamlining. Supporters included local governments, housing advocates, school districts, law enforcement groups, health care organizations, and affected individuals. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public testimony from wildfire survivors and local officials who urged stronger compensation for victims of PG&E-caused fires and relief from high utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were raised during public comment on bills not heard in committee, with several industry groups opposing AB 2034 and both supporters and opponents speaking on AB 1790’s Waters Edge issue. Most bills were reported out of committee on due pass motions, with several noted as amended or with members not voting on particular roll calls. The committee also read and approved a lengthy suspense calendar, then opened public comment on bills not presented that day before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, it's Galveston County Day.
• You were the last county treasurer of Galveston County, so it's also not every day that we have a...
• Aimed for the railroad's vice president, Pearsall became the county seat of Frio County in 1880. and
• We have County Commissioner. Jorge Aguilar, Commissioner Aguilar, we have our county clerk, JCP.
• County to jurisprudence.

Bills: SJR34 , SB10 , SB18 , SB19 , SB21 , SB72 , SB140 , SB262 , SB370 , SB480 , SB495 , SB627 , SB703 , SB767 , SB790

Transcript Highlights:

• only if their agency posts the BEHESA payment reports publicly on their website.
• With me today is Erin Nevarez, assistant registrar recorder and county clerk with the Los Angeles County
• As stated, I'm Aaron Nevarez, assistant registrar, recorder, county clerk.
• On behalf of Los Angeles county we urge your support in ab287.
• certified should a county be unable or unwilling to perform their duty.

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c> it puts stress on our counties, it puts stress on our counties, and<00:24:03.360><c> it</c><00:
• </c> this agency functions. this agency functions.
• can't</c><00:41:10.040><c> get</c> to an agency, and the agency can't get to an agency, and the agency
• </c> this agency is run. this agency is run.
• </c> from the state budget onto the counties. from the state budget onto the counties.

Transcript Highlights:

• Two additional agencies to note.
• Who's the first agency up? No. Who's the first agency up? Thank you.
• Yet we at the authority and we at the agency, in partnership with our sister state agencies, have to
• And the impact will be in every county.
• The current county where we have work requirements is King County.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session to review how H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) could affect Washington’s Medicaid, long-term care, developmental disabilities, and food assistance programs, with a focus on implementation challenges, fiscal impacts, and likely coverage losses. Staff and agency officials explained Washington’s Medicaid financing structure, eligibility categories, caseload trends, and the role of the Health Care Authority and DSHS in administering Apple Health and related services. They also described how Medicaid expansion increased access to behavioral health services and how H.R. 1’s provisions are expected to affect the expansion population most directly. Health Care Authority and DSHS officials outlined several major H.R. 1 changes: new work and community engagement requirements for the Medicaid expansion population, six-month redeterminations instead of annual renewals, changes to immigrant eligibility, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, new cost-sharing requirements, reduced retroactive coverage, and changes affecting long-term care eligibility. They said Washington is still awaiting federal guidance on many details, but estimated that about 620,000 Apple Health expansion enrollees could be subject to work requirements, that roughly 30,000 immigrants could lose Medicaid eligibility under the new definition of qualified alien, and that some long-term care and developmental disability clients could be indirectly affected. Officials also said the state is working with other agencies to build shared verification systems and may seek a delay waiver, though they do not expect broad federal flexibility. The committee also heard that H.R. 1 immediately blocks Medicaid reimbursement for Planned Parenthood services for one year, with the state planning to backfill about $11 million to preserve access. In addition, officials warned that the law could reduce federal Medicaid revenue by billions over time and strain hospitals and emergency rooms as more people become uninsured. They noted that Washington’s rural health transformation grant application is due November 5 and could bring some funding, but not to offset coverage losses. No votes were taken; the session was informational only. The committee then heard a separate presentation on food assistance, where staff and DSHS described H.R. 1’s SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, higher state administrative costs, and a possible future state share of benefit costs tied to payment error rates. DSHS estimated a four-year fiscal impact of about $750 million for food assistance changes and said the state is working on system and policy changes across agencies before the new requirements take effect.