Transcript Highlights:

• Lee Paong for the testimony and then followed by Mr.
• I'll let LSS explain more about those in their testimony.
• the record and commence your testimony the record and commence your testimony when<01:05:48.799>
• Thank you. testimony when you're ready. Uh, thank testimony when you're ready.
• Sprint, for your testimony and for your service.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll hear more about that in our testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony.
• thank you thanks for your testimony thank you thanks for your testimony anybody<00:13:40.199>
• Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the March 22, 2024 minutes and then took up House File 3761, the Safety Through Support Act, with a motion to lay the bill over. Representative Lee Finke said the bill is intended to improve re-entry outcomes and public safety by expanding prison visitation, including mentoring and access for mental health and medical professionals, and by creating a task force to support rehabilitation and re-entry. Testifiers in support included Holly Bot, who described how family visits helped her through incarceration and later into successful re-entry and business ownership, and Zeke Caliguri, who argued that consistent visitation and community connection are essential to humanity, rehabilitation, and reducing recidivism. Elliot Bhai of NAMI Minnesota also supported the bill, framing visitation as a form of needed mental health support in prisons. Members raised several concerns and suggestions. Representative Hudson questioned the bill’s strip-search limitation language, asking what would count as a credible, documented security concern, and also worried the task force could create discriminatory access or favor certain viewpoints. Representative Finke said she did not view a conviction as making someone permanently a security risk and said the task force was meant to ensure meaningful visitation for everyone, not to enable discrimination. Representative Hollins and Representative N. supported the bill’s overall goals while suggesting language could be tightened and noting that maintaining outside ties helps people return as productive members of society. Representative Witte asked about the Department of Corrections commissioner’s presence, and the chair said questions for him could wait for a later bill. Representative Mu asked about the fiscal note and the research behind the bill. Staff said a fiscal note had been requested but not yet signed off by the LBO, which was one reason the bill was being laid over. Finke said she could share the visitation study and noted that the bill responds to research linking visitation to lower recidivism; she also said remote visitation data shows value but can be costly. After closing remarks emphasizing that visitation is “medicine” and that most incarcerated people will return to the community, the chair renewed the motion and laid over House File 3761. The committee then moved on to House File 4959, with a motion to re-refer it to the Committee on State and Local Government Finance and Policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• You can use names in this place because this is Senate testimony.
• You can use names in this place because this is Senate testimony.
• And unfortunately, I'm not here to give expert testimony.
• I appreciate your testimony. Okay, we got two more people.
• I appreciate your testimony. Okay, we got two more people.

Summary: The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Elder Abuse opened by explaining it was gathering testimony on elder abuse, especially alleged misconduct involving court-appointed systems such as guardians ad litem and fiduciaries, to identify gaps in law and oversight and develop legislative fixes. The chair limited each witness’s time, asked for names and contact information for follow-up, and repeatedly noted that some allegations might warrant referral to law enforcement, the attorney general, or county attorneys if basic criminal elements were present. Several witnesses described alleged abuse in guardianship, conservatorship, and fiduciary cases. Dr. Holly Lauder said her mother, who had Alzheimer’s disease, was subjected to allegedly deficient psychological capacity evaluations that ignored treating doctors and family input, leading to a fiduciary arrangement that later resulted in neglect. Kevin Axson described his mother’s probate case, saying a guardian ad litem and conservator were appointed after a family financial dispute, that the guardian ad litem and fiduciary had little contact with his mother, and that the estate was burdened with substantial fees and a $200,000 bond requirement. Frieda Alvarado testified about a 94-year-old client, Samuel Armento, saying he was isolated, medicated without his request, and treated without dignity after a fiduciary and care team took control. Bill Chalmers, Johnny Hamilton, and Kathy Hamilton also testified about Sam Armento’s case, alleging isolation, excessive fees, conflicts of interest, and poor oversight by fiduciaries and caregivers. Other witnesses raised broader concerns about Arizona probate practices. David Redkey said he has been under a long-running conservatorship despite earning degrees and maintaining capacity, and alleged that court-appointed professionals and fiduciaries overcharged his estate and blocked efforts to terminate the arrangement. Susan Wolfe described the Peyton case, alleging that a wife’s conservatorship and related court actions led to the loss of assets, exclusion of witnesses, and large fees for a relatively small monthly care bill. Dr. Lewis Heller, an OB-GYN and disciplinary committee member, said the medical evaluations he reviewed showed the people involved were competent and that the conduct he observed was unethical and possibly criminal. Renee Self testified that she lost her role as trustee and spent large sums defending her father’s estate, alleging that the probate process stripped her father of assets and limited her access to him despite APS findings that her actions were in his best interests. No formal committee votes or legislative actions were taken in the excerpt, but members repeatedly expressed concern, asked for documents and transcripts, and indicated they would follow up with witnesses and consider stakeholder meetings to craft legislation addressing oversight, transparency, and accountability in guardianship and fiduciary systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have a two-minute time limit on testimony.
• Often members will ask questions, so if you can hang around after your testimony, that would be great
• >> Um, we submitted written testimony, but >> Um, we submitted written testimony, but I<00
• We submitted written testimony in support of this. >> Okay. Thank you.
• written testimony in support of this. written testimony in support of this.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first considered Governor’s Message 574, confirming Michael Tenoi to continue serving on the Commission to Promote Uniform Legislation through June 30, 2028. Several supporters testified, and Tenoi said he valued working with Hawaii and national commissioners and hoped to focus on emerging issues such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and data security. The committee recommended advise and consent and adopted the measure, with a photo taken afterward. The committee then heard HB 1519 on campaign contributions, which would require disclosure of compensated officers and immediate family members of certain state contractors and grantees. The Campaign Spending Commission and State Procurement Office supported the bill but asked for clarifying amendments; several advocacy groups supported the measure but urged stronger language, including removing branch-of-government limits and narrowing loopholes. The chair proposed amendments to remove monetary thresholds, limit the bill to paid officers, add appropriations for the Campaign Spending Commission and State Procurement Office, define “officer” more broadly, and note that false-name contributions are already felonies. The committee voted to pass HB 1519 with amendments. HB 2250, the claims against the state bill, drew testimony from the Attorney General and multiple departments in support, but members raised extensive questions about why many claims would be paid from the general fund, how corrective action is being pursued, and the handling of several specific claims, including wrongful imprisonment, a cesspool citation, Department of Corrections deaths, a large special education settlement, a charter school lease dispute, and an outdated check. Because of those outstanding questions, the committee postponed decision-making on HB 2250 until Tuesday, March 24, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 016. Later, the committee also considered Governor’s Message 725, confirming Daniel M. Gluck as an associate judge of the Intermediate Court of Appeals; the committee recommended consent and adopted the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have provided<00:09:59.519> expert<00:10:00.000> testimony<00:10:00.560> in<00
• testimony in two recent Minnesota<00:10:02.000> rate<00:10:02.320> cases,<00:10:02.959
• My testimony will be brief here." mind uh some equity concerns. Um so mind uh some equity concerns.
• to provide testimony and can answer<00:20:53.679> any<00:20:54.000> questions.
• You heard in his testimony making.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 76, as amended by the adopted A1 amendment, and the chair moved the bill to be re-referred to the general register. The bill would limit the amount investor-owned utilities can charge ratepayers for executive compensation, capping recoverable pay for the top 10 executives at the governor’s salary. Representative Greenman argued the measure would protect customers from paying for lavish executive pay and said it would not affect what executives are paid, only what can be recovered from ratepayers. She cited recent Public Utilities Commission action and ongoing rate cases as evidence the issue is real and recurring. Supportive testimony came from a Minneapolis resident describing financial hardship and rising utility bills, a local worker who said customers have no choice of utility provider and should not fund monopoly executive pay, and advocates from the Energy and Policy Institute and Utility Reform Now, who said ratepayers should not subsidize excessive compensation and that the bill is a targeted reform. Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy opposed the bill’s premise by defending the current regulatory process. Their representatives said the PUC already reviews executive compensation in rate cases, generally allows only limited recovery, and has used that process for decades. Xcel also emphasized its affordability programs and said executives help secure savings and investments for customers. Members discussed whether the legislature should set a bright-line rule or leave the issue to the PUC. Representative Greenman said the bill is needed because the PUC process can take years and the legislature should establish a clear standard for all investor-owned utilities. Some members supported the bill as a response to an affordability crisis and the lack of consumer choice, while others said the legislature should focus on broader energy-cost issues and existing regulatory tools. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill in the portion of the meeting provided, but the amendment was adopted and the bill was moved for re-referral to the general register.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, you stole my testimony. Mr. Chairman, you stole my testimony.
• I appreciate the testimony.
• I will keep my testimony compact.
• Now we'll move to informational testimony.
• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the question that was raised during testimony is if we change from to a managed care system,
• I think the question that was raised during testimony is if we change from to a managed care system,
• I think the question that was raised<00:12:21.519> during<00:12:21.839> testimony<00:12
• is if we change raised during testimony is if we change from<00:12:24.399> to<00:12:24.639>
• So I think that what we heard in testimony from the county, Hillsborough County in particular, and I

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Committee to Study Long-Term Managed Care approved the prior meeting minutes as amended after correcting the first paragraph. The chair then outlined the committee’s plan to produce a preliminary report by October 1, with additional meetings to follow, since some questions remain about the federal One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3) and its effects on Medicaid financing and managed care. The main discussion focused on New Hampshire nursing home funding and how ProShare and MQUIP work. Members reviewed Medicaid rates, supplemental payments, intergovernmental transfers, and the role of federal matching funds. The chair and Mr. Litman concluded that OB3’s phase-down of payments above the Medicare rate likely would not directly eliminate ProShare or MQUIP in New Hampshire, but uncertainty remains about intergovernmental transfers and about how these payments would function if the state moved nursing facilities into managed care. Mr. Litman said managed care would likely require waivers for supplemental payments, and Texas was cited as an example of a state operating under such waivers. The committee also discussed dual eligibles, DNIP, PACE, and the possibility of carving out HCBS from nursing facility services. DHS said its managed care contract would allow the state to use MCOs for DNIP, with the goal of better coordination between Medicaid and Medicare, while PACE would likely require more study and might be more feasible in populated counties. Members also reviewed OB3’s new presumptive eligibility provisions and a state waiver request modeled on Washington’s approach, plus a separate grant for transitioning people from facilities back to the community. The rural health transformation fund was discussed as a possible source for workforce, telehealth, mobile integrated health, and other support investments, but not for direct construction or major building renovation. County representatives emphasized that any county role in PACE or DNIP would require significant vetting, infrastructure, capital investment, and a realistic timeline. The meeting ended with the chair saying the draft report would outline issues and possible alternatives, but not recommendations yet, and the committee adjourned without taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will reopen public testimony.
• We will reopen public testimony.
• Chair Kolkhorst, members, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Hearing none, public testimony is closed. I believe Ms. Powell is not here.

Bills: HB18, HB37, HB 116, HB388, HB879, HB913, HB 1151, HB2216, HB2358, HB2809, SB577, SB1590, SB1782, SB1887, SB2744

Keywords: rural health, hospital funding, healthcare access, mental health services, financial stability, perinatal bereavement, healthcare, hospital training, bereavement support, maternal care, fetal demise, stillbirth, neonatal death, parent-child relationship, involuntary termination, family law, child welfare, child protection, HB 388, HB388

Summary: The committee first reopened testimony on House Bill 2216, which would strengthen child welfare requirements by expanding “active efforts” to help families avoid removal and support reunification, while also raising standards related to removals and terminations. Supporters from child welfare and family defense groups said the bill would better protect families and align Texas more closely with ICWA-style principles, but several warned it would require significant new funding, staffing, and community services such as mental health care, housing, child care, and substance use treatment. The committee then left HB 2216 pending. The committee next heard Senate Bill 1782, aimed at boarding and group homes. Senator Miles said the bill closes enforcement gaps left by prior law by requiring retention of background-check records and creating misdemeanor penalties for failing to conduct or keep them, or for knowingly hiring people with serious convictions. Harris County sheriff’s investigators testified in support, describing illegal boarding homes, operators who evade permits and background checks, and exploitation of vulnerable residents; the bill was left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 481 on emergency preparedness for nursing facilities and assisted living facilities, adopted a new committee substitute that softened some requirements and removed the fiscal note, and left the bill pending. The committee then heard House Bill 388, which would require the Texas Department of Insurance to create a single standardized coordination-of-benefits form for dual health plans to reduce errors and surprise bills; it was left pending. Senate Bill 1590 would move paternity registry searches for adoptions to an electronic process with a 10-day target, and House Bill 2809 would track child suicide attempts in managing conservatorship and require related reporting and parental notice; both were left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1887, which would prohibit administering mRNA-containing products for immunization for 10 years, with exceptions for cancer and genetic disorders. Supporters argued the bill was needed for safety, informed consent, and medical freedom, while opponents from the medical, research, and public health communities said mRNA vaccines are well-studied, save lives, and that the bill would harm access, research, and Texas’s biotech economy. The bill remained under discussion as testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony. time. Thank you for your testimony. Thank<00:04:57.840> you.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. bill. Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, please limit your testimony to 3 minutes and avoid repeating any testimony that has already been
• Following their testimony, any questions, I'd like to reserve my right to close.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Cheer calls Margaret Summereve. Good morning.
• That's my testimony. Any questions? Any questions? Chair recognizes the chair of the suit.
• Appreciate your testimony. OK.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, and please begin your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• <00:09:10.480> uh your name and begin your testimony uh your name and begin your testimony
• Kerr, would you like to state your name and begin your testimony?
• Are there any other testimonies?
• Please begin your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. This is a very easy bill.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm, I have a testimony today. Thank you, Mr.
• Thank you for your testimony. Senator Wilson has a question. Thank you, Mr.
• Chairman, and thank you, Brooks, for your testimony today.
• Thank you for your testimony, Senator Wilson has a question. Thank you, Mr.
• Chairman, and thank you, Brooks, for your testimony today.

Keywords: Special Guests 00:13 Roll Call 00:39 HB 15 Discussion 01:35 HB 15 Vote 14:03 HB 157 Discussion 17:28 HB 157 Vote 18:42 HB 444 Discussion 19:35 HB 444 Vote 23:12 HB 188 Discussion 25:20 HB 188 Vote 29:37, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the prior meeting minutes, and then took up several bills out of order. House Bill 15, sponsored by Leader Rudy, would lower the learner’s permit age to 15 while keeping the graduated driver’s license system in place until age 17. Supporters, including a 14-year-old witness, argued it would give teens more supervised driving experience, align Kentucky with surrounding states, and help families and the workforce. Members raised questions about safety, parental supervision, and regional driver’s license office backlogs, but the bill was reported favorably with a committee substitute attached after a roll call vote. The committee then heard House Bill 444, which would conform Kentucky CDL rules to federal reporting requirements by preventing masking of violations and would lower the age for certain hazmat CDL endorsements from 21 to 18 for in-state use only, excluding school bus endorsements. The sponsor and supporters said the change would help address truck-driver shortages and support delivery of propane, agricultural products, and other hazardous materials. A question was raised about possible insurance cost increases, but the sponsor said companies would decide whether to hire younger drivers and that the bill was intended to keep trucks moving. The bill was reported favorably with expressions of opinion that it should pass. House Bill 157, a Department of Agriculture initiative creating a tag bill for commercial vehicles, was briefly presented and reported favorably with a committee substitute. House Bill 188, dealing with driveaway plates for businesses that transport vehicles for others, was also heard. The sponsor said the bill would clarify how many plates a business needs, reduce insurance exposure, and help keep a Warren County driveaway business in Kentucky rather than moving to neighboring states. After questions about how the plates work and a committee substitute changing the issuing authority language, the bill was reported favorably with expressions of opinion that it should pass. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, we'll pick up where we left off, testimony on HB2.
• So I'll be happy to include this in our written testimony, I promise.
• I mentioned this in my testimony, but I'll make it explicit.
• But I said in my testimony, hey, this is a good program.
• All right, seeing none, thank you all very much for your testimony.

Bills: HB2, HB2

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• your testimony. Madame prime sponsor. your testimony. Madame prime sponsor.
• <01:13:25.679> Um my written testimony. Um my written testimony.
• helpful testimony. helpful testimony.
• testimony that you have or will submit. testimony that you have or will submit.
• I have two more cards. testimony. Uh, it matters. I have two testimony. Uh, it matters.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, before we move on to opposition testimony, we're going to do the quorum.
• All right, before we move on to opposition testimony, we're going to do the quorum.
• Now moving on to opposition testimony. You may proceed. Now moving on to opposition testimony.
• Moving on to opposition testimony. Good evening, Madam Chair, members.
• So, no, that was not part of my testimony. Okay.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you don't mind, we've had approximately 215 speakers, 50 hours of testimony, and five published drafts
• Testimony that is the basis of this comprehensive report.
• We saw, we heard testimony from a range of people who documented this phenomenon, Rabbi Wallach, who
• I think there was no more graphic demonstration of why this is urgent than the testimony that we heard
• That’s the testimony that we’ve heard.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission held its 16th and final meeting to review and vote on revisions to its draft report on combating antisemitism. After roll call, members approved the prior meeting minutes, adopted a procedure for handling substantive and technical edits, and authorized limited technical corrections after the meeting. Senator John Velis’s letter was read into the record noting his military deployment and support for the final report, and the commission discussed the scope of the report, including its 118 findings and recommendations and the large volume of testimony received over the year. Members then worked through a series of amendments to the report. The chair’s prefatory statement was revised to restore language and data about Massachusetts Jews’ relationship to Israel and the impact on the commission’s work. Commissioner Liken’s proposal called for DESE guidance and teacher training to support intellectually diverse K-12 classrooms; members debated how to ensure it could not be used to justify biased or false material, and the amendment passed with discussion about existing guardrails. Commissioner Hay’s technical edits were adopted, and commissioners also discussed whether DESE’s new reporting system should anonymize data; the language was revised to specify anonymized data and approved. Additional amendments were adopted on public safety and higher education, including clarifying support for nonprofit security grants and personnel grants, refining language on academic boycotts, and adding references to Zionist identity and presumed Zionist identity as possible bases for antisemitic treatment. Commissioner Kipnis’s revisions to the prefatory statement were also considered, with some members objecting to the removal of language about minimization and traumatic invalidation and others supporting a more concise, fact-driven tone. The commission also approved language strengthening recommendations by changing several “should” statements to “must.” Treasurer Deborah Goldberg then delivered closing remarks praising the commission’s work and sharing personal family history to illustrate the persistence of antisemitism in Massachusetts. She said the report offers a practical roadmap, including bias reporting in schools, security coordination, and broader anti-discrimination training, and emphasized that the recommendations will help all communities. Commissioners thanked her for her leadership and testimony. The meeting continued with further amendments, including one on law enforcement security grants and another on higher education findings and recommendations, and the commission repeatedly voted by roll call, generally approving the revisions unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the reason why it's on consent is there is some testimony.
• Additionally, there was testimony submitted by the New Hampshire Wildlife Coalition on Wednesday, and
• That has also been linked on the website and is available as additional testimony.
• <00:22:43.200> So, available as additional testimony.
• So, available as additional testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, approving the consent calendar and the minutes. It then took up a Department of Employment Security rule, 24193, where the only issue was that a form had not been incorporated by reference. The department submitted an oral conditional approval request with revised language, and the committee approved the rule conditionally. A second Employment Security rule, 195, raised concerns that the notice language was too broad and vague and could amount to oral rulemaking; because the agency had not yet finalized revised language, the committee granted a one-month waiver so the rule could return next month with a conditional approval proposal. The Department of Safety’s contact person notification program rule, 24237, drew comments about Social Security number collection, unclear drafting on one section, and ambiguity about which application needed a signature. The agency agreed to remove Social Security number references from the rules and forms and to adopt the suggested clarifying language with minor edits. After discussion about why the identifiers were needed, the committee approved the rule conditionally with the oral changes. The committee then moved a previously consent-calendar item, OPLC rule 2547, off consent after Representative Maguire objected that the renewal application form was too health-care-focused and user-unfriendly for other professions; the agency said it would revisit the form, and the committee postponed action until next month without needing a waiver. The final major item was Fish and Game’s HB 2548, which changes licensing and permit rules for taking deer, bear, moose, turkey, and furbearing animals. Staff noted extensive public testimony, including a coalition submission, and said the main dispute was over what data the agency should rely on in setting seasons and take limits. Fish and Game explained that declining trapper participation made capture-per-unit-effort data less reliable, so it also uses hunter surveys and UNH research projects funded in part by federal money; the agency said current trapping removals are very low and do not appear to threaten populations. Committee members and public witnesses questioned whether the agency’s responses to comments were sufficiently specific under the new public-comment law, but no final vote on the Fish and Game rule was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each witness is allowed three minutes to present their testimony.
• A lot of the testimony from the opposition at times confused me, because...
• My testimony today will be focused on the proposed committee amendment text.
• My testimony today will be focused on the proposed committee amendment text.
• With that, I will conclude my testimony. Awesome. Thank you both. Ms.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee met with a new membership roster and adopted its committee rules after quorum was established. The hearing then began with AB 412, the AI Copyright Transparency Act, which would require generative AI developers to provide copyright holders notice when registered copyrighted works are used in training data. The author and supporters, including SAG-AFTRA, the Transparency Coalition, voice actors, writers, labor groups, and other creators, argued the bill would give artists a practical way to learn whether their works were used and to vindicate their rights. Opponents, including EFF, CalChamber, RIAA, CCIA, Chamber of Progress, Bay Area Council, BSA, and TechNet, said the proposal was technically unworkable, could burden startups, conflict with existing law and pending litigation, and raise federal preemption concerns. Members discussed the bill’s amendments, including a fingerprinting approach and narrowing the bill to model developers, and the committee voted 8-2 to pass AB 412 as amended to the Judiciary Committee. The committee then heard AB 446, which would prohibit “surveillance pricing,” or the use of personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service. The author and supporters, including Consumer Watchdog, UFCW, labor organizations, and consumer/privacy groups, described examples of differential pricing tied to device type, location, shopping behavior, and digital price tags, and argued the bill would protect consumers from discriminatory and predatory pricing. Business and industry opponents, including CalChamber, grocers, retailers, travel, broadband, and other associations, said the bill could conflict with the CCPA, interfere with loyalty and rewards programs, and create confusion about personalized discounts and dynamic pricing. The discussion focused on how the bill would treat loyalty programs, whether existing privacy law already covers the issue, and whether the proposal would unintentionally affect legitimate discounts and promotions.

Transcript Highlights:

• OK, thank you for your testimony. OK. Chair calls Lisette Galvin.
• Thank you for your testimony. The chair calls Jonathan Wolfson.
• We will move to public testimony. The Chair calls Mercedes Dodge.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Chair calls Carl Issett.
• Thank, thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB163, HB 296

Keywords: judicial liability, personal bond, felony offenses, judges, criminal justice reform, voter registration, election procedures, change of address, residence requirements, Texas Election Code, Texas election law, residence address, precinct voting, county move, same-county move, Election Code, registrar, statement of residence, polling place, local elections

Transcript Highlights:

• We will only hear from invited testimony today.
• So I appreciate your your testimony. Thank you. And uh So we will now, uh, hear invited testimony.
• I appreciate your testimony here today.
• Thank you for your testimony today. Um, I have a question.
• Thank you for your testimony today. Appreciate it, sir.