Bills: SJR37, SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB108, SB125, SB251, SB318, SB378, SB379, SB396, SB472, SB487, SB503, SB533, SB565, SB583, SB608, SB650, SB686, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB763, SB854, SB875, SB916, SB924, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB987, SB988, SB1006, SB1019, SB1021, SB1024, SB1026, SB1038, SB1146, SB1185, SB1194, SB1202, SB1252, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1497, SB1498, SB1499, SB1527, SB1547, SB1596, SB1697, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SJR37, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB925, SB1362, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB379, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB1352, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB961, SB1038, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SB378, SB710, SB916, SB1019, SB1146, SB1194, SB1253, SB1499, SB213, SB925, SB1362, SR263, SR311, SR333, SCR8, SB2407, SB2722, SB2949, SB2407, SB2722, SB2949

Keywords: voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, constitutional amendment, voting rights, central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy

Bills: HB145, SB37, HB279, HB292, SB35, SB48, SB20, SJR1, SB38, SB41, SB73, SB100, SB111, SB132, SB152, SJR7, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM29, HM43, HM59, HM30, HM52, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB2, HB70, HB180, SB151, SB240, SB273, HB95, HB247, HB332, HB8, HB253, HB4, HB96

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, high-quality literacy instruction, science of reading, structured literacy, reading instruction, literacy assessment, dyslexia screening, phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, biliteracy, English language learner, ELL, bilingual education

Bills: HB145, HR1, HB80, SB29, SB37, HB206, SB193, SB58, SB64, HB153, HB195, HB234, HB248, HB255, HB279, HB287, HB292, HB303, HB309, HB371, SB30, SB35, SB40, SB43, SB48, SB96, SB143, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM29, HM43, HM59, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation, subpoena power, public corruption, criminal activity, Zorro ranch, Santa Fe County, public accountability, government oversight, impeachment power, children and vulnerable persons, public funds

Bills: HB111, HB108, HB145, HB164, HB291, HJR6, HR1, HB63, HB64, HB165, HB184, HB200, HB4, HB7, HB20, HB65, HB66, HB80, HB88, HB96, HB166, HB285, HB295, HB306, SB29, SB37, HJM2, HJM3, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order, water rights, overdiversion, illegal diversion, groundwater storage and recovery, well license, permit violation, water enforcement, New Mexico water code, irrigation district, conservancy district, water diversion, unauthorized water sales, measuring device, district court appeal, water resources, water compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• I know we got a lot of cleanup done here, and I really appreciate that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• including change management, and then some resources for the regional center to help us with data cleanup

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is, I think, just an important cleanup bill, but it's more than that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Pretty simple cleanup there.

Bills: HF3794, HF4472, HF4410, HF4347, HF4412, HF4398, HF4397, HF4201, HF4199, HF4203, HF3706, HF4071, HF4120, HF4175, HF4188

Keywords: surveillance, price discrimination, wage discrimination, automated decision systems, consumer protections, data privacy, biometrics, school district health insurance, charter school health benefits, employee benefits, public sector health insurance, health insurance survey, Legislative Budget Office, LBO report, premium costs, retiree coverage, broker commissions, third-party administrator, health plan transparency, health reimbursement arrangement

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Kupec said the amendment is just a super technical cleanup of some spelling and grammar things

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• According to the MPCA in their 2023 groundbreaking study, they show the unaffordable cost of PFAS cleanup

Bills: HF4253, HF4257, HF3236, HF4264, HF4149, HF4019

Keywords: boat storage structures, public waters, natural resources, rule amendments, watercraft canopy, PFAS, environmental regulation, manufacturers, public health, product safety, groundwater, water appropriation, water-use permit, water permit, aquifer test, aquifer, well construction, groundwater permit, Department of Natural Resources, DNR

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, it's just a common-sense cleanup bill.

Bills: SB1052, SB1115, SB1118, SB1120, SB1121, SB1124, SB1171, SB1172, SB1174, SB1175, SB1214, SB1233, SB1235, SB1316, SB1345, SB1372, SB1399, SB1458, SB1494, SB1496, SB1564, SB1602, SB1621, SB1628, SB1630, SB1631, SB1668, SB1672, SB1814, SB1821

Keywords: assisted living, health care, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, physician orders, informed consent, AHCCCS, remote work, state agency, employment, public health, housing, zoning, middle housing, urban development, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, historic preservation, radiation protection

Transcript Highlights:

• do not want to open the door to shoreline hardening, but they also want to help people address the cleanup

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first of those, the A21, had a couple of technical clarifying cleanup items and then established

Bills: HF3169, HF3749, HF2605, HF3541, HF4102, HF3513, HF268

Keywords: suicide prevention, transportation, mental health, bridge safety, data collection, state law, bridge inspection, active transportation, truck parking, public safety, vehicle registration, fee structure, full-service providers, Capitol security, emergency management, state buildings, law enforcement, Minnesota State Patrol, State Patrol compensation, trooper salary

Transcript Highlights:

• 06.960> Chairman<00:02:07.320> and<00:02:07.400> committee Senate Bill 46 is a cleanup

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thus, shooting range owners are knowingly and willingly creating future Superfund cleanup sites at enormous

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He also said he is working with this team on a technical cleanup bill to plug the issues that these guys

Bills: HF3794, HF3408

Keywords: surveillance, price discrimination, wage discrimination, automated decision systems, consumer protections, data privacy, biometrics, consumer protection, price setting, biometric data, retail, privacy, 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from March 3, 2026, and then received a presentation from the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General on the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act. Assistant Attorney General Caitlin Miko and Deputy Attorney General Jessica Whitney reviewed the law’s scope, consumer rights, business obligations, and enforcement history. They said the law took effect July 31, 2025, gives Minnesotans rights to access, delete, and opt out of sale, profiling, and targeted advertising, and is enforced by the Attorney General with penalties up to $7,500 per violation. They reported more than 200 complaints in the first six months, many warning letters, and a shift from education to active enforcement now that the initial warning-letter period has expired. Committee members asked about how the universal opt-out works, what happens when companies deny deletion or editing requests, how the office determines willful noncompliance, and whether the law could burden small businesses. The AG’s office said the opt-out can be set through privacy-protective browsers or extensions, companies must respond to consumer requests within 45 days, small businesses are exempt as defined by the SBA, and investigations look for patterns and evidence of willful conduct rather than minor technical violations. The office also said it needs additional funding to fully staff enforcement efforts and noted that it has already issued subpoenas and civil investigative demands. The committee then took up House File 3408, the Stop Grocery Surveillance Price Gouging Act. The author explained that the bill would prohibit retail grocers, physical and online, from setting individualized prices based on consumer information, would limit certain uses of facial recognition and electronic shelf labels, and would preserve narrow exceptions for discounts and loyalty programs. Public testimony followed from the Minnesota Farmers Union in support, arguing that grocery consolidation and surveillance pricing could worsen already high food costs and harm fair competition. The Minnesota Grocers Association opposed the premise that grocery stores use surveillance pricing, said shelf prices are generally uniform and set from a single storewide database, and argued electronic shelf labels are efficient and not nefarious. A technology company representative similarly said ESLs do not use personal data or facial recognition, prices are uniform, and a 2025 study found no meaningful price increases after ESL adoption. The bill was laid over for possible further discussion after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Usually it's kind of a mock cleanup type after the fires are kind of settled down.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the annual technical cleanup bill.

Bills: SB2041

Keywords: land court, real property, legal documents, bureau of conveyances, judicial confirmation, property registration, working group, Hawaii Revised Statutes, reform, 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees heard SB 2041, which would repeal the Land Court, transfer its functions to the Bureau of Conveyances, and create a working group to recommend implementation. DLNR and Judiciary stood on their written testimony, while Realtors supported the bill and one testifier raised concerns about the loss of judicial authority, title disputes, adverse possession, and possible effects on Kuleana lands. Members questioned whether property could be deregistered and what the legal consequences would be, and the Bureau of Conveyances said deregistration is already available but burdensome. The committees ultimately recommended passage with amendments, and the measure was adopted by both committees. The Judiciary Committee then heard SB 2247, which restricts certain governor-appointed, Senate-confirmed executive branch employees from participating in campaign fundraising. The State Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission supported the bill as a way to curb pay-to-play concerns and the appearance of undue influence, and several advocacy and civic groups also testified in support, with one person opposing. The committee agreed to amend the bill so the restrictions apply only after confirmation and continue until the person leaves the covered position. The committee voted to pass SB 2247 with amendments. Finally, the Judiciary Committee heard SB 2143, which would make the Attorney General the interim Chief Election Officer if that office becomes vacant until the Elections Commission appoints a replacement. Supporters argued the bill would provide continuity, prevent delays in certifying election results, and protect election integrity; opponents argued it would politicize the office, create a conflict of interest, and was unnecessary because current law already provides a process for filling vacancies. Testimony was extensive and sharply divided, with many speakers on both sides. The transcript provided does not include a final vote or action on SB 2143.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's really just a little bit of cleanup language up there at the top of page five on line five.

Bills: SF0028, SF0030, SF0031, SF0032

Keywords: voting, elections, electronic voting systems, transparency, public testing, voter registration, qualified elector, residency requirements, voting rights, mortgage modification, priority, electronic signatures, real property, financial covenants, 911 services, emergency response, grant funding, next generation technology, government accountability, public safety

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, we've gotten some cleanup on this language here. We got a resolution.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up HB 164, dealing with homeowners and certain service agreements tied to residential real estate. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be framed as prohibiting “service agreements” or more specifically as banning “future right to listing” agreements, and whether the bill should mirror Maine’s newer law. Mike Padmore of AARP New Hampshire presented suggested edits, including clarifying that the agreements are unenforceable, striking a provision at Roman 6C, and adding language making clear that registry of deeds staff are not liable when they record documents they are statutorily required to file. Bob Quinn of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors said the bill and Maine’s law reach the same result, but he preferred simpler wording and argued the bill should not include a two-year time limit because legitimate listing agreements should not create liens at all. Members and witnesses debated whether the bill should simply make the practice illegal outright, whether the Consumer Protection Act is the right enforcement vehicle, and whether the lien-removal process should be modeled on the recent undischarged mortgage bill. A consumer protection official said the bureau supports the statute and explained that under RSA 358-A, consumers could seek damages and equitable relief to strike a lien, while also noting that the bureau often uses the Consumer Protection Act as an enforcement tool. The committee also discussed narrowing the bill to residential real estate, with the sponsor and witnesses saying the problem has been seen in residential transactions and that commercial property was not the focus. The testimony described the underlying problem as companies, often national rather than New Hampshire-based, using long-term or future listing agreements to impose liens or penalties on homeowners, sometimes in connection with estate transfers or home sales. Witnesses said legitimate real estate listings do not normally place liens on houses, but these arrangements can include hidden or unclear penalties, including a reported 3% charge on home value. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but the committee appeared to be working through possible amendments and whether to adopt Maine-style language or a simpler New Hampshire-specific approach.