Transcript Highlights:

• Please vote to advance SB 194 today.
• Moore who died trying to expand voting rights.
• Outside of whatever your vote is on this bill, I encourage those who support the bill to vote yes.
• By your vote SB 174 is reported favorably.
• and voting no for Tab 1.

Committee: Senate Fiscal Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:36.319><c> for</c> ads, it was um, you know, vote for ads, it was um, you know, vote for Representative
• ><c> inexpediate</c><00:17:44.720><c> to</c> ask that you vote inexpediate to ask that you vote inexpediate
• ><c> integral</c> Electoral transparency is an integral Electoral transparency is an integral component
• ><c> 107</c> Please consider voting HB 107 Please consider voting HB 107 inexpedient<00:20:00.000><c>
• <00:39:28.960><c> unanimously</c> Election Law Committee voted unanimously Election Law Committee voted

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Morikawa asks for the vote. The majority members vote aye.
• So America has spoken over the majority of the popular vote and a majority of the Electoral College went
• and a majority of the the popular vote and a majority of the Electoral<01:16:03.480><c> College</c><
• I have all votes been cast.
• </c><01:20:56.400><c> been</c> vote V I have all votes been vote V I have all votes been cast<01:20:58.440

Transcript Highlights:

• The electorate already asked us to complete.
• , the members of the community, voted to make that permanent, so that... ...electorate, the members of
• the community, voted to make that permanent.
• just created, and that the people can vote them out.
• And the people can vote them out.

Committee: House Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Um but it it does not need voting for.
• </c> moved forward today for the electoral moved forward today for the electoral survey survey survey
• I before we vote on uh anything else.
• If we added the a vote.
• On a tie vote, the motion does not prevail. Okay. All right.

Summary: The subcommittee met on May 8, 2026, to narrow 12 proposed Legislative Audit Commission evaluation topics down to 8-10 semi-finalists for a legislative survey. Deputy Legislative Auditor Jodi Munson Rodriguez reviewed the selection criteria and explained which topics were promising now, which might be better deferred to fall because of timing or data limitations, and which were less promising because OLA would have limited ability to add value. She identified the Board of Behavioral Health and Therapy, DHS Adult Day Services Licensing, DHS county service approvals and provision, MDH mortuary science program, MPCA feedlot permitting, Minnesota paid leave, the Office of Cannabis Management, and several other DHS-related items as candidates, while recommending that DHS system modernization be shifted to an IT audit and that corporate concentration be narrowed substantially if pursued. Members discussed several topics in detail. Representative Lee asked how a broad DHS county services topic could be narrowed and suggested providing legislators with an addendum listing possible subprograms so they would know what they were ranking; Munson Rodriguez said OLA could add a few suggested subtopics and tailor the survey materials. Representative Hansen urged that the MPCA feedlot permitting review focus on effectiveness and environmental and health impacts, not just speed, and Munson Rodriguez said those kinds of questions could be added. The Office of Cannabis Management was viewed as promising but probably too new to evaluate immediately, and the MDH mortuary science program was also seen as worthwhile but potentially delayed because of overlap with other MDH licensing work. The Minnesota research tax credit drew the most extended discussion. Munson Rodriguez said it remained a weak fit for OLA because of limited data and unclear program goals, and Senator Rest argued it would be better handled by the Department of Revenue’s research staff or possibly the Legislative Budget Office’s tax expenditure research section. Representative Lee asked whether OLA’s financial audit division could review whether the credit “pays for itself,” but Munson Rodriguez said that would require econometric analysis outside the financial audit division’s normal work. The committee did not take a formal vote in the portion provided, but the chair indicated the tax credit issue should be brought to the full commission agenda, and the meeting continued with additional topic review, including the Attorney General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which staff said was heavily federally controlled and already reviewed by federal OIG, limiting OLA’s likely impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> go to the vote? go to the vote?
• I urge you to vote I.
• I urge you to vote I. 2019.
• I urge you to vote I.
• </c> to vote. Thank you. Any questions? to vote. Thank you. Any questions?

Bills: SF0099 , SF0116 , SJ0006

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• They can vote. ...of Miami-Dade, they're coming in 18 years old. They can vote.
• They can vote. Let's say, what do they know? They don't.
• Vote down on this bill. That's all I could say. Vote down on this bill. That's all I could say.
• By your vote, this bill is reported favorably. Congratulations.
• By your vote, your bill is reported favorably and congratulations.

Summary: The Education Administration Subcommittee met with a quorum and took up two bills. The first, PCS for HB 725 on political activity at public institutions of higher education, would require colleges and universities to notify students and employees about existing campus political activity rules at orientation and on their websites, and to adopt standardized policies through the State Board of Education and Board of Governors. The sponsor said the bill is intended to mirror federal IRS/501(c)(3) guidelines, protect institutions from risking federal funding, and clarify what is and is not allowed; supporters framed it as an awareness and free-expression measure, while opponents warned it could chill speech, create vague enforcement standards, and lead to unintended consequences for students and faculty. Public testimony was largely opposed, with speakers from student, civil liberties, education, and advocacy groups raising free-speech concerns. The committee passed the bill 13-5. The second measure, PCS for HB 1437, addressed disputes under mutual management plans between conversion charter schools and district school boards. The sponsor said the bill fills a gap by providing a clearer dispute-resolution path through mediation by the Department of Education or, ultimately, an administrative law judge at DOAH. Members asked about appeal rights and whether DOE is perceived as favoring charter schools; the sponsor said the bill simply sets the process for the current issue and that the administrative law judge provision serves as the final step. There was no public testimony, and the bill was reported favorably 18-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Cleveland, how do you vote? Senator Cleveland votes aye. Senator Slatter, how do you vote?
• Senator Slatter, how do you vote? Senator Slatter, how do you vote? Senator Slatter votes aye. Mr.
• Senator Alvarado, how do you vote? Senator Alvarado votes aye. Senator Trudeau, how do you vote?
• Senator Benke, how do you vote? Senator Benke votes no. Senator Chapman, how do you vote?
• Senator Benke votes no. Senator Chapman votes aye. Senator Dozier votes no. Mr.

Summary: The Senate took up Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974, which would modernize and strengthen laws governing sheriffs, police chiefs, town marshals, and other law enforcement agencies, particularly by setting certification and background-check standards and addressing what happens if an elected sheriff is decertified. The chamber first considered several amendments focused on preserving voter control over sheriffs, limiting the bill’s reach, and shifting costs to the state. Amendment 632, which would have required a recall-style vote if a sheriff were found uncertified, failed. Amendment 628, which would have excluded foreign convictions from consideration, failed. Amendment 633, which would have made the state pay background-check costs, failed. Amendment 634, which would have exempted current sheriffs from the bill’s five-year uninterrupted employment requirement, failed on a roll call vote of 21 yeas to 28 nays. Members then rejected additional amendments: Amendment 631, which would have carved out an exception for Capitol security personnel, failed; Amendment 629, which would have prevented a vacancy if a sheriff was acting consistently with the state and U.S. constitutions, failed; Amendment 630, which would have created a private right of action for removed sheriffs, failed; and Amendment 627, which would have retained language barring men and women from being confined in the same cell when removing an old “police matron” provision, failed on a roll call vote of 19 yeas to 30 nays. Supporters of the bill argued it was about accountability, integrity, and aligning sheriffs with certification standards already applied to other law enforcement officers. Opponents argued it would override voter choice, create unfunded mandates, and let an unelected state body remove elected sheriffs. After amendments were disposed of, the Senate suspended the rules and advanced the bill to third reading and final passage. In final debate, supporters emphasized public safety, professional standards, and the need for clear decertification rules when a sheriff loses certification. Opponents repeatedly framed the bill as an unconstitutional intrusion on local democracy and a solution in search of a problem, warning it would disenfranchise voters and set a dangerous precedent. The transcript ends during final-passage debate, with no final vote on the bill shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I vote aye.
• voting location, including vote centers.
• So they did not vote. So there were six votes lost there. So they did not vote.
• And I think voting centers would be a great idea to have people vote so everybody, every vote counts
• A vote center is a location where any otherwise eligible county elector can cast a ballot with the correct

Bills: HB2006 , HB2085 , HB2109 , HB2167 , HB2205 , HB2410 , HCR2016

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Elections

Keywords: sample ballots, elections, primary election, general election, mailing deadline, ballot mailing, county election officials, board of supervisors, secretary of state, early voting list, election administration, voter information, postal service, USPS processing center, city elections, town elections, special district elections, Arizona election law, ballot proofing, party chair

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, here, U.S. citizens who have registered to vote are given to vote, cast vote.
• I mean, here, U.S. citizens who have registered to vote are given to vote, cast vote.
• You are not supposed to vote, and don't vote.
• Current votes 3-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Allen. Okay, that's four to one.
• Current votes 2-2. Chair voted no. Choi, aye. Okay, on a vote of 3-2, that bill is out.

Committee: Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, here, U.S. citizens who have registered to vote are given to vote, cast vote.
• You are not supposed to vote, and don't vote.
• Current votes 3-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Allen: aye. Okay, that's four to one.
• Current votes 2-2, Chair voted no. Choi, aye. Okay, on a vote of three to two, that bill is out.
• Current votes 4-0. Chair voted aye. Choi, this is number eight. No vote. Okay, so four nothing.

Committee: Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Summary: The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments heard several election-related measures. SB 884 by Senator Umberg proposed expanding polling-place buffer zones, limiting certain law enforcement activity near polling sites, increasing ballot drop boxes and vote center access, and extending the vote-by-mail receipt deadline; supporters said it would protect voters from intimidation, while county election officials opposed it as operationally difficult and costly. The bill was amended in committee to allow county supervisors discretion over expanding the buffer zone and to permit law enforcement entry for crimes against persons or property. It was ultimately passed out of committee on a 4-1 vote after members’ roll calls were completed later in the day. SB 1164 by Senator Cervantes would expand California voting-rights protections by codifying and broadening anti-dilution and anti-suppression rules, adding preclearance for some jurisdictions, and directing courts to favor voting access; it drew strong support from civil rights and voting-rights groups, while one city raised concerns about effects on pending litigation. The committee advanced the bill to Judiciary on a 4-1 vote after later roll call completion. The committee also considered SB 900 by Senator McNerney, which would streamline political advertisement disclosures by shortening required disclaimer language, allowing standard abbreviations, and increasing the number of top funders disclosed on political mailers from three to five. Supporters from the outdoor advertising industry and campaign finance reform groups said the bill would preserve transparency while making disclosures more readable; it passed unanimously and was sent to Appropriations. In contrast, SB 1225 and its companion SCA 3 by Senator Niello would transfer responsibility for drafting ballot titles and summaries for initiatives and referenda from the Attorney General to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Supporters argued this would improve neutrality and public trust, while opponents said the current elected Attorney General system is accountable and efficient; both measures were advanced on narrow votes after roll calls were completed later. Finally, SB 1360 by Senator Cervantes, part of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 package, would expand language-access requirements for election materials by lowering the threshold for coverage, adding a petition process, and extending protections beyond current federal language categories. Voting-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups strongly supported the bill, while county election officials opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about the precinct-based determination model and implementation details. The committee passed SB 1360 to Appropriations on a 5-0 vote after the later roll call. The committee also approved a consent calendar of seven measures at the start of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, here, U.S. citizens who have registered to vote are given to vote, cast vote.
• Current votes 3-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Allen, aye. Okay, that’s four to one.
• Current votes 3-0. Chair voted aye. SB 1164, please call the absent members. Current votes 3-0.
• Current votes 2-2. Chair voted no, Choi, aye. Okay, on a vote of three to two, that bill is out.
• Current votes 4-0. Chair voted aye, Choi, this is number eight. No vote. Okay, so four nothing.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments heard several election-related measures. SB 884 by Senator Umberg would expand electioneering buffer zones around polling places and ballot-processing sites, restrict law enforcement activity near voting locations except for crimes against persons or property, expand ballot drop box and vote center access, and extend the vote-by-mail receipt deadline. Supporters said it would protect voters from intimidation and interference; county election officials opposed it as operationally burdensome and difficult to enforce. The committee discussed amendments narrowing some provisions, and the bill was ultimately advanced on a 4-1 vote, with Senator Choi voting no. The committee also heard SB 1164 by Senator Cervantes, part of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 package, which would codify and expand state voting-rights protections against vote dilution and voter suppression, add preclearance for certain jurisdictions with recent violations, and direct courts to interpret election laws in favor of voter access. Support came from civil rights and voting rights groups, while one city representative raised concerns about effects on pending litigation. Senator Choi questioned the bill’s concepts, but the measure was moved to Judiciary and later recorded as passing 4-1. SB 900 by Senator McNerney would shorten and streamline campaign-ad disclosure language, allow abbreviations, and increase the number of top funders listed on political mailers from three to five. Outdoor advertising and good-government groups supported the bill as improving readability while preserving transparency. It passed to Appropriations on a 5-0 vote. The committee also considered SB 1225 and SCA 3 by Senator Niello, which would shift responsibility for initiative titles and summaries from the Attorney General to the Legislative Analyst’s Office; supporters argued this would improve neutrality, while labor groups opposed the change as unnecessary and less accountable. Both measures were advanced to Appropriations after divided votes. Finally, SB 1360 by Senator Cervantes would expand election language-access requirements beyond current federal thresholds and add a petition process for undercounted language communities. It drew broad support from civil rights and advocacy organizations, with county election officials seeking amendments over implementation details; the bill passed 5-0 after the committee completed roll calls on the absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• People vote for whoever they want to vote for.
• God bless them for who they vote for, but they get to vote for who they want to vote for.
• Your vote, but we want to ensure that your vote doesn't count when you do vote.
• Not only did President Trump win the electoral vote, but he also won the popular vote.
• I'm here on behalf of Generation Vote Alief, a youth-led intergenerational movement centered on electoral

Bills: HB4

Committee: House Congressional Redistricting, Select

Transcript Highlights:

• our total window of in-person voting at six weeks.
• Okay, by your vote of 10 ayes, two noes, and one present, you have voted House Bill 2387 do pass.
• By your vote of 13 noes, you have voted do pass House Bill 1987. I now move.
• By your vote of 13 ayes and zero noes, you have voted do pass House Concurrent Resolution 23.
• We vote House Bill 1802, do pass.

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The Elections Committee met in executive session first and adopted a House Committee substitute for House Bill 2387, which combined HB 2387 and HB 2480. The substitute removed provisions on extending no-excuse in-person absentee voting and shortening the absentee voting window, shifted the presidential candidate filing fee to be set by state party committees, and added language to bind presidential delegates to primary results while allowing national party rules to control where required. Members discussed the legal basis for delegate binding, party input on the substitute, and the role of closed primaries, then the committee voted 10-2-1 to do pass HB 2387 as substituted. The committee also passed House Bill 1987 and House Concurrent Resolution 23 without opposition, and passed House Bill 1802 after members discussed election transparency and concerns about applying the measure uniformly across counties; the vote was 11-2. In public hearing, the committee heard House Bill 2605, which would update election notice requirements, especially for bond elections. Sponsor Rep. McGaugh and the State Auditor’s office said the bill would address technical publication errors that had jeopardized voter-approved bond issues by allowing notice defects to be cured if no election contest is filed within 30 days, while also allowing one newspaper publication and one direct mailing notice. Testimony from county clerks, school administrators, a fire district, the Missouri Press Association, and others generally supported the bill as a practical fix, though one witness urged broader website posting of notices. The hearing also covered House Bill 2301, a campaign finance cleanup bill that would clarify definitions and reporting rules in Chapter 130, especially for continuing committees and indirect political spending; the sponsor said it was intended to fix ambiguity from prior law, and the only testimony in favor called for additional restrictions on recurring donations and more transparency. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1787, which would require schools used as polling places to treat election days as school holidays beginning in the 2026-27 school year. The sponsor said the bill was intended to improve child safety and could also help with staffing and voter participation, while members raised concerns about school calendars already being set and whether the mandate should instead be optional or delayed to a later school year. A witness in favor supported the safety goal but asked for local control and a later effective date. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee adjourned after the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rank-choice voting prohibition that banned rank-choice voting.
• </c> candidates they voted for. candidates they voted for.
• from voting or a Republican voter from voting?
• </c><01:50:32.000><c> Um,</c> vote who they want to vote for. Um, vote who they want to vote for.
• ,</c><01:53:38.320><c> voting,</c> vote, who are capable of vote, voting, vote, who are capable of vote

Committee: Joint Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions

Transcript Highlights:

• When people ask why Latinos don't vote, we'll try and vote.
• to vote the same ballot.
• He runs your vote. He runs your vote. He runs your vote. He runs your vote.
• voting.
• There are 11 votes in favor, 7 votes against.

Committee: House Congressional Redistricting, Select

Transcript Highlights:

• We will likely vote on your appointment at the next meeting.
• I wanted to speak on this before votes, so I'm glad we have this opportunity.
• I'll be voting against the bill.
• And for those reasons, I'll be voting against the bill. Thank you.
• Senator Rutte will be recorded as voting no. That motion is carried.

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> reasons, please vote no on HB1522. reasons, please vote no on HB1522.
• If not, Vice Chair for the vote. >> Voting on House Bill 2493 with amendments.
• Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Voting on House Bill 2448 with amendments.
• </c> going to vote no on this. going to vote no on this.
• &gt;&gt; No<02:25:26.000><c> vote.</c> &gt;&gt; No vote. &gt;&gt; No vote.

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1552, which would make the attorney general the interim chief election officer if that office becomes vacant until the Elections Commission appoints a replacement. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying it could create a conflict of interest if the attorney general were both the state’s lawyer and the chief elections officer in any related litigation. The League of Women Voters supported having some interim backup for the office, but said it was not necessarily advocating that the attorney general fill the role. Several other testifiers, including the Hawaiian Islands Republican Women, opposed the bill, arguing the current law already provides for a prompt commission appointment and warning about partisan bias and concentration of power. Supporters, including Indivisible Hawaii, said an interim mechanism is needed to ensure election certification in a crisis. The chair also asked whether any statutory acting capacity already exists, and the attorney general said none was known. The committee then took up House Bill 2125, which would bar corporations operating under state law from engaging in election activity. The attorney general opposed the bill, citing Citizens United and arguing that corporations have First Amendment-protected political speech rights and that the bill would likely be unconstitutional. Indivisible Hawaii supported the measure, saying it would keep elections focused on the will of the people rather than corporate influence. Libertarian Party testimony was mixed: one witness supported the goal of reducing corruption but warned the bill could suppress organized dissent and sweep too broadly by treating many associations as corporations. The bill’s introducer asked whether the legislature could still enact it as a policy matter, but the attorney general maintained federal constitutional law would control. No vote was taken on either bill during the portion of the hearing provided. The committee also heard House Bill 2493 on wrongful imprisonment, which would set procedures and compensation for people whose convictions are reversed or vacated on grounds consistent with innocence and whose charges are dismissed. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation supported the bill’s intent but objected to language assigning it responsibility for helping released individuals secure housing, identification, health coverage, and other reentry needs, saying it no longer has jurisdiction after release and suggesting the courts or a community-based contractor handle that role. The Office of the Public Defender strongly supported the bill, emphasizing the harm of wrongful conviction and the need for compensation, case management, and medical coverage after release. No action or vote was reported on this measure in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there any no votes or present. Are there any no votes or reservations? reservations?
• </c> there any no votes or reservations? there any no votes or reservations?
• Are there any no votes or to pass as is. Are there any no votes or reservations? Thank you.
• </c> we'll vote on them together. we'll vote on them together.
• </c> present any no votes or reservations? present any no votes or reservations?

Bills: SB2444 , SB2446 , SB2450 , SB2453 , SB2461 , SB2457 , SB2462 , SB2313 , SB2528 , SB2532 , SB2571 , SB2678 , SB2529

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 2444 would raise the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution, which the Attorney General said could create vague retroactivity language and litigation risk; the committee noted the exemption had last been adjusted around 1978. SB 2446 would add a seventh associate judge to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Judiciary staff testified in opposition, saying recent internal restructuring and a pending vacancy had improved output and that it would be prudent to wait and see the effect before adding another judge. The Public Defender supported the goal of faster appellate resolution but said it would defer to the court’s assessment and had no objection to revisiting the issue later. The committee also discussed current appellate timelines, with staff saying at least 225 days is built into the process before a case reaches a merit panel, and that a two-year delay from panel assignment was realistic under the current structure. The committee then heard SB 2450, which would establish a presidential preference primary for the 2028 cycle. The Chief Election Officer said the election would cost about $4 million, less if combined with the regular primary. Several opponents argued the bill would add bureaucracy, duplicate or undermine party-run processes, and waste taxpayer money; one speaker estimated the total cost could be closer to $6 million when county costs are included. Supporters and committee members discussed that the measure would not require parties to use the results and that Hawaii remains one of the few states still using caucuses. The committee also asked whether counties could staff the election and whether the results would be useful given Hawaii’s current primary timing. SB 2453 would require the Office of Elections to include a notice with each ballot that a digital and printed voter information guide is available, with the notice in 32-point font as a separate insert. The Chief Election Officer said the insert would cost about $90,000 and asked for an effective date of January 1, 2027 because mailing preparations for the primary would already be underway. The Disability and Communications Access Board, League of Women Voters, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, and others supported the bill. The committee also began hearing SB 2461, which would have the Office of Elections prepare a questionnaire for candidates and publish responses online and in the voter guide; the Chief Election Officer said the office did not think it should be the agency to shape campaign questions, though he said it could work if the questions were specified in statute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2457, which would require a criminal conviction before seized property could be forfeited. The Attorney General and Honolulu Police Department opposed the bill, arguing it would prolong cases, increase storage costs, and make forfeiture less effective against crime, especially where owners flee, die, or hide assets through shell companies. The Public Defender strongly supported the measure, saying forfeiture should be tied to convictions and that people challenging forfeiture often lack counsel. The Honolulu Prosecutor also opposed the bill, but said it supported transparency, due process, and even a right to counsel; it argued conviction-only forfeiture would fail in cases involving fugitives, deceased suspects, or hidden ownership structures. The committee questioned what would happen to property if an owner could not be found, and the prosecutor said the outcome would depend on the type of property and could involve abandonment or interpleader proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• vote no.
• vote no.
• vote no.
• vote no.
• vote no.

Committee: House Municipal and County Government