Transcript Highlights:

• THE BILL IS TO AUTHORIZE CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO BE USED FOR DEPENDENT CHILD CARE EXPENSES INCURRED BY CANDIDATES
• THIRTEEN OTHER STATES HAVE SINCE PUT THIS INTO LAW AND MANY ALSO HAVE GIVEN OPINIONS ALLOWING CANDIDATES
• CANDIDATE RECORDS MUST BE MAINTAINED AND AVAILABLE FOR AUDITING FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS AND THAT
• SECTION 112 FLORIDA CODE OF ETHICS FOR ANYONE WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
• I HAVE SEEN CANDIDATES USE THIS I HAVE SEEN CANDIDATES USE THIS AND EXPAND AND EXTRACT FALSITIES FROM

Transcript Highlights:

• I was appointed by the governor. ...and went through the process last fall of sending some candidates
• experience as a cattle rancher to the recommendation board, and what kind of candidates are you, or
• what kind of qualities in candidates are you looking for?
• I think that sticks with me: the quality of candidates that we have available and we're able to send
• You know, the prior experience that both candidates bring. I thank you for your service.

Committee: Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Summary: The Senate Natural Resources Committee met to consider several board nominations, beginning with four nominees to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission Appointment Recommendation Board. Michael Cravens, Jared Lyman, Nathan Reese (who submitted a written statement and did not attend), and Richard Williams each described their backgrounds in wildlife management, ranching, public lands, or conservation, and emphasized balance, pragmatism, and public service in selecting commission candidates. Members asked about their experience, perspectives on candidate evaluation, and the role of the board. Each nominee was advanced to the full Senate by separate motions, all approved on 7-0 votes with one member not voting. The committee then heard Darren Rasmussen’s nomination to the Arizona State Land Department Board of Appeals. Rasmussen discussed his long career in property appraisal at the private, county, and state levels, including work with county assessors and valuation training. Senators focused on his ability to bring transparency, statutory compliance, and consistency to state land appraisals and appeals. His nomination was also forwarded to the full Senate on a 7-0 vote with one not voting. Next, the committee considered the Arizona Livestock Loss Board nominees, Stephen Clark and Randy Dahl. Clark, who chairs the board, explained the board’s process for compensating ranchers for wolf depredation and described the distinction between confirmed losses and “probables.” Senators asked about reimbursement procedures, the range of Mexican gray wolves, and whether wolves had attacked humans in Arizona; Clark said there had been no human attacks in the state and that livestock losses had been compensated. Dahl was unable to attend but submitted a statement citing his farming background and business and engineering experience. Both nominees were confirmed by 7-0 votes with one member not voting. Finally, the committee heard from Carolyn Radajack and Stephanie Teske for the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. Radajack highlighted her prior service on the board’s investigative committee and her experience with disciplinary rules, while Teske emphasized her background as a sixth-generation rancher, veterinary assistant, and agriculture regulator, with a focus on rural livestock care and access to veterinarians. Senators discussed rural veterinary shortages, telemedicine, and the changing structure of veterinary practice. Both nominees were advanced to the full Senate on 7-0 votes with one member not voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is about equal access to democracy so that residents have access to political candidates and
• Number two, it ensures that residents have access to candidates and can be counted by the census in the
• event that there is no return communication from a property owner when either a candidate or a census
• So we really feel like this incentive is important, and without it, that one candidate who's trying to
• Well, I think that's a different bill preventing candidates from using money to influence voters.

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:

• The last thing that candidate needs, that aspiring candidate who might be self-funding his or her own
• For any other errors, it needs to be shown that the candidate knew and intentionally made those errors
• No, I'm saying that in a situation where an error is made, and it is shown that the candidate knowingly
• It's not about how many votes each candidate received, but making sure that the number of people who
• You're talking about a report that documents the number of results for candidates and propositions by

Bills: SB1065 , SB2117 , SB2217 , SB2363 , SB2533 , SB2742 , SB2743 , SB2881 , SB2964 , SB3013 , SB3014

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> candidates for the Board of Regents. candidates for the Board of Regents.
• </c> legislature does not elect a candidate legislature does not elect a candidate to<00:57:30.640><c
• </c> questions of future regents candidates. questions of future regents candidates.
• </c> candidates? I mean, that can happen. candidates? I mean, that can happen.
• . candidates. candidates.

Bills: HF1323 , HF4266 , HF4413 , HF3101 , HF4572 , HF4698 , HF3650 , HF2634

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:00:16.559><c> Um</c> workers and candidates for office.
• Um workers and candidates for office.
• We firmly believe candidates and political parties should earn our votes and not buy them.
• We firmly believe candidates and political parties should earn our votes and not buy them.
• For lobbying, we never endorse political parties or candidates.

Transcript Highlights:

• That list of candidates then, to be a candidate to be a commissioner, basically you have to have the
• And that list of candidates and alternates will then be sent to the legislature, where the Senate and
• That list of candidates then, to be a candidate to be a commissioner, basically you have to have the
• And that list of candidates and alternates will then be sent to the legislature, where the Senate and
• That list of candidates and alternates will then be sent to the legislature, where the Senate and the

Committee: House General Laws

Transcript Highlights:

• So even in their eyesight, he will be the candidate of choice, right?
• We elected the candidate of our choice.
• Y'all saw 68% of the voters voted for this candidate. This is who we want.
• Y'all saw 68% of the voters voted for this candidate. This is who.
• Y'all saw 68% of the voters voted for this candidate. This is who we want.

Bills: SB256

Committee: House Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 256, which would combine the Orleans Parish clerks of criminal district court and civil district court into one office, with the bill taking effect upon gubernatorial signature. Senator Jay Morris said the change would align Orleans with other parishes, improve efficiency, and eventually help consolidate funding and operations, noting that Orleans is the only parish with two clerks and that the criminal side lacks the civil-side revenue streams used elsewhere. Committee members questioned the timing because the election for the next term had already been held and certified, and repeatedly raised concerns that the bill would effectively eliminate an office after voters had already chosen Calvin Duncan as criminal clerk. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill would be constitutional or fair if enacted before the new term began. Opponents argued it would disenfranchise voters, target Duncan personally, and set a dangerous precedent by abolishing an office after an election. Supporters and witnesses for Duncan said the bill was rushed, lacked a fiscal note, and would create confusion about staffing, records, training, and the transition between the two court systems. Several witnesses also argued that the criminal clerk’s office is essential to access to justice and that the data and efficiency rationale did not justify the timing or effect of the bill. Calvin Duncan testified that he ran to improve access to court records after his own wrongful conviction and incarceration, and said the bill sends the message that votes do not count. Other witnesses, including teachers, voters, attorneys, former officials, and advocacy representatives, echoed that the measure undermines democracy and appears aimed at preventing Duncan from taking office. Senator Morris denied personal targeting and said the bill was about abolishing an unnecessary office, but acknowledged litigation was likely. The committee also adopted a three-minute rule for testimony by a 10-3 vote, then began hearing public testimony, with the first witnesses overwhelmingly opposing the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• because you all participate in those programs, are the campaign finance program for state-level candidates
• </c><00:01:48.520><c> party</c> Finance for state level candidates party Finance for state level candidates
• During a non-election year, it's basically going to be for candidates only, the year-end report.
• </c> do know that there are some candidates do know that there are some candidates that<00:46:19.599>
• </c> the uh impressive slate of candidates the uh impressive slate of candidates that<00:59:12.760><c

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:

• "Morning again." publish any responses provided by a publish any responses provided by a candidate<00
• on its website and in a candidate on its website and in a digital<00:22:35.840><c> digital</c><00:22
• Because you're already—there's already a candidate statement that they're allowed to make. Correct.
• </c> issues to which candidates may respond. issues to which candidates may respond.
• </c> or you were a candidate. or you were a candidate.

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:

• When you don't donate money to a candidate, you're essentially stating in the First Amendment essence
• that you support the views of that candidate as best you understand them.
• money to candidates of their choice<00:33:17.640><c> is</c><00:33:17.840><c> in</c><00:33:17.920><c>
• </c> don't donate money to a candidate don't donate money to a candidate you're<00:33:33.240><c> essentially
• </c><00:33:38.400><c> as</c> support the views of that candidate as support the views of that candidate

Committee: House Election Law

Transcript Highlights:

• SENATE BILL 982 ADDRESSES THREE ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN IN CONNECTION WITH A CANDIDATE QUALIFYING IN
• RECENTLY, FIVE CANDIDATES IN MINE DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE
• OR FOR A POLITICAL PARTY OR FOR EVEN CITIZENS TO CHALLENGE THE QUALIFYING PAPERS OF A CANDIDATE.
• THIS BILL IS LIMITED TO CANDIDATES SO THEY HAVE TO PUT THEIR NAME IN THE LAWSUIT IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE
• THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a vetting process, and we ask all of our candidates to fill out a form to certify where they
• And the candidate has now made, you know, the elected individual made a decision about what to do going
• We have a candidate. His name is David Gottfried.
• </c><00:10:03.360><c> made</c> disagreed and um the the candidate made disagreed and um the the candidate
• </c> matter at this point we have a candidate matter at this point we have a candidate his<00:10:11.519

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> So, I get that, but this is only for candidates whose names appear on the ballot.
• Um, so, if you're a candidate and you've got somebody, let's say you have a snowbird, right?
• Well, as a candidate you have no way to campaign to that person because they're not home.
• </c><00:43:48.400><c> or</c> preference for one or more candidates or preference for one or more candidates
• , or against a candidate, political party, or<00:45:42.840><c> measure.

Summary: The committee of conference first resolved House Bill 158, which concerns public inspection of absentee ballot lists. The Senate explained a revised approach that removed the broader bill language and instead directed the Secretary of State to review absentee ballot data after each general election for patterns such as common addresses and to report findings to the committees of jurisdiction. The House agreed to the Senate position, and the conference committee voted unanimously to concur. The committee then took up House Bill 281, dealing with a sortable electronic voter checklist. Members debated the Senate’s removal of language that would have included the absentee ballot mailing address when different from the voter’s registration address. Concerns were raised that releasing mailing addresses could expose where voters are not home and could affect overseas and military voters. The committee also discussed a related form for election officials who personally know a voter, including how long the form would be retained and whether it would be subject to public records law. After further discussion, the House agreed to the Senate changes with an additional requirement that the form be signed, and the committee voted to proceed with the amended Senate position. House Bill 317, concerning verification of a person’s identity by a supervisor of the checklist without identification, was also discussed at length. The Senate’s version preserved the ability for election officials to identify people they know, but required a signed form under penalty of perjury and added a nursing home-related provision. Members described the measure as balancing community-based identification with tighter documentation, and a House witness described local problems with inconsistent ID checks and concerns about voting in nursing homes. The House sought one additional change requiring the nursing home verification form to be signed, and the Senate accepted that addition; the committee then voted to move the bill forward on the consent calendar. The conference committee next considered House Bill 340 on electioneering by public employees. The chair presented a replace-all amendment that tied the definition of electioneering to existing law, added a prohibition on expressly or primarily political surveys, and created a civil penalty of up to $1,000 alongside the misdemeanor penalty. Members discussed clarifying when the misdemeanor versus civil penalty would apply and which categories of public employees were covered. After caucus, the Senate agreed to the House’s replace-all approach with the clarifying changes, and the bill was closed. The committee also resolved House Bill 1062 by agreeing to strike a sunset clause from the Senate version authorizing random audits of citizenship qualifications, and it began discussion of House Bill 1187 on the filing window for special-election candidates, where the House proposed requiring local election officials to arrange a filing time on the same day or next business day after being contacted.

Transcript Highlights:

• The WSP may wait until after the primary election for candidates who advanced to the general election
• Yes, the bill provides that if there is a gross misdemeanor, then the candidate is not eligible, and
• The WSP may wait until after the primary election for candidates who advanced to the general election
• Yes, the bill provides that a gross misdemeanor, if there is a gross misdemeanor, then the candidate
• And yeah, they are the same except we provide for the candidates for elected sheriff..."

Summary: The House Community Safety Committee met on February 23, 2026, with a compressed schedule and limited testimony time. Members first heard Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974, which would set eligibility standards for sheriffs, police chiefs, and marshals, require background checks for sheriff candidates through the Washington State Patrol, regulate volunteers and youth cadets, and create a vacancy in office if an elected law enforcement official is finally decertified or fails statutory eligibility requirements. Supporters, including Senator Lovick and several advocacy groups, said the bill promotes accountability and professionalism. Opponents, including the sheriffs of Walla Walla and Spokane counties, argued it imposes unfunded mandates, conflicts with voter sovereignty and recall procedures, and could create problems for rural counties and volunteer use. The committee later took executive action and reported the bill out with a do pass as amended recommendation, 6-2 with one excused. In executive session, the committee also acted on Engrossed Senate Bill 5068, which expands law enforcement hiring eligibility to people legally authorized to work in the United States. A striking amendment clarified that agencies are not liable for employment discrimination claims if hiring is impracticable, allowed applicants who cannot yet possess weapons to apply if they can possess them when hired, and made technical changes. Representative Burnett raised concerns about background investigations, foreign-country vetting, oath of office, and firearm issues, but the committee adopted the striker and then reported the bill out as amended on a 6-2 vote with one excused. The committee also considered Substitute Senate Bill 5855, which prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while interacting with the public except in specified circumstances and creates a civil cause of action. Amendments added an intent section, expanded exceptions for health and safety equipment under OSHA/WISHA, and proposed stronger prosecutorial language, though two amendments were rejected. The bill was then reported out as amended on a 6-2 vote with one excused. The committee then held public hearings on several bills. Engrossed Senate Bill 5890 would expand reckless driving to include driving more than 30 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, and 20 miles per hour over in active construction zones when workers are present; law enforcement, prosecutors, traffic safety officials, and construction industry representatives testified in support. Substitute Senate Bill 5936, a Uniform Law Commission proposal on human trafficking, would allow prosecution of businesses that knowingly engage in or profit from trafficking, strengthen victim confidentiality, and improve U and T visa certification procedures; testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, with one witness urging caution about unintended consequences for businesses that report trafficking. Finally, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6070 would expand missing-person response tools by allowing certain surveillance devices to be used for community caretaking to locate missing endangered persons, create Ebony and Purple Alerts, transfer the missing persons website to the State Patrol, and add a public records exemption. Testimony strongly supported the alert provisions, especially for people with disabilities, while one privacy advocate objected to the surveillance provisions as an overreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each party's candidates appeared on a separate ballot.
• </c><00:20:34.360><c> filings</c> accessible candidate filings accessible candidate filings website<00
• </c><00:23:22.559><c> for</c> deadline to submit their candidates for deadline to submit their candidates
• </c><00:23:30.240><c> to</c> parties and independent candidates to parties and independent candidates
• </c><01:18:38.120><c> feel</c> there's a period where candidates feel there's a period where candidates

Committee: Senate Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• So, where are the best candidates coming from?
• So, if you have candidate A out of the traditional Career path, I mean, education path out of one of
• And you're an employer looking at which is the better candidate.
• I would like a really good Choice there as opposed to just blocking off one way, one set of candidates
• Teachers of Mara reports that 72% of their candidates that come through their program have a five-year

Bills: HB2987 , HB3026 , HB3076 , HB3288 , HB3315 , HB3467 , HB3711 , HB3885 , HB4427 , HB4359 , HB4363

Committee: House Education Oversight

Keywords: education, academic standards, subject matter standards, State Board of Education, legislative review, joint resolution, curriculum, school standards, Oklahoma Administrative Code, education oversight, common education, curriculum standards, state education policy, rulemaking, legislative veto, kindergarten, military families, education policy, school districts, international military dependents

Transcript Highlights:

• The public and candidates are able to monitor recounts in person.
• Candidates on the ballot aren't recounting the ballot.
• Um candidates on recounts um in person.
• Candidates already in statute aren't part of the recount. They are not part of the recount.
• Candidates already in statute aren't part of the recount. They are not part of the recount.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you here as an elected official or are you here as a candidate?
• I'm also a candidate, so which one preempts the other in this bill? VDVRs may...
• Certainly, as a candidate, it depends on what hat you're wearing, right?
• Some sharing of political memes on social media, and it might apply to candidates who alter their own
• Here you have a situation where you're truly changing the look. and the sound of the candidates.

Bills: HB304 , HB401 , HB556 , HB1475 , HB1489 , HB2259 , HB2424 , HB2773 , HB2811 , HB3323 , HB304

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: voter ID, citizenship proof, provisional ballot, election security, Texas, voting rights, deep fakes, misleading videos, election integrity, criminal offense, digital misinformation, deep fake, political manipulation, misinformation, artificial media, political influence, artificially generated media, election influence, Texas Election Code, healthcare reform

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> So, I get that, but this is only for candidates whose names appear on the ballot.
• Well, you have no way as a candidate to campaign to that person because they're not home.
• </c> &gt;&gt; Yeah, cuz this is for candidates &gt;&gt; Yeah, cuz this is for candidates candidates<00
• whose name appear on the candidates whose name appear on the ballot. ballot. ballot.
• , or against a candidate, political party, or<00:45:42.840><c> measure.

Summary: The committee of conference first took up House Bill 158 on public inspection of absentee ballot lists. The Senate explained that its amendment replaced the original bill with a requirement that the Secretary of State review absentee ballot data after each general election and report findings to the committees of jurisdiction, focusing on unusual patterns such as multiple ballots sent to the same address. After a brief caucus, the House agreed to the Senate position, and members voted individually to concur. The committee then discussed House Bill 281, which concerns making the electronic voter checklist available in a sortable format. The main dispute was whether the public list should include the mailing address where an absentee ballot was sent if it differs from the voter’s registered address. The Senate argued that including mailing addresses could expose where voters actually live or are away from home and could create safety concerns, while the House argued the information could help candidates reach voters and was not primarily a fraud measure. The parties also discussed a related nursing home verification provision and record-retention/public-records questions. After caucusing, the House agreed to the Senate’s position with the added nursing home signing language, and the committee closed the bill on consent. House Bill 340, concerning electioneering by public employees, was then taken up with a Senate amendment that narrowed the definition of electioneering by tying it to existing statutory language, added a prohibition on expressly or primarily political surveys, and created a civil penalty option alongside the misdemeanor penalty. Senators and representatives debated whether the penalties should be mandatory or discretionary and how the language would apply to certain categories of public employees. After further clarification and caucus, the House accepted the Senate’s amended replace-all language, and the committee closed HB 340. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 1062, authorizing the Secretary of State to conduct random audits of citizenship qualifications of registered voters. The Senate explained that its changes removed the need for a permanent audit power by allowing records to be checked against databases and by requiring identification for registration going forward, which is why it added a sunset clause. The House member objected to the sunset and wanted the authority to continue indefinitely, and discussion continued as the transcript ended.