Transcript Highlights:

• have what's called discretionary authority, and that's when legislative actions such as a quasi-judicial
• And under quasi-judicial, we would have examples such as rezoning, special exemptions, and variances.
• It will not interfere with any quasi-judicial practices.
• It also establishes a timeline for course of legal action if a judgment determines an improper impact
• It also establishes a timeline for course of legal action if a judgment determines an improper impact

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and heard a series of bills, mostly local claims and growth-management or permitting measures. SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24 were uncontested claims bills providing relief for injuries or damages involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County; each was described as settled or favorably reported by a special master, and each was reported favorably without debate. SB 288, a negotiated bill on rural electric cooperatives, was presented as a clarification to protect co-op authority over generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections; it drew support from industry stakeholders and was reported favorably. SB 830 created a public-records exemption for certain local administrators and their families’ personal information, citing threats against city managers, and it also passed favorably. The committee also considered several land-use and permitting bills. SB 1138 would create a registry of qualified professionals to conduct pre-application review for plats and development, aiming to reduce delays and backlogs; local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, but the bill passed favorably with one no vote. SB 168 expanded public nuisance law to include gambling houses, increased penalties, and authorized attorney’s fees and foreclosure of unpaid fees; it was reported favorably. SB 686 revised the agricultural enclave statute to create a public-hearing process for certain residential projects in urban service areas, with a sunset date later amended to June 30, 2026; conservation and planning groups raised concerns about local planning authority and public participation, but the bill passed favorably. SB 548, a growth-management and impact-fee cleanup bill, clarified plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for impact fees. Local government and development stakeholders testified that it would improve predictability while preserving flexibility, though some sought further refinement on fee increases and refunds; the bill was amended and then reported favorably. SB 1234 addressed building permits and inspections, including permit validity, small-project exemptions, temporary hurricane protection, standardized permit forms, and expanded use of private providers; county officials objected to reduced oversight, while builders and private-provider advocates supported the measure. After testimony and debate, the bill was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, Senator Jones requested to be recorded on several votes, and the committee adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• having uh been the subject of judicial having uh been the subject of judicial evaluations<00:38:
• It risks judicial independence.
• correct administration of the judicial correct administration of the judicial system<00:47:19.520
• >> I did I did not speak with the judicial >> I did I did not speak with the judicial
• Just our judicial branch is one. Just our judicial branch is one.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• On behalf of the Judicial Council, I support that. I support that.
• But I do have some of the concerns that Judicial Council brought up.
• I'll go ahead and hand it over to Judicial Council.
• SB 786 does not alter or shorten these timelines.
• Well, there are various timelines that are prescribed in the law.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills, beginning with SB 41 by Senator Wiener, which would regulate pharmacy benefit managers by increasing transparency, banning patient steering and spread pricing, and requiring full pass-through of rebates. Supporters, including independent pharmacists and health advocates, said PBM practices are driving up drug costs and closing neighborhood pharmacies. Opponents from PBM and health plan groups argued the bill overlaps with recently enacted licensing and reporting requirements, would not lower consumer prices, and may be preempted by ERISA. Members discussed confidentiality issues, consumer savings, and the relationship between SB 41 and the new budget trailer bill; the author asked for an aye vote. The committee then took up SB 378, also by Senator Wiener, aimed at online marketplaces that advertise illegal intoxicating hemp and unlicensed cannabis products. Supporters from labor, public health, and the licensed cannabis industry said online sales are undermining regulated businesses and exposing children to unsafe products. Opponents from tech and hemp industry groups warned the bill is overbroad, could sweep in general-purpose platforms and lawful hemp wellness products, and raises Dormant Commerce Clause and First Amendment concerns. The author said he would narrow the bill, remove industrial hemp references, and address strict liability and standing issues; members largely focused on how to target illegal products without capturing lawful marketplaces. SB 243 by Senator Padilla addressed AI companion chatbots, with supporters including Common Sense Media and transparency advocates warning that these systems can be addictive, manipulative, and dangerous for minors and vulnerable users, citing studies and the death of a Florida teenager. The bill would require disclosures, anti-addiction design limits, self-harm protocols, audits, reporting, and a private right of action. Tech and business groups opposed the measure as overly broad and said its definitions could sweep in general-purpose AI tools; several members supported the goal but questioned the breadth of the definitions and the private right of action. Finally, SB 522 by Senator Wahab would extend just-cause eviction protections to rental units that were previously covered by the Tenant Protection Act but were destroyed in disasters and later rebuilt. Supporters, including Los Angeles city officials and tenant advocates, said the bill would help keep displaced renters housed after wildfires and other disasters. Apartment and realtor groups opposed it, arguing it would remove a key exemption needed to finance rebuilding and could discourage post-disaster reconstruction. Members expressed support for tenant protections in disaster areas, and the author asked for an aye vote.

Bills: HB1675, HB3242, HB1739, HB3320, HB3047, HB4434, HJR1089, HB4432, HB3718, HB3705, SR43, HB1933, HB4248, SB1847, SB1778, HJR1086, HB3001, HB3002, HB3003, HB3004, HB3005, HB3007, HB3008, HB1590, HB1242, HB3818, HB4305, HB1979, HB1225, HB3931, HB4454, HB3849, HB1746, HB3720, HB4275, HB4300, HB3586, HB2268, HB3755, HB4117, HB4294, HB3650, HB4298, HB3270, HB3145, HB3056

Keywords: emergency management, severe weather, youth camp, summer camp, overnight camp, day camp, outdoor education, adventure camp, wilderness program, campground safety, tornado preparedness, flooding, flash flood, high winds, hail, lightning, extreme heat, extreme cold, wildfire smoke, evacuation plan

Transcript Highlights:

• have what's called discretionary authority, and that's when legislative actions such as a quasi-judicial
• And under quasi-judicial, we would have examples such as rezoning, special exemptions, and variances.
• It will not interfere with any quasi-judicial practices.
• I think it also undermines local decision-making by prohibiting quasi-judicial review of development.
• It also establishes a timeline for course of legal action if a judgment determines an improper impact

Bills: S0014, S0016, S0024, S0168, S0288, S0548, S0686, S0830, S1138, S1234

Keywords: negligence, settlement, police conduct, municipal liability, personal injury, compensation, injuries, Miami-Dade County, rural electric cooperatives, energy production, Florida law, energy tariffs, regulation, impact fees, transportation capacity, local government, interlocal agreements, growth management, community planning, extraordinary circumstances

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and took up a series of local claims, public records, growth management, permitting, and nuisance bills. It first heard and approved SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24, all uncontested claims bills providing relief related to injuries or settlements involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County. The committee also approved SB 288 on rural electric cooperatives, which narrows statutory language to protect co-op decisions on generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections, and SB 830, which creates a public records exemption for certain personal information of county and city managers and their families due to reported threats against local officials. Members then considered SB 1138 on qualified contractors and development review, which would create a registry of licensed professionals to help local governments process pre-application reviews and plats more quickly. Local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, while private-provider supporters backed the bill; Senator Sharief voted no, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 168, expanding public nuisance law to include gambling houses and increasing penalties, and SB 686 on agricultural enclaves, which revises the enclave process, adds a public hearing path, limits it to certain residential projects in urban service areas, and was amended to change a date to June 30, 2026 before being reported favorably. The committee next approved CS for SB 548 on growth management and impact fees, which clarifies plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for improper fee collections. Testimony reflected support for clearer standards but also concerns about fee increases and refund administration. Finally, SB 1234 on building permits and inspections was reported favorably; it would extend permit validity, exempt some low-value work from permitting, create a statewide residential permit form, speed review timelines, and expand private-provider use, drawing opposition from a Miami-Dade building official who argued for continued local oversight and support from private-provider advocates. Senator Jones requested to be recorded as voting affirmatively on several tabs and negatively on tab 9, and the committee adjourned after all bills were disposed of.

Bills: SB309, HB192, SB178, SB179, SB237, HB10, HB107, HB189, HB37, HB226, SB309, HB192, SB178, SB179, SB237, HB10, HB107, HB189, HB37, HB226

Keywords: automated driving systems, oversized vehicles, transportation, regulations, permits, HB192, international wire transfer, wire transfer fee, remittance fee, money transmission business, Alabama Securities Commission, Department of Revenue, Education Trust Fund, ELL instructors, English Language Learner, ESL teachers, income tax credit, remittances, international money transfer, migrant families

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, already in law, but it's a modification if the applicant agrees to cost and timelines with the
• <00:26:51.880> and our permitting process timelines and our permitting process timelines and
• <00:27:02.880> associated industry costs and timelines associated industry costs and timelines
• So why the short timeline?
• <01:09:32.560> of could impact the timeline of could impact the timeline of mining<01:09:35.040

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The 24 members are appointed by the judicial branch, governor, and four legislative caucuses.
• Only a month, because they can only make recommendations, not decisions, on judicial salaries, and so
• <00:02:39.840> officers' related to, um, judicial officers' related to, um, judicial officers
• Um, Senator Ann Johnson Stewart or Director Leland maybe like a walk through the timeline with us.
• walk through the timeline with us. walk through the timeline with us.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Zlatko Theodorovich from the Judicial Council. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
• Zlatko Theodorovich from the Judicial Council.
• Chair, Zlatko Theodorovich from the Judicial Council.
• So we’re working with the Council, monitoring that and engaging that timeline.”
• Council to meet those timelines listed in the agenda.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review May Revision proposals for several departments and emphasized that no votes would be taken that day. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget is balanced only through one-time resources and still has structural deficits, recommending that the Legislature avoid new ongoing spending and instead preserve reserves and other solutions. The Judicial Council then presented proposals for language access and interpreter services, appellate court security, a backfill to the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation-room mandate; Finance supported the language access item with reporting language and supported keeping the court facilities backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial pay freezes, judge vacancies, and uneven judge allocations across counties, and also asked about the cost and completion of courthouse lactation rooms and remote-hearing infrastructure. The Board of State and Community Corrections items focused on $10 million one-time grants for missing and murdered Indigenous people and for a human trafficking vertical prosecution program. The LAO suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support the MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said the need was clear based on reported cases and California’s share of hotline reports. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and discussed whether ongoing funding would be needed beyond the one-time proposal, while also debating whether BSEC or OES should administer the prosecution grants. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal fraud and elder abuse staffing, organized retail criminal enterprise case completion, and a continuous appropriation for the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO raised concerns about the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s solvency and recommended rejecting that portion unless DOJ could show the fund could support it without General Fund repayment, and it opposed the continuous appropriation in favor of more legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent under current projections and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. Members also clarified that the Medi-Cal fraud unit targets providers, not beneficiaries, and asked about delays in restitution payments. A lengthy portion of the hearing covered CDCR’s May Revision package and the Boston Consulting Group cost-savings effort. CDCR described revised savings from workforce optimization, workers’ compensation, and procurement, but members repeatedly expressed frustration that the promised savings had fallen far short of earlier estimates. The LAO recommended deeper cuts to some parole positions, more detail on proposed eliminations and contract changes, and caution about counting unallocated future savings. CDCR also presented population projections showing continued declines and the LAO again urged the administration to close a prison to reduce ongoing costs. The committee also heard proposals on workers’ compensation, Corcoran honor housing, incarcerated firefighter pay, agricultural food purchasing requirements, menopause care, mental health receiver staffing, resource teams, crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing, and AI note-taking in electronic health records, with the LAO generally recommending limited-term approvals and reporting requirements while Finance defended ongoing funding and said it was open to additional reporting language.

Transcript Highlights:

• For judges, it's a matter of having family law practitioners present at judicial conferences, having
• There's also disobedience of a judicial order.
• I have not seen one charge as disobedience of a judicial order yet. It just came to me.
• I mean, we're talking about now a whole review of the rules of judicial conduct.
• Coons has made that a little bit more difficult based upon the judicial findings.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met with a quorum, approved the prior meeting minutes, and reviewed a memorandum compiling member suggestions for possible legislation. The memo grouped ideas into topics including creation of a family court, expanded education for parents, attorneys, and judges, expedited hearings for parenting-time violations, limiting law enforcement involvement in custody disputes, creating parenting time expediters, and adopting more uniform court procedures. Members also discussed whether to form subcommittees, but the task force decided to continue working as a full committee rather than create subcommittees at this time. The committee then heard testimony from Dr. John Perez, a mental health professional, who described his personal custody experience and his professional work with families he believes have been affected by parental alienation. He argued for stronger education, faster court response times, and better tools to address intentional interference with parenting time. Members questioned him about his case history, the concept of parental alienation, and whether specialized family courts or judges with family-law training could help. Dr. Perez said a dedicated family court and faster hearings would likely have helped his situation. The task force spent substantial time discussing the possible creation of a family court. Judge Hovey supported the idea of a specialized family court or at least a study of one, saying family cases are distinct from ordinary adversarial litigation and that judges with family-law experience could better handle them. Several members agreed that a family court could improve consistency, expertise, and speed, but others cautioned that the task force’s current directive is focused on enforcement of existing orders rather than broader custody policy, and noted that voters had previously rejected equal shared parenting proposals. The group also discussed expedited procedures for parenting-time disputes, with Judge Hovey suggesting a 30-day hearing timeline may be workable. On education, members generally supported requiring parents to complete a parenting education course and adding educational materials explaining court process, child support, and what judges can and cannot do. Mr. McLean suggested a short instructional video for litigants and more family-law education for judges and attorneys, while Ms. Moldenhauer said education could be incorporated into scheduling orders or mediation orders. Members also discussed the Parents Forever course, including whether it should be mandatory in all counties and whether cost is a barrier; no vote was taken on any of these proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1369 adopts reasonable, commonsense reforms to our judicial recall process.
• SB 1369 establishes safeguards for California's judicial recall process.
• We think there's a problem with judicial recalls, and in general, the politicization of the judicial
• We think there's a problem with judicial recalls, and in general, the politicization of the judicial
• And none of them, in my view, are premised on any judicial misconduct of any sort.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on July 1, 2026, heard a full agenda of election-related measures, and took final votes on several bills and one resolution. The committee also adopted two consent items, SB 1429 and SB 1430, without opposition. Members and the chair repeatedly noted committee membership changes and the final meeting of the session, and the chair emphasized the committee’s focus on protecting democracy and election integrity. Among the bills heard, SB 1369 would shorten the signature-gathering period for judicial recalls in larger counties and require paid gatherers to disclose they are compensated; supporters argued it would protect judicial independence, while the chair and some members noted the need to balance recall rights with county differences. SB 900 would reformat campaign disclosure language on large print ads and billboards to improve readability while preserving transparency, with broad support from outdoor advertising, clean money, and good-government groups. SJR 18, which condemns Citizens United and urges action against corporate spending in elections, drew support from reform advocates but also concerns about the resolution’s focus and scope; it was advanced on a party-line split with some members voting no. The committee also advanced SB 1164, a major voting-rights measure expanding California protections against vote dilution and voter suppression, adding preclearance-style review for some jurisdictions, and directing courts to interpret election laws in favor of voting access. Local government representatives opposed it unless amended, citing uncertainty, loss of safe-harbor protections, and implementation concerns, while civil-rights and labor groups strongly supported it. SB 1360, which expands language-access requirements for voters with limited English proficiency and lowers coverage thresholds, was supported by voting-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups but opposed by elections officials unless amended; the committee acknowledged the need for further work on county-level implementation and data standards. The committee also approved SB 1418, which extends protections against seizure of election records and voting systems beyond voted ballots, and SB 884, which creates a buffer zone around polling places and vote-by-mail drop locations to prevent interference with voting and ballot custody, though sheriffs and police groups opposed the arrest restrictions. SB 46, which would give the Secretary of State clearer authority to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential and vice-presidential candidates from the ballot, and SB 715, which moves candidate ballot-designation challenge deadlines earlier, also advanced. Most measures were sent to Appropriations or otherwise held on call for absent members, and the meeting ended with final roll calls and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• With regards to the judicial branch, a question for the Judicial Council: Does the Judicial Council believe
• Is that something that the Judicial Council will support?
• With that, I do have a few questions regarding the judicial branch.
• Tamara Ahmed, Facilities Director for the Judicial Council.
• California speaking tonight on the Judicial Branch pretrial Services Program.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision proposals for labor, public safety/judiciary, and transportation, and no votes were taken. In Part A on labor, the Employment Development Department reviewed proposals for EDD Next document management system funding, updated UI loan interest costs, disability insurance and paid family leave benefit and administration adjustments, WIOA funding changes, UI administrative and benefit changes, school employee benefit adjustments, an EMT training reappropriation, and a technical correction tied to EDD Next. PERB discussed funding tied to AB 28 and AB 1, including litigation-related workload and new jurisdiction over legislative employees. DIR presented proposals for legal unit reclassifications, two major IT modernization projects, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COIA reappropriation, and trailer bill language on electronic assessment payments and the DWC director salary cap. CalHR proposed additional funding for a consolidated employee assistance program contract, and CalPERS and CalSTRS presented budget adjustments tied to investment costs and state contribution changes. Members focused heavily on UI debt and interest payments, asking the administration for a plan to reduce the outstanding loan and relieve employers. Finance said no specific repayment plan was included in the May Revision, while LAO said the state’s UI tax structure is structurally insufficient and that any debt payoff should be paired with tax-system reform. Senators also questioned EDD Next costs and timelines, PERB’s caseload and staffing needs, and DIR’s emerging technologies unit, with LAO noting that the unit would appear focused on physical workplace safety rather than broader AI labor issues. CalHR said the new EAP contract would consolidate services, improve access to clinicians, and lower costs relative to the current model. CalPERS defended higher external management fees as part of a strategy to pursue higher net returns, while some members pressed for more transparency about private investments; CalSTRS said it was not prepared to address investment-strategy questions at this hearing. Public comment in Part A was dominated by advocates urging support for an immigration enforcement emergency relief fund, along with comments supporting the Jails to Jobs proposal, the Apprenticeship Innovation Fund, and additional PERB funding. The chair noted that many of the immigration-related requests might fall under other committees and said staff would follow up. In Part B, Finance and LAO outlined judicial branch and DOJ May Revision items, including funding for court interpreter services, appellate court security, lactation room implementation delays, courthouse construction reappropriations, and DOJ budget increases. LAO recommended approving the language-access proposal with a report on reducing interpreter cost growth and reducing the General Fund backfill for state court facilities by $10 million on an ongoing basis.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also had very specific timelines and there were, um, there, there was a focus on developing foundational
• Um, that a lot of the timelines were extended by six months because of the COVID situation that was,
• I am a Deputy District attorney in the 2nd Judicial District.
• Um, there are no timelines for when those need to be tested.
• The second issue that you really brought was the issue of timelines in two, in two different ways.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to thank you as now we move to a judicial branch.
• Judicial branch.
• Let's start with the department, judicial branch. Good afternoon, Assemblymember Ramos.
• And so it puts a very tight timeline for the department to work with the chosen prison.
• Okay, and what does that timeline look like? When are you going to have someone on board?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1148 provides a COLA for judicial retirees 10 to 20 years, 3% over 20 years.
• Committee Report to Senate Bill 1174 by Caldwell of the House and Hall of the Senate, relating to judicial
• This is a piece of legislation that rejects judicial salary increases. I yield to questions.
• reading of the bill: Senate Bill 1174 by Caldwell of the House and Hall of the Senate, relating to judicial

Bills: SB1365, SB2139, SB1595, SB1303, SB2180, SB2072, SB1772, SB1209, SB137, SB1944, SB372, SB1636, SB1256, SB1827, SB2104, SB1226, SB1876, SB1966, SB80, SB1148, SB1147, SB1149, SB1161, SB1162, SB1164, SB1159, SB1165, SB1174, SB1156, SB1158, SB1163, SB1175, SB1176, SB1166, SB1167, SB1157, SB1146, SB1481, SB1144, SB1145, SCR20

Keywords: SB1365, Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act, procurement exemption, competitive bidding, state purchasing, Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, tourism department, merchandise for resale, gift shops, lodges, golf pro shops, state parks, restaurant contracting, retail outlets, public procurement, purchasing flexibility, Title 74, emergency clause, restrictive covenants, discriminatory covenants

Transcript Highlights:

• Zlatko Theodorovich from the Judicial Council. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
• Zlatko Theodorovich from the Judicial Council.
• So we're working with Council monitoring that and engaging that timeline. Okay.
• Council to meet those timelines listed in the agenda.
• Council to meet those timelines listed in the agenda.

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• After that graphic, there is a timeline of key events that summarize what I just told you.
• Currently, the plan submitted to the court is a three-year implementation timeline.
• So I know this will be up to the judicial system.
• I read it I saw that there were measurements, timelines.
• So just wanted to remind you all the timeline on that is coming a little bit later.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1369 adopts reasonable common-sense reforms to our judicial recall process.
• for California's judicial recall process while preserving voters' constitutional rights.
• We think there's a problem with judicial recalls, and in general, the politicization of the judicial
• And none of them, in my view, are premised on any judicial misconduct of any sort.
• There's also a double demand letter problem and kind of a timeline problem in the bill.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > dispute other judicial or quasi judicial dispute other judicial or quasi judicial dispute or<00
• bring in as alternatives with a timeline bring in as alternatives with a timeline of<01:27:14.320
• Going back to the timeline, I am wondering if our timeline is around setting three and four programs
• Going back to the timeline, I am wondering if our timeline is around setting three and four programs
• Going back to the timeline, I am wondering if our timeline is around setting three and four programs

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the prior meeting minutes and then spent most of the meeting discussing draft recommendations and a Senate amendment, 007-7, related to seclusion in schools. The chair explained the history of the issue, including Minnesota’s 2023 ban on seclusion from birth through grade 3, and described 007-7 as a compromise developed with stakeholders that would extend the ban through grade 6 unless strict conditions are met. Those conditions include explicit written informed consent from all parents or guardians in their primary language, oral translation of safeguards, showing the seclusion room before consent, mandatory follow-up IEP meetings after repeated use, outreach and education for families, and data reporting on use of seclusion. The chair also said the amendment would prevent judges or other officials from ordering seclusion over a parent’s objection. Members then reviewed the draft recommendations line by line. They agreed to revise language to add “and fund” after “mandate” in the first section, and discussed changing references from “level three and level four” to “level three and higher,” though several members ultimately preferred keeping the focus on school settings and not expanding into medical or correctional settings. They also discussed replacing the word “subjected” with more neutral language such as “experience” or “whose IEP includes seclusion.” Another issue was whether the recommendations should distinguish between students whose IEP already includes seclusion and students who experience seclusion in an emergency but do not have it in their IEP; members suggested splitting that into separate recommendations and possibly adding a new item for the latter situation. A final discussion focused on whether the working group should recommend a mandated alternative-to-seclusion program and whether such a mandate should be tied to funding. School district representatives said many districts already use programs such as CPI, but others, especially outstate districts, charter schools, hospitals, and residential settings, may face significant costs if required to adopt new programs like Ukeru. Members generally agreed that if the legislature is asked to require implementation of new alternatives, funding should accompany the mandate. The chair also noted that existing law already requires an IEP team meeting after restrictive procedures are used twice in 30 days, and encouraged members to compare that with the 007-7 language before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Number one, the first change in the bill is an administrative timeline.
• That is not a timeline that impacts voters.
• So again, we're taking away judicial discretion.
• But in judicial proceedings, one party prevails and one doesn't.
• Judicial immunity serves an important but narrow intention to protect those involved in the judicial

Bills: SB1285, SB1289, SB1326, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1392, SB1402, SB1425, SCR1013, SCR1014

Keywords: sentencing, correctional facilities, multiple sentences, death penalty, aggravating circumstances, juvenile offenses, class 2 felony, foreign donations, election administration, certification, Arizona Revised Statutes, transparency, public disclosure, victims' rights, attorney fees, government accountability, right to counsel, legal representation, parents' rights, family law

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then took up several election, family court, and criminal justice bills. SB 1425, the “big bill,” would move Arizona’s 2026 primary election date earlier and adjust related election administration timelines; the chair’s amendment moved the primary to July 21 and removed the shortened curing/ID deadlines. County officials testified in support, explaining the timing changes and the need to align dates, and the committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. SB 1289, dealing with certifications for entities providing money or resources for election administration and foreign funding disclosures, also received a do-pass recommendation after testimony from supporters arguing it would block foreign influence in election administration and ballot issue spending. The committee later heard SCR 1013, a related resolution that would more directly prohibit foreign-source money for election administration and ballot measures; the sponsor and supporters said it was similar to SB 1289 but broader, and testimony focused on foreign money flowing through nonprofit networks. The committee then considered SB 1326, which would allow courts to award attorney fees and costs to victims when a party violates or worsens a victim’s rights. A victim’s attorney testified that the bill would provide needed accountability and guidance, while opponents argued the term “exacerbates” was vague and that existing remedies already exist. The committee approved SB 1326 on a 4-3 vote. SB 1402, requiring courts to impose a fee on certain probationers to cover electronic monitoring costs, drew support from the sponsor and advocates who said offenders should pay for monitoring, and opposition from defense attorneys who warned it could burden indigent probationers and divert money from treatment; it also received a 4-3 do-pass recommendation. The most extensive debate was on SB 1330, which would allow a parent in certain custody cases to request a jury trial on parenting time or legal decision-making. Supporters, including several parents, described costly and traumatic family court experiences and argued a jury would provide a neutral check on judges and court-appointed professionals. County and court representatives opposed the bill, saying family cases require specialized judicial expertise, jury trials would delay urgent matters, increase costs, and risk confidentiality. Despite those concerns, the committee adopted the bill on a 4-3 vote. The committee also approved SB 1328, which declares state policy favoring parental rights and a child’s equal access to both co-parents, after adopting an amendment adding legislative intent language. Finally, SB 1329, which would let parents sue court-appointed professionals who deviate from professional ethics or standards in custody matters, passed 4-3 after testimony from parents and advocates who said court appointees lack accountability, while opponents said existing malpractice and licensing remedies already address misconduct.