Transcript Highlights:

• They know that their partner has weapons, and yet a judge denied the temporary restraining order even
• I think that for the next party, temporary restraining order, I think this is appropriate.
• Yeah, so the rules around a permanent restraining order are still the same.
• restraining orders, also known as WVROs.
• AB 2179 would make workplace violence restraining order procedures match other civil restraining order

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee met and heard a series of bills and one resolution, with the chair first outlining the consent calendar and the committee’s testimony rules. Senator McNerney presented SJR 18, a resolution condemning Citizens United and urging limits on corporate spending in elections; he argued that corporate and foreign money distort democracy, and Senator Reyes voiced support. No opposition testimony appeared. The committee then heard AB 2305, which would bar private equity firms, hedge funds, and other corporate lenders from influencing litigation decisions and treat such conduct as unauthorized practice of law. The author and Consumer Attorneys of California said the bill closes loopholes that allow outside financial interests to affect case strategy and settlements; the Civil Justice Association of California also supported it, while the International Legal Finance Association said it was neutral after amendments. AB 1977 followed, a Secretary of State-sponsored bill to clarify and correct the Online Notarization Act so remote notarizations can be implemented by 2030; the Secretary of State’s office and notary groups supported it, and there was no opposition. Assembly Member Rogers presented AB 1657, which would allow domestic violence survivors to seek temporary restraining orders without first giving notice to the restrained person, arguing that notice requirements can increase danger and delay protection. AB 1801, by Assembly Member Lee, would tighten public notice and hearing requirements for local contracts involving private immigration detention facilities, closing loopholes that had allowed rushed approvals; immigrant rights and civil rights groups supported it. Assembly Member Patel’s AB 2179 would extend e-filing and remote appearance options to workplace violence restraining orders, with support from local governments, prosecutors, unions, and other groups. Assembly Member Hart’s AB 1875 would let courts shorten or waive the six-month divorce waiting period for domestic violence survivors, with support from domestic violence advocates and several other organizations. After testimony, the committee took up votes. AB 2179 and AB 1875 both passed unanimously, AB 2305 passed 12-0, AB 1657 passed 12-0, AB 1801 passed 10-2, and AB 1977 passed 8-2. SJR 18 was adopted 10-2. The consent calendar also passed unanimously. The committee then adjourned until the following Tuesday.

Transcript Highlights:

• In other words, the reason for filing the restraining order?
• If it is the civil side, it is the protective order and temporary restraining order provision.
• If they sign this ex parte order, it is only a temporary restraining order, not a permanent restraining
• If they sign this ex parte order, this is only a temporary restraining order.
• It's not a, uh, only a temporary restraining order. It's not a permanent restraint.

Summary: The committee first took up SCR 30 by Senator Connick, which memorializes Congress to compel the Department of Justice to release unclassified Epstein-related records. Senator Connick gave personal remarks about child sexual abuse and the need to hold powerful people accountable. Representative Newell supported the resolution, and the committee reported it favorably without opposition. Next, the committee considered SCR 40 by Senator Selders, urging Congress to timely pass defense appropriations that fully fund and align with the National Defense Authorization Act. The measure was briefly explained as a statement of support for military readiness and proper appropriations, and it was moved favorably with no opposition. The main substantive discussion centered on SB 259 by Senator Barrow, which would authorize an online portal for civil protective order applications. A Supreme Court protective order registry representative explained that the portal would let domestic and dating violence survivors complete petitions online, with the same judicial review, service, and hearing process that exists now; the bill would not eliminate manual filing. Members asked about fees, guidance for applicants, verification, judicial review, public access, and the risk of false filings. The witness and several members emphasized that the process remains temporary and ex parte at the outset, that final orders are issued by judges, and that the registry is not public. A domestic violence coalition representative also testified in support. Representative Newell moved favorable, Representative Edmondson objected, and the committee reported the bill favorably by a 10-1 vote. Finally, Representative Baham presented HR 245 condemning political violence in the United States. He cited recent and historical examples of political attacks and argued that violence against public figures and activists is harmful regardless of party. Members voiced support, no one objected, and the resolution was adopted before the committee adjourned, with the chair noting it was the last meeting of the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• gets a restraining order to force them gets a restraining order to force them off<00:19:36.360><
• <00:20:01.400> orders<00:20:02.039> to people using uh restraining orders to people
• c><00:21:14.919> be<00:21:15.039> a restraining order there has to be a restraining order
• order, permanent restraining order, or injunction to compel compliance with Section 521-51, HRS.
• order permanent restraining restraining order permanent restraining order<00:41:24.000> or<00

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SB 284, which would remove the requirement that wiretapping applications to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill as drafted and instead proposed a new emergency-wiretap procedure allowing county prosecutors to seek immediate judicial authorization in exigent circumstances, followed by AG review and a follow-up application within 48 hours. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s office supported creating an emergency exception, citing a kidnapping case involving a missing material witness and the need to obtain live phone location data quickly, but asked that the AG be required to respond clearly within the follow-up period. The AG said the current wiretap process often arrives incomplete and noted a prior Honolulu application that was returned for more information and then abandoned. The committee also heard public testimony, including one speaker in support and another in opposition, and discussed whether the proposed emergency process should include imminent danger findings and what happens if the follow-up application is not approved. No vote or final action was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up SB 295, which increases penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and makes related changes. The Deputy Public Defender opposed the bill’s higher penalties, arguing that not all restraining-order cases involve domestic violence and that the measure could affect family disputes, property conflicts, custody battles, and other non-domestic situations. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney supported the bill, saying it would create a more uniform and efficient charging framework and that violations of court orders can be serious even when the conduct appears minor in isolation. Domestic violence advocates also supported the measure, emphasizing the need for meaningful enforcement and deterrence; one witness cited statewide data showing thousands of TRO petitions but relatively few convictions and fines. A representative from the Domestic Violence Action Center supported the bill but requested amendments to reduce unintended consequences for survivors. During discussion, the committee focused on the proposed minimum sentence, with the Domestic Violence Action Center recommending reducing it from 15 days to 5 days. The witness explained that longer minimums can create hardships such as job loss, housing instability, and child care problems, while still allowing time for survivors to access shelter and services. The committee chair indicated support for amending the bill to reflect that recommendation. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney also clarified that the bill is intended to address violations of already-issued protective orders after judicial review, not the initial issuance of restraining orders, and said the office supports eliminating the distinction between domestic and non-domestic protective-order violations because charging decisions are often made under time pressure. Multiple individuals and organizations signed up in support, and one witness testified in opposition. No vote or final committee action was announced in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• From the Senate, we will now come to order. Members, please come to order.
• That will be the order. I clear the bill to be advanced.
• That will be the order.
• That will be the order to declare the bill to be advanced.
• That will be the order. I declare the bill to be advanced.

Bills: SB843, SB1733, SB1476, SB1237, SB1410, SB1894, SB1272, SB1204, SB1721, SB1725, SB1735, SB1337, SB1339, SB1461, SB1975, SB1450, SB1458, SB1232, SB1238, SB1325, SB1209, SB1362, SB2072, SB1451, SB1540, SB1581, SB1535, SB1266, SB1927, SB1460, SB2084, SB2182, SB392, SB985, SB1265, SB1283, SB1441, SB1307, SB1425, SB1826, SB1365, SB1696, SB1870, SB1722, SB1639, SB715, SB716, SB182, SB609, SB169, SB134, SB1611, SB432, SB1407, SB2039, SB1356, SB1288, SB2019, SB1705, SB1878, SB2118

Keywords: school boards, educational governance, conflict of interest, employee relations, Oklahoma statutes, child abuse, reporting requirements, sexual misconduct, law enforcement, school personnel, confidentiality, student safety, land office, land exchange, investment, education funding, real estate management, Teachers' Bill of Rights, education, teachers' rights

Transcript Highlights:

• In other words, the reason for filing the restraining order?
• And just tell me if I'm wrong, you can go and you can file for a temporary restraining order without
• If it's a civil side, it's the protective order, temporary restraining order provision.
• If they sign this ex parte order, this is only a temporary restraining order.
• But you have a full-on hearing to determine if this temporary restraining order is going to do.

Bills: HR245, SCR30, SCR40, SB259

Keywords: transparency, justice, Epstein, Maxwell, investigation, human trafficking, government accountability, domestic violence, protective orders, online application, judicial administration, Louisiana, 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This restraining order has been active since I was a teenager, and this lifetime protection order covers
• Having a lifetime restraining order in place since youth changes your entire life.
• I spoke up and stated that we have a lifetime restraining order and that this should not be.
• I spoke up and stated that we have a lifetime restraining order and that this should not be.
• In 2024, BMC Central saw 400 filings for restraining and harassment orders.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a late-file hearing on several bills, with Chairs Michael Day and Lydia Edwards outlining hearing rules, testimony limits, and written-testimony procedures. The first bill discussed was H. 4876, a proposal to strengthen supports for survivors of abuse. Representative Carol Faiola testified on behalf of a constituent who described how a lifetime restraining order was effectively undermined after a family member’s death, arguing the bill should limit abusers’ legal standing after death, improve survivor notification and privacy protections, expand coercive-control definitions, and create education and resource programs. The committee then heard testimony on H. 5111, which would strengthen the Massachusetts Antitrust Act. Representative Dave Rogers and Attorney General’s Office antitrust chief Anthony Mariano said the bill would give the state more tools to pursue anti-competitive conduct, including conduct with multi-state effects, while allowing enforcement even when federal authorities are also involved. They said it would increase penalties, clarify that invitations to conspire are violations, protect labor markets, remove limits affecting some housing transactions, and extend the statute of limitations. The committee also heard support for a related “universal 1983” bill, S. 2976/H. 2976, creating a state cause of action for constitutional violations by federal, state, or local officers acting under color of law; supporters said it would fill gaps in remedies against federal officers while preserving qualified immunity. Testimony also supported H. 4783, a bill affirming the rights of people experiencing homelessness. The Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless said the measure would push back against growing criminalization of homelessness, especially after the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision and local encampment bans, and would protect the use of public spaces without discrimination based on housing status. On H. 4826, condo owners and advocates said Chapter 183A is outdated and leaves owners with too little say and too few remedies against mismanagement, citing problems such as unsafe water, major assessments, and lack of meaningful dispute resolution. The committee also heard strong support for H. 5116, renaming the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court the Judge Leslie E. Harris Courthouse, with testimony from family members, legislators, attorneys, and community leaders describing Judge Harris’s mentorship, community service, and commitment to second chances. Later testimony covered S. 2975, a bill to deter ICE courthouse arrests and protect access to justice; CPCS, law students, and defense advocates said courthouse arrests chill participation by defendants, witnesses, and victims and disrupt pending cases. The committee also heard support for H. 5244, repealing an archaic law criminalizing concealment of a child’s death, with advocates arguing it has been used to punish pregnancy loss and should be removed. The hearing concluded with additional testimony in favor of S. 2976 and more support for the Judge Harris courthouse renaming, after which the chairs closed the hearing and reminded the public how to submit written testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• of filing restraining orders on behalf of filing restraining orders on behalf of their<00:04:11.840
• order, categories of restraining order, categories of restraining order, including,<00:05:46.000
• my<00:08:50.800> child a restraining order to protect my child a restraining order to protect
• , for instance, or any other form of restraining order.
• or any other form of restraining order. or any other form of restraining order.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They can; they need an order. In order to restrain and do seclusion.
• . order. order.
• >> In<01:43:43.400> order<01:43:43.640> to<01:43:43.800> restrain<01:43:44.640
• >> In order to restrain and do seclusion.
• >> In order to restrain and do seclusion.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting began as a Committee of Conference on House Bill 194, but the discussion quickly centered on whether to remove an attached bill, 504, because of concerns about a possible fee or tax and a House rule issue. Members debated the procedural posture of the bill, whether the House version had been non-concurred, and whether the conference committee could still resolve the issue by adopting the House amendment or reconsidering the non-concur. The exchange became tense, with one side warning that failing to pass the measure could jeopardize a linked rural health transformation grant worth about $20 million. The committee ultimately recessed without resolving the 194/504 dispute and planned to return the next day. The committee then opened conference on House Bill 609, which dealt with use-of-force/self-defense language and restraint/seclusion authority in health care settings. On the self-defense portion, House members argued strongly for restoring vehicle language, saying people should be able to defend themselves in a car the same way they can in a home, especially in carjacking or assault situations where no weapon is displayed. Senate members expressed concern about expanding deadly-force protections too broadly and suggested narrowing the language to focus on imminent harm to the person, not property, while also questioning where the provision should be placed in statute. The second major topic in HB 609 was who may order restraint or seclusion in clinical settings. House members argued that physicians are not always immediately available, especially in hospitals and emergency settings, and that APRNs and physician associates should be able to act in crises if properly trained and credentialed. Senate members raised concerns about scope of practice and asked whether the language implied patient consent was required; the Senate side explained that consent language was intended to address capacity and informed decision-making, not to require voluntary consent to restraint. The discussion ended with the sides still apart, though the Senate floated a compromise allowing physician associates to order restraint when no doctor is physically on the premises, while not yet extending that authority to APRNs. The committee took a short break to continue negotiations on the firearm/self-defense piece.

Transcript Highlights:

• And one of the issues was around the issues of restraining orders.
• order, and they could go look on the computer, and he didn't have a restraining order.
• He didn't have a restraining order.
• He didn't have a restraining order.
• orders those that are served and unserved and if an unserved restraining order is populated when we

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with procedural remarks and acknowledgments of Rosh Hashanah, followed by testimony on several criminal justice bills before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. A major focus was S. 1061, the “Raise the Age” bill, which would gradually move 18- to 20-year-olds into the juvenile justice system. Supporters included youth and young adult advocates, former juvenile court Judge Jay Blitzman, ACLU and CPCS representatives, Roca, United Way, Citizens for Juvenile Justice, and Senator Brendan Crichton. They argued that young adults are still developmentally immature, that juvenile court services improve education and rehabilitation, and that adult-system involvement leads to higher recidivism and racial disparities. Committee members asked practical questions about how the bill would work, and witnesses explained that it would expand access to juvenile court diversion, probation, and DYS services for the covered age group. The chairs also noted a notice issue, clarifying that the hearing had been posted seven days in advance rather than the usual ten. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to revise accomplice and joint venture murder liability and sentencing. Representative Sam Montaño and Senator Liz Miranda supported the reform, arguing that current law can impose life sentences on people with limited or no knowledge of a killing and that the doctrine contributes to racial bias and disproportionate punishment. A law professor, a former defendant, and advocates from the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls described cases where people were punished far beyond their actual role and said the bill would better align charges and sentences with individual culpability. Related testimony also supported a proportionality-focused reform to reduce the harshness of joint venture sentencing. Several other public safety and criminal justice bills drew testimony. Senator Robin Kennedy supported a bill redefining strangulation in domestic violence law, saying the current “substantial pressure” standard is too vague and that strangulation is often lethal without visible injury. District Attorney Ryan and a retail business executive backed a bill on organized retail theft, saying it would give prosecutors more flexible charging options and better address coordinated theft rings. Representative Vieira and the family of Kiana Barros urged action on Kiana’s Law, which would improve restraining-order notification and enforcement after Barros’s daughter was killed after an order was not served. The hearing also included support for the HALO Act, which would create a 25-foot safety zone around first responders and penalize harassment or obstruction, and for a bill to enhance courthouse security by creating specific protections for judges and their families. No votes were taken during the hearing."} 0}]}

Transcript Highlights:

• The Rules Committee will come to order. Thank you for being here this morning.
• Without objection, that will be the order. Thank you. Members, this is a work in progress.
• Without objection, that will be the order. Mr. Bullard, you recognize for debate.
• That will be the order. What?
• With that objection, that'll be the order.

Bills: HB3327, HB3711, HB4104, HJR1077, HB3329

Keywords: State Board of Education, Oklahoma education board, board appointments, school governance, education reform, governor appointments, legislative appointments, speaker of the house, president pro tempore, senate confirmation, board vacancies, removal for cause, public education, state superintendent, school board training, board member qualifications, emergency clause, Oklahoma statutes 70 O.S. 3-101, school funding, transparency

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 3711, which was described as a work in progress aimed at increasing transparency for taxpayers about instructional expenditures in school bond communications. Members questioned whether the bill changed what districts may bond for, and the author said it did not alter the bond process, only added communications. After title was struck, the bill passed committee 13-5. House Bill 4104, dealing with repeat peeping Tom and clandestine recording offenses, was presented with an amendment adding conduct involving three or more separate victims as a basis for felony treatment. The amendment was adopted after questions about its legal basis and a recent court decision. The bill as amended then passed committee unanimously, 18-0. The committee also took up House Joint Resolution 1077, which would send to voters a proposal to move $1 billion from the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust corpus into a new Oklahoma’s Futures Trust Fund. The proponent said the T-SET board would remain in place, the corpus would stay protected, and annual earnings from the new fund would be split between reinvestment and legislative appropriations for health and education. Opponents argued the measure would shift money from an independent endowment to a politically controlled process and could weaken existing T-SET programs. After debate, the resolution passed committee 14-4. Finally, House Bill 3327 proposed expanding the State Board of Education from seven to nine members, with appointments divided among the governor, speaker, and president pro tem, and allowing removal only for cause. Members raised questions about geographic representation and vacancy appointments, but the bill passed as amended 15-2. House Bill 3329, a trailer bill related to sunset legislation, added a July 1, 2027 sunset for the Board of Psychological Examiners after concerns about its handling of a complaint and a recent court ruling; it passed as amended 14-2, and the committee then adjourned.

Bills: HB224, HB591, HB609, HB614, HB224, HB591, HB609, HB614

Keywords: HB224, Alabama, obstructing governmental operations, first responder, emergency responder, police, firefighter, EMT, paramedic, public safety, harassment, interference with emergency personnel, crime, Class A misdemeanor, law enforcement, emergency scene, scene control, 100 feet, stay back order, public safety and homeland security

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee is called to order.
• Otherwise, be ready to copy this is the order. Everybody ready to copy?
• replacing processes in which the court may hold a defendant in contempt, issue an arrest warrant, order
• I know for one, in the cases I've seen, restitution is ordered at sentencing.
• The next bill is in order: HB 2028. H.B. 2028.

Bills: HB2028, HB2047, HB2136, HB2244, HB2364, HB2406, HB2415, HB2557, HB2573, HB2589, HB2720, HB2749, HB2825, HB2861, HB2862, HB2870, HB2970, HB4070, HB4117, HCR2004, HCR2051

Keywords: community restitution, homelessness, indigence, court assessments, monetary obligations, forcible entry, detainer, writ of restitution, criminal trespass, judgment enforcement, civil terrorism, disorderly conduct, vandalism, political activism, public order, subversion, government security, evictions, judgment satisfaction, tenant rights

Summary: The committee first heard HB 2825, which would replace criminal enforcement tools for nonpayment of fines, fees, restitution, and related obligations with a civil collection process. Supporters, including the sponsor, argued it would streamline restitution collection and reduce costly incarceration, while opponents from victims’ rights groups, judges, and prosecutors said it would weaken victims’ constitutional rights and remove effective enforcement leverage. The chair adopted an amendment requiring a summons and clarifying that victims’ constitutional remedies are preserved, and the committee passed the bill 5-2. The committee then considered HB 4070, which would bar corporations from incorporating if an officer, director, or trustee had been convicted of sex or human trafficking, and would extend civil liability to those who facilitate trafficking. Supporters framed it as a “corporate death penalty” aimed at preventing trafficking through corporate governance, while the ACLU warned the facilitation language was vague and could sweep too broadly. After adopting the chair’s amendment defining “facilitate,” the committee passed the bill 5-2. The committee also unanimously recommended confirmation of Neil McDowell to the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency after hearing his background in corrections and his plans to review cases thoroughly and efficiently. Next, HB 2720 was heard, which would raise penalties for paying or agreeing to pay for sexual conduct, add a $200 assessment for the anti-human trafficking fund, and allow certain sex-trafficking victims convicted of prostitution to seal vacated records. Supporters, including law enforcement, prosecutors, and survivor advocates, said it would deter demand and help victims; opponents argued it could still sweep in trafficking victims and lacked sufficient safeguards. The committee passed the bill 4-3. The committee also heard HB 2028, a strike-everything amendment allowing community restitution in lieu of a $20 assessment for indigent homeless defendants, and HB 2047, which would increase trespass penalties for remaining in or returning to property after an eviction writ; both were discussed but no final vote is reflected in the transcript excerpt. Additional bills were introduced and heard later in the meeting, including HB 2136, which would create new offenses for “civil terrorism” and “subversion” and increase penalties for certain highway obstruction; the ACLU opposed it as viewpoint discrimination. HB 2406 would make images and recordings of abused children and deceased minors confidential and restrict dissemination and monetization; the sponsor said it was intended to prevent re-victimization and misuse of public records, while defense-side speakers asked for clearer access for defense teams. HB 2415 would tighten regulation of kratom products and specifically target concentrated 7-OH products; testimony sharply split between supporters who described public-health risks and opponents who said prohibition would harm consumers who use it for pain or recovery. The transcript ends before any final action on those later bills is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• How do we know if this meets the local requirements in order to be built?
• I sent you an order of folks, and we'll go to that point.
• I'm just trying to figure out the order. ...too many bills left.
• It will restrict mail order options. It will cause prescription delays.
• It will restrict mail order options. It will cause prescription delays.

Bills: HB2211, HB2229, HB2389, HB2403, HB2445, HB2502, HB2620, HB2813, HB2872, HB2889, HB2960, HB4028, HCR2007

Keywords: contractors, subcontractors, resident preference, public contracts, materials supply, Arizona Revised Statutes, local businesses, pregnancy resource center, pregnancy center, crisis pregnancy center, DHS, Arizona Department of Health Services, state appropriation, general fund, nonprofit grant, women's health, maternal health, reproductive health, abortion funding, pro-life

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2211 only for discussion, not a vote. The strike-everything amendment would make it unprofessional conduct for certain health care licensees to submit an independent dispute resolution offer above 300% of Medicare or 300% of the qualified payment amount. The chair said he wanted more stakeholder meetings and broader consensus before moving the bill. Testimony was split: an ARMA representative opposed the measure, arguing it reflected insurer concerns, QPA data lacked transparency, and licensing discipline was the wrong tool for billing disputes; a Blue Cross Blue Shield representative supported it, saying a small number of private equity-backed providers were driving up surprise-billing costs and abusing the No Surprises Act. No action was taken on HB 2211. The committee then considered HB 4028 on accessory dwelling units. The bill would remove the 1,000-square-foot cap as an absolute limit, change setback rules, bar municipalities from requiring an administrative use permit and certain elevation criteria, and extend the deadline for cities to adopt ADU regulations. Rep. Kyle Powell said the bill was meant to give homeowners more flexibility and help address housing shortages. Supporters framed it as a property-rights and housing issue, while opponents from neighborhood and city groups warned it would allow oversized ADUs, increase density, create safety and parking concerns, and weaken local zoning control. After extensive debate, the committee voted 8-9 with one present, and HB 4028 failed. The committee next passed HB 2620, as amended, by a 17-0 vote with one member not voting. The bill appropriates $300,000 per year for five years to the Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services for grants to emergency shelters serving veterans. An amendment removed age and non-congregate-setting limits for eligible shelters. Rep. Blackman said the bill was intended to help homeless veterans, and shelter advocate Nathan Smith supported it, saying targeted resources could help veterans exit homelessness and stay housed. The committee then took up HB 2960, which would create a veterans specialty court grant program. The bill was amended to have the Office of the Courts administer the fund and to allow support for expansion of existing veterans courts. Testimony highlighted the success of the Lake Havasu veterans court and the need for more standardized programs and data collection; the transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 2960.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Committee on State Affairs will come to order. Good morning. We'll look at our caller roll.
• version is that generally, the bill would streamline transfers by requiring clerks to send only final orders
• In order to create the official record of a proceeding, the substitute will also establish that digital
• So we may be back in order online to be able to support this going forward. Thank you, Mr.
• A court reporter, and the court was resistant, and ultimately the Supreme Court ordered them to provide

Bills: SB1538, SB2883, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3376

Keywords: digital court reporting, court reporting, court reporter, electronic recording, audio recording, video recording, transcription, verbatim record, judicial administration, Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial System, courts, depositions, grand jury, referee, court commissioner, court technology, courtroom technology, access to justice, accuracy

Transcript Highlights:

• orders, such as domestic violence restraining orders.
• You mentioned restraining orders. That's the bulk of some of the activity there.
• It's about 18% due to restraining orders.
• Because the restraining orders could be temporary restraining orders or six-month restraining orders
• or that type in nature, or five-day restraining orders, 21-day restraining orders, or so, they become

Summary: The hearing focused on the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) grant program under the Board of State and Community Corrections and related Department of Justice efforts. BSCC reported that it now administers 36 MMIP grants across three cohorts, with awards ranging from $436,000 to $1 million, plus five collaborative grants at $2 million each, totaling $35.4 million awarded to federally recognized tribes. Testimony from tribal leaders and grantees described how the funding supports prevention, family advocacy, domestic violence services, law enforcement coordination, youth programming, culturally grounded healing, and new tribal public safety positions such as investigators, social workers, and drone operators. Speakers repeatedly emphasized that the crisis is longstanding, tied to generational trauma, and that the grant has helped build trust and infrastructure in tribal communities. Several witnesses and committee members urged continued and preferably ongoing funding, noting that demand now exceeds available one-time money. BSCC and tribal representatives described outreach efforts that increased participation from four applicants in cohort one to 20 in cohort two and more applicants than funding in cohort three. Tribes also raised implementation concerns, especially the burden of quarterly narrative reporting, limited staff capacity, and the need for flexible administration. BSCC said it uses steering committees, separate small- and large-project categories, orientations, monitoring visits, and technical assistance to support grantees. Tribal leaders and advocates stressed that the program should remain accessible without requiring a waiver of tribal sovereignty. The second major topic was DOJ’s update on AB 3099, the Tribal Assistance Program, and the tribal police pilot under AB 134. DOJ officials said the Office of Native American Affairs and the Division of Law Enforcement have been conducting outreach, trainings, listening sessions, and coordination with tribal, local, state, and federal partners to address Public Law 280 jurisdictional issues, improve reporting and data, and support Feather Alert and MMIP-related resources. DOJ said the AB 3099 report is in internal review and that the tribal police pilot is moving forward with the Yurok Tribe as a participant, with a July 1, 2026 start date. DOJ and tribal witnesses said the pilot’s main barriers are cost and, for some tribes, the waiver of sovereign immunity. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with broad support for expanding and sustaining MMIP-related funding and infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• They'd be removed in order to preserve the health of the animals.
• They'd be removed in order to preserve the health of the animals.
• <00:26:33.399> the and then in order to um determine the and then in order to um determine
• <01:40:13.480> so<01:40:13.880> I order so I order so I wonder<01:40:16.199> what's<
• restraint in so I think the restraining restraint in so I think the restraining needs<01:54:15.239

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee worked through a draft bill amending animal cruelty and protective custody provisions, focusing on how animals may be seized, cared for, and returned, and on what rights owners have when animals are taken. Members discussed adding language requiring officers to inform a charged person in writing of the right to petition for a veterinarian of their choice, clarifying that any documents presented for signature must be fully and honestly explained, and revising language so confiscated animals cannot be altered without notarized owner authorization. They also considered a new prohibition on using confiscated animals for fundraising or donations, ultimately preferring the term “financial gain” over “profiteering.” The discussion also covered protective custody procedures, including adding “municipal animal control officer” to the list of officers involved, allowing return of animals to the owner or caretaker if no charges have been filed or no warrant establishing probable cause has been sought or issued, and clarifying the distinction between criminal seizure and temporary protective custody. The commissioner’s comments led to several proposed deletions or revisions, including removing language viewed as redundant or inconsistent with protective custody, and striking references to live racing provisions that are no longer relevant. Members further addressed lactating animals, agreeing to add language that confiscated lactating animals should not be separated from their nonweaned offspring. They also discussed a proposed confidentiality provision requiring people assisting in investigations or taking possession of seized animals to sign a binding nondisclosure agreement, though members noted similar protections may need to be duplicated in the temporary custody section as well. The conversation was largely about drafting and legal clarity, with no final vote or formal action recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because our restraining orders issued by our courts can't just be pieces of paper.
• A restraining order should never create a false sense of security.
• violence and school violence restraining orders.
• violence and school violence restraining orders.
• Because I think the benefit of a restraining order is immediately recognizing that there is a problem

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee met on June 16, 2026, with a quorum present and first approved a consent calendar containing several bills, while a number of other measures were pulled and set for later hearings. The committee then heard AB 1662, which would require notice to the DMV when a defendant receives diversion in certain driving-related cases so DMV points can still be assessed. The author and supporters, including police chiefs, road safety advocates, district attorneys, cities, and AAA, said the bill closes a loophole identified in reporting on dangerous drivers; one opposition witness from the Western Center on Law and Poverty objected. The bill was moved on a due pass recommendation to Transportation and kept on call. The committee next heard AB 1741, which would allow sexual battery committed during an unlawful residential intrusion to be charged as a wobbler. The author and supporters, including district attorneys, sheriffs, and victim advocates, argued current law leaves a gap when an intruder sexually touches a victim in a home without meeting other felony elements. Public defenders opposed, saying existing burglary, attempted rape, and other statutes already cover the conduct and warning the bill was overbroad. The bill passed on a due pass as amended recommendation to Appropriations. AB 2760 followed, allowing counties with an Office of Inspector General to expand oversight to probation and animal control. The author and a San Diego supervisor’s letter framed it as optional local oversight to address capacity limits, while probation chiefs and Fresno County opposed, citing existing oversight and concerns about duplication and confidentiality. The bill passed to Local Government, with some members voting no. The committee then heard AB 1753, the Survivor Pathways to Safety Act, which would strengthen firearm relinquishment and protection-order enforcement, expand remote hearing access, and add certain offenses to firearm prohibitions. Supporters, including Giffords, prosecutors, police chiefs, emergency physicians, and victim advocates, said it would make restraining orders more effective and close enforcement gaps; gun rights groups opposed on due process and Second Amendment grounds. The bill passed to Judiciary. AB 1743, by Assembly Member Wicks, would allow local governments and certain universities to request firearm trace data from DOJ for research and policy analysis. Supporters said the data would help identify trafficking patterns and improve evidence-based policy, while NRA and gun rights groups warned about privacy, misuse, and stigmatizing lawful dealers. The bill passed to Appropriations. Later, the committee heard AB 2164, the Care Without Fear Act, which would strengthen California’s shield-law protections for abortion providers by limiting extradition cooperation and extending reciprocal protections to providers from other shield states. Health care and reproductive rights groups supported it; the California Family Council opposed, raising concerns about abortion and gender-affirming care. The bill passed to Judiciary. AB 2664, the Safe Worship Zone Act, would create an eight-foot personal buffer within 100 feet of a place of worship’s entrances and exits to prevent harassment or intimidation. Jewish organizations and the ADL supported it as a response to harassment at synagogues and other houses of worship, while the ACLU, CAIR, and others opposed on First Amendment grounds and urged narrower alternatives. The bill passed to Appropriations. Finally, AB 2122 would prohibit bench warrants for Vehicle Code infractions and allow noncustodial warrants for other infractions; the author and supporters said it would reduce criminalization of poverty and unnecessary arrests, while the transcript cuts off during support testimony and no vote is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• temporary restraining order.
• The penalties for a restraining order.
• > already temporary restraining order already temporary restraining order already carry<00:36:
• <00:36:40.120> order<00:36:41.000> was temporary restraining order was temporary restraining
• like the temporary restraining order. like the temporary restraining order.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 963, which would make crimes against elders age 60 and over strict liability offenses by removing the requirement that the perpetrator knew or should have known the victim’s age. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing that removing the state-of-mind element would create unfair and subjective results and suggesting sentencing enhancements or broader vulnerability-based language instead. Supporters, including Sandy Wong and another testifier with elder-abuse experience, said the current knowledge requirement creates a loophole that lets offenders avoid the elder enhancement even when they target vulnerable older adults. No vote was taken on the measure in the portion provided. The committee also heard HB 384, which increases penalties for promoting minor-produced sexual images, extends probation terms for felony obscenity offenses, tolls the statute of limitations during a victim’s minority, and requires sex offender registration for certain felony obscenity offenses involving minors. The Public Defender opposed the bill as overly broad and warned of absurd results, while the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney supported it, saying the bill addresses sextortion and other exploitation cases where adults solicit images from minors and that the 3-year age-gap threshold preserves ordinary teen relationships. Committee members questioned whether the bill was aimed at adults only and whether the age-gap carveout was narrow enough; the prosecutor said it was intended to cover adult predators and not consensual peer conduct. No final action was reported. HB 1100, which renames the Neighbor Islands Blind and Visually Impaired Service Pilot Program to use “low vision” instead of “visually impaired,” was supported by the Department of Human Services and disability advocates, who said the current term is derogatory and that the change responds to the blind community. The department said it was beginning work on administrative rules and expected to seek an appropriation, with implementation hoped for in 2026. The committee then heard HB 1283, exempting paternity proceedings from mediation when domestic abuse is alleged; the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and others supported it as consistent with divorce law and important for survivor safety. HB 689, creating safe harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement help, drew support from HPD, Emua Alliance, the Judiciary, and others, who said it would prevent traffickers from using prostitution charges to silence victims. Finally, HB 383, reinstating mandatory minimum jail terms for successive violations of protective orders and removing the court’s ability to suspend those minimums, drew opposition from the Public Defender, who said some repeat violations stem from mental health or substance use issues, and support from the Prosecuting Attorney, who argued the bill treats protective orders like temporary restraining orders and preserves judicial discretion within a misdemeanor framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• It should apply to temporary restraining orders and to vacatur through the Administrative Procedure Act
• Here's the latest trend in relief, is for district courts to enter temporary restraining orders.
• The legislation I propose does that. bit more on your views here, what are temporary restraining orders
• the judges the district courts from pellet review temporary restraining orders You mentioned this mr
• Because Senator, under current precedent, TRO's temporary restraining orders are not immediate. reviewable

Keywords: universal injunctions, legislative reforms, judicial authority, executive power, balance of power, judicial overreach

Summary: During this meeting, the committee focused on the implications of universal injunctions, which have become a significant concern in recent years. The discussion centered around various legislative proposals aimed at addressing the perceived overreach of district judges who issue nationwide injunctions that affect policies across the entire country. Several members expressed the belief that such injunctions undermine judicial authority and disrupt the balance of power between the judiciary and executive branches. Expert witnesses testified about the historical context of universal injunctions and the necessity for reforms that would limit the power of courts to grant remedies benefitting non-parties.

Transcript Highlights:

• or restraining order.
• order or restraining order. order or restraining order.
• <01:14:40.520> order violation of a restraining order violation of a restraining order deserves
• , restraining order from possessing, restraining order from possessing, controlling,<01:17:28.360
• <01:18:17.920> order, restraining order, restraining order, does<01:18:19.760> law<01:18

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 3123, which would treat free tuition or school-conditioned enrollment at private educational institutions as a conditional gift rather than a contractual obligation unless otherwise agreed in writing. The Office of the Governor supported the bill, and Kamehameha Schools and the Hawaii Association of Independent Schools strongly backed it, saying it would protect donor intent, preserve school-ohana relationships, and help maintain tuition assistance and educational access for families. A committee member commented favorably on the unity among school organizations, and there were no objections raised before the committee moved on. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2438, which creates a civil cause of action for interference with constitutional and statutory rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with private and government enforcement options and protections for constitutionally protected speech. Testifiers from the Community Alliance on Prisons and a know-your-rights educator supported the measure as a civil rights protection grounded in the Hawaii Constitution. No opposition testimony was presented during the hearing, and the measure appeared to receive general support from those who testified. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 3142, which establishes offenses for dangerous and habitual dangerous intoxication and allows civil protective custody and emergency examination in lieu of arrest in certain cases. The Attorney General, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Health, and Department of Human Services supported the bill as a treatment-oriented diversion tool for people who are dangerously intoxicated and at risk to themselves or the public. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the measure, warning it could expand police discretion, burden emergency rooms, and function as a loss of liberty without sufficient treatment resources, while committee members questioned whether the bill would simply cycle people through emergency rooms and back onto the street. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided; the chair said decision-making would occur at the end of the agenda.