Transcript Highlights:

• Twenty-three of our cases dealt with children who were restrained at school.
• One elementary child alone was restrained over 40 times.
• And sometimes the only way to restrain them is to hold them down and have multiple people restrain them
• . is to hold them down and have multiple people restrain them.
• ...know how to restrain a student who's possibly bigger.

Bills: HB30, HB120, HJR1, SB210, SB306

Keywords: teacher residency, Teacher Residency Act, public schools, teacher preparation, educator pipeline, teacher recruitment, teacher retention, student teachers, apprenticeship, co-teaching, mentor teachers, residency stipend, teacher salary, level one teacher, charter schools, school districts, New Mexico education, teacher workforce, principal stipend, cohort model

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, I move we go to that order of business: messages. Objection, and this order.
• Speaker, I move we go to that order of business messages. Objection, and this order.
• It is ordered. Thank you.
• No objection, it is so ordered. It is so ordered.
• Order, order. Order, order. Gentlelady from Dona Ana, Santa Fe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bills: HB111, HB103, HB60, HB108, HB120, HB145, HB154, HB164, HB291, HJR6, HR1, HJM2, HJM3, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB38, HB47, HB63, HB64, HB127, HB165, HB184, HB200, HM20, HM51

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

Transcript Highlights:

• orders, protective orders, and harassment by stalking are in preventing continued abuse and harassment
• orders, protective temporary restraining orders, protective orders<00:02:53.920> and<00:02:54.080
• restraining order against me, falsely restraining order against me, falsely claiming<00:04:33.520
• The restraining order escalated the abuse, and survivors need more than just a piece of paper.
• Thank you so orders to abuse the system.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met in a room change and first considered two judicial confirmations. It recommended consent for Governor’s Message 767, confirming Kanoi A.D. Jackson as circuit court judge for the Third Circuit (Hawaii County) for a 10-year term, and the motion was adopted with members voting aye and some members excused. The committee then recommended consent for Judicial Communication 28, confirming Sonia H. Toma as district family court judge for the Second Circuit (Maui County) for a 6-year term. The chair noted prior concerns about the nominee, but said staff reviewed court records and found nothing problematic; the committee adopted the recommendation unanimously among those present. After a brief recess, the committee heard House Concurrent Resolution 55, which asks the judiciary to convene a working group to study the effectiveness of existing laws on domestic violence, temporary restraining orders, protective orders, and harassment by stalking in preventing continued abuse and harassment. Testimony was generally supportive. The Office of the Public Defender asked to be included on the working group and requested representation from the Hawaii Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well. The Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence also supported including public defenders and said the effort needs funding to be effective. Other testimony emphasized survivor experiences, privacy concerns, and the need for broader research and protections for injured parties. The chair recommended passing HCR 55 with amendments to include the public defender and a representative from the Hawaii Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, to allow the judiciary authority to add other participants, and to make additional text changes including removing redundant language. The committee voted to adopt the amended recommendation, and the resolution passed with members voting aye and some excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• Part of the discussions we've had in the past is on restraining orders.
• Restraining orders, we think, fix everything. It's just a piece of paper.
• You cannot say, “Go get a restraining order,” without doing a safety plan.
• The first restraining order was for three years. The second one was for five years.
• And now a third restraining order for an additional six years.

Summary: The committee met to discuss domestic violence with a focus on teen dating violence, healthy relationships, and the impact of technology on abuse. Chair Blanca Rubio opened by describing the urgency of the issue, including a recent teen murder in her district tied to domestic violence, and emphasized that restraining orders alone do not prevent abuse. The first panel featured Janica Morin Pasquale and Taylor Stone Mill, who described warning signs in teens such as constant monitoring through phones and social media, isolation from friends, jealousy normalized by online content, and control through gifts, food delivery, and access to passwords or tracking apps. They stressed that many teens do not tell parents, that parents often miss the signs, and that prevention should begin early and be reinforced in schools, homes, and youth activities. They also cited resources such as Love Is Respect, One Love, and Take It Down, and urged consistent funding and implementation of the California Healthy Youth Act rather than one-time lessons. The second panel shifted to the effects of domestic violence on children and the systems that respond to them. Joyce Blue of the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center described the center’s wraparound services, including forensic interviews, legal help, housing support, child therapy, and high-risk response, and highlighted the prevalence and danger of strangulation, including cases with no visible injury. She explained that domestic violence is about power and control, that children often normalize abuse, and that safety planning must accompany restraining orders. Susie Flores of Inner Circle Children’s Advocacy Center explained the multidisciplinary forensic interview model used for child abuse cases, gave examples of severe abuse involving children exposed to domestic violence, and noted that many centers are overwhelmed by caseloads. She stressed the need for immediate trauma-informed services and more front-end intervention rather than waiting until long-term harm develops. Dr. Pamela Tate of Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence and other members discussed the need to support not only victims but also the systems and educators who are expected to respond. Several members shared personal experiences with domestic violence, sexual assault, and family trauma, and raised concerns about school implementation, immigrant families’ fear of reporting, and the need to address abusers’ behavior and trauma as well. The discussion also touched on statute of limitations issues, with panelists saying memory and trauma can delay disclosure for years and that rigid deadlines can prevent justice. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and ended with members expressing support for continued collaboration, prevention funding, and stronger implementation of existing law.

Transcript Highlights:

• to restrain the dog.
• to restrain the dog.
• to restrain the dog.
• to restrain the dog.
• to restrain the dog.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session on a bill arising from the Lee case involving animal seizures and humane society involvement. Members and the commissioner discussed concerns about due process, lack of clear notice to animal owners, the need for owners to understand when they are surrendering ownership, and whether humane agents should have additional training or certification. Several members also questioned the role of the NH SPCA and humane societies, the absence of oversight, and whether there was any financial or policy conflict in their involvement. The commissioner said the Department of Agriculture does not have a direct relationship with humane societies, but does coordinate with police on seizures, and noted that problems tend to arise when agencies do not consult the department first. Testimony and discussion focused on possible fixes to the bill, including clearer written notice of rights, requiring a third-party qualified veterinarian or other neutral evaluator, establishing the condition of animals at the time of seizure for later court proceedings, and possibly using teleconferencing with a veterinarian in limited circumstances. Some members suggested the bill may need a broader study committee, while others said it should be amended now rather than delayed. The chair said the bill would be worked on further and sent to the subcommittee for more detailed review. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 250, which would allow local governing bodies to regulate dog muzzling. Representative Jodi Newell testified that the bill was intended to let municipalities respond to dangerous dogs, citing Keene’s attempt to require muzzling after a serious incident but lack of clear authority under current law. Deborah LeBlanc also testified about a dog attack that seriously injured her dog and said a muzzle requirement could have prevented the attack. Committee members asked about the incident, existing dog-control laws, and whether the dog had been leashed; the discussion suggested the bill was meant to clarify local authority over muzzling as a public safety measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• So ordered. Let's move the second amendment.
• So ordered. Let's move the bill as amended.
• Please line up in that order if I called your name.
• So ordered. Let's move it as amended now.
• Order. Order. Okay, as Senator Rogers fearlessly makes her way back to the dais. Exuberantly.

Bills: HB2015, HB2060, HB2062, HB2100, HB2118, HB2165, HB2258, HB2327, HB2397, HB2445, HB2460, HB2641, HB2745, HB2876, HB2917, HB4011, HB4049, HB4056, HB4087, HCR2013, HCR2016, HCR2040, HCR2044, HCR2048, HCR2056

Keywords: budget procedures, late filing penalty, accounting standards, financial reporting, state appropriations, abortion, educational institutions, health education, state aid, public schools, Buffalo Soldiers, monument, commemoration, Arizona, public funding, Wesley Bolin Plaza, military history, historical memorial, small land subdivision, land use

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:28:57.760> order um instead of a restraining order um instead of a restraining order against
• get a restraining order. get a restraining order.
• restraining order? restraining order? >> Excuse<01:30:24.000> me.
• The question was about restraining<01:30:27.440> orders restraining orders restraining orders
• trespass order you or a restraining trespass order you or a restraining order,<01:36:50.800>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This evidence can be the deciding factor in getting a restraining order or emergency protective order
• On August 2, 2020, I obtained a restraining order after fleeing my home with my daughter, who was one
• That restraining order is still in place today, over five years later.
• On August 2, 2020, I obtained a restraining order after fleeing my home with my daughter, who was one
• That restraining order is still in place today, over five years later.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a wide range of criminal justice, victim services, and records-sealing bills. Early testimony focused on H.1811, the Clean Slate automated record-sealing bill, with supporters arguing that automatic sealing after existing waiting periods would remove barriers to jobs, housing, and education without changing eligibility rules. Advocates from legal aid, business, and housing organizations said the current petition-based system is underused, burdensome, and costly, while opponents of expanding surveillance-related laws urged the committee to preserve privacy protections. The committee also heard testimony on H.1693, which would immediately seal records in cases ending without conviction and clarify the presumption of innocence, with speakers describing how dismissed cases still create lasting collateral consequences and prevent people from moving forward. No votes were taken during the hearing. Several bills centered on victim safety and domestic violence. Senator Michael Moore testified for S.1201, which would keep child-protective orders in effect even if the parent or guardian who filed them dies, and for S.1204, which would update the wiretap statute. Multiple survivors and advocates supported S.1215 and S.1222, arguing for a narrow wiretap defense for recordings made to document threats or abuse and for making GPS tampering a separate felony offense. Testifiers described situations in which GPS devices were cut off or disabled and said current law leaves victims at risk and gives abusers too much leeway. The committee also heard emotional testimony on H.1685/S.1238, a bill prompted by the suicide of Stavri Yanka in custody, with the sponsor, his mother, and the sheriff describing the need for better information-sharing so suicide-risk information follows a person into custody. Law enforcement and prosecutors supported several due-process and dangerousness-related bills. MassCOP, the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, and the State Police Association backed H.1828/S.1039/S.1235, which would require de novo Superior Court review for POST Commission suspensions over two weeks or decertifications, arguing officers need a meaningful appeal beyond administrative review. The committee also heard support for H.1691, expanding the dangerousness statute to additional offenses; Bristol County District Attorney Quinn said the changes would let prosecutors seek detention in serious cases such as child rape and manslaughter when facts warrant it. In contrast, the Committee for Public Counsel Services opposed expanding dangerousness detention, warning that pretrial detention causes serious harms and disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic defendants. The hearing also included testimony on H.1654/S.1063 to enhance victims’ rights and H.1525, which would rename and expand community corrections into community justice programs, with supporters emphasizing reentry, reduced stigma, and broader service access.

Transcript Highlights:

• restraining orders are uh essentially restraining orders are uh essentially personal<00:02:36.400
• Restraining orders are used for leverage for one another and try to go after one another.
• <00:09:05.839> for the restraining order and a need for the restraining order and a need for
• <00:09:09.760> Restraining<00:09:10.320> orders same thing, right?
• Restraining orders same thing, right?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 2567, a Judiciary package measure concerning temporary restraining orders for threats and harassment tied to a public employee’s official actions. Representatives from the Attorney General’s Office and the Judiciary said they had worked out a compromise to address earlier concerns, including a two-year pilot project, broader coverage for state officers and employees across all branches and counties, a special fund to pay for private counsel in some cases, and authority for Judiciary staff attorneys or Judiciary funds to represent Judiciary personnel. Members asked about coverage for retired judges, funding limits, and whether the measure could be used for workplace disputes; the witnesses said retired judges and per diem judges could be covered if the harassment related to their work, the fund would be limited and subject to available appropriations, and petitions would not be allowed between employees in the same branch. The chair recommended passage with amendments, and the committee adopted the recommendation unanimously. The committee then heard SB 2448, which creates a civil remedy for the unauthorized disclosure of intimate images under the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act. The bill’s proponent from the Uniform Law Commission explained that a plaintiff would need to show intentional disclosure or threat of disclosure of a private intimate image without consent, and said the privacy question would be fact-specific. Supporters, including the Commission on the Status of Women and Imua Alliance, favored giving survivors civil recourse. Opponents from the Sex Abuse Treatment Center and others warned that the term "private" could invite victim-blaming and broad discovery into a survivor’s past, while still acknowledging the need for some privacy limitation to avoid overbreadth, especially for people who intentionally distribute intimate content online. Committee members questioned whether the definition of "private" should be tightened. The bill’s proponent said the term should remain because it aligns with the related criminal statute and helps keep the measure focused on classic revenge-porn situations, while still allowing Hawaii-specific changes if needed. The committee did not take final action on SB 2448 in the portion provided, but testimony and discussion centered on balancing survivor protections with concerns about discovery and the scope of liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• you to violate the restraining order. you to violate the restraining order.
• So the proviso would read: “Provided that any conviction for violation of a temporary restraining order
• <01:28:24.639> order<01:28:24.880> under<01:28:25.120> section restraining order
• under section restraining order under section 486-4E<01:28:27.040> issued<01:28:27.440> under
• <01:28:47.600> order<01:28:48.080> under the temporary restraining order under the

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. SB 1296 HD1, relating to disaster recovery, would exempt reconstruction of lawfully constructed structures damaged or destroyed in a declared disaster from special management area permits under certain conditions. OPSD, DLNR, the County of Maui, Front Street Recovery, and the Grassroot Institute supported the bill, saying it would speed rebuilding after disasters like the Maui fires; one witness noted the bill would not cover shoreline parcels unless amended, and members asked about the five-year rebuild window, the meaning of “lawfully constructed,” and whether unlawful structures were excluded. Testimony was also heard on SB 1413, which would allow the Hawaii Public Housing Authority to dispose of abandoned property in federal public housing projects after notice and within five days; HPHA said the bill would help address illegal dumping and clarify procedures. SB 31 HD1, concerning discriminatory restrictive covenants, was briefly described and had support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and comments from the Uniform Law Commission, with no in-person testimony. The committee then heard SB 1341, which would add HEMA and the Office of Homeland Security to agencies allowed to review energy industry information and would expand the program’s emergency-management purpose. The Hawaii State Energy Office supported the measure, saying the data is important for emergency response and fuel-supply planning. SB 10008 HD1 would authorize counties to adopt ordinances enforcing accessible parking space requirements and clarify county enforcement of EV-related parking provisions; the Disability and Communication Access Board strongly supported the accessible-parking provisions, saying current enforcement is weak, while noting section three on EV spaces is already largely in statute and could be struck if the committee preferred. Tina Yamaki of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii testified in opposition. Finally, the committee heard SB 1028 SD1 HD1, which would eliminate fees, fines, and court costs for offenses committed by minors, discharge existing related debt, limit community service for minors to 72 hours, and repeal certain penalties tied to minors and their parents or guardians. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council, Community Alliance on Prisons, and DebtFree Justice Hawaii supported the bill, arguing that youth fines burden families, worsen poverty, and disproportionately affect Native Hawaiian youth. The Department of the Attorney General offered comments, raising possible constitutional title issues because the current draft incorporates material from HB 129 and includes sections that may relate more to restitution or curfew than to fines and fees; supporters responded that the title is sufficient and cited case law. No votes or final actions were taken on the measures in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• House come to order. Members, proceed to your seats.
• Next order of business, the orders of the day. Gentleman from McCracken. Mr.
• House come to order. We are in the orders of the day. Gentleman from McCracken. Mr.
• <01:20:40.159> the and yes, we're trying to restrain the and yes, we're trying to restrain
• >> Without objection, so order. >> Without objection, so order.

Keywords: Convene 00:00:00 Senate Message 00:04:59 Orders of the Day 00:06:19 Recess 00:06:38 Reconvene 01:11:12 HB 306 01:11:42 HB 34 01:14:19 Motions, Petitions, and Communications 01:16:25 Rep. Petrie Statements on Budget 01:16:42 Motions, Petitions, and Communications continued 01:23:50 Introduction of New Bills and Resolutions 01:36:28 Recess for ConC and Rules Meeting 01:38:52 ConC/Rules Report 01:45:18 Floor Amendments 01:46:21 Adjournment 01:46:32, 958, all

Summary: The House convened on the 14th legislative day after winter weather closures, established a quorum, approved the prior journal, and received notice that the Senate had passed Senate Bills 27, 30, 40, and 76 and requested concurrence. The chamber also suspended rules to allow co-sponsorship and vote modifications, and later recessed briefly for caucus and for meetings of the committee on committees and the rules committee. Two bills were taken up and passed on the floor. House Bill 306, relating to criminal trespass, was explained as a workplace-safety measure that would define disruptive or threatening behavior in workplaces and increase penalties for repeat offenses; it passed 83-7. House Bill 34, relating to death benefits, was described as expanding recognized cancers for fire service-related benefits; it passed 92-0. After passage of HB 34, a motion for a clincher was adopted without objection. During announcements, a member from Todd outlined the newly filed branch budget bills and said the executive budget would be a scaled-back, “bare-bones” operational budget focused on restraining spending growth and inviting more public review through budget subcommittees. The House also adopted a citation honoring Notre Dame Academy and Catholic Schools Week, heard an announcement about hearing screenings by the Kentucky Academy of Audiology, and received a lengthy floor speech marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day before adopting House Resolution 30 without objection. At the end of the session, new bills and resolutions were introduced, including measures on lactation consultation, Medicaid waivers, a child tax credit, postsecondary employment, long-term care, court security officers, prisoner monitoring devices, administrative regulations, the state budget, transportation, legislative and judicial appropriations, stalking, and memorial overpasses. The committee on committees referred several bills to standing committees, the rules committee posted House Bills 56, 214, 281, and 366 for the next day, a floor amendment to House Bill 320 was reported, and the House adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 28, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• This increases the penalties for violations of a temporary restraining order in order for protection.
• c> restraining order in order for restraining order in order for protection.<00:38:06.079> It<
• And this restraining order, whether it's a TTRO or an order of protection, took a lot of courage.
• And this restraining order, whether it's a TTRO or an order of protection, took a lot of courage.
• c><01:05:43.359> a<01:05:43.520> TTRO restraining order, whether it's a TTRO restraining

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 281 SD1, which would define and prohibit torture as a Class A felony. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office, HPD investigators, and other supporters said the bill is needed because existing laws do not adequately capture torture, especially cases involving children and vulnerable persons. Several testifiers emphasized that starvation is a common method of torture that often leaves little visible evidence, and they urged the committee to restore the original starvation language removed from the measure. The Office of the Public Defender said it did not oppose the bill’s purpose but raised concerns that the language was too broad and could create trial issues, particularly around minors and vulnerable people, and suggested narrowing amendments. The chair indicated the testimony had made a strong impression and said the committee would try to move the bill forward. The committee then heard SB 292 SD1, relating to sexual exploitation and safe harbor protections for survivors seeking medical or law enforcement help. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the measure, noting that a prior version raised equal protection concerns that were no longer present, and said survivors should be able to seek help without fear of prosecution. Written support was also noted from several advocacy and state groups. Testimony in support focused on retaliation fears, trafficking, and the need for manpower and resources to address exploitation and related crimes. Finally, the committee took up SB 295 SD1, which would increase penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and treat a violation of one as a second offense for the other. The Public Defender’s Office objected to the mandatory jail component, arguing judges should retain discretion and that there was no clear evidence mandatory jail deters violations. The transcript cuts off before any final committee action or vote on SB 295 was recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, this is a restraining order.
• restraining order.
• restraining order.
• restraining order.
• Thank you. to enforce the restraining order and the to enforce the restraining order and the Supreme<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 146, which would require longer retention and quicker disclosure of certain video recordings from traffic stops and similar motor vehicle violations when a citation is disputed. The prime sponsor described the bill as a response to a constituent who challenged a speeding ticket but could not obtain a cruiser video before it was deleted under the current 30-day retention practice. Supporters argued the bill is about fairness and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, and one member suggested a simple 60-day retention period might avoid confusion over different timelines. The sponsor also noted that the bill would not affect criminal cases and that victims and complainants should have access to the same evidence as law enforcement when a recording is relevant to a defense. Major Brendan Davey of the New Hampshire State Police testified in opposition. He said the proposal would create a different discovery standard for one type of evidence, could discourage agencies from adopting body-worn or cruiser cameras, and would add cost and administrative burden. He explained that the State Police already retain routine traffic-stop videos for at least 30 days, but keep videos much longer when complaints or possible litigation are involved, and said the current system balances efficiency with accountability. He also argued the underlying speeding case did not make the trooper video directly material to the citation, though he acknowledged the legislature could choose a longer blanket retention period if it wished. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then opened a public hearing on House Bill 638, which would allow people serving life without parole sentences to become eligible for a parole hearing at age 60 after serving at least 18 years, provided they have had no major conduct violations in the prior 10 years. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give a narrow second look to a small number of elderly prisoners, citing the high cost of incarceration and the health challenges of aging in prison. He emphasized that the bill would not automatically release anyone, would not apply to capital murder convictions under RSA 630:1, and would still allow victims to participate in the parole process. Testimony on HB 638 was mixed. Alexander Bailey, a survivor of violent crime and domestic violence advocate, supported the bill, saying many survivors favor rehabilitation, second chances, and restorative justice, and that people in prison often age faster and face serious health and safety problems. Another supporter, Russell Roy, began offering a personal story about crime, addiction, and violence in Concord, but the transcript cuts off before his full remarks. Committee members asked about why age 60 was chosen, how released individuals would support themselves, and whether victims or families would be consulted; the sponsor said 60 was meant to limit eligibility and reflect the health realities of prison, and that parole boards already consider support networks and victim input. No action or vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This limits the legal ability for long-term restraining orders against those who threatened to cause
• While current law allows post-secondary institutions to seek restraining orders on behalf of a student
• While current law allows restraining order when a credible threat is made towards a university.
• While current law allows post-secondary institutions to seek restraining orders on behalf of a student
• However, the university was unable to seek a temporary restraining order because the threats were directed

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• stream in order to do that. stream in order to do that.
• We support in order for us to do this.
• Is that what ... differentiate between ordered treatment differentiate between ordered treatment and<
• them if it's ordered by a professional?
• something that functions to restrain something that functions to restrain somebody<00:30:53.600>

Bills: HF4210, HF4212, HF4549, HF4464, HF4546, HF4447

Keywords: senior nutrition, older adults, aging services, home-delivered meals, congregate dining, meal delivery, grocery delivery, food insecurity, nutrition support, area agencies on aging, Minnesota Board on Aging, human services, special revenue fund, nonprofit grants, SNAP outreach, medically tailored meals, rural nutrition, food access, transportation services, elderly

Transcript Highlights:

• This measure authorizes public employers to petition for temporary restraining orders and injunctions
• This measure authorizes public employers to petition for temporary restraining orders and injunctions
• This measure authorizes public employers to petition for temporary restraining orders and injunctions
• This measure authorizes public employers to petition for temporary restraining orders and injunctions
• orders on behalf temporary restraining orders on behalf of<01:02:32.160> public<01:02:32.480>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. HB 1957, relating to safe entryways, would create enforcement procedures in large cities to prevent personal property from blocking private doorways or entrances. The Department of the Attorney General supported the concept but recommended moving the offense to the criminal code, adding clearer definitions to avoid vagueness, and including notice, inventory, storage, and property-disposition procedures to address constitutional concerns. No other testimony was offered and no questions were raised. HB 25003/HB 253, relating to fireworks, would expand civil asset forfeiture for certain fireworks offenses, revise the definition of aerial device, and clarify air-delivery offenses. The Attorney General supported the bill but suggested removing the 25-pound weight threshold to avoid unequal treatment of similar offenses. The Department of Law Enforcement also supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity for evolving fireworks investigations and prosecutions. The committee took no action during testimony. HB 2137, relating to artificial intelligence, would prohibit certain harmful uses of realistic AI-generated digital imitations, require disclosures, and create civil remedies and fines. The Commission on the Status of Women supported the bill, while the Hawaiian Islands Republican Women opposed it on First Amendment grounds. The Motion Picture Association, Recording Industry Association of America, and SAG-AFTRA also opposed the bill but said they preferred a different framework, the federal “No Fakes” model, and were willing to work with the committee on amendments. The Attorney General had suggested constitutional amendments, which the chair said would be considered later. The committee also heard HB 2198 on prediction markets, with the Honolulu prosecutor strongly supporting inclusion of prediction markets in the gambling definition because of concerns about speculative betting on events and national security-related outcomes. HB 1511 on consumer protection drew support from the Office of Consumer Protection and the Insurance Division, with OCP proposing clearer disclosure for license and registration renewal solicitations. HB 1897 on condominium alternative dispute resolution received supportive comments from the Real Estate Commission and CI. HB 1642 on crypto kiosks drew strong support from OCP and AARP Hawaii for a ban on kiosks accepting U.S. currency, but opposition from Hill Ventures, which argued for regulation and guardrails instead of a ban. HB 1753 on social media account deletion received supportive comments from DCCA on clarifying deletion of unique identifiers and inferences. HB 1654 on anonymous complaints against public employees drew strong opposition from the Attorney General over implementation and due process concerns, while the Government Employees Association supported it as a way to screen baseless complaints; the committee then moved on to HB 1659 on collective bargaining, with testimony beginning as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• to pursue a um restraining order. to pursue a um restraining order.
• is and what a restraining order is.
• is and what a restraining order is.
• is and what a restraining order is.
• order or a temporary restraining order or a permanent<00:55:29.400> restraining<00:55:29.920><

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• orders sought by relative to restraining orders sought by a<00:31:08.399> parent<00:31:08.760
• orders on their by bringing restraining orders on their behalf<00:33:15.919> um<00:33:16.600>
• <00:35:25.240> order under the Civil restraining order under the Civil restraining order protection
• /c><00:45:51.960> pretty restraining orders work and I'm pretty restraining orders work and I'm
• restraining order through the superior restraining order through the superior court<00:46:35.680

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Children and Family Law Committee opened with a brief prayer for Representative Grossman’s son, Oscar, who was reported to be in critical condition after a traumatic fall. The committee then took up House Bill 430, which would reduce DHHS retention of unfounded abuse and neglect reports from 10 years to 3 years. Prime sponsor Chairman James Spain argued that 10 years is excessive and burdens families with a long-lasting stigma, while emphasizing that founded reports and reports with reasonable concern would still be retained indefinitely. Committee members questioned whether longer retention helps identify malicious reporting or patterns of abuse, and whether parents understand the distinction between unfounded and unfounded with reasonable concern. The Office of the Child Advocate and DCF opposed the bill. Child Advocate Cassandra Sanchez said historical reports are important for identifying patterns, reviewing critical incidents, and understanding family dynamics, and that screened-out and unfounded reports can be essential context when later reports arise. She also noted that the records are highly confidential and not publicly accessible. DCF General Counsel Susan Larabe added that the bill could create inconsistencies by retaining screened-out reports longer than unfounded reports, and explained that unfounded reports can be used in court and in administrative reviews when there are multiple prior reports. The committee discussed how other states handle retention, with testimony that some keep records indefinitely and others for long periods. The hearing on HB 430 concluded, and the chair said the bill would not be executed until early March, leaving time for amendments. The committee then opened House Bill 187, concerning restraining orders sought by a parent on behalf of a minor child. Prime sponsor Representative Mike Belcher said the bill is intended to correct a gap in the law so children can access the same restraining-order protections adults can, through a parent or guardian, and framed it as an equal-protection issue. Members questioned why the proposal was placed in the child abuse and neglect statute rather than the civil restraining-order statutes, and whether it should instead be handled as a broader civil-law fix. Alanda Peterson, who said she created Jade’s Law, testified that the original wording was meant to protect all children, not just those harmed by family members, and supported expanding the language. The hearing continued with additional discussion of the bill’s scope and purpose.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, universities may seek a restraining order on behalf of a student or an employee who has suffered
• This limits the legal ability for long-term restraining orders against those who threaten to cause harm
• While current law allows post-secondary institutions to seek restraining orders on behalf of a student
• While current law allows post-secondary institutions to seek restraining orders on behalf of a student
• However, the university was unable to seek a temporary restraining order because the threats were directed

Summary: The committee heard SB 1067, which would require annual math screening for kindergarten through second grade students beginning in 2028-29 to identify early numeracy difficulties and connect students to evidence-based supports. Senator Weber and supporters, including EdVoice, UC Davis researcher Charles Wilkes, and several education and community advocates, argued that California’s math performance is too low and that early screening would help close gaps before they widen. Opponents, including the California Mathematics Council, county superintendents, and the CTA, said the bill could narrow instruction, overemphasize deficit-based measures, and should instead be paired with stronger investments in teacher training and implementation of the California Mathematics Framework. Committee members generally expressed support for the bill’s goals while discussing how the screener would work and what kinds of follow-up supports would be needed. The committee also heard SB 1110 on child care subsidy administration, which would restructure funding for alternative payment programs and core contracts as the state moves to enrollment-based funding. Supporters said the bill would stabilize child care providers, improve payment timelines, and better reflect the administrative work of enrolling families and managing services; there was no opposition testimony. SB 1374, supported by the CSU and UC systems, would allow public higher education institutions to seek temporary restraining orders when credible threats are directed at a campus rather than a specific person. Supporters described recent campus threats that created safety concerns but did not fit current restraining-order law; there was no opposition. Senator Nilo presented SB 1321, which would direct the State Auditor to review remedial course use and student preparedness at selected UC and CSU campuses after a UC San Diego report showed a sharp decline in incoming students’ math readiness. Supporters argued the audit would help identify gaps in college readiness and the effects of K-12 changes, while some members raised concerns about bypassing the usual legislative audit process; the bill was held on call. The committee then took up SB 1086 on microschools, which would define microschools and direct model ordinances for local land-use regulation. Supporters said it would create a clearer path for small, individualized learning communities, but several members questioned whether the concept was sufficiently defined and whether the state had enough information to draft model ordinances; the bill was also placed on call after a quorum was established. Finally, SB 1181 was presented as a limited pilot program in Central Valley counties to connect schools with regional threat assessment centers when credible safety concerns arise. The author and supporters, including the mother of a student killed in a shooting and several students, said it would improve early intervention and communication; committee members raised privacy and federal-sharing concerns but indicated support, and the bill was moved forward on a vote once quorum was present.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will call this meeting of the Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee to order.
• It's been one of those days. >> [snorts] Uh, the first order of business, members, is the approval of
• Yeah, I think that's a valid question, and if you need assistance from the legislature in order to force
• I have a couple questions, and I'll go just in the order in which we basically talked about them here
• to take that on necessary in order to take that on fully. fully. fully.

Bills: HF4525, HF3002, HF3665, HF4420

Keywords: human services, background studies, NETStudy 2.0, licensing, license suspension, license revocation, provider enrollment, program integrity, fraud, medical assistance fraud, Medicaid, payment withholding, credible allegation of fraud, background check, disqualification, variance, set-aside, foster care, family foster setting, adult foster care