Transcript Highlights:

• delivery, juvenile boards, constitutional amendment election challenges, record retention, youth diversion

Summary: The Senate was called to order and the Secretary read two first-reading measures that were referred to the State Affairs Committee. Senate Bill 10 by Parker would create an affirmative defense to prosecution for certain victims of trafficking of persons or compelling prostitution. Senate Bill 16 by Hughes concerns a broad range of judicial branch operations and procedures, including court security, court documents and arrest warrants, document delivery, juvenile boards, constitutional amendment election challenges, record retention, youth diversion, court-ordered mental health services, the powers of the Texas Supreme Court, and jurors. After the bills were read, a written motion was offered by Senator Zaffirini to recess the Senate until 2:00 p.m. Friday, August 8. No objection was raised. The Senate then recessed until the stated time.

Transcript Highlights:

• orders for Better Protect Texans, as well as how our justice system and how our county probation programs
• Commissary accounts are used to fund various eligible projects and programs, personal items. for inmates
• It's with not only data reporting for the programs we run and everything that comes through departments
• I started the first first Mental Health Diversion Court in Texas in 2003, and over.
• We'll be able to initiate our retire-rehire program and hopefully retain some of those veteran officers

Bills: SB330, SB663, SB1020, SB1152, SB1164, SB1896, SB2111, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2797, SB2798, SB2371

Keywords: county funding, prosecutors' offices, elections, law enforcement, local government, community supervision, budget approval, corrections department, strategic plan, judicial oversight, SB 1020, Texas, personal bond office, pretrial release, electronic monitoring, GPS monitoring, global positioning system, bond conditions, probation, parole

Transcript Highlights:

• , the county program, or the state program?
• , the county program, or the state program?
• , the county program, or the state program?
• > state<00:53:30.319> program the county program or the state program the county program
• <01:16:56.840> bucket<01:16:57.840> so program by program bucket by bucket so program

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an agency overview from Minnesota Housing Commissioner Jennifer Ho. After member and staff introductions, Ho described Minnesota Housing’s mission, structure, and role as a mission-driven financial institution that issues bonds, uses earnings to support operations, and works across the housing continuum from homelessness prevention to homeownership and preservation. She emphasized that the agency is not a builder or regulator, but funds and partners with developers, local governments, nonprofits, and lenders. She also noted the agency’s four divisions, including a new local government housing programs division created after the 2023 legislative session expanded the agency’s responsibilities. Ho reviewed funding and program activity, saying Minnesota Housing spent $1.96 billion in fiscal year 2024 and helped more than 73,000 households. She highlighted that the agency’s work is heavily competitive and often oversubscribed, with many projects selected through RFPs and grants but more applications than available resources. She discussed 2023 and 2024 investments, including homeownership, rental, and manufactured housing projects, and said roughly half of competitive dollars have gone to Greater Minnesota over the last several years. She also explained the difference between funds committed and funds actually disbursed, noting that construction and rehabilitation projects can take many months to close and draw down funds. The commissioner also updated members on new programs created in 2023 and 2024, including first-generation down payment assistance, the Greater Minnesota Workforce Housing Development Program, public housing rehabilitation, state housing tax credits, and other local and regional initiatives. She said some programs are already closed out, while others remain in early implementation or are still accepting applications. Ho mentioned a forthcoming technical amendment to adjust a high-rise sprinkler program after eligibility issues limited participation. She closed with examples of projects preserved or funded, including a St. Louis Park preservation deal, public housing preservation in Greater Minnesota, a St. Cloud challenge project, and the first-generation down payment assistance program, which distributed $50 million to about 1,450 first-time buyers, most of whom were Black, Indigenous, or people of color. No votes or formal committee actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• workers on site, 1,500 at its peak, and 300 Minnesota businesses involved that really represented a diverse
• <00:17:34.559> a involved that really represented a involved that really represented a diverse
• :36.720> um<00:17:36.799> from<00:17:37.120> across<00:17:37.520> the diverse
• uh workforce um from across the diverse uh workforce um from across the state<00:17:38.080> as
• So, uh, I would support uh some kind of program that gets the thoroughbred uh racing folks some help.

Bills: HF4912, HF4664

Keywords: electronic pull-tabs, pull-tabs, tipboards, gambling tax, Minnesota Racing Commission, Thoroughbred, horse racing, Minnesota-bred horses, breeders, owners, racing purses, industry subsidy, gambling revenue dedication, problem gambling, compulsive gambling treatment, general fund appropriation, state affiliate National Council on Problem Gambling, racing incentives, equine industry, public officers

Transcript Highlights:

• That program was in 2008, and that program has been operating successfully ever since.
• <00:46:51.480> plan program they will develop a program plan program they will develop a program
• c> the our program programs ac across the our program programs ac across the country<00:50:58.599
• I believe the Oregon program, the Connecticut program, and our Colorado program, I'm not sure that they
• the Connecticut program and our program the Connecticut program and our Colorado<00:59:55.359> program

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 451, which would create a postconsumer paint stewardship program in New Hampshire. Prime sponsor Representative Karen Ebel described the bill as a bipartisan, broadly supported model based on PaintCare programs used in other states. She said consumers and businesses could drop off leftover paint at participating retailers or municipal household hazardous waste sites, with the paint then collected and recycled by the stewardship organization. She emphasized that the program is intended to reduce landfill disposal, improper dumping, and contamination of groundwater and soil, while also helping municipalities save on hazardous waste handling costs. Members asked several questions about how the program would work and how it would be funded. Ebel explained that the program would be financed by a small fee charged at the point of sale on paint products, not a general sales tax, and that retailers could either list it separately or roll it into the price. She said the fee would cover the Department of Environmental Services’ administrative costs, which were described as minimal, and that the program’s structure was developed with DES and industry input. Questions also addressed whether cans would be recycled and how collected paint would be processed; Ebel said the ACA and PaintCare representatives could provide more detail, but that the paint and containers would be handled through recycling or other approved disposal methods rather than landfilled. Representative Judy Aron, a co-sponsor and chair of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee, testified in support, saying the bill had been developed over several years with stakeholders and would keep toxic paint out of landfills while saving municipalities and taxpayers money. Representative Peter Bixby, the ranking member of Environment and Agriculture, also supported the bill, saying his committee had heard it many times and that it had strong bipartisan enthusiasm. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I work for Environmental Defense Fund, where I lead our water program here in Texas, and I'm here today
• As you know, within the membership of TWA we have an incredibly wide, diverse set of members.
• TWA we have an incredibly wide diverse set of members.

Bills: HB24, HB27

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management

Summary: The committee met to hear House Bills 27 and 24 on groundwater issues in East Texas, with members and witnesses focusing on a proposed large-volume groundwater export project and the need for more science before major permitting decisions are made. HB 27, which was within the special session call, would direct the Texas Water Development Board to conduct a hydrogeologic study of the aquifers in the affected area and temporarily pause new export permits while the study is underway. HB 24, a separate bill that would limit certain production and export permits to 5% of modeled available groundwater, was laid out but the chair said it would not be moved out of committee. Testimony on HB 27 was largely supportive, though some witnesses were neutral. Supporters, including representatives from a water supply corporation, the Trinity River Authority, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, said the region lacks enough hydrologic data, that the proposed pumping could affect private wells, surface water, and local economies, and that the state needs better information on sustainable yield and groundwater-surface water interaction. Several witnesses emphasized that groundwater conservation districts need clearer tools and better data, while also noting concerns about property rights and the rule of capture. Committee members discussed the scale of the proposed project, the absence of a groundwater conservation district in Houston County, and the possibility that the study should examine desired future conditions and maximum sustainable pumping rather than only modeled available groundwater. The committee adopted the committee substitute for HB 27 and voted it out favorably to the full House with a recommendation that it do pass, be printed, and be sent to the Committee on Calendars. The roll call was unanimous, 11 ayes and 0 nays. After the vote, members briefly reflected on the complexity of the issue and the need to continue working on broader groundwater policy in the interim and next session. HB 24 was discussed later in the meeting, but no final action on that bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That task force was a very broad and diverse group of people that brought with them the expertise from
• That task force was a very broad and diverse group of people that brought with them the expertise from
• Broad and diverse group of people that brought with them the expertise from working in these fields,
• Boards are right-sizing programs. governing distributions limits our governing distributions limits our
• <01:00:05.760> um Boards are right-sizing programs, examining staffing levels, and delaying

Bills: HF3900

Keywords: permanent school fund, school endowment fund, Minnesota constitutional amendment, school aid, public school funding, State Board of Investment, investment income, distributable amount, school districts, property taxes, income taxes, voter approval, ballot question, constitutional amendment 2026, education finance, fund perpetuity, purchasing power, trust lands, swamp lands, internal improvement land fund

Transcript Highlights:

• Last session, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Memorial 2, directing a diverse group of stakeholders
• But they're going to hire experts, not just line off the street, to watch after this program.
• Line went off the street to watch after this program.
• This is a market-based program.
• This is a market-based program that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and bring jobs.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our other program is known as the Defense...
• It's an infrastructure grant program.
• Last session we were appropriated. $30 million for the grant program.
• So, it's a grant program. We apply for it every year. every year.
• Association, we have no problem with the expansion of the CUP program.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Equity and Education Coalition has a very diverse stream of revenue in terms of fundraising.
• Representative Simmons never put on her timesheet that she was working on any programs that were funded
• into independence, and I sought advice at both junctures: when I first got elected, when it was a program
• And just that he wanted a diverse team.

Summary: The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case. The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding. Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I stand before you as the second Black woman in the doctoral history program at Auburn University
• It means competition, accountability, and a government that reflects the diversity and needs of the people
• ><00:41:06.920> the and a government that reflects the and a government that reflects the diversity
• I kind of pity you because you are looking just like a robot, that you're being programmed to say this

Bills: HB1

Keywords: HB1, Alabama, elections, primary election, special primary, runoff, congressional districts, redistricting, reapportionment, district boundaries, federal court, injunction, judgment, Governor proclamation, nominee certification, party nominee, general election 2026, election calendar, voting rights, congressional race

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have those programs in many of your communities: Lawrence, Boston, Springfield, Lowell, Lynn,
• Through our programs, we have approximately 120 veterinarians at MSPCA Angel.
• the experience of our staff on the ground working with families and their pets and our community programs
• , we think that being able to establish Working with families and their pets and our community programs
• At this point, the people watching the recording and the audience would fully appreciate the diversity

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills, with the longest discussion focused on House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263, which would prohibit the sale in Massachusetts of cosmetics known to rely on vertebrate animal testing. Supporters from Animal Defenders International, Humane World for Animals, and the Animal Rescue League said animal testing is cruel, outdated, and unreliable, and pointed to non-animal alternatives and similar laws in other states and countries. No opposition was heard on that bill during the excerpt, and witnesses urged the committee to report it favorably. The committee also took testimony on House Bill 4543, which would clarify an existing pipe-fitting exemption for certain work performed on property owned by industrial plants, utilities, colleges, and similar institutions. A representative for Construction Industries of Massachusetts supported the bill, saying it would preserve longstanding practice for outside contractors doing yard piping work. Pipefitters Local 537 opposed it, arguing the work is properly licensed pipefitting and that the bill would weaken licensing standards and undermine state inspectors. Another major topic was Senate Bill 237 on regulating self-checkouts in grocery establishments. The Mass AFL-CIO and UFCW Local 1445 supported the bill, saying self-checkout has reduced staffing, increased worker stress and customer conflict, and contributed to theft and safety problems. Workers described being responsible for multiple machines at once, verbal abuse, and even assaults, and said the bill’s staffing and machine limits would improve safety and customer service. The committee also heard extensive testimony on House Bill 355, which would allow veterinarians to establish a client-patient relationship via telehealth; ASPCA, MSPCA, and several veterinarians supported it as a way to expand access to care, while the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association and several veterinarians opposed it, arguing that an in-person exam is essential for proper diagnosis and that telemedicine should only follow an in-person VCPR. Finally, the committee heard testimony on House Bill 330, Senate Bill 221, and House Bill 371, which would preempt local boards of health from adopting tobacco-related age or sales restrictions beyond the statewide standard. Public health advocates opposed the bills, arguing they would block local innovation and undermine nicotine-free generation policies adopted by municipalities, while retailers and tobacco trade groups supported them as necessary to preserve a uniform statewide age-21 standard and avoid confusion for consumers and businesses. No votes or final actions were taken during the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the idea behind shoreline master programs requiring...
• That's the idea behind shoreline master programs requiring permit review for that.
• And if they find... ...audits local government compliance with the flood insurance program.
• Would be to authorize citizen suits for violations of the Shoreline Management Act, shoreline master programs
• This is an extremely complex topic, and because of the diversity of counties and cities across the state

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the idea behind shoreline master programs requiring permit review for that.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, audits local government compliance of the flood insurance program
• federal emergency management agency FEMA audits local government compliance of the flood insurance program
• And if they find Audits local government compliance with the flood insurance program.
• This is an extremely complex topic, and because of the diversity of counties and cities across the state

Summary: The committee held a work session on local government issues, beginning with an update from the State Building Code Council on four legislatively mandated code amendments now in CR-102 rulemaking: temporary emergency shelters, reduced minimum dwelling unit size, multiplex housing up to three stories and six units, and single-exit apartment buildings up to six stories. Council staff also described a separate embodied-carbon appendix proposal that remains under public review, with testimony both supporting and opposing it. Members asked about the rationale for some of the code limits, including the restriction on connecting multiplex buildings. The committee then heard a panel on annexations from MRSC, Pierce County, and the Association of Washington Cities. Witnesses reviewed annexation methods, including petition, election, and interlocal agreement approaches, and said larger annexations are increasingly using interlocal agreements because they can address infrastructure, revenue sharing, and public process concerns. They described barriers such as inconsistent local standards, the cost of infrastructure, referendum risk, census requirements, and the difficulty of persuading residents and local officials to support annexation. Members asked about the five-year restriction on residential zoning changes in one annexation method and whether a hearing examiner could reduce political pressure on local decision-makers. A second panel discussed subdivision reform. The Master Builders Association urged raising the short-plat threshold within urban growth areas to 30 lots as a simpler first step, citing permitting delays and added housing costs. The City of Spokane described implementation problems with recent housing laws, including uncertainty about how to review plats under HB 1110, lot-splitting administration, and added notice requirements for unit lot subdivisions. AWC said there was broad agreement that subdivision decisions should be more administrative, but public hearings remained a point of disagreement. The committee also heard from FutureWise, the Washington State Association of Counties, and Lewis County on county development regulation and enforcement, with witnesses emphasizing underfunded code enforcement, inconsistent standards between counties and cities, and the need for better coordination, incentives, and possibly stronger enforcement tools. No votes were taken; the chair said the committee would continue working on possible solutions in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• program? program?
• It's a federal program offered by HUD. And that's a great program.
• It's a federal program offered by HUD. And that's a great program.
• It's a federal program offered by HUD. And that's a great program.
• It's a federal program offered by HUD. And that's a great program.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee opened with a public hearing on HB 196, which would repeal the Housing Champion program. Representative Matt Drew, the prime sponsor, argued the program is an unnecessary and poorly targeted subsidy, saying it rewards municipalities after projects are completed and may not be limited to new housing production. He questioned the transparency of the program, cited difficulty finding required annual reports, and noted a fiscal note suggesting the state could recover up to $3 million if obligations are terminated. Committee members and witnesses debated whether the program’s criteria amount to political favoritism or a standard grant process; supporters said the rubric is specific and that municipalities are evaluated against objective requirements. Representative Priest, Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire, and Karen Benfield of Stay Work Play New Hampshire all opposed repeal, saying the program encourages local zoning and regulatory changes, helps smaller communities participate, and supports housing supply and young people’s ability to stay in the state. The hearing on HB 196 was then closed. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 1405, a bill establishing an affordable housing guarantee program within the Housing Finance Authority. Prime sponsor Representative Chris Muns said the bill would reduce lender risk by guaranteeing up to 80% of principal on qualifying loans for affordable housing, with a cap of $30 million per lender per year and $300 million outstanding at any time. He described the measure as a low-cost public-private partnership backed by the full faith and credit of the state, and said it was identical to a prior Senate bill that had received unanimous bipartisan committee support before dying later in the process. He framed the bill as one part of a broader housing package aimed at financing, infrastructure, workforce, zoning reform, and other housing-related issues. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided. The only formal actions were opening and closing the public hearing on HB 196 and opening the public hearing on HB 1405, with testimony continuing on HB 1405 at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the programming: making sure that we have a lot of programming and that it is really geared
• :22.799> it<00:26:23.080> is a lot of programming and that it is a lot of programming and
• <00:31:05.360> and we're sharing uh data programming and we're sharing uh data programming
• The third initiative is changing the Extended Foster Care Program to an opt-out program.
• that OP out program this is a program that OP out program this is a program that allows<01:32:27.000

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• means fewer resources, less targeted support, and fewer opportunities for culturally responsive programs
• Also to testify is Trent Murphy, an analyst at the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program
• Also to testify is Trent Murphy, an analyst at the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program
• My name is Trent Murphy with the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, or CADP
• Lucia Moritz, the deputy chief of student programs for Alameda County Office of Education.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee met without a quorum at first and began as a subcommittee, with the chair outlining hearing procedures and several bills on consent. The committee heard and advanced AB 1581, which would improve collection of tribal affiliation data for California students so Native students are more accurately counted and better served; supporters said current systems undercount Native students and erase their needs. AB 1586 also passed, requiring school resource officers who volunteer to carry naloxone to receive opioid overdose response training every two years; supporters emphasized student safety and the need for rapid response to overdoses on campus, while one school employees’ group raised concerns about retaliation protections for non-volunteers. Both bills were moved do pass as amended to Appropriations, with roll calls held open for absent votes. The committee then approved AB 1943, which updates school notices about secure firearm storage by making the information clearer, more visible, and more likely to reach families at key moments such as counseling or discipline interventions. Supporters from gun violence prevention groups, educators, and parents argued that many school shooters obtain guns from home and that plain-language, digital, and timely notices could help prevent child deaths and suicides; the author shared a personal story about a child accessing a gun at home. AB 1792 also advanced, directing the Instructional Quality Commission to consider updating health education to address digital safety issues such as deepfakes, extortion, grooming, and AI-generated exploitation; supporters said students need instruction that reflects modern online risks, while an opponent objected to language referencing LGBTQIA+ and gender-diverse students. AB 1653 passed as well, adding heat-illness guidance to the health framework after a young Girl Scout described students suffering during extreme heat and not recognizing symptoms. Later, the committee approved AB 1861, which would require the California Department of Education to create a public database of special education investigation reports with personal information redacted; supporters said families need better access to complaint outcomes and accountability, while an opposition witness warned of unintended consequences, misuse of incomplete information, and added burdens on districts. AB 1721 also moved forward, creating a stakeholder work group to review and streamline school safety plan requirements so plans remain practical and focused on emergency preparedness. AB 1631, which would make kindergarten mandatory, received mixed testimony: supporters argued it would help close achievement gaps and improve readiness, while opponents framed it as an intrusion on parental choice; the bill was held on call after a split vote. Finally, AB 1809, extending job order contracting authority for school and community college districts, was also held on call after opposition from contractors who argued project labor agreement requirements raise costs and reduce competition. The committee then began hearing AB 1659, aimed at improving transitions for court school students back to their home districts, with testimony describing re-enrollment barriers and the need for a designated district contact.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we put her on that same lifestyle program, organic grass-fed, pasture-raised meats, organic vegetables
• I'm learning the rules and I'm learning that Florida is a big and diverse place and time.
• The second phase of the bill extends the authorization of the Florida Keys Stewardship Program for land

Transcript Highlights:

• So the bill creates a spending program. So the bill creates a spending program.
• by creating a new spending program. by creating a new spending program.
• program with a new tax. program with a new tax.
• This is a new tax program and programs.
• c> program.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our diversity makes our state and our country strong.
• The Federal Administration is denying wildfire relief, targeting our diverse immigrant communities, targeting
• State Prison in Blythe, leadership is doing incredible work, rehabilitating incarcerated people with programs
• This money supports after-school programs, teacher training, and English-learning programs that tens
• of thousands of California kids rely on. ...school programs, teacher training, and English-learning programs

Summary: The Assembly met after a quorum call, recess, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved into a highly procedural and contentious floor session centered on redistricting measures. Members debated a point of order raised by Assembly Member DeMaio challenging the constitutionality of SB 280, ACA 8, and AB 604; the Speaker ruled the point not well taken, and the Assembly sustained that ruling on appeal. The body also took up consent-calendar and procedural motions, including suspending rules to adopt late amendments on ACA 8 and to bring the measure up without reference to file. Several motions to re-refer or suspend rules on related measures failed, while the motion to adopt the late amendments on ACA 8 carried. The main substantive item was ACA 8, the Assembly Constitutional Amendment related to redistricting, presented by Assembly Member Berman as a response to mid-decade redistricting efforts in other states, especially Texas. Supporters argued the measure was a temporary, voter-driven response to protect democracy, counter partisan gerrymandering, and address broader threats tied to the Trump administration, including immigration enforcement and health care cuts. Opponents argued ACA 8 would undermine California’s independent citizens redistricting commission, violate the state Constitution, and amount to partisan gerrymandering or a power grab. Members on both sides framed the issue as a defense of democracy, but disagreed sharply over whether the Legislature should act or leave redistricting to voters and the existing commission. No final vote on ACA 8 is shown in the transcript excerpt, but the Assembly did vote on several procedural matters: the appeal of the Speaker’s ruling was sustained 58-18; the motion to adopt late amendments on ACA 8 passed 58-19; a motion to re-refer ACA 8 and SB 280 to Judiciary failed 19-58; and a motion to take up A.J.R. 21 without reference to file failed 19-58. The session remained focused on ACA 8 and related redistricting questions, with extensive floor speeches from both supporters and opponents.