Transcript Highlights:

• The vast majority do not have it.
• , whether it was a ballot initiative or not a ballot initiative.
• And we didn't even know what we're going to be doing, whether it was a ballot initiative or not a ballot
• not drive state growth and they do not drive migration.
• pay for themselves and do not generate this enormous amount of new economic activity.

Bills: H5006 , H5007

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state tax collection cap law (62F) so the cap would be based on the prior year’s actual collections plus wage-and-salary growth and would include surtax revenue. Committee chairs outlined the hearing process and noted that the measures would need additional signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot if not enacted by the legislature. The committee’s expert witness, Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, said the income tax proposal would lower the base rate in stages beginning in 2027 and would ultimately reduce state income tax collections by about $5.4 billion annually when fully implemented. He estimated savings would vary by income level, from a few hundred dollars for lower- and middle-income households to about $10,700 for taxpayers at the surtax threshold. He argued the proposal would improve tax competitiveness but would also require major budget adjustments, likely including reserve use, spending cuts, and possibly new revenue measures; he cited prior downturns and said the state’s rainy day fund is stronger than in past recessions, though spending growth and health care costs remain concerns. On the 62F proposal, he said rebasing the cap to prior-year collections would make refunds more likely, with modeled refunds totaling about $7.9 billion without the surtax and $10.1 billion with it over the last decade, and warned it could reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Proponents of both petitions, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, NFIB, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that Massachusetts faces an affordability and competitiveness crisis and that lower taxes would help families, small businesses, job creation, and outmigration. They said the income tax cut would put about $1,300 a year back into the hands of average families, help pass-through businesses reinvest, and improve the state’s ability to compete with lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, presented a model projecting average annual revenue losses of about $680 million during the phase-in and a total net income tax revenue impact of $2 billion to $2.2 billion, while saying long-term revenue growth would be stronger after implementation. The hearing ended with committee questions and a brief dispute over a planned voter testimonial video, which the chairs said was not appropriate for the hearing at that point.

Transcript Highlights:

• We prefer not to have to do any of those.
• , I'm not paying attention to the number.
• There are too many people who do not have that choice. So what do we do in that...
• There are too many people who do not have that choice. So what do we do in that situation?
• Do they pay for this day?

Committee: House Public Health

Transcript Highlights:

• , and more. ...which do not make sense for the financial structure of a bond.
• It is not about transparency, and if you do not believe me, then perhaps you believe the governor, who
• That's a lot more money, and we're definitely not being paid. We don't pay to play.
• That's a lot more money, and we're definitely not being paid. We don't pay to play.
• And I do feel we have reached an agreement, but that was not stated.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on April 30, 2025, beginning as a subcommittee until a quorum was established. The committee first approved six bills on consent, including AB 950, AB 953, AB 1214, and three committee bills. It then heard several measures dealing with election administration, ballot transparency, and campaign finance, with most authors accepting committee amendments and several bills being held on call for absent members. AB 930 by Assembly Member Ward would extend the deadline for counting timely postmarked vote-by-mail ballots from three to seven days after Election Day and update recount procedures, including online posting of recount results and clearer rules for recount requests. The bill was supported by county election officials and passed out of committee with a due-pass recommendation, though it was initially held on call. AB 459 by Assembly Member DeMaio proposed allowing electronic signatures for initiatives, referenda, and recalls; the Secretary of State and labor groups opposed it over security, implementation, and cost concerns, and the committee ultimately rejected the bill after reconsideration. AB 699 by Assembly Member Stephanie would change how local tiered tax and bond measures are described on ballots by allowing more detail to be placed in the voter guide; housing, school, and local government groups supported it, while taxpayer and realtor groups opposed it as reducing ballot transparency. AB 1188, presented on behalf of Assembly Member Ortega, would list the top three funders supporting and opposing statewide initiatives and referenda directly on the ballot; transparency advocates and labor supported it, while county election officials and business groups raised concerns about ballot length and processing costs. Both AB 699 and AB 1188 passed out of committee with amendments and were held on call. The committee also heard AB 827 by Assembly Member Berman, which would standardize and extend the deadline for curing vote-by-mail signature problems, add a link to cure forms in ballot-tracking notifications, and make other changes to improve ballot curing. It drew no opposition in the hearing and passed with a due-pass recommendation. AB 351 by Assembly Member McKenna would raise the Levine Act contribution threshold for local officials to $1,500 and add CPI adjustments; supporters said it would reduce administrative burdens and reflect modern campaign finance realities, while good-government groups and the League of Women Voters opposed it as weakening anti-corruption protections. The committee initially failed AB 351, then granted reconsideration, but the transcript ends before a final disposition is clearly completed. Finally, AB 1079 by Assembly Member Farías would eliminate the automatic appellate stay in California Voting Rights Act and Fair Maps Act cases; it was supported as a way to prevent delayed remedies in voting rights cases, opposed by the City of Santa Monica over impacts on ongoing litigation, and passed with amendments. After taking up the held items, the committee recorded final votes on the bills, including passage of AB 930, AB 699, AB 1188, AB 827, and AB 1079, and rejection of AB 459.

Transcript Highlights:

• You're not worried about the folks who pay, like, the capital gains tax already, kind of being like,
• Democrats in the legislature, Republicans in the legislature, our constituents back home do not support
• That said, Initiative 2111 also prohibited local income taxes. That's not addressed by this.
• And I do agree that we should not have a... ...very broad, deep income tax on every Washingtonian.
• And it's what my constituents want to see us do. So I believe there's not really a disconnect.

Summary: House and Senate Democratic leaders announced and defended a new “Millionaire’s Tax” bill, saying it is intended to raise revenue from the highest earners while reducing reliance on sales tax and B&O tax and funding education, health care, community safety, and other state needs. They said the proposal is a starting point and will likely change as they continue talks with the governor, business groups, local governments, and other stakeholders. They also said the bill is not subject to cutoff because it affects state revenue, and that the Senate hearing is scheduled first in Ways and Means, with the House expected to follow after the Senate version moves over. The leaders described the bill as narrowly targeted at roughly 30,000 individual payers, with the first $1 million of income taxed at zero and the rate matching the state capital gains tax above that level. They argued the measure is not a broad income tax and rejected claims that it creates a marriage penalty, saying the structure mirrors the capital gains tax and uses Washington’s capital gains definitions. They also said the bill includes credits and deductions to address pass-through businesses, including dollar-for-dollar credits for B&O and public utilities taxes and an election allowing some businesses to pay the tax at the entity level. A major part of the discussion focused on how the bill would use revenue. Leaders said about 5% would go to counties for public defense costs tied to a new Supreme Court mandate, while the rest would support tax relief and new spending. They said the package would expand the Working Families Tax Credit, increase the small business credit, end the B&O surcharge a year early, and exempt some hygiene and grooming products from sales tax, with the tax-relief share estimated in the 20% range. They also said the necessity clause is needed because of structural budget problems and federal policy changes, and they expressed confidence that voters and lawmakers have become more open to taxing high earners, citing the capital gains tax vote and broader public concern about inequality and federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• You're not worried about the folks who pay, like, the capital gains tax already, kind of being like,
• They could deduct the entire amount of the tax at a business level, right, and then not pay at an individual
• And I do agree that we should not have a very broad, deep income tax on every Washingtonian.
• And I do agree that we should not have a very broad, deep income tax on every Washingtonian.
• So I believe there's not really a disconnect. constituents want to see us do.

Summary: House and Senate Democratic leaders, joined by Speaker Laurie Jinkins and House Finance Chair April Berg, introduced a “Millionaire’s Tax” proposal and framed it as a way to reduce Washington’s reliance on sales tax and B&O tax while raising revenue from the state’s highest earners. They said the bill is a starting point and will continue to change through negotiations with the governor, business groups, local governments, and lawmakers. The leaders also said the proposal is intended to support education, health care, public safety, and tax relief measures such as sales tax exemptions on hygiene products, an expanded working families tax credit, a larger small business tax credit, and an early end to the B&O surcharge. The governor had already said he could not support the bill in its current form, which the sponsors said surprised them because they had spoken positively with him the day before. They said the bill will not be the same by the time it reaches his desk and that they expect continued talks to address his concerns, including more money for small business relief and the working families tax credit. They also defended the bill’s structure, saying it mirrors the state capital gains tax, uses Washington’s capital gains definition, and includes credits intended to prevent double taxation for pass-through businesses and others already paying B&O or related taxes. Much of the discussion focused on criticism from Republicans and outside groups that the proposal amounts to a marriage penalty or could drive away high earners and tech businesses. Democratic leaders rejected those concerns, saying the tax applies only to income above $1 million, that the first million is taxed at zero, and that the state would still compare favorably with other income-tax states. They said about 30,000 taxpayers would be affected and estimated the bill would raise roughly $3.5 billion, with about 5% dedicated to county public defense costs. They also said the bill is not subject to cutoff because it affects state revenue, and that the Senate public hearing is scheduled for Friday afternoon in Ways and Means, with the House expected to hear the Senate version later in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• But not only that, but they do impact the entire Minnesota economy.
• But not only that, but they do impact the entire Minnesota economy.
• But not only that, but they do impact the entire Minnesota economy.
• But not only that, but they do impact the entire Minnesota economy.
• But not only that, but they do impact the entire Minnesota economy.

Transcript Highlights:

• The vast majority do not have it.
• And we didn't even know what we were going to be doing, whether it was a ballot initiative or not a ballot
• And we didn't even know what we're going to be doing, whether it was a ballot initiative or not a ballot
• not drive state growth and they do not drive migration.
• not pay for themselves or generate this enormous amount of new economic activity.

Bills: H5006 , H5007

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Keywords: tax revenue, state surplus, taxpayer refunds, budget growth, Massachusetts General Laws, income tax, tax reduction, state law, personal income tax, tax rates

Transcript Highlights:

• The vast majority do not have it.
• And we didn't even know what we were going to be doing, whether it was a ballot initiative or not a ballot
• And we didn't even know what we're going to be doing, whether it was a ballot initiative or not a ballot
• not drive state growth, and they do not drive migration.
• I think there’s strong evidence, most recently from President Trump’s tax cut, that tax cuts do not pay

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if we do not get their medications quickly, they can get lost to care because they do not have the
• This is the first motion for do pass? No, you're not feeling okay. So we have a motion for do pass.
• Madam Chair, do it. Do it. I move it do not pass on the SHPAC committee sub for Senate Bill 20.
• Madam Chair, I move do not pass on Senate Bill 189.
• But we're not passing it yet. ...at the committee's, and I do not pass on Senate Bill.

Bills: SB20 , SB21 , SB166 , SB177 , SB181 , SB189 , SM6

Committee: Senate Senate Tax, Business & Transportation

Keywords: prior authorization, pharmacy benefits manager, PBM, health insurer, prescription drugs, step therapy, formulary, auto-adjudication, electronic portal, appeals, medical necessity, serious mental illness, mental health, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, substance use disorder, addiction treatment, cancer, autoimmune disorder

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you in favor of free lunch if we have to reduce teacher pay, or do we have to not pick your roads
• I mean, it's not right for us to do that.
• Are you in favor of free lunch if we have to reduce teacher pay, or do we have to not pick your roads
• I mean, it's not right for us to do that.
• I will bet on that, and I bet they don't get 45 because people do not want to pay more in property tax

Bills: SB2401 , SB2402 , SB2403 , SB2404

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, roll call, and a quorum present, then took up second reading and final passage of several House bills related to the Rural Health Transformation Program and other matters. House Bill 1621, requiring the presidential fitness test in school physical education with exceptions and a delayed effective date, passed 43-3. House Bill 1623, appropriating federal rural health transformation grant funds and creating a related loan program and reporting structure, passed 46-0 after extensive debate about using the federal money for community health, infrastructure, and sustainability. House Bill 1622, joining the physician assistant licensure compact, also passed unanimously 46-0. House Bill 1625, authorizing the Ray Richards Golf Course land sale to support a Grand Forks transportation project and golf course improvements, passed 46-0. House Bill 1626, clarifying that the primary residence credit is applied after the early payment discount so taxpayers receive the full $1,600 benefit, passed 40-6.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not here to argue which way that is. That's for politicians to do.
• We have a council who does not all agree on how to use impact fees, does not all agree on how to do taxes
• We have a council who does not all agree on how to use impact fees, does not all agree on how to do taxes
• Constitution—is not limited to just South Texas when we do this work.
• I don't think the Legislature has to do it. I mean, whether they will do it or not, I don't know.

Bills: HB5489 , HB5695 , HB5699 , SB291 , SB292

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Keywords: impact fee, moratorium, local government, Texas legislation, infrastructure funding, municipal utility district, eminent domain, bonds, assessments, infrastructure, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Harris County, Municipal Utility District, territory exclusion, debt service taxes, property taxation, condemnation, property acquisition, real property, appraisal reports

Transcript Highlights:

• “I’m sorry, this referral does not just do that.
• do not understand because it is not expressed to them that this would have the effect, for instance,
• We're not paying our teachers enough.
• We're not doing anything to help our public schools. We're trying to harm them.
• All you had to do is fill out a slip, which you chose not to do. Okay. And now we're voting.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations, Transportation and Technology heard HCR 2048, as amended by a strike-everything amendment. The amendment would constitutionally prohibit the state from confiscating scholarship account monies from children of military families who are eligible for education scholarship accounts (ESAs) and can use the funds for tuition and fees at eligible postsecondary institutions. It also would make any later bill or voter-approved measure that violates that prohibition void in its entirety, with no severability, for measures enacted or approved on or after November 1, 2026. Representative Way, the sponsor, said the measure was intended to protect military families from having education funds taken away and argued that military children face unique disruptions because of deployments and frequent moves. Supporters including Matt Beinberg of the Goldwater Institute, Kevin Beasty of the Arizona Christian Education Coalition, Peter Gentala of the Center for Arizona Policy, and Senator Rogers said the amendment was needed to safeguard military families and preserve their ability to use ESA funds flexibly, including for college savings. Opponents, including Senators Alston, Fernandez, Kuby, and Epstein, argued the proposal was unnecessary, overly broad, and an attempt to preempt or invalidate a pending ESA-related citizen initiative. They also raised concerns about ESA accountability, public school funding, and constitutional issues involving voter initiatives and judicial review. After debate, the committee adopted the strike-everything amendment and then voted on HCR 2048 as amended. The final committee vote was 6 ayes, 4 noes, and 1 not voting, giving the measure a do-pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Specific numbers, I do not have that here today.
• Do they not also deserve protection?
• But that’s not necessarily easy for everyone to do.
• We do not believe it goes far enough.
• It's important to note what this bill does not do.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee approved the minutes from its March 18, 2026 meeting and then took up a long agenda of bills and a clemency nomination. HB 2825, as amended, was heard first. The bill would replace criminal enforcement tools for nonpayment of fines, fees, restitution, and surcharges with a civil collection process, including a required summons and civil default procedures. Supporters said it would streamline restitution collection and reduce costs, while opponents argued it would weaken victims’ rights and remove effective enforcement leverage. The committee adopted the Rogers amendment and passed the bill 5-2. The committee also confirmed Neil McDowell to the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency by a 6-0 vote after hearing his background in corrections and his plans to help the board function efficiently. The committee then passed HB 4070, as amended, 5-2. That bill bars incorporation of corporations whose officers, directors, or trustees have been convicted of sex trafficking or human trafficking, and expands civil liability to those who facilitate trafficking. Supporters framed it as a corporate accountability tool to deter trafficking, while the ACLU opposed it as overbroad and potentially sweeping in people not intended to be covered. HB 2720, which increases penalties for paying or agreeing to pay for sexual conduct and adds a fee to support anti-trafficking services, also passed, 4-3. Supporters, including survivors and law enforcement, said it targets demand and helps victims; opponents warned it could criminalize victims and lacked sufficient safeguards. The committee heard several additional bills. HB 2047 would raise trespass penalties after eviction-related writs of restitution from third-degree to first-degree trespass; the sponsor and constables said it would improve scene safety and encourage law enforcement response. HB 2136 would create new crimes for “civil terrorism” and “subversion” and increase penalties for certain highway obstruction; the ACLU argued it would punish protest and speech critical of government. HB 2406 would make images and recordings of abused children and deceased minors confidential, limit dissemination, and impose civil and criminal penalties for misuse; supporters said it would prevent re-victimization and reduce trauma, while defense and media concerns were raised about access. HB 2415, dealing with kratom and 7-OH products, drew sharply divided testimony over whether the bill is a needed safety regulation or an overbroad ban that could push users to illicit drugs; the transcript ends before a final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you pay for usage. So when you're not using it, like you said, you're not paying for it.
• You're not going to be able to pay your taxes.
• That's not right. And so I think the Not be paying more taxes than Amazon. That's not right.
• We do have a proposal, but not the final TBL.
• We do have a proposal, but not the final TBL.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:05:32.160><c> projects</c><00:05:32.560><c> not</c> may look at ways of doing projects not may
• So this would be on a Zoom meeting or people would fly in to do it, and who would pay for them?
• So this would be on a Zoom meeting or people would fly in to do it, and who would pay for them?
• So this would be on a Zoom meeting or people would fly in to do it, and who would pay for them?
• If it's a House-initiated effort, then they should pay for all the costs. Uh, so anyway, thanks.

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs heard two concurrent resolutions. HCR 33 proposed asking the U.S. Postmaster General to relocate the Pearl City Post Office from Kamehameha Highway and Acacia Road to Navy property on the Pearl City Peninsula. Testifiers, including Pearl City Neighborhood Board chair Larry Verrett and resident Lena Ala Baiton, supported the move, citing severe congestion, narrow access, safety concerns, and the potential to improve traffic flow and support transit-oriented development. Members noted a similar Senate measure had already passed, and HCR 33 was recommended to pass unamended. The committee then considered HCR 157, which would establish a task force to simplify permitting for enhanced economic development and coordinate state and intergovernmental permitting processes. Testimony in support was submitted by representatives connected to DBED/HHFDC and others. In discussion, members questioned whether such a task force was necessary, what projects it would address, how often it would meet, whether it could include housing and local-level projects, and what the cost might be; the response was that the resolution would provide more structure, no similar project had been executed before, and costs were not yet known but could be addressed later. The committee ultimately recommended HCR 157 pass unamended, and the recommendation was adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Minimum wage laws do not reduce employment.
• is not some corporation that is gouging in doing that.
• They're not going to do it. You all have heard the examples of St.
• But we should not do something that will make it worse.
• We are not doing enough. We need to go faster.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-21, House Bill 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 initiative process and said the hearing was intended to gather testimony for a report to the legislature. The measure would replace current state law that prohibits rent control, cap annual rent increases at the lower of CPI or 5%, exempt certain properties including owner-occupied buildings of four or fewer units, subsidized, university, nonprofit, and short-term rental housing, and exempt new construction for 10 years. It would also eliminate vacancy decontrol, so limits would continue when units turn over, and enforcement would rely largely on tenants and the Attorney General through the courts. The hearing began with expert testimony from Whitney Airgood-Obrien of Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, who described Massachusetts’ severe rental affordability problems and reviewed research on rent regulation, noting mixed evidence on supply and quality effects but clearer evidence that rent regulation can slow rent growth and improve tenant stability. Supporters of the petition, led by Carolyn Chow of Homes for All Massachusetts, argued that rent stabilization is needed now to curb displacement and runaway rent increases, especially for low- and moderate-income renters. Laura Frost described her Arlington building being bought by a large firm that sought steep rent hikes, and said rent control would help prevent “tenant flipping” and community displacement. Dave Foley of SEIU Local 509 said the issue affects workers’ ability to live near their jobs, while Dr. Mark Paul and Tram Huang argued that the evidence supports well-designed rent stabilization, that vacancy decontrol encourages displacement, and that the policy should be seen as a complement to new housing production rather than a substitute. Committee members questioned supporters about the 10-year new construction exemption, the lack of vacancy decontrol, and whether rent stabilization could discourage development; supporters responded that the measure targets corporate rent gouging, that small landlords are protected by exemptions, and that production and rent stabilization can coexist. Opponents, including representatives of small property owners, chambers of commerce, and labor/building trades, argued the proposal would hurt small landlords, reduce investment, and slow housing production. They said operating costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance are rising faster than the proposed cap, and warned that the measure would reduce property values and tax revenue and could push investment to other states. Several opponents emphasized that many Massachusetts housing providers are mom-and-pop owners rather than large corporations, and said the policy would make it harder to maintain and improve housing. Committee members pressed both sides on the need for a middle ground between affordability and preserving development incentives, but no vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• They do not, and I can't answer the question as to why they do not, but for example, there would be some
• If you do not get the positions filled, you still go forward with the governor’s initiatives and you
• We're not doing that.
• We do not pay for that. Okay.
• We're not the first to do this. No, we're not.

Summary: Attorney General Catherine Hanaway presented the Office of the Attorney General’s FY 2027 budget request and outlined her office’s priorities: reducing violent crime, targeting illegal and unregulated activities she described as a “vice squad” focus, protecting Missourians from fraud, and improving the office’s legal work. She highlighted major cases and enforcement efforts, including litigation over insulin pricing, Dollar General pricing practices, a criminal prosecution in Hermann, the Jackson County assessment dispute, and a new lawsuit involving Misha’s board policy. Committee members asked about cybercrime enforcement, cooperation with federal authorities, VLTs, ballot and referendum litigation, and the office’s approach to diversity-related legal issues. Hanaway said cybercrime and no-call enforcement rely heavily on multi-state and federal cooperation, and she emphasized that many cases begin with citizen reports. Members also questioned the cost and scope of ongoing election-related litigation, including redistricting and referendum cases, and Hanaway said her office is defending the laws and ballot processes as required. She estimated roughly $600,000 in staff time over about six months for the referendum/redistricting work combined. Several members raised concerns about the Misha lawsuit and whether similar statutory provisions elsewhere in state government could raise the same legal issues; Hanaway responded that the case involved a board rule, not a statute, and turned on whether the requirement functioned as a quota. The committee also discussed child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, Medicaid fraud, and the use of outside counsel and pro hac vice fees. Hanaway said the office is using non-GR funds where possible and is not requesting pay increases this year. The Missouri Office of Prosecution Services then presented its budget. Officials explained that MOPS trains and supports prosecutors statewide, including on DWIs, child sex cases, and new prosecutor training, and that its budget request matches the governor’s recommendation. Members asked about support for local prosecutors, the nine counties without elected prosecutors, and the new conviction integrity unit; staff said the unit’s positions were shifted between line items and that the office can help answer prosecutorial questions through its general counsel. The committee then moved to the Department of Public Safety budget. DPS reviewed funding for crime victims notification, law enforcement recruitment and retention, drug task forces, academy scholarships, Blue Star grants, local crime prevention, school safety, World Cup security, 988 trainings, wastewater testing in schools, and other programs. Members asked about the $59 million federal FIFA World Cup grant, school safety app funding, and wastewater testing participation; DPS said the World Cup funds require no state match, the app funding is being phased out, and schools opted into the testing program. The committee recessed before finishing the DPS book, with plans to return later.

Transcript Highlights:

• not have that ability locally to do that.
• Well, I do not know that we will actually do this.
• less damage to the roads, are not paying.
• We know that these heavier vehicles do more damage to our roads, and they do it without paying their
• It is not inequitable that a heavier truck doesn't pay the fees, but lighter trucks do.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on several transportation-related bills. On Substitute House Bill 2251, staff explained changes to Climate Commitment Act accounts and revenue distribution, including new operating and capital accounts and a revised split of auction proceeds among transportation, capital, operating, and air quality accounts. Members asked about the bill’s effect on CERA funding, the air quality account, and whether the bill responded to projected revenue declines. Testimony was mixed but generally supportive of the bill’s goal of clearer, more predictable budgeting; tribal testimony requested clearer protections and a dedicated tribal set-aside, while other witnesses supported the bill for its transparency and climate/transportation benefits. No action was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2588, which would allow county ferry districts to operate and finance vehicle ferries, not just passenger-only ferries. The prime sponsor and county officials from Whatcom and Pierce described the bill as a local option to help fund aging ferry systems without raising taxes, and public testimony from island residents, county representatives, and advocacy groups strongly supported it as a way to stabilize essential ferry service. The committee also heard House Bill 2722, which would raise the vehicle weight threshold for Transportation Benefit District fees from 6,000 to 10,000 pounds. Staff said the change would modestly increase TBD revenue statewide, and the sponsor argued the current law unfairly exempts heavier trucks while lighter vehicles pay the fee. Cities and local officials supported the bill, while the trucking association said it would support a compromise at 9,000 pounds instead of 10,000. The committee also heard House Bill 2727, creating an Educational Transit Access Grant Program for transit agencies and community and technical colleges to pilot free or reduced fares for students; the sponsor and transit advocates said it would improve affordability and access, and testimony emphasized equity and student retention benefits. In executive session, the committee considered Second Substitute House Bill 1923, which would expand who can form passenger-only ferry service districts and where they can be formed, with added intent language related to southern resident orcas and a revised effective date. After discussion, the committee voted 23-4 to pass the bill out of committee with a do pass recommendation. The chair also announced a deadline extension for amendment requests on bills heard that day and thanked staff before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can see how the agency is doing, whether or not it's GROW or just a regular special.
• I do not remember what came out of the LFC rec.
• Unless we do something targeting doctors, we're going to continue to not have them.
• not jeopardize our ability to pay those awardees.
• All the monies, all the contracts do not come for renewal at the same time.

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Collectively, their voices show that this initiative is just not about recruitment, it's just not about
• Because as the Secretary of State, it's pay is not going to fix the answer and it's not going to solve
• Do we know? Um, so I do not have the number for, sorry, Mr.
• Subsequent to the initial court case and not being able to meet the court order.
• We may not even have all the money we need to do the work that we need to do in the short amount of time