Transcript Highlights:

• And, you know, while some states have gone to mail-in ballots, my intent with this bill is to ensure
• And, you know, while some states have gone to mail-in ballots, my intent with this bill is to ensure

Bills: SB2030 , SB1926 , SB2170 , SB2151 , SB2166 , SB1213 , SB1381 , SB1824 , SB1876 , SB1728 , SB1582 , SB1286 , SB1386 , SB1708 , SB1618

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: expungement, record sealing, criminal records, clean slate, automatic expungement, expedited expungement, criminal history, OSBI, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, deferred judgment, delayed sentence, pardon, pardon and parole board, law enforcement records, sealed records, arrest records, conviction records, reclassification of felony to misdemeanor, reentry, second chance

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard and advanced a series of bills covering criminal justice, family law, elections, insurance, and property issues. Among the measures approved were SB 2030, a clean-slate/automatic expungement bill; SB 1926, allowing victims seeking protective orders to file in another county; SB 2170, requiring supervised visits when sexual abuse allegations are substantiated by DHS; SB 2151, giving prosecutors discretion to seek a 65% sentence instead of an 85% sentence in some cases; SB 2166, setting evidentiary rules for calculating future medical damages; SB 1213, allowing certain inmates to start at a higher earned-credit level; SB 1381, creating a statewide pretrial hearing process with a pilot program approach; SB 1824, updating corporation and LLC statutes; SB 1876, modernizing service of process on foreign insurers; SB 1728, adding a domestic violence definition for coercive control; SB 1582, defining bona fide resident and lawful permanent resident for alien land ownership rules; SB 1286, requiring more political subdivisions to provide polling places at no cost; SB 1386, creating a courtroom transparency pilot program using audio-video recording; and SB 1708, creating a rebuttable presumption of joint custody and equal parenting time. Several bills were amended before passage, including title-striking motions on multiple measures and committee-substitute language changes. Debate centered on the policy tradeoffs in several of the more controversial bills. Senators raised concerns about forum shopping and judicial bias in the protective-order bill, the fairness and practical effects of the future-damages bill on injured plaintiffs and insurers, the impact of the custody presumption bill on domestic violence cases and guardian ad litem practice, and the risks of foreign land ownership. Supporters generally framed the bills as responses to constituent concerns, efforts to improve fairness or transparency, or ways to modernize outdated statutes and procedures. Opponents or skeptics focused on unintended consequences, possible burdens on victims, and whether existing law already addressed the problems being raised. The committee also heard that SB 1381 would likely return as a pilot program in one county because of fiscal concerns, and SB 1386 was discussed as a limited courtroom-recording pilot rather than a full statewide rollout. SB 1582 passed after discussion of the meaning of “bona fide resident” and whether certain noncitizens could buy land. SB 1708 drew especially detailed debate over whether the law should begin with a presumption of equal parenting time or leave custody decisions entirely to the judge’s best-interest analysis. Most measures advanced on bipartisan roll-call votes, with some dissent on SB 1926, SB 2166, SB 1386, and SB 1708.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a proposed substitute offered by Senator Muzzall.
• Today you are hearing a proposed substitute.
• This proposed substitute does not require that.
• This bill will also strengthen security for ballots returned electronically because ballot returning
• This bill will also strengthen security for ballots returned electronically because ballot returning

Bills: SB6294 , SB6211 , SB5650 , SB6033 , SB6297 , SB6343 , SB6067 , SB6082 , SB6323 , SB6324 , SB5862 , SB5923 , SB6151

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Keywords: local government finance, Washington state, RCW, real estate excise tax, REET, sales and use tax, property tax levy, county tax, city tax, affordable housing, housing services, behavioral health, mental health, developmental disabilities, children and families services, youth services, utility tax, low-income utility assistance, veterans assistance, homelessness

Transcript Highlights:

• Clerk read the bills: HR10 by Hayes proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the termination
• No. 1 by Shaheen, proposing a constitutional amendment specifying the authority of the Attorney General
• So, with this proposed statute, it addresses that current concern in the Stevens case.
• He testified that in absentee ballots, 60,000 votes were counted, but there were only 50,000 ballots.
• No longer will surrogates be able to protect ballot traffickers.

Bills: HB8 , HB12 , SB 3 , HJR1 , SB 11 , SB 16 , SB 14 , HB 8 , HB 12 , SB 3 , HJR 1 , SB 11 , SB 16 , SB 14

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• parties, the state. and the defense lawyer that represents the attorney ad litem that represents the proposed

Bills: SB 53 , SB53 , SB125 , SB315 , SB379 , SB457 , SB541 , SB599 , SB896 , SB921 , SB963 , SB1038 , SB1084 , SB1330 , SB1461

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Keywords: voter registration, election procedures, provisional ballot, change of address, residence requirements, mental health, court proceedings, notice requirements, legal filings, electronic documents, autologous blood donation, direct blood donation, blood bank, hospital, Health and Safety Code, physician order, preoperative blood donation, patient blood reserve, transfusion, surgery

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> subcommittee will review the proposed subcommittee will review the proposed legislation<00:12:23.440
• the proposed the proposed changes<00:26:57.000><c> and</c><00:26:57.200><c> then</c><00:26:57.520><c>
• </c><00:30:57.200><c> that</c> election and and I would propose that election and and I would propose
• both ballots equivalently?
• ballot for that person.

Committee: House Election Law

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and those proposing them or opposing them.
• Under Article 48, the Attorney General does not have the authority to determine whether a proposed ballot
• So when you cast your ballot, when you cast your vote on a ballot question, you probably believe that
• However, when a question goes on the ballot, that promise disappears.
• Ballot efforts can cost up to $10 million, and the price is growing.

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ballot envelopes.
• All states do send absentee and mail ballots.
• Who provide ballots to persons who are not eligible to vote.
• Two, is the action or proposed action illegal or unlawful?
• I think the proposed rule itself was over 450 pages. ...I think the proposed rule itself was over 450

Committee: House State Government & Tribal Relations

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of ballots from the tally of ballots received on that day.
• responsibility for Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed
• and the difference there is a use of the word all ballots versus ballots.
• responsibility for Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed
• For Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed them instead

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, so when we have these constitutional amendments, whether they're proposed by this body or proposed
• really understand what's being proposed.
• attention as, you know, the longer the ballot gets.
• really understand what's being proposed.
• as, you know, the longer the ballot gets.

Committee: House State Affairs

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from March 10 and 11, then moved House Bill 872 to the top of the agenda. Representative Tanner presented HB 872, which would remove the requirement that constitutional amendments or initiatives on a general election ballot be separated onto a new page or form. He said the change would save counties time and money, citing an Ada County estimate of about $110,000 in printing costs, and noted support from the Secretary of State. Some members raised concerns about voter confusion and ballot readability, but after discussion about ballot fatigue and the Secretary of State’s review role, the committee voted to send HB 872 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. The committee then introduced RS 33-694, a resolution to honor Idaho Olympic athletes, after brief discussion about whether it should receive a full hearing or move directly ahead. RS 33-224 was also introduced; Representative Harris explained it would change the number of county commissioner appointees submitted to the governor based on county population, to help smaller counties find qualified candidates and reduce turnover. RS 33-175, the annual codifier bill making technical corrections and cleanup changes to Idaho code, was introduced and sent to second reading without substantive debate. Next, Representative McCann presented RS 33-699, which would allow public meetings to be recorded but carve out exceptions for certain sensitive settings, including Department of Corrections facilities, juvenile matters, executive sessions, and parole hearings, to protect victims, juveniles, and security concerns. Members discussed possible issues with manipulated recordings and orderly conduct at meetings, but the committee ultimately sent the RS to second reading with a due pass recommendation. Finally, RS 33-618 was held at the call of the chair, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> of where the ballot was mailed. of where the ballot was mailed.
• </c> the questions on the ballot. the questions on the ballot.
• We have two ballots.
• The total number of absentee ballots used as official election ballots.
• </c> ballots at all. ballots at all.

Keywords: 9:00am HB 158 9:10am HB 281 9:20am HB 317 9:30am HB 340 9:40am HB 1062 9:50am HB 1187 10:00am HB 1234 10:10am HB 1300 10:20am HB 1306 10:30am HB 1381 10:40am HB 1541, 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference first resolved House Bill 158, which concerns public inspection of absentee ballot lists. The Senate explained a revised approach that removed the broader bill language and instead directed the Secretary of State to review absentee ballot data after each general election for patterns such as common addresses and to report findings to the committees of jurisdiction. The House agreed to the Senate position, and the conference committee voted unanimously to concur. The committee then took up House Bill 281, dealing with a sortable electronic voter checklist. Members debated the Senate’s removal of language that would have included the absentee ballot mailing address when different from the voter’s registration address. Concerns were raised that releasing mailing addresses could expose where voters are not home and could affect overseas and military voters. The committee also discussed a related form for election officials who personally know a voter, including how long the form would be retained and whether it would be subject to public records law. After further discussion, the House agreed to the Senate changes with an additional requirement that the form be signed, and the committee voted to proceed with the amended Senate position. House Bill 317, concerning verification of a person’s identity by a supervisor of the checklist without identification, was also discussed at length. The Senate’s version preserved the ability for election officials to identify people they know, but required a signed form under penalty of perjury and added a nursing home-related provision. Members described the measure as balancing community-based identification with tighter documentation, and a House witness described local problems with inconsistent ID checks and concerns about voting in nursing homes. The House sought one additional change requiring the nursing home verification form to be signed, and the Senate accepted that addition; the committee then voted to move the bill forward on the consent calendar. The conference committee next considered House Bill 340 on electioneering by public employees. The chair presented a replace-all amendment that tied the definition of electioneering to existing law, added a prohibition on expressly or primarily political surveys, and created a civil penalty of up to $1,000 alongside the misdemeanor penalty. Members discussed clarifying when the misdemeanor versus civil penalty would apply and which categories of public employees were covered. After caucus, the Senate agreed to the House’s replace-all approach with the clarifying changes, and the bill was closed. The committee also resolved House Bill 1062 by agreeing to strike a sunset clause from the Senate version authorizing random audits of citizenship qualifications, and it began discussion of House Bill 1187 on the filing window for special-election candidates, where the House proposed requiring local election officials to arrange a filing time on the same day or next business day after being contacted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Two bills are proposed for consent.
• The formal right to cast a ballot.
• Second, it prohibits voter suppression and discriminatory barriers to the ballot.
• To lose custody of the ballots invites all kinds of potential challenges.
• The names of the candidates for elected office appear on the ballot alongside a ballot designation that

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Has Texas had any hearings or even a proposal for a carbon tax?
• I can't get over the fact that I was number five on the ballot. I was number five on the ballot.
• I was number five on the ballot. OK.
• Were they on the ballot during those races as well? Yes, he was. So you beat him?
• House Bill 766 by Cortez relating to the ballot application.

Bills: HJR34 , HB 113 , HB184 , HB198 , HB247 , HB367 , HB449 , HB1778 , HB514 , HB576 , HB632 , HB1395 , HB2225 , HB2582 , HB2494 , HB766 , HB2715 , HB2712 , HB3069 , HB3505 , HB 1269 , HB4224 , HB3609 , HB5032 , HB2240 , HB5180 , HB3348 , HB4668 , HB4909 , HB4665 , HB4895 , HB3395 , HB3157 , HB4762 , HB4395 , HB4325 , HB4952 , HB4386 , HB4273 , HB2760 , HB2697 , HB2820 , HB1828 , HB1768 , HB1579 , HB1773 , HB1871 , HB2035 , HB2448 , HB2492 , HB1411 , HB4753 , HB4666 , HB4529 , HB1499 , HB1610 , HB2028 , HB1506 , HB886 , HB3546 , HB796 , HB223 , HB1475 , HB3556 , HB4638 , HCR126 , HB38 , HB 104 , SB1008 , SB1106 , SB1172 , SB2629 , SB2964 , SB616 , HB2214 , SB552 , HB3181 , HB3628 , HB589 , HB3529 , HB3354 , HB333 , HB2914 , HB4130 , HB4131 , HB24 , HB 1160 , HB3962 , HB4115 , HB2295 , HB5398 , HB1407 , HB3800 , HB2613 , HJR138 , HB42 , HJR34 , HB 129 , HB677 , HB426 , HB668 , HB1699 , HB2017 , HB2128 , HB2038 , HB3783 , HB3717 , HB2316 , HB3686 , HB2563 , HB3883 , HB4021 , HB2788 , HB2663 , HB3305 , HB3173 , HB3474 , HB 1105 , HB3531 , HB3490 , HB3597 , HB 1295 , HB3512 , HB3010 , HB3112 , HB4215 , HB3223 , HB3464 , HB3120 , HB4214 , HB4511 , HB3704 , HB4081 , HB4783 , HB4063 , HB2783 , HB4937 , HB5085 , HB2510 , HB3426 , HB4361 , HB 1169 , HB2516 , HB2347 , HB4034 , HB4700 , HB3560 , HB5150 , HB3860 , HB3146 , HB3924 , HB 113 , HB184 , HB198 , HB247 , HB367 , HB449 , HB1778 , HB514 , HB576 , HB632 , HB1395 , HB2225 , HB2582 , HB2494 , HB766 , HB2715 , HB2712 , HB3069 , HB3505 , HB 1269 , HB4224 , HB3609 , HB5032 , HB2240 , HB5180 , HB3348 , HB4668 , HB4909 , HB4665 , HB4895 , HB3395 , HB3157 , HB4762 , HB4395 , HB4325 , HB4952 , HB4386 , HB4273 , HB2760 , HB2697 , HB2820 , HB1828 , HB1768 , HB1579 , HB1773 , HB1871 , HB2035 , HB2448 , HB2492 , HB1411 , HB4753 , HB4666 , HB4529 , HB1499 , HB1610 , HB2028 , HB1506 , HB886 , HB3546 , HB796 , HB223 , HB1475 , HB3556 , HB4638 , HCR98 , HCR92 , HCR126

Keywords: HJR 34, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, real property, border counties, U.S.-Mexico border, United Mexican States, border security, border security infrastructure, landowner, county tax base, local government, tax relief, property value increase, infrastructure improvements, voter approval, November 2025 ballot, statutory construction

Transcript Highlights:

• It has collected the signatures necessary to get on the November ballot.
• This bill does not propose to change the law.
• This bill proposes to change the law in Fresno County this year, right?
• This bill does not propose to change the law.
• This bill proposes to change the law in Fresno County this year, right?

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> ballots um I believe their Town ballot ballots um I believe their Town ballot is<00:35:03.280><c
• , either as spoiled ballots cast or remaining ballots.
• </c><01:35:00.400><c> casted</c><01:35:00.840><c> ballots</c> either as spoiled ballots casted ballots
• either as spoiled ballots casted ballots or<01:35:01.920><c> remaining</c><01:35:02.239><c> ballots<
• ballots.

Committee: House Election Law

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Election Law Committee held an orientation and then opened a public hearing on House Bill 67-FN-A, which would make permanent the use of accessible voting machines in local elections and provide funding for additional systems. The chair outlined committee procedures, noting a heavy workload of roughly 70 to 80 bills, mostly Tuesday meetings, likely time limits on testimony, and a default of executive session unless a bill is specifically noticed. Members and staff were introduced, and the Secretary of State’s office described its election-related responsibilities, including voter registration, cybersecurity, ballot-counting equipment, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) program. Secretary of State David Scanlan and Deputy Secretary Aon Hennessy explained the current pilot program created by last year’s law, which requires accessible voting systems for local elections and allows the state to share machines with municipalities during the first half of 2025. They said the office has made hardware available, but towns have raised concerns about the speed of implementation and the cost of programming each election, especially for towns with multiple ballot questions. Scanlan said the state is also vetting longer-term options, including devices that could remain in polling places year-round, and suggested the committee consider delaying the bill’s effective date to January 1, 2026 to better align with implementation needs. Hennessy said the current state devices are older and complicated to reset for each election, and estimated programming costs could be about $600 for a small single-election ballot and much higher for towns with multiple elections. Supporters of the bill emphasized the importance of accessible voting for people with disabilities. Representative Robert Wy said the measure builds on 2024 law and would move the pilot into a permanent agreement, citing ADA concerns and prior testimony about discriminatory voting experiences. Fred Forier, a legally blind voter from Exeter, testified that accessible voting systems allow him to vote privately and independently and urged support for the bill. Committee members asked about the gap if the pilot ends before a permanent system is in place and about the cost range for programming. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the committee moved on after public testimony began.

Transcript Highlights:

• are submitted and then when ballots are going out, not when ballots can be returned?
• are submitted and then when ballots are going out, not when ballots can be returned?
• the ballots wouldn't be sent?
• the ballots wouldn't be sent?
• the ballots wouldn't be sent?

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I used abortion as an example of a ballot initiative. Sorry.
• I used abortion as an example of a ballot initiative. Sorry.
• Your proposal... $1,000 without having to report, your proposal in this bill would have an effect, wouldn't
• And of course, that's not what this proposed amendment does.
• The 501(c)(4)s are able to weigh in on measures on the ballot.

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ballot if they've run out of the official ballots, or any absentee ballots received to be processed
• official ballots.
• ballot if they've run out of the official ballots, or any absentee ballots received to be processed
• official ballots.
• ballot election official with an or ballot election official with an absentee<02:02:45.159><c> ballot

Committee: House Election Law

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It has secured signatures needed to qualify for placement on the ballot.
• This bill does not propose to change the law.
• This bill proposes to change the law in Fresno County this year, right?
• This bill does not propose to change the law.
• This bill proposes to change the law in Fresno County this year, right?

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee held an informational hearing on AB 1923 by Assembly Member Soria, which would place the Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act on the November 2026 ballot as a successor to Measure C. Supporters said the measure is needed to preserve transportation funding for road repairs, transit, and matching dollars for state and federal grants, and argued that Fresno County voters should be allowed to decide after more than 32,000 petition signatures qualified the initiative. Testimony in support emphasized impacts on rural communities, students, seniors, farmworkers, caregivers, and access to medical care, with many local officials, residents, labor groups, and community organizations registering support. Opposition came from the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, which argued the bill would override local control and set a bad precedent by directing a local ballot placement contrary to the board’s action. The county also said the board did not delay intentionally, but acted at the next available meeting after signature verification, and argued that a required study was justified. California State Association of Counties registered concerns about local control but did not take a formal position. Committee discussion reflected those concerns, with one member warning about state overreach and the author responding that the board’s role is ministerial and that the bill is intended to prevent delay from pushing the measure to 2028. No vote was taken because the hearing was informational only. The chair noted the committee was hearing testimony and issues surrounding the bill, and the author closed by urging support when the measure reaches the Assembly floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's sort of a misleading change; you're changing provisional ballots and conditional ballots.
• You're changing provisional ballots and conditional ballots, and that's confusing.
• ballots.
• You're changing provisional ballots and conditional ballots, and that's confusing.
• ballots.

Committee: Senate Legislative Operations and Elections

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• EEA has other capital investments that relate to the goals of this ballot petition.
• And this proposal is consistent with those goals.
• on the ballot here.
• The phrase “subject to appropriation” appears in the ballot measure to answer, to answer...
• You can't appropriate funds using the ballot.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition No. 25-15, H.5505, “An Act to Protect Water and Nature.” Committee co-chairs outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the hearing was divided into expert, proponent, opponent, and public-comment sections. The first witness, Undersecretary Stephanie Cooper of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, described current state and federal funding sources for land conservation and outdoor recreation, said existing programs are oversubscribed, and noted that the proposal aligns with the Commonwealth’s 30% land conservation goal by 2030 and 40% by 2050. She also flagged possible governance clarifications in the petition, including board structure and administrative authority, while saying the administration has the expertise to manage such a fund. Proponents from Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, Mount Grace Land Trust, the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, and Bemis Associates argued that Massachusetts needs a dedicated, sustained revenue stream for conservation, clean water, climate resilience, and public access to nature. They said current funding is inconsistent and insufficient, cited estimates that the state may need roughly $300 million or more annually to meet conservation targets, and emphasized benefits to public health, mental health, biodiversity, flood protection, and the outdoor recreation economy. Several speakers said the measure would dedicate a portion of existing sales tax revenue tied to sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses, and that it would support both urban and rural communities, including underserved communities. Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill’s fiscal and constitutional implications, including how much sales tax revenue would be redirected, whether the measure is constitutional, how funds would be allocated among communities, and why the proposal includes certain revenue sources but not others such as ticket sales. Proponents said the measure would likely direct up to about $100 million annually when fully phased in, that it was designed as a “subject to appropriation” mechanism, and that legal review had found it constitutional. They also acknowledged that the proposal would reduce general fund flexibility but argued it would create a long-term investment in natural resources. The hearing concluded after public testimony, and the committee announced it would accept written testimony until March 27 at 5 p.m.; no vote was taken on the petition at the hearing.