Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:39.840> branch the day, the Wyoming judicial branch the day, the Wyoming judicial branch
• <00:04:17.359> branch Wyoming, all of the judicial branch Wyoming, all of the judicial branch
• <00:08:48.160> branch used in every trial judicial branch used in every trial judicial branch
• branch firewall on the judicial branch network.
• <00:19:20.960> Branch comment on Wyoming Judicial Branch comment on Wyoming Judicial Branch

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The General Court, no more than the judicial branch, the office of the Governor, or the auditor herself
• That they could compel records, that they could go to the judicial branch and force certain documents
• Each branch, to some extent, exercises executive, legislative, and judicial powers.
• the judicial branch to implement and execute the laws and perform its other duties as it sees fit, and
• and programs within the executive and the judicial branches.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• . branch.
• In Las Cruces, two different judicial districts.
• Dona Ana County is one of the pilot districts, so the third judicial district and the fourth judicial
• , and the legislative branch.
• My recollection of the time was that the judicial branch was taking the position that that information

Transcript Highlights:

• provides judicial education for the judicial branch, have steadily recovered.
• Exemption from the appropriations limited to revenue collections for the Judicial Branch certification
• And judicial branch agencies that we work with and support, primarily providing IT and support services
• And then the gray bubbles are the judicial branch boards and commissions that we staff.
• Thames is one of the only systems that we have in the judicial branch that is not in the cloud, and with

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to thank you as now we move to a judicial branch. Hold, please. Assembly Member Mikado.
• Judicial branch. All right, we're going to move on to our next issue: Judicial Branch.
• Let's start with the department, Judicial Branch. Good afternoon, Assembly Member Ramos.
• So, in the word 'we,' there is no funding for Prop 36 in the judicial branch budget.
• As the judicial branch indicated, it's really early on, so we don't know exactly what will happen.

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision presentations for the Office of Emergency Services, Judicial Branch, CDCR, and the Department of Justice, with the LAO offering comments and recommendations throughout. For Cal OES, the administration outlined funding for relocating the Red Mountain communications site, increased FEMA reimbursement authority, cybersecurity grants, next-generation 911 support, and a reduction to the Flexible Cash Assistance for Survivors of Crime program. Members raised concerns about VOCA backfill and disaster reimbursement, while the LAO recommended approving the 911 request with reporting, adding contingency planning for cybersecurity grants, clarifying the FEMA reimbursement language, and increasing reporting on emergency spending. For the Judicial Branch, the May Revision included funding for implementation of the Trial Nations Access to Justice Act, reductions tied to court facilities and employee benefits, and General Fund solutions such as a reduction to the pretrial release program, a reversion from the Trial Court Trust Fund, and elimination of the jury duty pilot program. The LAO cautioned that the pretrial reduction could affect detention and release decisions and recommended tighter legislative oversight over the trust fund transfer and reallocation language. Members questioned the impact of the pretrial cut, the lack of Prop. 36 court funding, and the rationale for the jury pilot elimination; the Judicial Branch said it was generally supportive of the budget as proposed. CDCR presented requests for roof repairs, fire alarm replacements, CalAIM-related costs, and trailer bill changes on incarcerated college students, mental health hiring, and tuberculosis testing, along with a planned prison closure by October 2026. The department also proposed reducing or delaying several items, including radio replacement, ADA improvements, COVID mitigation, and some facility upgrades, while adding a $125 million placeholder for consultant-driven operational savings. The LAO recommended rejecting or reducing several San Quentin-related proposals, questioned the staffing and contract medical requests, and urged more transparency on the consultant savings plan; members expressed concern about the realism of the savings targets and the potential legal or operational risks from delaying ADA and radio projects. For DOJ, the May Revision proposed ongoing funding and 44 positions to defend against federal actions, IT and accounting system upgrades, implementation funding for AB 1877, and a special fund loan. The LAO supported the KLETS connection but asked for a contingency plan if the new DMV link is delayed, noted that AB 1877 would not be fully implemented without additional funding, and recommended limiting and reporting on the federal accountability workload. Members questioned the size and permanence of the DOJ request, the use of the earlier $25 million special session appropriation, and the pace of federal litigation; DOJ said the new request would support ongoing litigation, expert assistance, and coordination across multiple cases and states.

Transcript Highlights:

• branch.
• safety resources for the judicial safety resources for the judicial branch. branch. branch.
• branch staff.
• He notes that the Senate position includes funding that will allow the judicial branch to provide personal
• <00:40:23.320> data judicial branch to provide personal data judicial branch to provide personal

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Safety and Security Conference Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a quorum present and no immediate vote taken. Chairs explained the committee was working ahead of a possible target so it could act quickly later if needed, then proceeded with member introductions and a reminder about committee decorum. Staff noted a microphone delay and said the meeting would include a side-by-side walk-through of the House and Senate policy language and a review of the fiscal spreadsheet. Fiscal staff summarized major differences in court, public safety, and legislative security funding. The House and Senate proposals differed on safety and security funding for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and District Courts, as well as on courthouse grants, capital security enhancements, and a new legislative/protective services unit. Staff also reviewed Senate-only and House-only items, including a Senate proposal to require removal of insignia from public safety vehicles sold to the public, and House provisions for a security services task force and member security costs. Total general fund impacts were reviewed, with the House total corrected to include an open appropriation that had been omitted from the spreadsheet totals. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the policy differences. The Senate language focused on a Protective Services Unit and security for principal state officials, while the House language focused on a Legislative Services Unit and security for legislators. Both bills included provisions on Capitol Complex Security, reporting requirements, and reimbursement arrangements with local law enforcement, but differed on details such as whether elected officials must provide contact information to DPS and how requests for personal protective services are handled. The House-only amendment A8 was presented for discussion; it would revise emergency contact provisions, replace the House’s personal protective services request language with a more detailed threat assessment and mitigation framework, direct implementation of the new unit, and make related reimbursement and technical changes. Judge Richard Kyle, president of the Minnesota District Judges Association, testified in support of stronger judicial and court safety measures. He described rising threats against judges, citing survey results showing high rates of judges limiting personal information, receiving inappropriate communications, changing personal behavior, and experiencing threats to themselves and family members. He said the association supports legislative authorization and funding for home security and personal data protections for judicial officers, and emphasized that safety concerns for judges and court staff have become more serious in recent years.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the recommendations of the work group on vexatious litigants and the Judicial Branch legislative
• In 2021, the judicial branch began studying improper litigation and its impact on the court system.
• McClure, to discuss the Judicial Branch legislative agenda, you are recognized, sir.
• Branch.
• The judicial branch, the way the statutes are crafted, is a little bit different for different entities

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I just counsel of the judicial branch.
• I serve as deputy general counsel for the judicial branch.
• I serve as deputy general counsel for the judicial branch.
• <01:57:49.280> branch courts are left to the judicial branch courts are left to the judicial
• > the judicial branch, but specifically the judicial branch, but specifically the rules<01:58:

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our judicial branch judges have the power to deal with interruptions in the courtroom by use of criminal
• , judicial branch.
• , judicial branch.
• , judicial branch.
• Put in the statute something that is already protecting the executive branch, judicial branch.

Keywords: This meeting will take place upon adjournment of the Senate Chambers. There is not an exact time for this meeting therefore a placeholder time for the live stream has been set for 4:00PM est. Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Roll Call: 00:00:20 HB 10: 00:00:47 HB 399: 00:03:40, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up two House bills. House Bill 10, relating to the rights of real property owners, was presented as a response to squatting. The sponsors said it would create a streamlined process to remove unauthorized occupants from real property, define “squatter” in statute, and keep existing criminal mischief penalties aligned for damage to property. After a motion and second, the bill was approved and reported favorably with the expression that it should pass. The committee then heard House Bill 399, relating to interference with legislative proceedings. The sponsor and the Senate Sergeant at Arms said the bill is intended to protect the General Assembly’s ability to conduct business by penalizing obstructing or impeding legislators or legislative employees and disruptive conduct in legislative spaces, while still allowing protest. They emphasized that the measure would give the legislative branch protections similar to those already available to the executive and judicial branches, and that arrests would be made only at the call of leadership or a committee chair. Members voted to advance House Bill 399 after discussion. One senator explained that while he supported moving the bill forward, he was concerned the language could be broad enough to cover peaceful demonstrations, such as teachers rallying at the Capitol, and said he would need more time before deciding how to vote on the floor. The committee ultimately reported the bill favorably with the expression that it should pass, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Judiciary and Civil Law Committee has a special responsibility to fund our independent judicial branch
• The judicial branch is not a discretionary program like much of what we deal with here in this House
• The judicial branch must be funded appropriately.
• The judicial branch was not at the negotiating table when leaders from the other two branches decided
• However, we are bringing you a conference report that underfunds the judicial branch.

Transcript Highlights:

• Unlike the judicial branch and the legislative branch, we generate no money. They do.
• Unlike the judicial branch and the legislative branch, we generate no money. They do.
• of government, says to start taking action against them. judicial opinion. judicial opinion.
• of the separate branches of government. of the separate branches of government.
• branch that's closest to the people. branch that's closest to the people.

Keywords: In an effort to stave off issues that may occur with long format live streams, we have split this stream into two parts., 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• former colleagues in the judicial former colleagues in the judicial branch,<00:27:15.919> I'm
• I serve as deputy general counsel for the judicial branch.
• So that's why the judicial branch, in completing this fiscal note, used the retired judges.
• /c><02:18:41.359> figure<02:18:41.679> out judicial branch will have to figure out judicial
• judicial branch how they um telling the judicial branch how they um are<02:20:00.640> going<02

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee began a work session on House Bill 1600, concerning access to the centralized voter registration database on election days. Secretary of State David Scanlan testified that the state already has a new statewide voter registration system connected to town clerks and supervisors of the checklist, and that the bill was probably unnecessary but acceptable if the legislature wanted it. He raised concern about language that could require direct electronic access in every polling place, noting that some polling locations lack reliable internet or cell service and that municipalities can change polling locations, which could make a rigid requirement expensive and impractical. Members discussed whether the bill should be clarified to allow direct or indirect access, including use of a phone-based workaround, and the secretary said that would address his concern. The committee then voted on HB 1600. Representative Maguire moved ought to pass with an amendment adding “direct or indirect access” on page one, line seven, and the motion was seconded. The amendment was adopted 9-0 by voice vote, and the committee then voted 9-0 to OTP the bill. The chair stated that HB 1600 would be placed on consent. The committee next took up House Bill 1197F FN, a technical correction to insurance laws. Members noted it had already passed the House with amendment and that the fiscal note was effectively indeterminate but would not affect the general fund because the insurance agency is self-funded. The committee voted 9-0 to OTP the bill; the chair said consent calendar placement would be decided by the full committee. Finally, the committee opened a work session on House Bill 11:30 FN regarding judicial performance evaluations. Representative Lynn, the bill’s sponsor, argued that the fiscal note overstated the immediate cost and said the judicial branch could likely manage through the current biennium while implementing the new system. He also supported making judges’ names public and said the bill’s anonymity provisions were aimed at protecting the identities of questionnaire respondents, not the judges being evaluated. Members asked about public disclosure, internal access to evaluation materials, and the removal of language allowing the governor and executive council to receive evaluations on request; discussion continued on those points, but no final vote on HB 11:30 FN was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• also hear budget proposals from the Judicial Branch and the Department of Justice.
• hear budget proposals from the Judicial Branch and the Department of Justice.
• That, as we heard from the judicial branch, has already been implemented.
• So we support the judicial branch and maintain that flexibility in this funding.
• So we support the judicial branches and maintain that flexibility in this funding.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an ongoing process by not only the judicial branch, but the legislative branch and the executive
• uh have an interplay with the judicial uh have an interplay with the judicial branch<00:54:47.000
• but we work in the executive branch but we work in the judicial<00:54:54.040> branch<00:54:54.599
• branch and judges can control judicial branch and judges can control our our our but<00:54:57.000>
• critical role within the judicial branch critical role within the judicial branch uh<00:55:14.240

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss the guardian ad litem system, including appointment qualifications, training, payment, and whether any changes are needed. Roll was called, the February 25, 2025 minutes were approved, and the chair emphasized that the meeting was informational only and no vote would be taken. Representatives from the Court of Justice, including Chief Justice Deborah Henry Lambert and several family and district judges, testified about how the system has evolved since concerns raised in 2019 about overappointment and fees. Court witnesses said the judiciary responded to earlier concerns by requiring open appointment lists of trained and qualified attorneys, improving training, and increasing oversight of fee orders. They reported that statewide GAL fees have fallen from a little over $14 million in 2019 to about $12 million, even as caseloads have grown, and said the average payment works out to about $650 per case, with the statutory cap for trial-level GAL fees still set at $500 since 1986. They argued that the current local appointment model works well, especially in rural areas, and warned that moving to a DPA-style regional model would create serious scheduling and conflict problems because of overlapping dockets and related criminal cases. Judges from rural districts described shortages of available attorneys, high burnout, travel burdens, and the difficulty of finding enough counsel in smaller counties. They also said the Court of Justice cannot seek certain federal Title IV-E reimbursements, but urged the legislature to encourage the Finance and Administration Cabinet and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to pursue that funding through an MOU. One judge noted that some appointed attorneys are effectively underpaid relative to private rates and that better compensation would help attract and retain lawyers. The discussion also covered training standards adopted after the 2019 audit. Witnesses said Rule 37 now requires initial training and four hours of multidisciplinary continuing training every two years, with topics including child development, trauma-informed care, substance use, child welfare, forensics, ethics, and communication with clients. They said the Court of Justice has offered in-person regional trainings and remote options, and that the goal is to keep qualified attorneys on the appointment lists while improving representation for children and parents in dependency, neglect, abuse, and termination-of-parental-rights cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:43:26.400> branch<01:43:26.639> in the directives of the judicial branch in the
• branch, I think it is unwise to do that when the judicial branch now consists of people that were not
• <01:47:51.119> branch<01:47:51.440> now that um when the judicial branch now that um
• in the in the judicial branch is a kind in the in the judicial branch is a kind of<01:49:21.440>
• Basically, it says that there is a lane for the executive branch, there's a lane for the judicial branch

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first recessed for a subcommittee meeting on HB 313, which concerned an open-meetings-related issue. In the subcommittee, members discussed concerns that the bill might be unnecessary because current law already allows a person to request an open meeting in advance; the subcommittee then voted ITL on HB 313 by voice vote and closed its work session. The full Judiciary Committee then reconvened and took up CACR 6, the proposed constitutional amendment on a “right to compute,” with members debating whether the language was too broad and could create unintended consequences. Supporters framed it as a forward-looking protection for computation resources and strong encryption, while opponents said it was too open-ended and better addressed by future legislation. The committee voted ITL on CACR 6 by a 17-0 roll call. The committee next turned to HB 232, as amended, concerning the rights of conscience for medical professionals. The amendment narrowed the bill to abortion-related objections, removed sterilization and artificial contraception, aligned the abortion definition with existing state law, and reduced damages from treble damages to actual damages. Supporters said the bill would protect conscience rights, give physicians and patients more choice, and could help attract providers to New Hampshire. Opponents argued it was overly broad, unclear in key definitions, and could interfere with employers’ ability to assign staff, especially in rural health settings. Members also raised concerns about the bill’s scope and enforcement, including the broad definition of “participate,” the lack of clarity around exceptions for providers whose services include abortion as a “major part,” emergency determinations, and the inclusion of nursing homes in the definition of health care institution. Some members argued the bill singled out abortion while other controversial medical procedures were not treated similarly, and others criticized the minimum-damages provision as potentially punitive and designed to deter participation. The discussion continued without a final vote shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's really taken all discretion away from the judicial branch, and something we've never done in the
• And we're creating a judicial removal through, we're creating judicial removal from a third branch, when
• From a third branch.
• It only calls into question judicial discretion.
• And so that branch is limited to the executive branch in state government.

Summary: The House and Governmental Affairs Committee met on Senate Bill 123, a proposed constitutional amendment to create a legislative process for removing judges for cause. Senator Morris said the bill was needed because of uncertainty in the current Constitution about whether impeachment applies to judges, given the Judiciary Commission’s role in judicial discipline. He argued the measure would provide a clearer, higher-threshold accountability mechanism, and the committee adopted a technical amendment renumbering provisions and later clarified that the bill uses a majority vote in the House and two-thirds in the Senate, consistent with impeachment-style thresholds. Much of the hearing centered on testimony from Anna Carter and her family, who supported the bill after the murder of Jacob Carter in New Orleans. They described his death and other cases they said showed judges releasing dangerous offenders despite repeated violations, missed electronic-monitoring check-ins, and other warning signs. They argued the bill would create a last-resort accountability tool when judicial decisions or supervision failures lead to preventable harm. Several committee members expressed sympathy and said the testimony highlighted serious problems in the justice system, though some also suggested the bill should address district attorneys, electronic-monitoring oversight, or broader systemic issues. Opposition came from members who warned the proposal was overly broad, could become a political tool, and might conflict with existing constitutional provisions governing impeachment and judicial discipline. They argued the Judiciary Commission and Supreme Court already provide a disciplinary framework and that the bill could chill judicial independence or create due-process concerns. The ACLU’s Sarah Whittington also opposed the bill, noting technical inconsistencies in the draft, questioning why impeachment had not been tried first, and arguing the measure singled out judicial discretion while leaving other elected officials’ discretion untouched. The committee took no final vote on the bill during the hearing, but did adopt the technical amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:25:18.440> branch<01:25:18.840> by<01:25:19.000> jeopardizing judicial branch
• by jeopardizing judicial branch by jeopardizing well-established<01:25:20.640> funding<01:25:
• <01:25:34.000> branch the veto message, the judicial branch the veto message, the judicial
• for the judicial branch. for the judicial branch.
• I<01:26:20.960> respect judicial branch and therefore I respect judicial branch and therefore

Keywords: In an effort to stave off issues that may occur with long format live streams, we have split this stream into two parts., 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That doesn't say judicial branch.
• Oh, judicial branch. Yes. Sorry. Page 17.
• So, the judicial branch came up with 17.
• <00:54:48.800> branch fees on it, you'll see judicial branch fees on it, you'll see judicial
• <01:07:50.400> branch in recalling what the judicial branch in recalling what the judicial

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee worked through several HB 2 budget amendments, focusing first on energy-related transfers and then on judicial funding. For the energy item, members discussed moving remaining money from the renewable energy fund into the general fund for the biennium, with later-year amounts going to the general fund rather than ratepayers. They noted the proposal was based on prior House Bill 111 language, that the exact amount was still being worked out with the Department of Energy, and that some language about “incentive payments” was being removed or clarified. Amendment 1211H was moved and adopted on a 5-4 vote. The committee then considered amendment 1040 on the governor’s scholarship fund, which would eliminate the program and sweep uncommitted funds. Members supporting the program argued it helps New Hampshire students afford in-state college and should be reworked rather than repealed; opponents said the remaining balance was limited and the program should be ended. Amendment 1040 was defeated 4-5. The committee then turned to a judicial council request tied to a Franklin Pierce criminal justice clinic that had previously used ARPA funds. Supporters said the clinic cleared 323 cases in nine months, provided training for future attorneys, and could reduce more expensive assigned-counsel costs by helping the public defender system handle cases more efficiently. The amendment would add $100,000 to the judicial council line for that purpose. There was some confusion over the line item and whether the request should be attributed to the judicial branch or judicial council, which was corrected during discussion. Members also discussed a larger issue: the judicial council’s budget request appeared lower than intended because of a possible clerical error in how prior-year funding was calculated, especially after the last budget combined HB 1 and HB 2 funding. The committee compared the public defender line and assigned counsel line, noting that if public defender funding is cut, more cases would shift to assigned counsel, which is more expensive. No final vote on the judicial council amendment is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• assistant district attorneys, to provide for the number of assistant district attorneys in each judicial

Bills: SCR12, HB1259, HB221, HB509, HCR117, HCR58, SCR29, SCR33, SB295, SB312, SB326, SB348, SB485, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR32, HCR5, HCR95, HB75, HB198, HB244, HB302, HB325, HB623, HB719, HB749, HB755, HB761, HB797, HB823, HB1028, HB1049, HB1194, HB1199, HB1201, HB1222, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB73, HB140, HB166, HB181, HB211, HB223, HB226, HB271, HB308, HB337, HB399, HB410, HB487, HB690, HB712, HB730, HB750, HB759, HB762, HB775, HB906, HB966, HB968, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1062, HB1081, HB1086, HB1098, HB1107, HB1112, HB1203, HB1215, HB1220, HB1242, HB1252, HB1256, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB283, SB300, SB341, SB382, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB449, SB469, HB74, HB119, HB134, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1117, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB149, SB441, HB210, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB784

Keywords: logging, recognition, John Keith, environment, safety, HB1259, mask penalty, masked felony, face covering, conceal identity, evade identification, sentencing enhancement, enhanced penalty, felony sentencing, crime deterrence, public safety, Louisiana criminal law, R.S. 14:313.2, R.S. 14:313, R.S. 14:329.7

Transcript Highlights:

• assistant district attorneys, to provide for the number of assistant district attorneys in each judicial

Bills: SCR12, HB1259, HB221, HB509, HCR117, HCR58, SCR29, SCR33, SB295, SB312, SB326, SB348, SB485, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR32, HCR5, HCR95, HB75, HB198, HB244, HB302, HB325, HB623, HB719, HB749, HB755, HB761, HB797, HB823, HB1028, HB1049, HB1194, HB1199, HB1201, HB1222, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB73, HB140, HB166, HB181, HB211, HB223, HB226, HB271, HB308, HB337, HB399, HB410, HB487, HB690, HB712, HB730, HB750, HB759, HB762, HB775, HB906, HB966, HB968, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1062, HB1081, HB1086, HB1098, HB1107, HB1112, HB1203, HB1215, HB1220, HB1242, HB1252, HB1256, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB283, SB300, SB341, SB382, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB449, SB469, HB74, HB119, HB134, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1117, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB149, SB441, HB210, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB784

Keywords: logging, recognition, John Keith, environment, safety, HB1259, mask penalty, masked felony, face covering, conceal identity, evade identification, sentencing enhancement, enhanced penalty, felony sentencing, crime deterrence, public safety, Louisiana criminal law, R.S. 14:313.2, R.S. 14:313, R.S. 14:329.7

Summary: The Senate convened with 26 members present, heard a prayer from Dr. Steve Horn, and recited the pledge. The chamber then handled messages from the House, including concurrence in SCR 83 and appointment of conference committee members on several disagreements. A number of Senate resolutions were introduced or adopted, mostly creating study task forces or commending individuals and organizations, including resolutions on energy infrastructure, breast pump access, insurance coverage for auto repairs, biomarker testing, higher education funding, public-private partnership contracting, and various commendations. Several resolutions were adopted without objection, while others were returned to the calendar or concurred in by recorded vote, including SCR 29 and SCR 33 with House amendments. The Senate also considered House and Senate bills and resolutions returned from the House, with many measures adopted or concurred in. Notable actions included concurrence in HCR 117 on homeowner insurance claims processes, adoption of HCR 5 on special red drum harvest permits, and passage of bills on TOPS Tech eligibility (HB 325), vapor product permitting (HB 623), ABLE/Tuition Trust administration (HB 749), design services contracting (HB 755), rare cancer advisory board composition (HB 761), non-emergency medical transportation reimbursement (HB 1028), public meeting notices (HB 1049), healthy food retail financing (HB 1194), genetic testing coverage for SCN2A disorders (HB 1199), grocery initiative grants (HB 1222, which failed), and a constitutional amendment on retirement debt repayment order (HB 27). The chamber also adopted HCR 95, creating a joint rule requiring a fiscal review of certain tax measures for sales and use tax uniformity. Several measures drew extended debate. HB 181, which would allow the legislative auditor access to Medicaid and SNAP-related tax information for eligibility verification and fraud review, prompted concerns about privacy and scope but ultimately passed 26-8. HB 1220 on the State Board of Medical Examiners generated amendment discussion about board composition and transparency, including live video broadcasting of meetings, but was returned to the calendar before final action. HB 1018, creating a temporary local moratorium on certain alcohol permits in one Shreveport district, passed after discussion about broader policy solutions. The Senate then recessed for lunch at 2 p.m. after completing the subject-to-call list for the morning session.