Transcript Highlights:

• So coming to the legislature and passing legislation that would benefit the pear industry as a whole
• I get paid by my members to represent them at that level, and then come to the legislature?
• and jobs outside of the legislature.
• of the legislature, and let's just be good with that.
• Frustrated, because we all bring interest to the legislature.

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board met to reorganize its agenda, elect officers, approve prior minutes, review employment disclosure forms, consider rule amendments, and discuss a draft annual report. Larry Hoff was nominated and approved as chair, and Lori was nominated and approved as vice chair. The board then approved the December 8 minutes and found no ethics issues with two employment disclosure forms involving Senate and House security employees who are married to each other. Jennifer presented proposed rule changes, described as mostly technical updates, including clarifying that either party may request a continuance for good cause, replacing references to a “complaint” with a “reasonable cause determination,” allowing the board to use an ALJ to hear matters and prepare an initial order, and clarifying discovery authority. The board moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the rule amendments. Members also reviewed a draft annual report and discussed updating biographies and other details. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on a draft advisory opinion about attorney-legislators representing clients in matters against state agencies. Jennifer explained that the draft concluded such representation is not automatically an ethics violation, but cautioned about special privileges, appearances of impropriety, and the need to keep legislative and private legal roles separate. Members debated whether the opinion should be broadened to emphasize that all legislators, regardless of outside employment, must avoid using their office for private advantage. Several members argued the issue is highly fact-specific and that a broad opinion could create unnecessary complexity or special treatment for lawyers. By the end of the discussion, the board appeared to decide not to issue the proposed opinion. The chair also noted a prior advisory opinion on citizen members of the board and reminded members of restrictions on lobbying and related activities. No public testimony was offered, and the board moved toward executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Certainly, I think that's something the legislature, Secretary Howe said that the legislature would likely
• That's kind of what the legislature is kind of proud of, that we're based on a citizen legislature that
• versus a full-time legislature?
• You've got a full-time legislature.
• Again, you're a citizen legislature.

Summary: The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up a draft bill to make legislators’ and candidates’ residential addresses confidential in public records. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State explained the proposal was prompted by security concerns and would protect residential addresses while still allowing election officials to verify residency and keep candidate names and offices public. Members raised concerns about unintended consequences, transparency, and how the change would affect rural districts and residency enforcement. The Secretary of State suggested an amendment to end the confidentiality when a candidate’s term ends, and the committee agreed to hold the bill over for further discussion at the next meeting. The committee also reviewed follow-up materials on legislator security and best practices, including advice on situational awareness, internet hygiene, varying routines, and reporting threats, along with NCSL materials comparing capitol security practices in other states. Members discussed a recent security incident and the need to keep alert contact information current, and staff said they would continue working with the Highway Patrol on legislative-specific notifications. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to Garrity Consulting’s final report on mitigating the effects of legislative term limits. The consultants summarized survey, focus group, and stakeholder input showing concerns about loss of institutional knowledge, leadership turnover, onboarding demands, and workload pressures, while also noting public support for term limits and annual sessions. Recommendations included considering annual sessions or shifting biennial sessions to even-numbered years, restructuring organizational session and interim committee work, creating office hours and more structured orientation and mentorship, expanding ongoing training and staff support, improving public communication and virtual testimony rules, and addressing barriers to service such as employer support and travel costs. Members discussed the tension between making the legislature more effective and preserving a citizen-legislature model, and the report was received as a roadmap for future implementation rather than immediate action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please stand and be recognized by the Nebraska Legislature.
• Program 180 in the current legislature bill 92, 109th Legislature, including this appropriation interest
• To serve in the 106th Legislature.
• Legislative Bill 1071-107-128, Legislative Bill 10-709th Legislature, 2nd Section 2026, Section 81, Legislature
• Legislature is adjourned. I don't know how much.

Bills: LB764 , LB815A , LB839 , LB888 , LB955 , LB972A , LB1029 , LB1087 , LB1091 , LB1126A , LB1181A , LB1237A , LB1261A , LB304A , LB762 , LB889 , LB929 , LB966 , LB1022 , LB1187 , LR508

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, I just want to say that we intend to be in partnership with the Legislature.
• Are you thinking of a fund that is actually funded by the Legislature?
• And lastly, we are asking the Legislature to fully fund county CCS programs.
• C-Pen strongly urges the Legislature to reject Governor Newsom's proposed budget.
• C-Pen strongly urges the Legislature to reject Governor Newsom's proposed budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee opened its hearing on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget with remarks emphasizing the start of a months-long process, the need for fiscal responsibility, and concerns about structural deficits, federal funding losses, housing and homelessness, and oversight. The vice chair echoed those concerns, warning against budgets built on short-term fixes and urging accountability. The Department of Finance presented a balanced budget year proposal of about $349 billion in total expenditures, including $248 billion General Fund, while acknowledging a structural imbalance in the out years and proposing a workload budget with limited new spending or cuts. Finance said the budget relies on stronger-than-expected revenues, but also on constitutional obligations such as Proposition 98 and Proposition 2, and on suspending a rainy-day fund true-up deposit to cover a projected $2.9 billion budget-year deficit. The administration highlighted higher education funding, climate and wildfire resilience investments, a new ZEV incentive, added Health and Human Services costs tied to H.R. 1, child care funding, and three tax proposals: third-party delivery tax compliance, a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit, and an extension of the California Competes tax credit. The LAO, by contrast, warned that the budget is “precariously balanced,” cited downside risk from stock market-driven revenues, and urged the Legislature to use reserves, avoid suspending rainy-day deposits, and begin shrinking multi-year deficits sooner rather than later. Member questions focused on wildfire mitigation and insurance, transit and GGRF funding, federal cuts affecting CalFresh and Medi-Cal, the proposed tax credits, homelessness accountability language, and education funding. Several members pressed for earlier partnership on deficit solutions and for more scrutiny of budget choices. The committee also discussed declining enrollment in K-12, community colleges, and CSU, with concerns about whether funding formulas are aligned with actual student demand. No formal votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• In general, JARC may consider three issues: first, whether a rule is within the intent of the legislature
• The legislature created specific roles for the State Board of Education, the Charter School Commission
• By the legislature. The policy's intent may be to prevent disruption for students and families.
• When the legislature is determining whether and how a new authority exists, When the legislature is determining
• So I was not here in the Legislature when the Legislature authorized charter schools.

Summary: The Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (JARC) met on July 31, 2026 to consider a citizen petition challenging the Washington State Charter School Commission’s April 2026 continuity of operations policy. Staff explained JARC’s authority under the Administrative Procedures Act and framed the issue as whether the Commission was using a policy in place of a rule, and whether that policy was within legislative intent. Staff also reviewed the Charter School Commission’s statutory framework, including limits on charter terms, transfer provisions involving the State Board of Education, and the Commission’s new process for identifying nonprofit operators to assume existing charter contracts when schools close or contracts are surrendered, revoked, or not renewed. The petitioner, Cesar Harrison, argued the Commission had created a new transfer mechanism through policy rather than rulemaking, potentially bypassing statutory procedures and extending charter authority beyond the five-year framework. Commission Executive Director Marcus Hardin responded that the policy was only a procedural framework for evaluating proposals, not a transfer of contracts or creation of new authority, and said the Commission had used similar discretionary processes before. Public testimony from the Washington Education Association supported the petition, emphasizing that the policy should have gone through formal rulemaking for transparency and public input. After discussion, committee members asked staff about the statute’s silence on contract continuation and the relationship between the Commission’s practice and legislative authorization. The committee then voted 7-0, with two members excused, to find that the Charter School Commission is using a policy or interpretive statement in place of a rule and that it is not within the intent of the Legislature as expressed by the statute. Staff explained that the finding will be sent to the agency, which must hold a hearing and then notify JARC of its intended action; JARC may later object to that action or take further steps. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• would be passed by the legislature.
• </c> it's high time that this legislature it's high time that this legislature phased<00:23:22.720><c
• 11.679><c> that</c><00:24:12.000><c> there</c> legislature will recognize that there legislature will
• </c> basically said it's for the legislature basically said it's for the legislature to<01:01:40.319>
• </c><01:04:01.359><c> being</c> people dislike the legislature being people dislike the legislature being

Summary: The Education Funding Committee Subcommittee on Adequacy and Funding Sources opened its second meeting by reviewing four retained bills assigned to it: HB 651, HB 772, HB 491, and HB 734. The chair said the goal was to compare the bills across the board, consider whether any one of them should be the committee’s recommended vehicle, and then vote on a recommendation to the full committee. He noted the bills would move out before November 21 and be taken up on the House floor in January, while related LSRs were also being developed for the coming session. Representative Ames argued that HB 651 should be the main vehicle because it would substantially raise the adequacy base and adjust differential aid categories to better reflect real school costs, including poverty, special education, and English learner needs. He described the bill as building on court guidance and said the current funding formula is far below actual district needs. He also supported HB 491 as a study vehicle to examine revenue options, saying the legislature needs informed choices about how to pay for the changes. Representative Damon strongly backed HB 651 and HB 491, citing constitutional obligations, the Conval and Rand rulings, and large projected funding increases for districts such as Claremont, Windham, and communities in the chair’s district if HB 651 had passed earlier. Representative Fellows said he has an LSR similar to HB 491 that would study existing and new revenue options using criteria such as revenue potential, administrative cost, affected groups, implementation timeline, and implementation cost, with input from revenue administration and outside agencies. Representative Papich Muller emphasized constitutional separation-of-powers concerns, reading Article 83 and saying he was not comfortable with the broad claim that “cherish” clearly mandates a specific spending level, though he said he intends to follow Supreme Court guidance. Representative Ricky read testimony from a local school board member arguing that the state already imposes many mandates on schools while providing the least funding in the country, and that HB 651 would help restore meaningful local control. No final vote or action was taken in the portion provided, though the chair had indicated the subcommittee would vote before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first modification would be for the Legislature...
• The first modification would be for the Legislature...
• The first modification would be for the legislature.
• So, to better understand this risk, we recommend the Legislature — we suggest, we note — the Legislature
• How would the Legislature be notified of any programmatic changes at the prisons?

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:

• The work that you guys have done in the legislature here, the laws that we're enacting, have helped to
• So, if the legislature is comfortable with that approach, the legislature can go ahead and approve this
• As your agenda notes, the legislature began funding this program in 2020.
• The plan will be transmitted back here to the legislature for a 60-day review, and then the legislature
• But something the legislature can look for is, is there some opportunity there?

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Building guidelines the legislature Building guidelines the legislature should<00:02:16.720><c>
• c> expect</c> for example does the legislature expect for example does the legislature expect that<00
• </c><00:14:02.800><c> expect</c> guidelines does the legislature expect guidelines does the legislature
• </c><00:19:15.159><c> revise</c> recommend that the legislature revise recommend that the legislature
• consider what is it that the legislature consider what is it that the<00:19:27.640><c> legislature</

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• and we, the legislature, left the...
• And so back then, the legislature chose... ...cash going into the Great Recession.
• What other bills will the legislature try to do this year that would increase costs?
• What other bills will the legislature try to do this year that would increase costs?
• So if the tax committees on both sides and the legislature pass those, we live with it.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Human Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• or that the Legislature is comfortable with these changes.
• We encourage the Legislature... and congestion relief.
• Four, we encourage the legislature. The legislature And economic security.
• The Legislature has built a strong portfolio of clean transportation programs, The Legislature has built
• The Legislature should first...

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• Younger person to serve in this legislature because it's a lot of work.
• For example, we have a majority female legislature.
• It's also about generational change, really, in this legislature.
• And this was paid for actually through the legislature to understand...
• Do you think they're qualified to serve in the legislature?

Bills: HB145 , HB164 , HJR6 , HR1 , HB20 , HB65 , HB66 , HB80 , HB166 , HB295 , HB306 , SB29 , SB37 , HB99 , HB206 , HB213 , HB270 , HJR5 , SB104 , SB193 , HJM2 , HJM3 , HJM1 , HM7 , HM17 , HM4 , HM22 , HM23 , HM24 , HM26 , HM2 , HM16 , HM32 , HM13 , HM47 , HM20 , HM51 , HM1 , HM31 , HM35 , HM36 , HM46 , HM53 , HM54 , HM39 , HM11 , HM14 , HM21 , HM34 , HM50

Summary: The House of Representatives held an African-American Day celebration recognizing the second Friday in February as required by state statute and honoring the contributions of African Americans in New Mexico and nationally. The program included the national anthem, “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” the Pledge of Allegiance, an invocation, and remarks from Representative Janelle Anyanoru and others. A central feature was recognition of the “Talented 10,” ten African American women leaders in New Mexico, including officials and community leaders in city government, education, the judiciary, business, and public service. The chamber also recognized numerous guests and community leaders, including Senator Harold Pope, the first African American elected to the New Mexico Senate, and concluded the celebration with a musical performance and closing remarks about diversity and inclusion. After the celebration, the House moved into announcements and then messages and committee reports. Members recognized guests and community efforts, including organ donation awareness, the New Mexico Community Foundation, and a Beclavito Chapter House delegation. The House received a Senate message transmitting Senate Finance Committee substitute for Senate Bill 241, the Child Care Assistance Program Act, which was referred to the House Appropriations and Finance Committee. Several committee reports were adopted, including House Bill 132, House Bill 199 via a committee substitute, Senate Bills 38, 101, and 58 as amended, House Bill 38 via a committee substitute, House Memorial 59, House Bill 256, House Memorial 43, Senate Bill 64 as amended, House Bill 93, House Bill 254 as amended, and House Memorial 29. The chamber then began third reading debate on House Joint Resolution 5, a proposed constitutional amendment to provide legislative compensation tied to New Mexico’s median household income. Supporters argued it would modernize the legislature, broaden access to working people, and improve accountability; opponents questioned the timing, amount, and fairness of paying legislators while many constituents struggle economically. The debate continued with no final vote shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that was legislation that the Legislature adopted in 2022, so not too long ago.
• legislature adopted in 2022, so not too long ago.
• It came out late enough that the Legislature really didn't have time to review it.
• We as a legislature, we want to be a good partner. Definitely not least.
• So here's the deal: we as a legislature want to be a good partner on this project.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee held an oversight hearing on California High-Speed Rail, focusing on the authority’s supplemental project update report and the newly released 2026 draft business plan. Committee leaders emphasized transparency, the project’s funding challenges, and the need for clear answers on costs, schedule, and scope. The High-Speed Rail Authority said the project has made major progress in the Central Valley, including substantial construction completion, right-of-way acquisition, and railhead development, and highlighted over $14 billion in savings from a rebased project plan, plus an additional $2 billion in savings in the draft business plan. The authority also said it expects to begin laying track by the end of the year and continues to pursue private-sector partnerships and clean-energy opportunities. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Inspector General both raised concerns about whether the current funding plan is sufficient and whether the authority has clearly identified the timing of future expenditures versus revenues. The LAO said the project likely still faces a funding gap for Merced-to-Bakersfield once financing costs and the loss of $4 billion in federal funds are considered, and warned that cap-and-invest revenues are volatile and may not be well suited for borrowing without additional safeguards. The Inspector General said the authority still has not provided a precise funding plan, estimated the project is about two years away from lacking funds on hand to stay on schedule, and urged lawmakers to focus on financing costs, procurement timing, schedule risks, and distinguishing true cost cuts from scope changes. Members questioned the authority about proposed statutory changes, including CEQA and permitting streamlining, court resources, third-party process changes, sales tax exemptions on materials, and expanded land-use/value-capture tools. They also pressed the authority on the loss of federal funds, the withdrawal of litigation over those funds, and whether the project’s revised savings depend on moving station locations away from downtown Merced and Bakersfield and on other scope changes such as more single-tracking and blended operations south of Palmdale. The authority said it is still committed to Merced-to-Bakersfield, believes the business plan shows a path to completion with sufficient funding, and will work with the Legislature on any needed changes before the final plan is submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if the Legislature is interested in this proposal, it may want to consult with counsel to ensure that
• Even in challenging fiscal years, the governor and the Legislature have recognized the value of higher
• Our recommendation regarding this proposal would be for the Legislature to reject the spending proposal
• Our recommendation regarding this proposal would be for the Legislature to reject the spending proposal
• First, we would recommend the Legislature approve the shift from budget bill language to trailer bill

Transcript Highlights:

• And they were required to report to the Legislature every year by September 1.
• And we checked with the librarian at the Legislature here.
• And we checked with the librarian at the at the legislature here.
• Call it, if it were in the interim, call the Legislature back in for a special session.
• Call it, if it were in the interim, call the Legislature back in for a special session.

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• However, once the state budget condition improved, the Legislature and the 2018-19 budget provided $1.3
• I want to start by saying thank you to all of you and your fellow members of the Legislature, to the
• So we are more than willing as a branch to work with the legislature, the Department of Finance, and
• And so it's about priorities and whether or not, you know, the Legislature and our Governor actually
• For its facilities, based on the amount identified by the Legislature.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused first on courthouse facility funding and then on the Governor’s proposed court facilities budget. Legislative Analyst’s Office staff outlined the state’s court-facilities funding structure, including the 2002 shift of trial court facility responsibility from counties to the state, the main funding accounts, the insolvency of the construction fund, the move to General Fund support, the backlog of deferred maintenance, and the large estimated cost of needed new construction and repairs. Judicial Council representatives and judges from Los Angeles and Mendocino described severe seismic, safety, ADA, security, and maintenance problems, with examples of floods, elevator failures, asbestos-related closures, and long-delayed or underfunded projects. They argued that chronic underinvestment is making facilities less safe and more expensive to maintain, and that courthouse conditions directly affect access to justice and public confidence. Committee members pressed witnesses on how projects are prioritized, whether population and filing volume are adequately reflected, why reassessments have not been updated since 2019, how long acquisitions and construction take, and what level of funding would actually close the gap. Members also questioned the fixed county contribution, the use of General Fund backfills, and whether the state should set a clearer long-term funding target for the judicial branch. LAO staff emphasized that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other budget priorities and said the Legislature must decide its appetite for funding. Judicial Council staff said the current prioritization was based on the 2019 reassessment and trailer bill language, that a new reassessment would cost about $14 million, and that acquisition delays are often driven by willing-seller issues and CEQA requirements. The chair asked for written testimony and indicated the committee would consider a future field hearing. In the second panel, Judicial Council and Department of Finance representatives reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for court facilities. They said the proposal includes continued backfill for the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, several new construction and reappropriation items, relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building, and completion of a fire/life-safety project in Orange County. A court executive from Ventura testified that courthouse conditions affect public trust, employee morale, and the quality of service, citing roof leaks, elevator breakdowns, and HVAC failures as examples of why sustained facilities funding is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the 1960s, though, the model that we had for our legislature, and what many states had for their legislature
• In the 1960s, though, the model that we had for our legislature, and what many states had for their legislature
• And so states across the country went through a reform of their legislatures, and most legislatures added
• , and most legislatures added members.
• There are a lot more problems with our legislature, and in order to recruit a better legislature, we

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, guest introductions, and a proclamation declaring March as Sleep Apnea Awareness Month. Guests recognized included ACLU of Arizona volunteers for Lobby Day, a student intern, a doctor of the day specializing in dementia care, and members of the Arizona chapter of the American Institute of Architects for Architecture Advocacy Day. The chamber also received several appointments to committees and a series of House messages and bills for introduction and first reading. The main floor action was third reading votes on multiple measures. The Senate passed SB 1011, SB 1017, SB 1170, SB 1173, SB 1234, SB 1275, SB 1332, SB 1544, SB 1557, SB 1585 on reconsideration, SCR 1022, SB 1273, and SB 1274, with most votes falling along a 17-9 or 16-10 split. Several senators explained their no votes, raising concerns about mandatory minimum drug penalties, juvenile court changes, diversion policy, and the light rail feasibility study; supporters argued for public safety, judicial discretion, or the need for updated studies and voter review. On SCR 1022, which would refer a constitutional amendment on legislative member districts, supporters argued Arizona’s House is too small for its population and should be expanded, while opponents said the idea needed more study before going to voters. The Senate also heard committee announcements for the next day, including meetings for Health and Human Services, Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency, Education, Judiciary and Elections, and Public Safety. The body then adjourned until Wednesday, March 18, 2026, at 1:15 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would say that nothing that the Legislature does gives me heartburn.
• The Legislature in general is not doing anything wrong.
• The legislature in general is doing anything wrong.
• You know, you heard Ken, 17,400 rules are currently within our Legislature.
• You know, you heard Ken, 17,400 rules are currently within our Legislature.

Summary: The committee received an informational presentation from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC/JAPSI) staff and Chair Representative Overdorf on how Florida administrative rulemaking is reviewed. Mr. Plant explained that JAPC is a joint legislative oversight committee that monitors agency rules under Chapter 120, focusing on whether rules stay within statutory authority, whether agencies are acting consistently with legislative intent, and how the rulemaking process works. He emphasized that agencies are creatures of statute, that rulemaking authority must be specific enough to support the rule, and that without a date certain in statute, agencies may delay rulemaking indefinitely. Members asked about how to ensure agencies actually adopt rules, how to identify rules that exceed legislative intent, and how JAPC handles internal policies and delayed rulemaking. Representative Overdorf then described JAPC’s objection process and its limits. He said the committee does not approve or disapprove rules or direct agencies to adopt them, but it can object to proposed or existing rules that enlarge, modify, or contravene enabling statutes or fail to comply with Chapter 120. He noted that if an agency does not resolve an objection, a footnote is published in the Florida Administrative Code and the committee may recommend legislation to amend, suspend, or repeal the rule. He also discussed recent committee activity, including 1,355 proposed rules, 119 emergency rules, and 1,243 incorporated materials reviewed in 2024, and said the committee filed 31 objections against one agency after repeated noncompliance. The discussion also touched on possible changes to Chapter 120, including the governor’s 2019 request that agencies include five-year sunset provisions in rules, and a proposal to instead require periodic legislative review rather than automatic expiration. Overdorf also said the committee is considering raising the current statement of estimated regulatory costs thresholds of $200,000 annually or $1 million over five years because inflation has made those limits too low. No votes were taken on legislation, and the meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We recommend the Legislature approve this proposal.
• We recommend the Legislature approve this proposal.
• The Legislature would be able to assess the effectiveness of this funding should the Legislature provide
• And the legislature might have other priorities, of course.
• And, you know, imagine in the future the Legislature stops getting data on certain things that the Legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• I would leave it to the legislature to identify other revenue sources.
• I would leave it to the legislature to identify other revenue sources.
• We urge the Legislature to approve every flexibility.
• We urge the legislature to reject these cruel and more severe proposals.
• We urge the legislature to reject these cruel and more severe proposals.