Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I did hear Representative Lel's question at the other hearing on the privacy, and he mentioned about
• Um I I did hear necessary.
• Uh but you know my my my hearing.
• And in this case, there have been uh numerous cases of the rule of law not being followed.
• our next hearing is at 1:00.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• >> in these cases. >> in these cases.
• . case. case.
• So with that being said, I've been hearing that something this stemmed from a case.
• Why is that not the case?
• case, I hope it I hope it holds true. case, I hope it I hope it holds true.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• cases that um, retailers um, use AI for. cases that um, retailers um, use AI for.
• of the high-risisk use cases. of the high-risisk use cases.
• that you you uh interact with or hear that you you uh interact with or hear about.<00:23:49.760>
• phases which is why you will often hear phases which is why you will often hear these<00:32:19.120
• I'm not um, I I hear your question.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Intelligence Task Force met with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the August 14 meeting. The first presentation was from the National Retail Federation on artificial intelligence in the retail sector. NRF described AI use cases in three areas: consumer-facing tools such as chatbots, product descriptions, and marketing; employee-facing tools such as company-specific apps trained on employee manuals; and internal uses such as supply chain forecasting, inventory planning, fraud detection, cybersecurity, and coding support. The presenters said retail has been among the top deployers of AI and emphasized that the goal is to improve both customer and employee experience. NRF also outlined its principles for responsible AI use, organized around governance and risk management, customer engagement and trust, workforce applications, and business partner accountability. The group said retailers should maintain strong internal oversight, be transparent with customers, ensure compliance with existing laws, closely review workforce-related uses because they can be high-risk, and clearly define responsibilities between retailers and third-party developers. In policy discussion, NRF urged a tiered approach focused first on high-risk uses such as hiring, health care, financial, mortgage, and rental decisions, warned against fragmented rules that could favor only the largest firms, and encouraged voluntary standards and worker upskilling incentives. In response to a question about dynamic pricing, NRF said its members do not target consumers based on pricing and offered to follow up with more information. The committee then moved to a follow-up discussion on energy policy and data centers, hearing from Bartley Cleland of NetChoice. He explained that AI runs largely in data centers and that cloud computing shifts processing and storage away from individual devices, which he argued improves efficiency and can reduce costs. He said electricity demand has been rising over time and that AI will increase compute-related electricity use, but framed electricity as a normal input to economic growth. No votes or formal actions were taken after these presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and committee members for hearing this bill.
• So it's a revolving circle in some cases.
• Chairman and members for hearing this bill.
• Chairman and members, for hearing the bill.
• Even the case law, Hayes v. Gamma, is unevenly applied.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• business today is that we are hearing business today is that we are hearing from<00:00:50.000>
• So if there's any our hearing.
• hear from Chair Ricar. hear from Chair Ricar.
• it short, but we want to hear from you. it short, but we want to hear from you.
• have seen fraud in all those cases. have seen fraud in all those cases.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:27:50.320> so brought this situation with Ed Case so brought this situation with Ed Case
• We keep numbers of the amount of cases, but not the specific cases.
• I haven't seen those cases.
• Thank you so much for hearing this bill.
• <00:59:07.640> this thank the committee for hearing this thank the committee for hearing this

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The hearing began with HB 1113, which would create an intensive mobile team pilot program in the Department of Health for chronically houseless individuals with serious brain disorders such as schizophrenia. The Department of Health Adult Mental Health Division strongly supported the bill, and written support was also submitted by several health and harm-reduction organizations. Members asked about the program’s size and coordination with existing services; the testifier said the team would use a low-caseload, 24/7 mobile model, coordinate with police, ERs, hospitals, housing, dual-diagnosis treatment, and other case-management resources, and continue serving participants even if they cycle through jail or hospital. The committee amended the bill to change the participant language from a maximum of 40 to “at least 40,” blanked out the appropriations section, deferred the effective date to July 1, 3000, and then adopted the chair’s recommendation to pass with amendments by unanimous vote in both committees. The next measure, HB 1140, would appropriate funds for DLNR to clean up homeless encampments on department lands. DLNR testified in support, saying it conducts about 22 to 24 cleanups per year and the bill would help it address homelessness statewide. Members asked whether the funds would be used to sweep people out of areas; DLNR said its practice is to give notice, allow time to leave, and then clean up what remains, with storage procedures for personal property. The department also said people still present are told to move to the county area across the road. DLNR confirmed the bill is not in the governor’s budget, though it is in the governor’s legislative package. The committee then heard HB 1486, which would make it disorderly conduct to remain or loiter within 20 feet of a bus stop without intent to use bus services. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing that criminal enforcement is not the right tool, could lead to arrests of people who are simply tired or unhoused, and could create a cycle of repeated low-level cases and constitutional issues around questioning and intent. HPD supported the bill, saying officers would generally try to get people to move first, but could also use field questioning, citations, or arrests depending on the circumstances; HPD said such incidents can be documented and later used in ACT or other mental-health interventions. A private resident testified in support, describing bus stops near her home as occupied overnight and burdening nearby residents and small businesses. Written support came from the City and County of Honolulu Mayor’s Office, and one individual opposed the bill. Members also asked about neighbor-island impacts, property handling, and whether the bill could help connect people to services; HPD said it had not consulted other counties and would follow up. Finally, the committee began hearing HB 877, which would prohibit encampments within 100 feet of the property line of a K-12 public or private school or school facility. DLNR stood on its written testimony, and the Department of the Attorney General raised concerns that the bill did not specify how violators would be removed, what would happen to property or the encampment, or whether the buffer zone applies only to public spaces. The AG suggested making violations petty misdemeanors and adding clearer definitions and due-process guidance. Members asked whether charter schools are included and whether private-property situations within the buffer zone should be clarified; the AG said public schools include charter schools and indicated the bill may need more specificity about private property and trespass situations.

Transcript Highlights:

• one tragic, awful case.
• for future cases.
• You remember the trooper case from last year.
• What happened in that awful lawless case, in the case involving Jason Rainier, you might have heard last
• that case instructed on culpable negligence.

Summary: The Criminal Justice Subcommittee met to consider three bills. HB 199, relating to Veterans Court, was presented as a repeat measure aligning Veterans Court procedures with mental health and drug court laws and allowing post-adjudicatory referrals. A technical amendment was adopted, numerous witnesses waived in support, and the bill passed unanimously 17-0. The committee then took up HB 45, which would add public swimming pools and public bathing places to existing sex offender residency, work, volunteer, and visitation restrictions. The sponsor argued it would protect children and apply only to specified sex offenses. Several members and public witnesses raised concerns that the bill’s definitions were overly broad, could effectively ban registrants from much of Florida, and could increase homelessness and make offenders harder to track. An amendment narrowing the bill’s scope and definitions was adopted after debate, and the bill passed 11-5 as amended. Finally, HB 17, the Jason Rayner Act, was heard to clarify that force may not be used to resist an arrest by an officer acting in the performance of official duties, retain good-faith language, add manslaughter to offenses requiring a life sentence when reclassified, and increase the severity level for battery on a law enforcement officer. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen protections for officers; opponents argued it could sweep in accidental or less culpable conduct, while supporters said existing law already covered serious cases. A clarifying amendment was adopted, and the bill passed 16-0 as amended. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for hearing my testimony.
• Thank you for hearing my staff.
• I'm sad to hear that.
• Representative Hudson, go ahead. hear that. I hope that we can work on hear that.
• under- know and understand all case law. under- know and understand all case law.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard Chair Bliss present HF 13, a bill to change Minnesota self-defense law so that a person using reasonable force in resisting an offense against the person would not be required to consider retreat. Bliss tied the proposal to a recent Minnesota Supreme Court case involving a man at a light rail station and argued the court had effectively created a duty to retreat that the legislature had never enacted. He said the bill would codify the right to stand one’s ground while still leaving reasonableness to judges and juries. Supporters Bryan Gosh of the NRA and Rob Door of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus testified that Minnesota’s duty-to-retreat rules are confusing, judicially created, and out of step with other states. They argued the bill would clarify self-defense law and protect people who defend themselves or others, citing examples from other states and a Texas church shooting to argue that a retreat requirement can endanger victims and bystanders. Opponents Maggie Emery of Protect Minnesota, Sarah Erickson of Giffords, and Don Einwalter of Moms Demand Action argued the bill would function as a “shoot-first” law, increase homicides, worsen racial disparities, and make communities and law enforcement less safe. They cited studies linking stand-your-ground laws to higher homicide rates and pointed to incidents in Florida and Minnesota involving firearms and children. The committee also took up two amendments. Representative Hollins offered an amendment on safe and secure firearm storage, saying it was intended to reduce child access to guns and suicides; she requested a roll call. Chair Bliss opposed it, saying current law already covers negligent storage and that the amendment was too broad, including for a rural constituent who keeps a shotgun by his door. Representative Hudson and Representative Pinto argued over whether current law is sufficient and whether the amendment would remove needed flexibility. The transcript ends during discussion of the amendments, with no final vote or disposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• In some cases, that may work out to an overall net benefit; in other cases, it might not.
• You know, I think that's on a case-by-case basis.
• You know, I think that's on a case-by-case basis.
• necessarily the case in every everyone. necessarily the case in every everyone.
• >> can't hear you. >> can't hear you.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , those cases are going to Concord.
• cases are going to Concord.
• I hear you.
• They're going to stay on that case.
• They're going to stay on that case.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are hearing three bills. We are hearing three bills.
• And just to clarify, we'll hear... And just to clarify, we'll hear 10. Is that correct?
• from a person, was 16 of the cases, 2% of all cases.
• to the parties in that case.
• And again, the Supreme Court has chosen to not hear that case at the federal level.

Bills: SB48, HB250, SB17

Keywords: State Fairgrounds District, fairgrounds bonds, public financing, bond authorization, gross receipts tax, gaming tax, tax-backed bonds, infrastructure funding, Albuquerque fairgrounds, State Fair Tid, economic development, municipal bonds, revenue pledge, capital projects, New Mexico finance, technology, innovation, advisory board, entrepreneurial support, stakeholder representation

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:38.480> we in the future a child in our hearing we in the future a child in our hearing
• is a business and from what I'm hearing is a business and from what I'm hearing here<00:52:12.240
• <01:35:02.119> is really think the focus in this case is really think the focus in this case
• Representative Paza...: If you feel, look into existing case law.
• So we need to align our state with existing case law. Thank you.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear me now? All right, we didn't hear, we didn't read in the amendment yet.
• And we would typically have, hey, this is a case credit from settlement of this case or something like
• Case-by-case basis. And that's what I'm worried about, and that's where I'm going with this.
• No, I understand it in that case, and that’s a case where you can’t get back the time.
• I just hear a reason.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 267, which would change the membership rules for the Louisiana State Board of Home Inspectors by adjusting appointment qualifications, term limits, and nomination procedures. Vice Chair Thomas explained the bill was meant to address the lack of nominations from existing entities and to allow the governor more flexibility, especially in smaller districts. After adopting a technical amendment, the committee reported HB 267 favorably. The committee then considered House Bill 478 on utility overcharge reimbursements. The bill, as amended, requires utilities to clearly label reimbursements on customer bills and sets a deadline for issuing refunds. After discussion with the Public Service Commission and utility representatives, the committee changed the reimbursement timeline from 45 days to 90 days and clarified that the bill would not interfere with larger settlement or regulatory credits. HB 478 was then reported favorably as amended. The longest discussion centered on House Bill 924, a consumer protection measure aimed at contractors who solicit residential property owners after declared disasters. The author said the bill was intended to curb predatory storm-chasing and fraudulent insurance-related practices, while still allowing emergency mitigation work. The committee adopted technical amendments and then a conceptual amendment shortening the catastrophe response period from six months to 30 days. Testimony was split: the Insurance Commissioner and some roofing industry witnesses supported the bill as a way to deter fraud, while other contractors argued it would hurt small businesses, limit legitimate door-to-door work, and not solve enforcement problems. The bill remained under consideration after extensive testimony and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• cancer and in fact two documented cases cancer and in fact two documented cases I<00:09:55.120><
• Hearing none, she thanked them.
• But in this case, like we are hearing claims that they are safe and effective, but then you actually
• /c><03:45:31.800> claims<03:45:32.199> that case like we are hearing claims that case like
• Can you hear me okay?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs heard testimony on House Bill 606, as amended, a bill aimed at preventing physicians from denying medically necessary sterilizing or fertility-affecting treatment based on a patient’s age, number of children, marital status, or a doctor’s speculation about future reproductive intentions. Representative Ellen Reed, the sponsor, described the bill as a response to her own long experience with PCOS, heavy bleeding, and repeated refusals by doctors to perform a hysterectomy despite her clear wishes. She said the amendment narrows the bill to medically necessary care, adds definitions for “medical condition” and “appropriate reproductive care,” and removes earlier provisions about voluntary sterilization referrals. She also said the bill does not target religious objections, and that doctors could still refuse for medical, payment, or existing religious reasons not addressed by the bill. Committee members asked about religious freedom, informed consent versus waivers, and the scope of the new definitions. Reed responded that religion was not added to the list of prohibited reasons for denial, and that the amendment is intended to protect doctors when patients sign informed consent or waivers. She explained that “appropriate reproductive care” includes procedures such as hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, salpingectomy, and endometrial ablation, and that the bill now focuses on medically necessary treatment rather than elective sterilization. She said the change was intended to make the proposal narrower and more tailored after earlier concerns. Several witnesses supported the bill with personal accounts of being denied hysterectomies or other procedures despite serious symptoms. Representative Lauren Selig described a decade-long effort to obtain a hysterectomy after years of cycle problems and migraines, saying doctors dismissed her concerns and treated her symptoms as normal. Jade Flad also testified in support, saying she had long been told to simply endure her cycle problems and noted that her husband was offered a vasectomy without similar barriers. The sponsor said online support was strong and that there was little or no written opposition testimony. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Actually, I hear about that a lot. And I know of one woman who, Actually, I hear about that a lot.
• the case.
• Can you hear me? Thank you. Okay. What was that? Can you hear me now? Yes, I can.
• Yeah, I'm so glad to hear that.
• Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, everyone.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission’s fifth meeting focused on consumer protections and resident rights in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a presentation by Yvonne Choyah of UC Law San Francisco. She described California’s CCRC framework, including entrance fee structures, monthly fee increases, contract types (A, B, and C), disclosure requirements, and regulatory oversight. A major theme was that residents often do not understand the contracts they sign, while providers retain broad discretion over fees, transfers, terminations, and changes to the physical plant. She also emphasized that California’s regulator is understaffed and not well suited to oversee the complex financial and insurance-like aspects of CCRCs, and that resident complaints and litigation can be slow and difficult. Choyah and commission members discussed several consumer-protection issues, including refundable versus repayable-on-resale entrance fees, rising monthly care fees, the decline of life care contracts, and the need for clearer disclosures and better comparative data for prospective residents. She noted that California requires annual disclosure statements, resident bill of rights materials, and some fee-related reporting, but that enforcement and accessibility remain weak. Members raised questions about resident board representation, accreditation, refund requirements, and whether state agencies or resident associations could help explain contracts to consumers before admission. Choyah suggested stronger oversight, more financial expertise in regulation, and better transparency about ownership and fee-setting. The meeting ended with discussion of the commission’s next steps toward its August report. Staff said a draft report would be prepared from the commission’s discussions and circulated for comment before final revisions. The chair also announced staff transitions: Jennifer would be leaving the State House role, and Juliana Fernandez and Vicky Halal would be the main contacts going forward. The commission adjourned after thanking Choyah for her presentation and answering member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't hear if there was coffee. I didn't hear if there was anything I was supposed to bring you.
• uh committee hearing here in the<00:08:39.200> finance<00:08:39.599> committee.
• you know successfully bring a case you know successfully bring a case forward<00:20:09.200> or
• Um so I forward or lose a case in court.
• Motion prevails. think um you've been hearing from them think um you've been hearing from them as<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um where case at the county level.
• barriers or don't have case management. barriers or don't have case management.
• So, waiver case case management.
• proposal would to phase out case proposal would to phase out case contracted<00:14:11.200> case
• Can you all hear me? Yeah, we can. Hi. Can you all hear me? Yeah, we can.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In those cases, we'll have a third speaker.
• It would just give an opportunity for more OAH hearings, more ALJ hearings, just because it would provide
• OAH hearings are approximately $300 a hearing. That's not included with our fiscal estimate.
• We review these cases on a case-by-case basis. Madam Chair. Yes, please. Will I be in you.
• And we hear, as well, I often hear this straw man of, oh, well, there's no case of the scenario or there's

Bills: SB1095, SB1114, SB1116, SB1162, SB1164, SB1178, SB1179, SB1249, SB1253, SB1346, SB1347, SB1446, SB1561, SB1813

Keywords: gender transition, minors, irreversible surgery, health professionals, puberty-blocking drugs, medical procedures, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, behavioral health, patient brokering, appropriation, state funds, Maricopa County, claims review, medical necessity, American Indian health program, healthcare regulations, healthcare compliance, behavioral health technicians, licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's hearing is embodied Testimony only this is an organizational hearing intended to build a common
• Things that we don't want to hear.
• It was great to hear your testimony.
• We've taken it from. case law.
• As we've seen previously in other cases, in Supreme Court cases. Thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're now having a public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the... Thank you, Mr.
• If that were the case, the youth access problem would probably be about 95% solved.
• Okay, seeing that we will close the public hearing. We will not go on this public hearing today.
• in certain custody cases to address parenting time.
• in that case, but at least get clarity about the child's situation.

Bills: SB210, SB225, HB280, HB287, HB94, HB88, SB157, HB7, HB8, HB42

Keywords: hospital liens, medical billing, government healthcare, insurance claims, patient rights, blood tests, DUI, law enforcement, traffic offenses, chemical analysis, public nuisance, event liability, local government, community health, legal action, transparency, reporting, public safety, regulation, accountability