Transcript Highlights:

• That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have. Additional questions.
• That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have. Additional questions.
• That is the testimony of the governor's office. Senator Davis: Thank you, Mr. President.
• And that is the governor's testimony. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr.
• We've had a good discussion about that, but we also have testimony, testimony that I've referred to before

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have.
• That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have. Additional questions.
• That is the testimony of the governor's office. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr. President.
• And that is the governor's testimony. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr.
• We've had a good discussion about that, but we also have testimony—testimony that I've referred to before

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I simply am referring you to the testimony that was given by the governor's office yesterday.
• That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have. Additional questions.
• That is the testimony of the governor's office. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr. President.
• And that is the governor's testimony. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr.
• We've had a good discussion about that, but we also have testimony, testimony that I've referred to before

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, witness testimony as to the mechanism of the accident.
• But if they're not, there presumably would be witness testimony.
• You heard testimony...
• Troy Prevost's testimony, is that correct? Yes, I have.
• Thank you so much for your testimony. So the board is clear. Thank you so much for your testimony.

Bills: HB282, HB293, HB390, HB456, HB460, HB561, HB819, HB1023, HB1047, HB1101

Keywords: employment discrimination, criminal history, rehabilitation, hiring process, human rights, gender identity, sexual orientation, workplace equality, labor rights, domestic abuse, unpaid leave, employee rights, workplace protection, mental health, survivor support, workers' compensation, employment benefits, claims process, fraud prevention, legal petition

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll be back, and then we'll go through public testimony.
• We'll be back, and then we'll go through public testimony.
• And I want to say the testimony here has shown me something today.
• Well, thank you for your testimony. Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Hello.
• I appreciate the debate, and I appreciate the extensive public testimony.

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we have anyone here for opposition testimony, please come forward.
• hear, but we know it's the hardest ones to give in testimony.
• If you'd like to offer testimony or use the mic at the railing, please do.
• If you'd like to offer testimony or use the mic at the railing, please do.
• And you'll have two minutes each for your testimony.

Summary: The committee heard SB 1067, which would require annual math screening for kindergarten through second grade students beginning in 2028-29 to identify early numeracy difficulties and connect students to evidence-based supports. Senator Weber and supporters, including EdVoice, UC Davis researcher Charles Wilkes, and several education and community advocates, argued that California’s math performance is too low and that early screening would help close gaps before they widen. Opponents, including the California Mathematics Council, county superintendents, and the CTA, said the bill could narrow instruction, overemphasize deficit-based measures, and should instead be paired with stronger investments in teacher training and implementation of the California Mathematics Framework. Committee members generally expressed support for the bill’s goals while discussing how the screener would work and what kinds of follow-up supports would be needed. The committee also heard SB 1110 on child care subsidy administration, which would restructure funding for alternative payment programs and core contracts as the state moves to enrollment-based funding. Supporters said the bill would stabilize child care providers, improve payment timelines, and better reflect the administrative work of enrolling families and managing services; there was no opposition testimony. SB 1374, supported by the CSU and UC systems, would allow public higher education institutions to seek temporary restraining orders when credible threats are directed at a campus rather than a specific person. Supporters described recent campus threats that created safety concerns but did not fit current restraining-order law; there was no opposition. Senator Nilo presented SB 1321, which would direct the State Auditor to review remedial course use and student preparedness at selected UC and CSU campuses after a UC San Diego report showed a sharp decline in incoming students’ math readiness. Supporters argued the audit would help identify gaps in college readiness and the effects of K-12 changes, while some members raised concerns about bypassing the usual legislative audit process; the bill was held on call. The committee then took up SB 1086 on microschools, which would define microschools and direct model ordinances for local land-use regulation. Supporters said it would create a clearer path for small, individualized learning communities, but several members questioned whether the concept was sufficiently defined and whether the state had enough information to draft model ordinances; the bill was also placed on call after a quorum was established. Finally, SB 1181 was presented as a limited pilot program in Central Valley counties to connect schools with regional threat assessment centers when credible safety concerns arise. The author and supporters, including the mother of a student killed in a shooting and several students, said it would improve early intervention and communication; committee members raised privacy and federal-sharing concerns but indicated support, and the bill was moved forward on a vote once quorum was present.

Transcript Highlights:

• Appreciate<00:07:50.160> your<00:07:50.400> testimony.
• <00:07:50.880> Whenever<00:07:51.199> we Appreciate your testimony.
• Whenever we Appreciate your testimony.
• you listen to questions or or testimony you listen to questions or or testimony from<00:24:58.320
• Appreciate your testimony. >> Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and first moved through administrative regulations without comment. The committee then heard Senate Bill 56, sponsored by Senator Gerald Neal, which would require Medicaid and its managed care entities to treat non-opioid pain medications on equal footing with opioid analgesics by prohibiting more restrictive coverage controls, prior authorization, or step therapy for non-opioids. Neal argued the bill would improve access to safer pain treatment options and reduce the risk of opioid use disorder, and Billy O'Brien of Young People in Recovery testified in support, describing personal experiences where non-opioid options were difficult to obtain despite a desire to avoid opioids. After discussion, the bill received a motion and second and passed the committee on a 10-0 vote. The committee then took up Senate Bill 72, sponsored by Senator Don Douglas and presented with Greg Chaffin of Alliance Defending Freedom. Douglas described the bill as a provider recruitment and retention measure intended to protect health care workers from being compelled to act against their conscience and to address workforce shortages and pressure in health care settings. He said the bill would protect individual beliefs while maintaining professionalism. A large number of witnesses then testified, and the chair limited public comments to two minutes each because of the number of speakers and the controversy surrounding the bill. Most public testimony opposed SB 72. Speakers including representatives of the Kentucky Council of Churches, a psychologist, an ordained minister and nurse, a nurse practitioner, and an ACLU policy strategist argued the bill was overly broad, could allow refusals of care by a wide range of health care workers, and could delay or deny treatment, especially for vulnerable patients and in rural or emergency settings. Several cited concerns about discrimination, patient safety, and the lack of adequate protections for patients. One witness recounted the death of an 18-year-old pregnant patient as an example of the harm that can result from delayed care. The transcript ends during additional testimony on SB 72, before any committee vote or final action on that bill is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fair to say that you would agree with Brett's testimony. testimony that the exclusive use does provide
• Thank you for your testimony, guys.
• Thank you all for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you.
• Please proceed with your testimony. Thank you and good afternoon.
• Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Members, other questions?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And what I did in that amendment was really when we were listening to the testimony...
• , when we were listening to the testimony, when we were listening to the testimony, one<00:30:56.559
• So I think it's nice to have it here because that was in testimony.
• So I think it's nice to have it here because that was in testimony.
• I actually support... ...have it here because I think, you know, that was in testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• With that, I'll actually close my testimony to save some time. I'll remain for questions.
• With that, I'll actually close my testimony to save some time. I'll remain for questions.
• With that, I'll actually close my testimony to save some time. I'll remain for questions.
• With that, I'll actually close my testimony to save some time. I'll remain for questions.
• With that, I'll actually close my testimony to save some time. I'll remain for questions.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• that I could make about the testimonies that I could make about the testimonies that<01:12:17.679
• that followed mine the uh testimonies that followed mine from<01:12:38.159> a<01:12:38.480>
• I'm not going to take any questions, but that's my testimony.
• He said he is not going to take any questions, and that is his testimony. >> Thank you for your testimony
• And I did provide some testimony that's there.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, any other public testimony?
• testimony. Welcome to the committee. testimony. Welcome to the committee.
• Um any other public<00:20:54.880> testimony?
• This is the second public testimony?
• And we will for your testimony today.

Bills: HF3694, HF3844, HF4006, HF3785, HF3849, HF4102, HF3441, HF3507, HF3562

Keywords: transportation, tow trucks, variable message signs, road safety, emergency service, optometrist, window glazing, motor vehicle regulations, medical prescriptions, transportation safety, infrastructure, construction, appropriation, state project, motorized bicycles, motorcycles, electric vehicles, transportation regulations, safety standards, dealer license

Transcript Highlights:

• will determine that by the testimony will determine that by the testimony that<00:36:58.480>
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• <02:04:20.560> Yeah, Thank you for your testimony. Yeah, Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:54.640> when record and commence your testimony when record and commence your testimony
• Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Peterson.
• for the record, commence your testimony for the record, commence your testimony when<00:36:47.200
• testimony when you're ready. testimony when you're ready.
• your testimony when you're ready. ready. ready.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Appreciate your time and your testimony. We'll now move to Mr.
• Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
• I see no other member questions, and there was no public testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Reserve comment on um the testimony of Reserve comment on um the testimony of the<01:04:07.680> commissioner

Bills: HF2335, HF2400, HF2401, HF2522

Keywords: Medicare, health insurance, supplement policies, preexisting conditions, medical assistance, premium classification, real estate, appraisers, disciplinary actions, sanction matrix, Minnesota Statutes, continuing education, out-of-state, licensing, commerce, fraud prevention, automobile theft, law enforcement, insurance crimes, 1183

Transcript Highlights:

• We're looking forward to your testimony. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.
• <00:07:38.240> from opportunity as we hear testimony from opportunity as we hear testimony
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senators.
• But right now, where the testimony is to the A2, is that correct? Yes. Okay, thank you.
• Because if I don't hear that as part of your testimony, I'll—so just maybe when you finish your testimony

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
• Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
• yourself and proceed with your testimony yourself and proceed with your testimony welcome<00:49:
• <00:58:50.280> I great thank you for that testimony I great thank you for that testimony I
• yourself and proceed with your testimony yourself and proceed with your testimony okay<01:04:03.000

Bills: HF711, HF653

Keywords: agriculture, agricultural education, leadership development, Minnesota Agricultural Education and Leadership Council, MAELC, chapter 41D, grant funding, general fund appropriation, commissioner of agriculture, farm education, youth agriculture programs, ag literacy, workforce development, extension education, research funding, extension services, technology transfer, grant programs, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Your previous testimony here where you talk about, you know, what do we, where do we go forward with
• The first is that the committee received testimony regarding...
• Testimony also indicated productivity savings would be realized more as a reallocation of staff time
• Testimony did caution that an RFI is less specific than a request for proposal, and a formal request
• It was noted in testimony that the student module is the most critical module for higher education.

Summary: The Information Technology Committee approved the March 26 minutes and received a series of reports from NDIT on major IT projects, the annual report, mainframe modernization, and cybersecurity services. The project portfolio was reported at 116 major projects with a baseline cost of $546 million, overall under budget but modestly behind schedule. Several projects that had been in variance status last quarter were said to have closed, including HHS bed management, vital records modernization, and DOT roadway capital planning. New startup reports were mostly HHS efforts tied to refugee data management, technical debt cleanup, and legacy application decommissioning, while closeouts included HHS, OMB, DPI, and DOT projects with mixed budget and schedule results. In the annual report discussion, NDIT described its service-fund financials, peer-state rate comparisons, records management reporting, and customer satisfaction efforts. Members asked about how revenues and grants flow through the service fund, how NDIT charges agencies for services, and whether customer satisfaction or CSAT scores are tracked and could be reported more regularly. NDIT said it does track service-team CSAT and survey data, and committee members encouraged more regular reporting of those metrics. The committee also discussed application portfolio management, statewide IT planning, and whether agencies should slow new system replacements while the state pursues an ERP system. The mainframe update focused on the state’s ongoing effort to retire legacy systems by about 2030. NDIT and HHS said the work is being managed as a tech-debt program, but progress is slowed by data cleanup, integration complexity, staff retirements, vendor capacity, and federal requirements. Members asked whether there is a coordinated commitment and whether additional vendor support or consultants are needed; NDIT said it is working jointly with HHS and is seeking an RFP to help accelerate modernization. The cybersecurity presentation then shifted to statewide maturity assessments and services. NDIT said it provides endpoint protection, vulnerability scanning, security awareness training, threat briefings, and penetration testing, and that assessments are based on CIS controls. Members raised concerns about low participation in the self-assessment process, the lack of mandatory reporting or audit authority, and whether insurance incentives through Enderf or possible State Auditor involvement could improve compliance. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• You can submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website, and it will
• And given the testimony, I know people are...
• It's very personal, and we hear it from the testimony.
• But I appreciate your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. It was great to meet you.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You can submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website, and it will
• And given the testimony, I know people are—I don't know.
• It's very personal, and we hear it from the testimony.
• But I appreciate your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. It was great to meet you.

Summary: The committee heard several housing-related bills, beginning with SB 1003, which would create pro-housing enhanced infrastructure financing districts to help local governments fund infrastructure needed for housing developments. The author and supporters argued that infrastructure costs often prevent projects from penciling out, while the chair expressed support and said the bill would be taken up later when quorum was available. SB 1014 followed, proposing new disclosure requirements for local jurisdictions to provide good-faith estimates of on-site and off-site improvements within 30 days of application, with supporters saying it would reduce late surprises and opposition from several cities citing implementation concerns with the 30-day timelines. The committee then took up SB 802, a Sacramento-region bill requiring a joint powers authority to coordinate housing and homelessness services. Senator Ashby and former Mayor Darrell Steinberg argued that Sacramento’s fragmented system has failed for years and that a JPA would improve accountability, coordination, and use of state funds. The bill drew broad support from local officials, service providers, business groups, and advocates, while some county and city representatives registered opposition or neutral concerns about state-mandated local governance. Several committee members said they were persuaded by the need for regional coordination, though some raised concerns about local control; the chair noted the bill would be moved when quorum allowed. The committee also heard SB 1092 and SB 1093, both focused on mobile home park residents after disasters or park sales. SB 1092 would give residents a right of first opportunity to match a sale offer for a park, with supporters saying it protects vulnerable seniors and preserves affordable housing, while park owners and their representatives argued it would devalue property and raise constitutional and financing concerns. SB 1093 would require more transparent communication, access to property, and consideration of rebuilding or closure after a disaster; supporters cited the long uncertainty faced by Palisades residents, while opponents warned about liability, safety, and burdensome review requirements. Members split along similar lines, with some emphasizing property rights and market impacts and others stressing the need to protect residents and preserve scarce affordable housing.