Video & Transcript Research : 'rejected proposition'
Page 23 of 207
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
MN House passes HF2432, the judiciary, public safety, and corrections policy & finance bill. 4/25/25
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Under Rule 3.21, motions and propositions and amendments must be germane.
- /c><00:21:12.720>
and 3.21, motions and propositions and 3.21, motions and propositions and amendments - <00:37:04.880>
I <00:37:05.040>heard motion or proposition germaine. - I heard motion or proposition germaine.
- So I would encourage proposition gerine.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services (01/22/2025)
Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services
Transcript Highlights:
- I focused on the statistics obtained by Vermont's 2024 Proposition 3, the proposition passed the Vermont
- I focused on the statistics obtained by Vermont's 2024 Proposition 3.
- The proposition passed the Vermont House and Senate unanimously.
- We have a long tradition of rejecting this kind of interference in private employment.
- These arguments should be rejected on several grounds.
CO
Colorado 2026 Regular Session
Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 119 Part 2 May 13th, 2026
Colorado Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- And I'll never forget one of the first times I was chairing the cow and Julie wanted to reject a committee
- In 2024, voters approved Proposition 130, requiring that the state direct $350 million to law enforcement
- Proposition 130 was a statutory change, he noted, which gives lawmakers some leeway in how they implement
- , 26, and 27 relate to the repeal of the tobacco and nicotine allowances that support pre-K and Proposition
- 26, and 27 relating to the repeal of the tobacco and nicotine allowances that support Pre-K and Proposition
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee Mar 11th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- We can go all the way back to Proposition 13 for that. You all know how this works.
- We can go all the way back to Proposition 13 for that. You all very strong incentive to build.
- We can go all the way back to Proposition 13 for that. You all know how this works.
- You have all heard plenty about Proposition 218, I'm sure. Next slide.
- There are not ratepayers because of Proposition 218.
Summary:
The committee held an informational hearing on flood risk and flood management in California, with opening remarks emphasizing that flooding is a statewide and growing threat due to climate change, including the possibility of extreme losses in a worst-case event. Members noted recent flooding in places such as San Diego, the Tulare Basin, and Pajaro, and framed the hearing as a way to better understand prevention, response, and how to capture excess water for later use.
Jeffrey Mount of PPIC gave the main overview, describing California’s high flood exposure, the different flood types the state faces, and the mix of structural and non-structural tools used to manage them. He stressed that levees, dams, bypasses, land-use planning, flood insurance, and emergency response all matter, but that risk is rising because current standards are based on past hydrology rather than future climate conditions. He also warned that flood management is underfunded, that the National Flood Insurance Program is weak, and that federal support is increasingly uncertain. Members asked about groundwater recharge, permitting, NOAA and federal cuts, and which communities are most at risk; Mount said recharge can help but does not eliminate flood risk, and that small Central Valley communities and heavily developed floodplains are especially concerning.
State officials Laura Hollander of the Department of Water Resources and Jane Dolan of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board described the state’s role in forecasting, emergency response, grants, planning, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. They highlighted aging infrastructure, the need for better coordination, and the state’s special liability in the Central Valley after the Paterno decision. Dolan reviewed the history of major floods and said the plan calls for about $1 billion per year over 30 years to meet current needs, while Hollander said the state works with local and federal partners on preparedness, response, and subventions projects. Both emphasized that floodplain planning, regional coordination, and faster permitting are important, but that more consistent funding is needed.
A later panel from local flood agencies and districts reinforced those points, arguing that the state’s annual flood funding is below identified needs and that a proposed statewide flood and dam safety bond was reduced substantially in the broader climate bond package. Witnesses urged more routine maintenance funding, support for regional flood planning, and continued federal-state-local partnerships to reduce risk and maintain eligibility for federal assistance. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the informational hearing.
CO
Colorado 2026 Regular Session
Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 087 Part 2 Apr 11th, 2026
Colorado House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- The state cannot carry out the requirements of Proposition 114 required by law without a sustainable
- The state cannot carry out the requirements of Proposition 114 required by law without a sustainable
- The state cannot carry out the requirements of Proposition 114 required by law without a sustainable
- <00:21:52.000>
114 <00:21:52.920>required requirements of Proposition 114 required - I urge a no passed in Proposition 114.
Summary:
The House took up House Bill 1410, the state’s long appropriations bill for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and their agencies and institutions for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. The committee first recessed and then adopted a motion to rise, report progress, and sit again later that day. The House also adopted a motion under House Rule 14 to limit debate on House Bill 1410 to one hour during special orders on April 10, 2026, by a vote of 40-20, with four excused and one absent.
During consideration of House Bill 1410, members debated Amendment J82/54A, which would require funding for wolf reintroduction to come from gifts, grants, and donations rather than general fund dollars. Supporters argued the state should not use taxpayer money for additional wolf reintroduction, especially during a budget crisis, and said rural ranchers and livestock producers are bearing the costs and impacts of wolves. They emphasized depredation concerns, the strain on rural communities, and the view that the reintroduction effort has been costly and poorly managed.
Opponents of the amendment said the funding line is part of broader wolf management, not just reintroduction, and argued the state has a legal obligation to carry out Proposition 114. They said gifts, grants, and donations are not a reliable funding source for that mandate and noted the program also supports conflict minimization efforts such as range riders. One speaker also defended the ecological role of wolves, citing their benefits to ecosystems, elk management, and biodiversity. The transcript does not show a final vote on the amendment before the excerpt ends.
CO
Colorado 2026 Regular Session
Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 114 May 8th, 2026
Colorado House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- The citizens have already rejected it.
- something that they've clearly rejected. something that they've clearly rejected.
- It doesn't reject innovation.
- It doesn't reject innovation.
- Yet the JBC rejected every single one of them. That was their choice.
Summary:
The House convened, took roll, and approved the journal of Wednesday, May 6, 2026, as corrected. Members then made several announcements, including committee meeting notices, a Colorado Farm Bureau burger bash, recognition of Nurses Week, Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, and a commendation honoring former legislator Dorothy Rupert for her public service and advocacy. The chamber also heard a report that Rep. Flynnel had helped save a life by calling 911 when she witnessed a medical emergency near the Capitol.
Committee reports were received from Appropriations and Business Affairs and Labor, and the majority leader moved a slate of bills to special order for May 7. The House then proceeded to special orders and considered House Bill 1433, which would allow the firefighter behavioral health trust to receive gifts, grants, and donations to sustain services for firefighters dealing with trauma. Supporters described the program as essential for first responders, and the bill passed.
The chamber next considered House Bill 1429 on consolidating administration of public assistance programs. Supporters said it would stabilize the safety net, reduce error rates, and create a transition plan involving counties, state departments, and frontline workers; the appropriations report and the bill both passed. House Bill 1416, which transfers money from the Universal High School Scholarship Cash Fund to support small businesses and the Colorado Small Business Development Center, also passed as amended after debate over the use of the scholarship fund and its prior implementation challenges. Opponents argued the money should remain with students, while supporters said the fund had already distributed most of its original allocation and the transfer would help small businesses without creating a new program.
NH
Transcript Highlights:
- c> completely others or not or they can uh completely others or not or they can uh completely reject
- 59:10.640>
in <00:59:10.799>which <00:59:10.960>case <00:59:11.119>the reject - My opinion is if we put this out there as an all-or-nothing proposition, it will fail.
- ,<02:37:54.000>
it <02:37:54.240>will an all or nothing proposition, it will an all - or nothing proposition, it will fail.<02:37:55.040>
It <02:37:55.280>won't <02:37:55.439
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- Let's reject the amendment and move on. Thank you, Senator Crew. Let's see. Senator Dames.
- Let's reject the amendment and move on. Thank you, Senator Crew. Let's see. Senator Dames.
- Let's reject the amendment and move on. Thank you, Senator Crew. Let's see. Senator Dames.
- Let's reject the amendment and language. Let's reject the amendment and move<02:26:59.840>
on. - So members, I respectfully ask for you to reject this amendment wholeheartedly and vote no.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- Is that a dangerous proposition or is that something that's acceptable to you?
- Is that a dangerous proposition or is that something that's acceptable to you?
- Is that a dangerous proposition or is that something that's acceptable to you?
- Is that a dangerous proposition or is that something that's acceptable to you?
- dangerous proposition or is that dangerous proposition or is that something<00:08:29.440>
that's
Keywords:
permit processing, permitting reform, county permits, development permits, building permits, land use, construction delays, housing development, infrastructure development, county workforce, differential pay, salary incentive, performance bonus, recruitment and retention, expedited hiring, vacancy rates, permit backlog, government modernization, county mayor, county council
Summary:
The Senate Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs heard two measures. SB 2671, relating to essential permitting positions, drew no oral testimony beyond written comments from the Department of the Attorney General and the Office of Planning. The chair said the bill was intended to make government more efficient and reduce red tape in the permitting process.
SB 2902, relating to renewable energy, received testimony from the Division of Consumer Advocacy, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, Kauai Island Cooperative, Bright Saver, and 350 Hawaii. Supporters described the bill as a way to expand access to plug-in or balcony solar, lower electricity bills, improve resilience, and broaden access for renters and apartment residents. Several testifiers urged amendments to avoid limiting the measure to condominiums, to remove condominium board approval language, and to eliminate utility or PUC registration requirements. The PUC said registration could help with safety, linemen protection, and circuit hosting-capacity concerns, and noted that improper installation or oversizing could create problems.
After a brief recess, the committee voted to recommend both bills for passage with amendments and deferred each to April 19, 2042. The recommendations were adopted without objection.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
- The first is that this allocates over $3.2 billion in Proposition funding for important environmental
- But Proposition 4 was a result of the work that Mr. Hart and Mr.
- And in this budget, we are acting to make sure that what we wrote into Proposition 4 is being delivered
- We just want to express our gratitude for the legislature working to implement Proposition 4 this year
- We're also grateful for the Proposition 4 allocations.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Then you can see some of the other sources. ...we have listed the state motor fuels tax, Proposition
- 7, Proposition 1, vehicle registration, and then other sources.
- we're going to talk a little bit more about the federal tax rate. ...and Proposition 7.
- So in 2014 and 2015, our voters approved Proposition 1 and Proposition 7 as sources of revenue for Texas
- So, Proposition 1 is set to expire in 2043, and Proposition 7 in 2042.
Bills:
HJR58, HJR63, HB263, HB542, HB905, HB 1288, HB1402, HB2003, HB2262, HB2323, HB2429, HB2876, HB3019, HB263
Keywords:
healthcare, insurance, elderly, retirement, benefits, transit-oriented projects, constitutional amendment, state highway fund, funding allocation, voter approval, highway fund, funding, public transportation, transit projects, transportation, local transit, fund allocation, voting rights, election integrity, ballot access
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm
Transcript Highlights:
- Think about what happened when the state passed Proposition 2 1/2.
- I urge you to reject these extremely risky and potentially devastating ballot initiatives.
- your time and attention on behalf of our members and the residents of Massachusetts I urge you to reject
- these extra. attention on behalf of our members and the residents of Massachusetts I urge you to reject
- I'm asking you to reject both H. 5006 and H. 5707, not just as policy, but as an act of humanity.
Summary:
The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions.
Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel.
Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Legislative Audit Committee Jun 18th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- And then if we've rejected this audit, we will be part of the problem because we did not act in time.
- Asparza and the board announced almost a year ago exactly about the Proposition 28 funds that were going
- serious concerns about the effects of consolidation on the workforce, and we respectfully ask that you reject
- fact that I joined Senator McNerney in his effort to make sure that the legislative revised budget rejected
- a commitment to this project, and I don't know where I Rejected a commitment to this project, and I
Summary:
The committee heard several audit requests and related testimony. The first major item was an audit of Coachella Valley Unified School District’s contract and fiscal management. The author and supporters described long-standing fiscal mismanagement, large budget shortfalls, layoffs, contracting concerns, and questions about the district’s foundation and use of public funds. District representatives and the Riverside County Office of Education said the district is already under fiscal oversight, has a stabilization plan, and is working to reduce deficits and improve student outcomes. After extensive debate and public comment, the motion to approve the audit was put on call because the committee did not have the required votes from both houses at that moment.
The committee then approved an audit of East Bay transit agencies in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Senator Wahab argued the region’s many overlapping transit agencies create fragmentation, duplication, and inefficiency, especially amid a fiscal cliff and possible future tax increases. Transit agencies and labor representatives opposed the audit, saying the agencies already undergo multiple audits, serve distinct local needs, and are implementing regional coordination efforts. After testimony from agency leaders and public commenters, the committee voted to approve the audit.
The next item was an audit of California Community Colleges’ unrestricted reserves. Senator Archuleta and supporting faculty representatives said reserves have grown substantially and may be diverting resources from student services, instruction, and workforce programs. They argued there is little oversight when reserves become too high. The Chancellor’s Office and Calbright College were invited to respond, and the audit objectives focused on reserve growth, reasons for high balances, oversight by the Chancellor’s Office, and effects on students and staff. The transcript cuts off during the Chancellor’s Office response, so the final committee action on this item is not shown.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Proposition 4, which called for ending taxpayer-funded subsidies and public services for illegal aliens
- I urge members of the committee to reject this bill and preserve current law that reflects Texas' commitment
- Rejecting students' access to our college results in the ...lost more than $461 million annually in economics
- Universalists and people of faith watching this hearing from around the state, I ask the committee to reject
- I urge you all to reject SB 1798 and instead support policies rooted in our religion, which is justice
Keywords:
higher education, tuition rates, financial support, immigration status, Texas law, SB 1835, resident tuition, nonresident students, scholarship students, public higher education, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Education Code Section 54.213, tuition waiver, in-state tuition, out-of-state students, higher education finance, enrollment cap, capacity limit, workforce development area, nonimmigrant visa
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Floor Session Jun 13th, 2025
California House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- does not adequately fund public safety or does not fund the will of the voters in ensuring that Proposition
- In fact, there's $110 million earmarked for the implementation of Proposition 36, largely for behavioral
- There's $127 million to the BSC for grants that can be used for treatment under Proposition 36.
- And that goes more to Proposition 35, which this budget doesn't comply with the will of the voters.
- It borrows from Proposition 98. It borrows off the backs of our students.
Summary:
The Assembly convened after a quorum call and proceeded to floor business, with the main item being SB 101, the state budget bill. Before debate on the bill, Assembly Member Sanchez offered amendments to redirect funding toward Proposition 36 implementation, wildfire prevention, Medi-Cal provider reimbursement, developmental services, and other priorities; the majority moved to lay those amendments on the table, and the motion passed 43-18. The chamber then took up SB 101 as the budget bill for immediate effect.
Debate on the budget was extensive and sharply divided. Supporters, including Assembly Member Gabriel and several committee chairs, described the budget as a difficult but responsible compromise that protects Medi-Cal, IHSS, child care, housing, wildfire prevention, and other safety-net programs while responding to a projected deficit and federal uncertainty. Opponents criticized the budget as fiscally unsound and argued it relied on accounting gimmicks, did not adequately fund Proposition 36 or wildfire prevention, and continued spending on high-speed rail and Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants. Several members also raised concerns about gas taxes, provider reimbursement, probation funding, and the impact on vulnerable Californians.
After debate, the Assembly voted on SB 101 and passed it 57-19. The measure was sent immediately to the Senate. The body then announced upcoming session schedules, with no floor or check-in sessions on June 14 and 15, and a floor session set for June 16 at 1 p.m., before adjourning.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
- We're not funding things like Proposition 36, unfunded property. That is 30 seconds.
- Roundtable, one of the early sponsors of California's independent redistricting process, we urge you to reject
- tear down independent redistricting and hand power back to the very politicians voters explicitly rejected
TX
Texas 89th 2nd C.S.
S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband Mar 31st, 2025
S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband
Transcript Highlights:
- allocated to broadband infrastructure, including over $1.5 billion authorized by 69% of voters through Proposition
- You know, the US Congress rejected that federal approach as it relates to co-ops.
- This legislature also rejected it. It is artificially low.
TX
Texas 89th Regular
S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband Mar 31st, 2025
S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband
Transcript Highlights:
- Proposition 8 in November of 2023.
- Congress rejected that federal approach as it relates to co-ops, and this legislature also rejected it
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
US House Floor Proceedings (Tuesday, June 30, 2026)
US Federal House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Reject this rule. Stop acting like a cult. Let's bring back...
- Who Who can reason on such a proposition? I cannot. The time for such an argument is passed.
- Even though the justice in Wong Kim Ark rejected that notion.
- The Constitution of the United States does not stand for the proposition that the Court ruled today.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Floor Session Jun 13th, 2025
California House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- does not adequately fund public safety or does not fund the will of the voters in ensuring that Proposition
- In fact there's 110 million dollars earmarked for the implementation of Proposition 36 largely for behavior
- There's 127 million dollars to the BSEC for grants that can be used for treatment under Proposition 36
- And that goes more to Proposition 35, which this budget.
- It borrows from Proposition 98, it borrows off the backs of our students.