Transcript Highlights:

• And do I have Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower?
• All right, well, welcome, Assistant Attorney General Eisenhower.
• Thank you for that clarification, Assistant Attorney General Eisenhower.
• And so this Thank you for that clarification, Assistant Attorney General Eisenhower.
• McKinney as attorney of record for Ms. Simmons to provide oral argument first.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• It does require an attorney and not just any attorney.
• It does require an attorney and not just any attorney.
• It does require an attorney and not just any attorney.
• It does require an attorney and not just any attorney.
• It does require an attorney and not just any attorney.

Keywords: House streaming session for Friday, April 3, 2026, 957, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 1551 takes a balanced approach to attorney fee awards and insurance contract disputes.
• I'm an attorney at the law firm of Butler-Wy-Muller-Cats Craig.
• So if your attorney... Sir, about 30 more seconds. Yes, sir.
• damages include attorney fees in the underlying claim to get your insurance benefits.
• So if your attorney... Sir, about 30 more seconds. Yes, sir.

Summary: The committee met to hear five banking and insurance-related bills. HB 1549, an Office of Financial Regulation agency bill to help more efficiently regulate financial institutions, was amended to match Senate companion language and then passed unanimously. HB 1231 would extend physician payment and prior-authorization protections similar to a prior dental law, including limits on virtual credit card payments as the sole payment method; physicians and medical groups supported it as a way to reduce fees and retroactive denials, while insurers were not heard in opposition, and the bill passed unanimously. The committee then heard HB 999, which would make gold and silver legal tender and allow transactions in bullion through electronic debit mechanisms. The sponsor and several proponents framed it as an inflation hedge and economic freedom measure, while questions focused on definitions, transaction costs, and vendor participation. The bill passed on a mostly party-line vote, with one member voting no. The committee also approved HM 4363, a memorial urging Congress to establish a sovereign wealth fund; the sponsor described it as a way to steward national wealth, and the memorial passed with one dissenting vote. Finally, the committee took up HB 1551, which would create a prevailing-party attorney fee framework in insurance contract disputes. The sponsor argued it would restore balance, deter meritless litigation, and help consumers with valid claims recover fees, while insurers, business groups, and defense attorneys warned it would revive one-way fee shifting, increase litigation, and raise premiums. Consumer advocates and some members supported it as necessary to give policyholders meaningful recourse. After debate, the bill passed favorably, with one member voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Dave Leroy, Attorney at Law.
• So in litigation, attorney fee provisions are powerful.
• if there's a statute that says you get attorney fees.
• The prevailing governmental entity gets attorney fees.
• If the Attorney General prevails in such action, the court shall award the Attorney General all attorney's

Summary: Senate State Affairs began by taking up HCR 31, a resolution honoring former Representative Lyndon Bateman. Senator Anthon, Tess Molitor, and former Lieutenant Governor David Leroy spoke in tribute, describing Bateman’s long legislative service, his work on Idaho Day, his advocacy for cursive and Idaho history, and his humor and letter-writing. The committee moved HCR 31 to the Senate floor with a due pass recommendation, and the motion carried. The committee then heard gubernatorial appointments to the State Building Authority from Nicholas Gouho and Todd Christensen, both of whom outlined extensive backgrounds in construction, development, finance, and public service. The committee also considered and approved confirmations for Robert Donaldson and Irving Littman to the Idaho Endowment Fund Investment Board, sending both to the floor with recommendations for confirmation. Several RS requests were introduced and sent to print, including measures on liability protections for polling places, a legislative salary reduction resolution, revisions to 340B drug reporting, surveyor access, and cremation identification requirements. The committee also advanced HB 637 on gold and silver legal tender, HB 573 expanding who may teach enhanced concealed carry courses, and HB 561 on government flag displays. HB 542, the social media bill aimed at limiting addictive features and requiring age estimation and parental controls for minors, drew extensive testimony both for and against; after debate over the effective date and private cause of action, the committee sent it to the 14th order for possible amendments rather than directly to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:13:57.600><c> Uh</c> expenses for district attorneys. Uh expenses for district attorneys.
• We're up to right now 12, 15 attorneys. those three new attorney positions, what those three new attorney
• This is just more attorneys.
• </c> we're up to right now. 12 15 attorneys. we're up to right now. 12 15 attorneys.
• This is just more attorneys. I &gt;&gt; Same. This is just more attorneys.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 216, 12 March, 2026; 10:30 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that helps with some of the non-attorneys.
• Do they have to be an attorney, or could they be a notary? An attorney has to draft the trust now.
• An attorney should prepare a trust.
• This is another bill in the package of the Attorney General.
• So the attorney who called the witness. from the attorney. And I think that that does matter.

Summary: The House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure met and reported a series of measures, many of them asking the Louisiana State Law Institute to study legal issues. HCR 31 was reported favorably to study the use of the term “foreign” as applied to juridical persons. HCR 61 was reported favorably after discussion about expropriation and carbon capture, with the author agreeing to broaden the study beyond carbon capture alone. HCR 96 was also reported favorably to study civil bench warrants and notice procedures in judgment debtor proceedings. The committee likewise advanced HCR 160, which asks the Law Institute to study property transfer issues and the public records doctrine in light of a recent case. Several bills dealing with court procedure and family law were heard and advanced. SB 68, a constitutional amendment to give the Louisiana Supreme Court authority to discipline out-of-state attorneys in certain circumstances, was amended and reported favorably. SB 76, concerning modification of child custody judgments, was reported with amendments after testimony that it would codify existing standards and add a five-year rule for applying the lower best-interest standard. HB 1198, which prohibits arbitration of child custody and visitation disputes and limits recognition of foreign custody laws contrary to Louisiana public policy, was reported favorably. SB 66, which prioritizes testimony from medical experts in child custody and child-in-need-of-care cases, was also reported favorably after testimony from advocates and medical groups. The committee also advanced measures involving civil litigation and state legal procedures. HCR 38, urging Congress to reform FISA and the FISA court to protect privacy rights, was reported favorably. SCR 19, asking the Law Institute to study long-duration trusts and possible revisions to the Trust Code, was reported favorably. SB 336, allowing civil investigative demands in Medicaid fraud/False Claims Act investigations, was reported favorably after explanation that it would let the Attorney General gather information without filing suit first. SB 139, adjusting interest on personal injury and wrongful death claims against the state or political subdivisions, was reported favorably. Finally, SB 475, dealing with fees for service of process, was reported favorably. HB 668 was voluntarily deferred.

Transcript Highlights:

• And do I have Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower?
• All right, well, welcome Assistant Attorney General Eisen Trout.
• Thank you for that clarification, Assistant Attorney General Eisenhower.
• McKinley as attorney filed a motion for summary judgment. I will allow Mr.
• This is to the Assistant Attorney General.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> wanted to do like a a power of attorney wanted to do like a a power of attorney or<00:16:25.040>
• And because attorney charges are considered attorney-client privilege, there is no visibility for the
• And because attorney charges are considered attorney-client privilege, there is no visibility for the
• It restores balance, attorneys fees.
• I'm a retired attorney.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 2294, which would require condominium associations, boards, and managing agents to comply with declarations, bylaws, county ordinances, and state and federal laws, including mortgage lending requirements. The Community Associations Institute opposed the bill as redundant, arguing existing law already requires compliance and provides penalties. Supporters, including condominium owners and board members, said the measure would clarify that associations are not “self-governing” in a way that exempts them from outside laws, and cited examples where local officials or police told residents to take issues back to their boards. Several supporters said the bill would reinforce board responsibility for permits, safety, and legal compliance. The committee noted 27 pieces of testimony, with 10 in support and 17 in opposition, and then moved on without taking a vote on the measure in the transcript provided. The committee also took up SB 2298, which would require common interest community proxy forms to include additional language explaining proxy selection options. The Community Associations Institute opposed the bill, saying the proposed language was inaccurate and would not improve consumer clarity unless significantly revised. Supporters argued that proxy forms are confusing and that clearer instructions would help homeowners understand how their votes are being used. Opponents said the added language would make the forms longer and more confusing, and suggested a separate instruction sheet or other educational material instead. Testimony also raised broader concerns about proxy voting being misused in some associations, with one witness urging that proxy voting be eliminated altogether. The committee reported 29 written testimonies, including seven in support, 19 in opposition, and three with comments, and again did not record a final vote in the excerpt. For SB 2300, which would shorten condominium reserve cash-flow projections from 30 years to 25 years, the Community Associations Institute opposed the bill, saying it would not make housing more affordable, would reduce transparency, and would increase the annual burden by giving associations less time to save for long-life components. The group suggested that if affordability is the goal, lawmakers should consider allowing future loans or special assessments with guardrails. Supporters of the bill said the shorter projection period would better reflect practical budgeting and help associations plan more realistically, though some supporters also warned against relying too heavily on loans and emphasized accountability and fiduciary responsibility. Other testimony stressed that the impact of changing the projection period would vary by association and that many owners are already struggling with rising fees. The discussion remained focused on testimony and policy concerns, with no final action on SB 2300 shown in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Taliba McIntyre for the Attorney General's Office.
• Board members will now hear from Kelly Duncan, attorney representing the petitioners.
• Kelly Duncan, attorney representing the petitioners. Good morning, Mr.
• I'm Assistant Attorney General Stephen Sumbler. Good morning, Chairman A.
• I was in constant communication with the Attorney General's office.

Summary: The Louisiana Gaming Control Board met on February 26, 2026, and first approved the January minutes and received revenue reports showing year-over-year gains in several sectors, including riverboats, racetrack slots, video gaming devices, sports wagering, and daily fantasy sports. Staff also reported on fourth-quarter 2025 employment and procurement compliance for riverboat and racetrack licensees, noting several properties that missed employment or procurement targets, while others were fully compliant. Under casino gaming issues, the board approved annual certificates of compliance for Bally’s Shreveport Casino and Hotel and Live Casino and Hotel. It also approved two petitions finding Alpha North Partners Fund, Inc. and Alpha North Asset Management to be institutional investors in connection with Jackpot Digital’s pending manufacturer and supplier applications. Under video gaming issues, the board approved a transfer of membership interest in Bonus Casino, LLC. The board then approved a series of proposed settlements involving late filings, permit lapses, and ownership-notification violations, including matters involving American Amusements, McKinley’s Pub, Whispering Pines Plaza and Casino, Ms. Mamie’s Rain Casino, Pablo’s Truck Stop Casino, Clearly Tavern and Sports Bar, and Golden Lantern, with civil penalties ranging from $750 to $9,250. In the final agenda items, the board granted reconsideration for Burritos Grill LLC after finding a good-faith but misdirected hearing request, but denied reconsideration for Toby’s Dead, Inc., doing business as The Gemini, concluding that the licensee missed the hearing deadline and that no sufficient grounds for rehearing were shown. The board then adjourned and announced its next meeting for March 16, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you think attorneys are still going to have access to this attorneys would still be able to send that
• Attorney General Paxton, to Attorney General Merrick Garland, to the FBI, the DOJ. the Texas Rangers,
• June of 2024, the day before her Her attorney called me, called my attorney, and unilaterally cancelled
• The day before, yet again, her attorney called my attorney and unilaterally cancelled. that deposition
• a state prosecutor, meaning a district attorney, criminal district attorney. or certain county attorneys

Bills: HB170, HB865, HB748, HJR112, HB 1110, HB1495, HB786, HB 1130, HB170

Keywords: civil liability, self-defense, force, deadly force, legal immunity, attorney's fees, criminal justice, firearms, liability, veterans, gun ownership, immunity, firearm hold agreement, sexual abuse, nondisclosure, confidentiality, public policy, Trey's Law, parental rights, child upbringing

Transcript Highlights:

• The line item in the Attorney General's budget, which is 1003, is— The line item in the Attorney General's
• Attorney General's budget, they would look at the proposal.
• Of the Attorney General's funding for other human trafficking service-related work.
• That is not what the Attorney General told us.
• That is not what the Attorney General told us.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate conference committee on Senate Bill 2330 met to resolve differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill, which concerns human trafficking and exploitation prevention and awareness education in schools. House members explained their amendments, including adding non-public schools, narrowing some statutory language, removing the appropriation section because funding had been moved into the Attorney General’s budget, and changing the bill’s structure to reduce what they viewed as an overly broad mandate. Senators and House members then debated whether the education should be required for all grades or limited to specific grades, and whether it should be delivered every year or every other year. Testimony from Amy Boyd-Bomey of YouthWorks and Stacey Schaefer of the 31A Project supported focusing the program on grades 6 and 10, with later discussion adding grade 12. They said sixth grade is a key entry point into junior high and social media exposure, tenth grade is important because of dropout risk, and twelfth grade would be the last opportunity to reach students before adulthood. They also said repeating the same material every year could dilute the message, that the curriculum should be thoughtful and trauma-informed, and that “best practices” may be preferable to the bill’s “evidence-based” language because of cost and feasibility. They emphasized that presenters must be prepared for disclosures from students after the training. Committee members also discussed logistics and funding. The witnesses said the Attorney General’s budget line for the program would fund third-party organizations through a grant process, with reporting requirements, and that the proposed amount was based on their cost estimates. Members raised concerns about whether the funding would cover all schools and grades, especially if non-public schools were included. Several members argued against mandating the program in non-public schools at this time, citing uncertainty about related legislation and the need to maximize available funds, while others said private school students also face trafficking risks and should not be excluded. The committee did not take final action on the bill; instead, members agreed to continue working on amendments, including grade levels, annual versus biennial implementation, the “may include” language, the “evidence-based” standard, and the non-public school issue, and to reconvene at a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• OPUC is a small agency currently with 16 staff members, primarily attorneys and legal assistants.
• Even an OPUC entry-level attorney earns $13,000 less than their counterpart at PUC.
• Specifically, it's two attorneys, one administrative assistant, a news budsman.
• I've got 4 staff attorneys, each are carrying a caseload of 125 each.
• Our fourth request is for an additional staff attorney position.

Bills: SB1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met to review Article 8, regulatory agencies, and began Article 9, general provisions, before recessing for floor action. The committee first heard budget presentations from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPUC). The PUC budget recommendation was about $5.07 billion in all funds, including an additional $5 billion for the Texas Energy Fund, plus funding for staffing and technology needs tied to contested cases, infrastructure resiliency, and outage mapping. PUC witnesses emphasized the agency’s growing workload, the need for more staff and modern systems, and oversight of the Texas Energy Fund. OPUC’s recommendation was about $6.9 million, with a reduction in authorized FTEs to better match actual staffing; the agency requested additional funding for salaries, expert witnesses, and budget flexibility, and members highlighted OPUC’s role representing residential and small commercial consumers in utility proceedings. The committee then heard from the Behavioral Health Executive Council (BHEC), whose recommendation was just over $11.2 million. BHEC’s main requests included funding to fill vacant positions, money for continuous National Practitioner Data Bank queries, and a proposed Texas-owned psychology licensing exam in response to concerns about changes to the national exam. Agency leaders also discussed a rider request that would shift responsibility for certain judgments or settlements to the comptroller. Members asked about prior complaint backlogs, and BHEC said those backlogs had been cleared. The Board of Chiropractic Examiners followed, with a recommendation of just under $2.4 million; the board sought support for staffing, training, broadband, and salary retention, and described its work regulating chiropractors and workers’ compensation-related doctors. The Board of Dental Examiners was the last agency heard before the committee recessed. Its recommendation was just under $10 million, and it requested a 10% salary increase for eligible staff, three additional licensing staff, one staff member to handle required background checks, an additional attorney, and an executive director salary adjustment. Dental board witnesses said licensure growth, increased complaints, and low salaries were straining licensing and enforcement operations, even though the agency reported strong performance and high case completion rates. The chair ended the hearing early because the Senate had to return to the floor, and the committee remained in recess.

Transcript Highlights:

• Simpson, did you engage an attorney? Did you have an attorney?"
• Simpson, did you engage an attorney? Did you have an attorney? I had an attorney.
• attorney and then...
• You are an attorney? No. I had an attorney representing me. Okay.
• Who was that attorney? His name was Ron Goodman. I'm an attorney.

Summary: The committee first reviewed litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing involving wage claims brought under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Members questioned the department’s authority, jurisdiction, use of attorney fees and costs, and whether defendants had to be licensed. The department explained it has long enforced wage and overtime laws, that the claims were small-dollar cases handled by investigators and counsel, and that one case had been paid and dismissed while others were unresolved or had service issues. The committee voted to review or batch-file the labor cases after discussion. The University of Arkansas System then reported three pending lawsuits: an age- and race-discrimination claim by a tenured professor that was resolved early; an ADA/FMLA retaliation claim by a former employee that survived in part on a motion to dismiss and was moving into discovery; and a Section 1983 claim against a UAMS sergeant arising from a parking-ticket dispute, with the university explaining that only punitive damages could create personal exposure for the officer. The committee reviewed each report and voted to accept them. The Department of Finance and Administration presented a proposed tax settlement reducing a sales-and-use tax assessment from about $48,000 to $20,000 and waiving interest and penalties, which the committee approved for review. The Claims Commission then presented several claims: an unpaid salary differential for a Department of Health employee, reissued warrants, unpaid DHS bills, and multiple negotiated settlements involving ATRS, UAMS, Arkansas State Police, and ARDOT. Members approved or affirmed most of these items, including a $65,000 settlement in the Tetronics/ATRS matter, a $150,000 medical-negligence settlement, and several vehicle-accident settlements. The most extended debate involved a tax-delinquent property sale claim by Sharon Greer and relatives. The claimant argued they were not properly notified and sought the $4,200 excess from the 2009 sale. Land Commissioner counsel explained the excess had escheated to the county after the statutory claim period expired, while members debated sovereign immunity, standing, heirs, and whether the committee could or should award money anyway. The committee ultimately chose to hold the matter over for further review in a future joint session rather than decide it immediately. The committee also heard appeals from dismissed claims, including a UAMS medical-negligence claim, a land-sale notice claim, a pothole claim against ARDOT, and a judicial-immunity claim against the Court of Appeals; most dismissals were affirmed, and the Simpson matter was held over for additional review after the claimant testified.

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand that as an attorney.
• I understand that as an attorney.
• Attorney General, not not these uh Attorney General, not not these uh individuals<00:20:31.280><c> in
• </c> this matter until we have the Attorney this matter until we have the Attorney General<00:20:40.520
• </c><00:20:57.680><c> General,</c> services because the Attorney General, services because the Attorney

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the March 10 minutes and then moved through a large agenda of contract reviews, including a deferred Kentucky Transportation Cabinet item tied to Louisville bridge tolling and RiverLink. Transportation officials explained that the contract was part of a bi-state arrangement with Indiana: Indiana Finance Authority held the main contract with HNTB, while Kentucky needed a mirror contract to pay its 50% share under the bi-state management agreement. Members questioned why the work was treated as effectively no-bid, how much input Kentucky had in vendor selection, RiverLink’s collection performance, and when tolls might end. Transportation said Kentucky had equal representation in selection, HNTB served as a toll services advisor, collections and customer service had improved, and tolls are expected to remain until debt obligations are paid off in 2058. Several members criticized the company’s past performance and voted no as a statement of concern, but the contract still moved forward. The committee then deferred a Kentucky State University item because the vendor was not registered with the Secretary of State. It also approved the overall agenda and contract review lists. A Board of Optometric Examiners contract drew significant discussion: board representatives said they had previously relied on the Public Protection Cabinet for legal services, but that office lacked staff and advised them to seek outside counsel. Some members argued the committee could not approve a contract that appeared to conflict with statute, while others said the board should not be left without legal counsel and that the Attorney General should be brought in to resolve the issue. The committee ultimately voted to defer the optometric contract for one month and requested the Attorney General appear at the next meeting. Finally, the committee reviewed an Administrative Office of the Courts amendment for the Court of Appeals building project. Staff explained that the General Assembly had authorized the project, the design contract had already gone through multiple approved phases, and the current item was only an administrative correction to a prior modification amount. Members approved the amendment, with one member noting appreciation that the project costs had been reduced when an error was found.

Transcript Highlights:

• You would also see a fiscal impact in the Office of the Attorney General.
• It may increase the number of investigations that the Attorney General has to conduct.
• Advance approval by either a court or the Attorney General.
• This amendment requires the Attorney General to demonstrate...
• And I'm grateful that she and the Attorney General's office are going to engage in that.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on House Bill 2073, which would require nonprofit health carriers with surplus above 600% of risk-based capital to pay 3% of the excess to support the Cascade Care Savings premium assistance program. Committee staff said the bill could generate about $80 million in FY 2027 based on 2024 surplus data, while carriers and business groups argued their reserves are needed to pay claims, manage risk, and avoid premium increases. Supporters said the bill would redirect consumer-funded surplus to help Washingtonians afford coverage, especially as federal subsidies expire. No action was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2132, which limits disclosure and retention of personally identifying and financial information in WASFA applications. Staff explained the bill would exempt WASFA records from public disclosure, restrict sharing to narrow purposes, and shorten retention periods, with significant fiscal impacts tied to purging records and updating data-sharing practices. Student and advocacy testimony strongly supported the bill as a privacy and safety measure for immigrant and mixed-status students. The committee also heard House Bill 2403, which lowers the penalty for failure to register as a sex offender and adds community custody and DOC supervision; public defense supported it as a cost-saving, consensus reform, and staff projected DOC savings. House Bill 2587 was also heard, creating a Commerce pilot to provide limited advance grant funding to eligible nonprofits; supporters said it would help smaller nonprofits manage reimbursement-based contracts, while staff estimated indeterminate but potentially significant administrative costs. The committee heard House Bill 2607, which would require DCYF to periodically rebase child care subsidy rate regions to better reflect local cost differences. Supporters from Benton and Franklin counties said current regional rates are outdated and unfairly low in fast-growing areas; staff said the fiscal impact was indeterminate. The committee then moved into possible executive session on several bills. Second Substitute House Bill 1170, dealing with generative AI disclosures and provenance tools, was amended and ultimately passed out of committee on an 18-9 vote after all proposed amendments were rejected. Substitute House Bill 1570 was amended to narrow its scope to Western Washington University and then passed out of committee on a 17-9 vote. The committee also began action on proposed Third Substitute House Bill 1710, which would create a state pre-clearance requirement under the Washington Voting Rights Act, but the transcript cuts off during consideration of amendments to that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Here with me today to testify is Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Brokaw and Deputy Attorney General Malcolm
• Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs, here on behalf of Attorney
• Malcolm Brutigam, Deputy Attorney General in the Government Law Section of the Attorney General's office
• attorneys, but not supervisory authority over the judiciary.
• Thank you to the Attorney General for sponsoring this bill.

Summary: The committee heard several election and democracy-related bills. AB 1116 would expand California’s online voter registration system to allow eligible voters without a DMV-issued ID to register using the last four digits of their Social Security number and an uploaded signature image. Supporters said it would improve access, reduce paper processing, and save money; opponents, including the Secretary of State’s office and county officials, raised concerns about cybersecurity, implementation, and identity verification. The bill was moved on a 2-1 vote to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 1539 would require political party representatives to certify, under penalty of perjury, that presidential and vice presidential nominees meet constitutional term-limit requirements. Supporters framed it as a safeguard against attempts to place ineligible candidates on the ballot, while opponents called it unnecessary and politically motivated. The committee voted 2-1 to send the bill to the Committee on Public Safety. The committee also approved AB 1562, which would let counties randomly select registered voters to serve as poll workers if their board of supervisors approves, and AB 1664, which would require prompt notice to the Secretary of State and Attorney General when election records or voting systems are subject to warrants, subpoenas, or investigations. AB 1562 passed 2-0 to the Committee on Transportation, and AB 1664 passed 2-1 to the Committee on Public Safety despite opposition from sheriffs’ representatives who argued it raised separation-of-powers concerns. Later, AB 1853, which would restrict candidate statements in voter information guides to factual background and qualifications and bar hateful or misleading content, passed 2-1 to the Committee on Rules for further consideration in Judiciary. AB 1919, allowing voters in the Santa Cruz Metro district to decide on transit funding procedures, and AB 2484, allowing San Diego MTS voters to authorize a local transit tax through initiative, also advanced on 3-1 votes to the Committee on Transportation. The committee additionally approved a consent agenda containing AB 1789, AB 2592, AB 2655, and AB 2785.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I have seen the other entity coming in with three attorneys. attorneys, a hired gun real estate appraiser
• Pay attorney fees, what is the issue with this language?
• It's a multi-page document that's put out by the Attorney General. ...the Attorney General's Office that
• You just file a motion, "Hey, I'd like my attorney.
• We'd like $2,000 in appraisal." ...and attorney fees.

Transcript Highlights:

• Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael E.
• Also, the attorneys representing the state in the redistricting litigation on behalf of the attorney
• The attorneys representing are acting on behalf of the attorney general and representing the state have
• The court has considered the attorney general's.
• It was only directed to the Attorney General and to the governor.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, it would appear to us that she behaved in a manner that any competent attorney would have behaved
• </c><00:01:55.119><c> would</c> manner that any competent attorney would manner that any competent attorney
• Even before I filed for protection,<00:04:47.360><c> attorney</c><00:04:47.680><c> Elizabeth</c><00:04
• :48.160><c> Cuchia</c><00:04:48.720><c> on</c> protection, attorney Elizabeth Cuchia on protection, attorney
• </c><00:05:36.720><c> attorney</c> present them in court, attorney attorney present them in court, attorney

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met in a room change and first considered two judicial confirmations. It recommended consent for Governor’s Message 767, confirming Kanoi A.D. Jackson as circuit court judge for the Third Circuit (Hawaii County) for a 10-year term, and the motion was adopted with members voting aye and some members excused. The committee then recommended consent for Judicial Communication 28, confirming Sonia H. Toma as district family court judge for the Second Circuit (Maui County) for a 6-year term. The chair noted prior concerns about the nominee, but said staff reviewed court records and found nothing problematic; the committee adopted the recommendation unanimously among those present. After a brief recess, the committee heard House Concurrent Resolution 55, which asks the judiciary to convene a working group to study the effectiveness of existing laws on domestic violence, temporary restraining orders, protective orders, and harassment by stalking in preventing continued abuse and harassment. Testimony was generally supportive. The Office of the Public Defender asked to be included on the working group and requested representation from the Hawaii Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well. The Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence also supported including public defenders and said the effort needs funding to be effective. Other testimony emphasized survivor experiences, privacy concerns, and the need for broader research and protections for injured parties. The chair recommended passing HCR 55 with amendments to include the public defender and a representative from the Hawaii Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, to allow the judiciary authority to add other participants, and to make additional text changes including removing redundant language. The committee voted to adopt the amended recommendation, and the resolution passed with members voting aye and some excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• If they can afford an attorney, they'll bring one. Oftentimes they won't.
• Hey, I like my attorney fees.
• I don't see why attorneys should have to file a motion on abatement.
• And all you're asking is for attorney fees on the appraisal.
• Okay, so you're okay with the attorney fees. You just feel...

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 5695, which would create the Sayers Ranch Municipal Utility District in Bastrop County between Elgin and Bastrop. Representative Gurdis said Bastrop County commissioners unanimously supported the district. There was no public testimony, the bill was left pending, and later reported favorably to the full House on an 8-0 vote. The main debate centered on Senate Bill 291, which would require condemning entities to pay landowner attorney’s fees if they fail to provide 10 years of appraisal reports with an initial offer in an eminent domain case. Supporters, including Rita Beving and Charles Maley, argued the bill would add an enforcement mechanism and better protect landowners in a process they described as intimidating and lopsided. Opponents, including Tom Zabel and Lisa Kaufman, said current law already provides a remedy through abatement and attorney’s fees under Section 21.047 of the Property Code, and warned the bill could create inconsistency, delay public infrastructure projects, and increase costs. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 5699, a simple MUD boundary change in Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 405 that would allow a tract to leave one district and join another. Representative Schofield said the landowner and district agreed to the change and to pay the tract’s share of debt. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote. Later, the committee considered House Bill 5489, which would impose a four-year moratorium on impact fees. Representative Dyson framed it as an “active study” to test whether impact fees raise housing costs. College Station officials and other opponents argued impact fees help fund infrastructure for growth and that local governments should retain control; supporters said the fees are regressive and add to housing prices. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 292, which would update the Landowner Bill of Rights to add information on surveys, require separate offers for property not sought in condemnation, and require the rights document to be delivered with the initial offer. Supporters said it would improve transparency and fill gaps in the current document, while opponents said it was unnecessary because the law already exists and warned against revisiting a 2021 compromise. The transcript ends during that discussion.