Transcript Highlights:

• I have an interest in the racing and gaming world. Thank you.
• Well, like an interest in gaming and racing that you gave me home.
• But that being said, I know you love the racing side and the horse side, but this is the Racing and Gaming
• This is the Racing and Gaming Commission.
• How do you plan to— I know your passion is going to be there for the racing side.

Keywords: 956, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 2 is about race. So we will continue to mention race because that is the law.
• Race is always considered because people talk about race, and that's who we are.
• You don't see the race in there? No, ma'am, because I don't think a seat belongs to any race.
• That is a race to the bottom.
• So there's more than race at play.

Bills: HB4

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One of those topics is race.
• You say the music—that it's not promoting the race over all other races.
• Differences based on race- Chair: Thank you for being here.
• When I see bills and I see the word 'race,' it disturbs me because race is a socially constructed classification
• None of us asked to be born in the race we were born in.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:11.640><c> um</c> interstate comact on horse racing um interstate comact on horse racing um
• A little background: the federal Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 allowed betting on horse racing
• The Interstate Horse Racing Act also allowed states to regulate this electronic betting on racing.
• via</c> allowed for betting on horse racing via allowed for betting on horse racing via electronic<00
• </c><01:03:07.520><c> we</c> talking about the horse racing we talking about the horse racing we actually

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Jamie Eads with the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation.
• It won't just be for charitable gaming; they'll be able to do horse racing, sports wagering.
• Third part of this big part of this is quarter horse racing.
• When you look at horse racing, the brood mare is the economic driver.
• We're going to go from a very small crop of horse racing brood mares in the state.

Keywords: Call to Order 00:00 Roll Call 00:05 HB 566 Discussion 01:34 HB 566 Vote 16:42 HB 39 Discussion 19:15 HB 39 Vote 23:10 HB 70 Discussion 24:48 HB 70 Vote 27:36 HB 72 Discussion 28:58 HB 72 Vote 39:45 HB 79 Discussion 41:45 HB 79 Vote 42:58 HB 223 Discussion 45:34 HB 223 Vote 46:24 Adjournment 47:38, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 566, which would implement the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation created last year. Chairman Cook described major provisions affecting charitable gaming, horse racing, sports wagering, and quarter horse racing, including locking charitable gaming fees in statute at a slightly lower rate, expanding charitable gaming board representation, preserving existing gaming technology, allowing school districts to hold charitable gaming licenses, and setting up self-funding for the new corporation through administrative set-asides from gaming-related funds. The bill also addresses uncashed vouchers, cross-training of investigators, ethics and employment provisions, and a three-year quarter horse breeding incentive intended to grow the industry. A committee substitute made two technical changes: clarifying voucher money stays with the track facility and making the school district itself the license holder. The substitute and then the bill both passed favorably, with several members noting concerns from last year but supporting the revised structure. The committee then heard House Bill 70, an interstate compact for dietitians. Sponsor Representative Vanessa Grossl and witnesses said the measure would allow reciprocity with other compact states, improve workforce mobility, help military families, expand patient access and telehealth, and reduce administrative burden on the licensing board. The committee substitute created a third license category for educational interpreters, but that language actually belonged to the next bill; for HB 70, the committee voted the bill favorably without reported amendments. The bill passed unanimously or near-unanimously and was sent to the House floor. Next, House Bill 72 was presented by Representative DJ Johnson to amend the law governing limited x-ray machine operators. The sponsor explained that current law effectively prevents limited x-ray operators from working in the same facility as other imaging equipment, which he said creates compliance problems, disrupts training, and can force practices to move equipment or lose employees. The bill would allow limited x-ray technicians to operate in the same facility as other imaging equipment. During discussion, some members noted opposition from students and others in the field, and the sponsor invited industry witnesses to explain their concerns. The transcript cuts off before final action on HB 72 is completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> progress on getting not one horse racing progress on getting not one horse racing track<00:19:15.559
• ><c> tracks</c><00:19:17.120><c> on</c> track but both horse racing tracks on track but both horse racing
• </c><00:20:44.919><c> in</c> help enhance horse racing in help enhance horse racing in Minnesota<00:20
• Number two, it would help enhance horse racing in Minnesota.
• Number two, it would help enhance horse racing in Minnesota.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're assuming that one race prefers one race.
• </c> assuming that one race prefers one race. assuming that one race prefers one race.
• of race."
• of race."
• of race."

Keywords: House streaming session for Saturday, April 11, 2026, 957, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The map does all this without using race to draw a line.
• I repeat, it does not use race to draw a line.
• The map does all this without using race to draw a line.
• I repeat, it does not use race to draw a line.
• Now, that fair representation does not have to veer on race.

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 12, 2026, and focused primarily on Senate Bill 407, a congressional redistricting proposal, with Senate Bill 121 also scheduled for later. The chair explained the committee would first take up SB 407, consider amendments, then hear public testimony, and would not take up SB 116 or SB 130. Two amendment sets were adopted on SB 407: one technical set adjusting dates to align with the upcoming election cycle, and another updating the map in the bill. Committee members and the bill sponsor described the proposal as a 4-2 congressional map intended to comply with the Supreme Court’s CalA ruling, preserve traditional redistricting criteria, and avoid using race as the basis for district lines. Supporters of SB 407 argued the map was compact, contiguous, kept parishes and cities together, and created two opportunity districts without racial predominance. Several senators said the map better reflected Louisiana’s political and demographic realities and could withstand legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment. Testimony in support also emphasized fairness, representation, and the idea that the state should not move to a 5-1 map. Some speakers, including former legislators and community advocates, said the state should maintain or preserve two districts where Black voters and Democratic voters could elect candidates of choice. Opponents of the broader redistricting effort criticized the process as rushed and confusing, especially because early voting had already begun and the Secretary of State was not present to answer questions. Some speakers said the legislature had not been properly involved in the election suspension process and raised concerns about whether votes already cast would count if maps changed. Others argued the proposed changes were an attempt to dilute political power and disenfranchise voters, particularly Black, poor, and queer communities. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> This is not a race.
• This is not a race. This is a way run. This is not a race.
• They're not racing each other. They're racing themselves in a clock.
• How do you put on a race?
• On a race?

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:01:12 Approval of Minutes 00:02:25 Co-Chair & Member Comments 00:02:48 Discussion of 2025 SB 137 00:06:58 Outdoor Adventure Tourism Opportunities 00:41:56 Public Service Commission Update 01:21:37, 958, all

Summary: The committee meeting began with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, and approval of the prior minutes. Members also observed a moment of reflection for Charlie Kirk and offered condolences to Representative Bobby McCool on the death of his mother. Representative Fugate then made announcements about the ongoing ATV/UTV trail system, including an October 21 opening in Letcher County and an October 2 groundbreaking in Knott County, and staff was asked to circulate the dates to members. The main agenda item was Senate Bill 137, presented by Senator Cassie Chambers Armstrong with testimony from George Ecklan of the Coalition of the Homeless and Wesley Bryant, a flood survivor and Eastern Kentucky resident. The bill would prohibit utility disconnections for non-payment during dangerous weather and emergencies, including extreme cold, excessive heat, and declared natural disasters. Supporters said the measure is narrow, does not forgive past-due balances or change reconnection policies, and is intended to protect vulnerable residents, reduce risks to first responders, and create a minimum statewide standard amid a patchwork of utility policies. They cited weather thresholds and historical examples of extreme weather and disaster declarations in Kentucky. Testimony emphasized the human impact of shutoffs, especially for low-income households, older adults, and families facing illness or disaster recovery. Bryant described experiences with people shivering without heat or struggling to keep children cool when power was cut off, calling electricity a lifeline rather than a luxury. Representative Gu raised concerns that utility bills have become unaffordable due to broader policy and rate issues, argued that some customers may not pay if shutoffs are prohibited, and questioned whether the bill was needed. Senator Chambers Armstrong responded that the proposal is limited to non-payment shutoffs during short periods of dangerous conditions and is meant to keep people safe during emergencies. No vote or final action on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The results of the race were confirmed.
• The results of the race were confirmed.
• The results of the race were confirmed.
• The results of the race were confirmed.
• The results of the race were confirmed.

Keywords: Consideration of HB 27 00:04:20 Presentation by Secretary of State 00:10:44 Presentation by Karen Sellers and Jason Denny 00:35:56 Consideration of HB 45 00:55:36, 958, all

Summary: The committee first handled House Bill 27, which would remove the prohibition on political yard signs in planned communities statewide while still allowing communities to regulate size, placement, and duration. The sponsor said the 2023 Planned Communities Act created an unintended consequence by treating similar homeowners differently based on grandfathering dates, and a legal explanation was offered that the bill would clarify the law and avoid constitutional problems. After discussion, the committee voted 15-0 to pass the bill with favorable expression. The next item was an update from the Secretary of State on the 2024 election and implementation of House Bill 53, which created prompt post-election audits. He said the audits were carried out smoothly, most found no discrepancies, and no election winners changed, though he recommended adding a specific timeline to the law. He also discussed voter-roll maintenance, saying Kentucky has removed more than 440,000 ineligible voters since 2020, and argued that federal law and limited access to federal databases remain the main obstacles to faster cleanup. Members asked about the possibility of improper removals, double voting across states, and how provisional voting works. The Secretary said anyone improperly removed can reregister, that any double-voting abuse is likely marginal but still unacceptable, and that provisional ballots are available when eligibility is in doubt and can be reviewed by the county board of elections. He also urged Congress to modernize the 1993 federal voter-registration law, improve access to death and citizenship data, and create a central interstate information-sharing system for election officials.

Transcript Highlights:

• on any given race."
• on any given race."
• on any given race."
• on any given race."
• any given race."

Bills: SB2004, SB2039, SB2042, SB2043, SB2044, SB2132

Keywords: outdoor advertising, billboards, public safety, penalties, community pollution, elections, campaign finance, business entities, political activity, regulation, liability, non-natural persons, insurance, captives, examination, regulations, policyholders, dormant captive, tax exemption, Hawaii revised statutes

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee opened its first hearing of the year with remarks from Chair Jared Kohole outlining hearing procedures, a two-minute testimony limit, rules for remote testimony and decorum, and a revised testimony-publication pilot that keeps 96-hour notice but returns to a standard 24-hour testimony deadline. He then moved through the agenda, beginning with SB 2004 on outdoor advertising, which would increase penalties for violations of billboard and outdoor advertising laws. Testimony on that measure was limited; Henry Curtis of Life of the Land was first up, and written support was noted from Hawaiian Electric and the Outdoor Circle. The committee then heard SB 2039 on election campaign finance, which would prohibit certain business entities from engaging in campaign finance activities. The Attorney General’s office offered comments and did not take a formal position at the hearing. Several proponents testified in support, including Josh Frost, Tom Moore of the Center for American Progress, Hapa/Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, and Common Cause Hawaiʻi, all arguing the bill would curb corporate and dark-money influence and return elections to the people. Moore distinguished between regulating corporate “rights” and limiting corporate “powers,” and said the state can redefine the powers it grants corporations. In questions, Senator McKelvey asked whether the bill could be expanded to include unions; the Attorney General said he would need to get back with legal analysis, while Moore said his preferred approach would include all entities and that leaving out nonprofits or unions would create problems. Members also discussed whether the bill would affect PACs, and Moore explained that the proposal would prohibit corporate and dark-money flows into PACs while leaving individual political giving and existing political committees in place. The committee then moved on to the next measure. SB 2042, relating to insurance, was heard next. The bill would reduce the unimpaired minimum capital and surplus required of class 4 sponsored captive insurance companies under certain circumstances. The DCCA Insurance Division said it stood on its written testimony, and the Hawaii Captive Insurance Council testified in support, describing the change as a narrow, risk-based adjustment that would not affect the commissioner’s authority where actual risk resides and would help keep Hawaii competitive. The committee noted additional written support and proceeded without a vote or final action in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> deposit wagering and races in Minnesota. deposit wagering and races in Minnesota.
• </c> when purses go up or or that the racing when purses go up or or that the racing industry<01:22:12.960
• Minnesota racing continue in Minnesota.
• We hope that racing brings to Minnesota.
• We look forward for the racing industry.

Bills: HF4912, HF4664

Keywords: electronic pull-tabs, pull-tabs, tipboards, gambling tax, Minnesota Racing Commission, Thoroughbred, horse racing, Minnesota-bred horses, breeders, owners, racing purses, industry subsidy, gambling revenue dedication, problem gambling, compulsive gambling treatment, general fund appropriation, state affiliate National Council on Problem Gambling, racing incentives, equine industry, public officers

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a recount for a local race. It was a pick 5 with eight candidates, with 20 teams.
• We had a recount for a local race. It was a pick 5 with eight candidates, with 20 teams.
• We had a recount for a local race. It was a pick 5 with eight candidates, with 20 teams.
• We had a recount for a local race. It was a pick 5 with eight candidates, with 20 teams.
• We had a recount for a local race. It was a pick 5 with eight candidates, with 20 teams.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, for example, no race and gender data, or what's missing?
• Race and gender data missing.
• This is—but the race, the race and Hispanic origin that you do collect on state administrative data,
• And we talked about race and ethnicity.
• An important implication for race and ethnicity is that while the last set of race and ethnicity standards

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• House races through primaries.
• But I had many other candidates that were running, and we had a race.
• But I've seen other races where there are many people involved in a race.
• Competitive races ballooned to over $1 million in California.
• In 2024, that cost was $40,000 for a competitive race, and the most expensive race was $248,000.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• House races through primaries.
• But I had many other candidates that were running, and we had a race.
• But I've seen other races where there are many people involved in a race.
• Competitive races ballooned to over $1 million in California.
• In 2024, that cost was $40,000 for a competitive race, and the most expensive race was $248,000.

Bills: H5001

Keywords: election day registration, voter registration, proof of residency, provisional ballot, party affiliation

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, an act to implement all-party state primaries. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 process and said the hearing was part of the Legislature’s review before any measure could advance toward the 2026 ballot. The hearing format included subject-matter experts, proponents, opponents, and public testimony, though this excerpt mainly covers the expert and proponent panels. The first expert, Northeastern University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos, described top-two primaries used in states such as California, Washington, Alaska, Louisiana, and Nebraska, and said the research shows only modest or mixed effects. He argued that top-two systems do not reliably reduce polarization, can weaken party gatekeeping, may increase campaign spending and incumbent advantages, and can lead to undervoting when voters do not see a preferred candidate on the ballot. In response to questions, he said turnout effects are mixed and not substantially higher overall. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures then outlined different primary systems, including closed, open, top-two/top-four, nonpartisan, all-comers, and blanket primaries, and reviewed Supreme Court cases holding blanket primaries unconstitutional while upholding Washington’s top-two system. She also noted that changing primary systems would require significant voter education and administrative preparation. The proponent panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has too many uncontested elections, low primary participation, and too little accountability, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in a higher-turnout general election. Supporters said the proposal is tailored to Massachusetts, would keep party endorsements visible on the ballot, and could broaden competition, improve representation, and help independent and minor-party candidates. Jim Henderson, coalition counsel, said the bill is narrowly focused on state-level primaries and was drafted to fit Article 48 requirements. Other proponents, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, echoed that the current system overrepresents a small partisan electorate and that the reform would shift power to voters. Committee members pressed the proponents on turnout evidence, party endorsements, ballot access, the role of fusion-style cross-endorsements, the effect on polarization, and whether the change would actually improve representation or simply move party influence to an earlier stage. No votes or final committee action were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• House races through primaries.
• But I had many other candidates that were running, and we had a race.
• But I've seen other races where there are many people involved in a race.
• Competitive races ballooned to over $1 million in California.
• In 2024, that cost was $40,000 for a competitive race, and the most expensive race was $248,000.

Bills: H5001

Keywords: election day registration, voter registration, proof of residency, provisional ballot, party affiliation, 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To use race as a tool to...
• Quit relying on race.
• They just made it more difficult to prove if we did it on race.
• red congressional delegation is by looking at race to change up the districts. ...looking at race to
• So, at the core of this is race. And I know people don't like to talk about race.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They want the state of Texas to rectify race-based consideration.
• That they need to rectify the racial makeup of these districts, the race-based.
• Rights Act, they were race neutral, and there was no indication of race bias one way or another.
• There was no race-based, that the Texas Legislature did not pass race-based electoral districts.
• Nation in rejecting race-based decisions, making it a redistricting process.

Bills: SR5, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35

Keywords: redistricting, Senate procedures, public input, Texas Legislature, amendments, Texas Senate, congressional districts, legislative procedures, legislative transparency, Senate rules, public hearings, committee procedures, hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes

Summary: The meeting centered around the discussion of congressional redistricting, where the committee established the procedures to ensure a fair and transparent process. Led by Senator King, the session focused on adopting a resolution that authorized a special committee dedicated to congressional redistricting and allowed for regional hearings to gather public input via videoconferencing. Concerns were raised about ensuring adequate notice for public participation, especially from marginalized communities potentially affected by proposed changes. Disagreements emerged regarding the timeline for regional hearings and how to address the implications of the redistricting process on minority districts. Overall, participants acknowledged the complex nature of redistricting and the importance of engaging constituents in the legislative process.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:06:22.079><c> in</c> races in races in I<01:06:25.440><c> couldn't</c><01:06:25.760><c> tell</c><
• a presidential race or Senate race.
• ,</c> level races, level races, uh<01:07:35.280><c> you</c><01:07:35.720><c> know,</c><01:07:36.720><
• </c><01:07:47.680><c> But</c> representative race at all. Yeah. But representative race at all.
• </c><01:07:58.000><c> So</c> race or senate race. Yep. Yep. So race or senate race. Yep. Yep.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all