Transcript Highlights:

• She said this meets the FAA requirement.
• So that will require them to go back and do some work from 2020 to 2026, and why would we require them
• I don’t know if it requires to go back.
• If it's statutorily required, it's statutorily required, and they've been doing it since they've been
• If it's statutorily required, it's statutorily required, and they've been doing it since they've been

Bills: HR3 , HR80 , HB4 , HB172 , HB189 , HB623 , HB944 , HB1185 , HB1199 , HB1222 , SB105 , SB125 , SB461

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: housing assistance, state-owned property, cost-burdened, state employees, affordable housing, fiscal audit, higher education, public funds, underrepresented minorities, Board of Regents, Louisiana legislation, constitutional convention, Louisiana constitution, electoral process, government structure, delegate elections, airport authority, fire protection, supplemental pay, public safety

Transcript Highlights:

• Because statute requires all allegations of evidence of criminal wrongdoing and does not require that
• It was just a requirement back then. It's 16, 17, 18 years ago.
• If they do, they're required to complete the conflict of interest forms.
• We followed all the statutory requirements carefully and transparently.
• We completed all truth and taxation statutory requirements and adjusted our tax rate as legally required

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Audit Committee

Summary: The committee first heard a follow-up on the Arizona State Board of Chiropractic Examiners special audit. The Auditor General’s contractor reported that the board has made progress on most of the 28 recommendations from the 2024 audit, with 25 in process and three not yet implemented. Remaining concerns included complaint investigations not being resolved within 180 days, continued open meeting law compliance problems, and failure to consult the Attorney General’s open meeting law experts. The follow-up also identified new issues with posting disciplinary/non-disciplinary actions and maintaining a complete public records request log. Board staff said they had adopted new complaint timelines, subpoena limits, conflict-of-interest procedures, public meeting guidance, training, and a new licensing platform, and they described efforts to professionalize investigations and improve transparency. Members pressed the board on open meeting violations, complaint backlogs, lobbying activity, and the resignation of the board chair, while the executive director said the audit findings were being treated as a roadmap for reform. The committee then received the January 2026 Arizona school district financial risk analysis. The Auditor General’s office said the number of highest-risk districts rose from two to nine, and districts approaching highest risk increased from seven to nine. The report highlighted common risk factors such as declining student counts, budget reserve problems, use of capital funds for operations, and weakening general fund positions. Tucson Unified was used as an example of a highest-risk district, with declining enrollment, reserve declines, and capital funds redirected to operations; Scottsdale Unified was cited as approaching highest risk. The office explained its web-based dashboard, district action plans, and ongoing outreach to affected districts. Sierra Vista Unified School District superintendent Terry Romo then presented the district’s response to its financial risk designation. She said she inherited the problems, quickly developed an action plan, and is working to stabilize enrollment, reduce staffing through attrition, close an elementary school, freeze nonessential spending, tighten purchase controls, and renegotiate or cancel high-cost contracts. She also said the district is redirecting DAA funds, considering sale or lease of property, and improving communication with families through letters, videos, and enrollment outreach. Committee members questioned the district about declining enrollment, school safety, academic performance, and the pace of corrective action, while Romo emphasized that the district is trying to protect both students and finances and avoid returning to the high-risk list.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> motorsports racing fuel and requires motorsports racing fuel and requires specific specific specific
• ><c> the</c><00:24:21.279><c> annual</c> provision that requires the annual provision that requires the
• </c><00:24:26.080><c> retail</c> supply equipment and requires retail supply equipment and requires retail
• :19.600><c> entertainment</c><00:25:20.159><c> to</c> requires a place of entertainment to requires a
• </c><00:25:45.279><c> the</c> provision which requires the provision which requires the commissioner<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have chain-of-custody requirements for vote-by-mail.
• Third, we would require the timely counting of ballots within...
• AB 25 requires proof of verification of citizenship. It's not a hardship.
• But just requiring an ID is not racist.
• unrealistic service requirements, with only 291,000 people.

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda of elections-related bills. It first approved three consent items: AB 808, AB 1029, and AB 1072. The committee then took up AB 1249, which would require non-Voter’s Choice Act counties to offer at least one Saturday early-voting location before statewide elections and allow in-person return of vote-by-mail ballots at designated county offices or satellite locations. Supporters said it would expand access for working voters and those with transportation barriers; some members raised concerns about ballot verification and added workload for rural counties. The bill passed the committee on a divided vote and was placed on call for absent members. The committee next considered AB 25, a voter ID and election integrity measure that would require citizenship verification, government ID for voting, tighter voter-roll audits, and a 72-hour ballot-counting deadline. The author and supporters argued it would restore public trust and improve election integrity, while opponents from the League of Women Voters, ACLU California Action, labor groups, disability advocates, and others said it would restrict access, burden vulnerable voters, and amount to voter suppression. After extensive debate, the committee voted the bill out on a narrow split and kept it on call. Members also approved AB 1164, which clarifies when voters are entitled to a replacement ballot and updates the Voter Bill of Rights language; AB 1441, which would create an independent citizens redistricting commission in Merced County despite opposition from the county board over cost and local control; and AB 16, which would clarify county election officials’ authority to begin processing vote-by-mail ballots earlier and clean up outdated code. The committee also heard AB 1411, which would require non-VCA counties to prepare voter education and outreach plans and use a Secretary of State template, with the sponsor saying it would improve voter information statewide.

Transcript Highlights:

• Tommy's ISP required daily checking of this equipment by residential staff.
• Requiring ongoing continuing education requirements for providers will also help to keep our population
• S. 102 and an act requiring universal changing stations in public buildings.
• The DD Act requires D.D.... ...and their safety. The DD Act requires D.D.
• of the bill. ...according to the least restrictive requirement of the bill.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities held a hybrid hearing focused largely on DDS-related bills, with chairs Kennedy and Livingstone outlining strict time limits, accessibility procedures, and a 5 p.m. stop to preserve ASL and CART services. The committee heard testimony on several measures, including a bill from Sen. Mike Moore to create a centralized electronic education records system for students in out-of-home placements, which supporters said would improve communication, preserve IEP continuity, and reduce missed services. Paul DePaulo also testified in support, describing the educational and justice-system harms that can follow when foster youth do not receive coordinated records and supports. A major portion of the hearing centered on H. 242/S. 149, a bill to enhance standards of care for people with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Rep. Garballey and many advocates, parents, clinicians, and disability leaders supported the bill, saying it would require provider training, statewide standards, and better emergency department practices to reduce misdiagnosis, trauma, and unnecessary ER boarding. Testimony described sensory and communication barriers in medical settings, lack of provider training, and the need for continuing education and license-related requirements. Related testimony also supported H. 213/S. 111, which would improve access to behavioral health services for children involved with state agencies by requiring better discharge planning, coordination with hospitals and agencies, and more appropriate post-hospital placements. The committee also heard strong support for H. 256/S. 102, requiring universal changing stations in public buildings, from parents, advocates, and the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council. Witnesses said current restroom accommodations often force unsafe or undignified changes on floors, in cars, or in inaccessible spaces, and argued the cost of adding changing stations to new or renovated buildings would be modest compared with the benefits to dignity, safety, and community access. Another major topic was H. 261/S. 155 on supported decision-making agreements for certain adults, which supporters described as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship that preserves autonomy while providing trusted support. Finally, testimony on Tommy’s bill (S. 168/H. 282) described a preventable death after a hospital discharge and urged clearer communication and training requirements for residential staff handling life-sustaining equipment; the bill was presented as a safeguard for people with disabilities relying on such equipment.

Transcript Highlights:

• are completed within the required time frame.
• are completed within the required time frame.
• Importantly, That defensible space requirements are completed within the required time frame.
• But this is creating something new in Civil Code for requirement.
• is legally required before a distribution can occur.

Committee: House Judiciary

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Requiring local governments to develop a child care plan is crucial.
• In our land use section, when we require public and neighborhood-serving services, we require the consideration
• We require public and neighborhood-serving uses.
• We require the consideration of pharmacies and grocery stores.
• Requirements vary by county.

Summary: The committee heard a series of child and family services bills, with testimony from authors, county officials, advocates, and members of the public. AB 2083 would authorize a regional child care special district for Marina Valley and Paris; there was no public opposition, but a vice chair raised concerns about lack of outreach to Riverside County and possible added fees for residents. The bill was held pending quorum and later noted as enjoying a due pass recommendation, though no final roll was taken in the excerpt. AB 1579, which expands the Children’s Crisis Continuum Pilot Program to allow additional CDSS-approved residential models, drew strong support from San Francisco County, Seneca Family of Agencies, and several counties and advocacy groups, who argued the current crisis residential model is financially and operationally unworkable and leaves youth in hospitals or emergency departments. The Youth Law Center and allied organizations opposed the bill, saying it departs from the original small, community-based crisis model and could lead to more institutional care. The committee passed the bill 6-0 to Appropriations. AB 1628 would extend California’s safe surrender window for newborns from 72 hours to 30 days. The author and fire service supporters said the change would better reflect postpartum recovery and help prevent unsafe abandonment; there was no opposition, and the bill passed 6-0. AB 1634, dealing with the “Kids” specialty license plate program, sought to raise plate fees and revise distribution formulas to generate more revenue for child safety and child care programs. Supporters said the update would modernize outdated 1992 pricing and expand county access, while a committee member objected that the bill would reallocate funds away from state agencies and private nonprofits; the bill was moved on a 5-0 vote with some members not voting. AB 1643 would streamline child support enrollment by having courts transmit support orders directly to child support agencies unless a custodial parent opts out. Supporters said automatic enrollment would reduce poverty and remove paperwork barriers, while opponents warned it could undermine parent choice and create problems for families with sensitive circumstances. The committee passed the bill 6-0. AB 1708 would require regions receiving HHAP homelessness funds to more meaningfully engage smaller cities; many city officials supported it as a way to include jurisdictions that are doing local homelessness work, while Los Angeles’ mayor’s office opposed it. The bill passed 5-0. AB 2395 would standardize access to the child support debt reduction program; supporters described it as a way to help low-income obligors escape uncollectible government-owed debt, while receiving parents and child support agencies warned it could reduce money owed to families and needs more work. The bill passed 4-0. The committee then began AB 1914, which would require local governments to plan for child care in general plans; supporters framed child care as essential infrastructure, while at least one member raised concerns about state mandates on local jurisdictions, and the excerpt ends before any vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's legally required, I believe, as do others.
• Every new reporting requirement, training mandate, database implementation, or policy directive requires
• These investigations require highly trained staff and considerable amount of time.
• Every new reporting requirement, training mandate, database implementation, or policy directive requires
• local staff time, And while each individual requirement may see policy directive requires local staff

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate hearing examined whether California’s pesticide program is meeting its public-protection goals, with opening remarks from committee chairs emphasizing the state’s large pesticide use, the need to transition toward sustainable pest management, and ongoing oversight including a state audit of DPR and county agricultural commissioner enforcement. The hearing also referenced recent concerns in Ladera Ranch about childhood cancer cases and the need for transparent investigation and community access to information. Panel one focused on human health and the regulatory framework. Dr. Anna Maria Mora described long-running CHAMACOS research showing widespread pesticide exposure in farmworker families, links to neurodevelopmental, respiratory, liver, and cardiometabolic harms, and greater impacts on children facing social adversity. She urged biomonitoring, better linkage of exposure data to health outcomes, regulation of chemical classes and mixtures, stronger buffers around homes and schools, and more community-based research. Professor Tim Malloy explained California’s two-tier system of DPR registration and county permitting, said the state’s program is strong but falls short on cumulative exposure analysis and alternatives assessment, and argued that DPR and counties need better tools, training, and funding to implement legally required protections. Committee members asked about biomonitoring, class-based regulation, and how to make pesticide data more usable for the public. Panel two brought testimony from environmental justice and farmworker advocates, who argued that California remains behind other jurisdictions by allowing highly hazardous pesticides, including 1,3-dichloropropene and paraquat, and by relying on a funding structure tied to pesticide sales. Witnesses said DPR often moves too slowly on reevaluations, rarely assesses combined exposures, and does not adequately account for health, environmental, and social costs or conflicts of interest involving pest control advisors. They also described inconsistent county-level implementation, weak outreach, and confusion over whether DPR or county agricultural commissioners are responsible for enforcement, and urged faster phaseouts, tiered fees, stronger local protections, and clearer accountability. Panel three represented regulated entities and agricultural stakeholders, who supported the goals of safer pest management but stressed that California’s registration process must be more predictable, transparent, and timely. They said AB 2113’s staffing and timeline reforms were important, but backlog and delays still hinder access to newer, lower-risk products and can hurt both consumer and agricultural uses. Agricultural witnesses also emphasized the need to invest more in pest prevention, invasive species detection, extension support, farmer training, and practical incentives for sustainable pest management. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members pressing witnesses on timelines, implementation, funding, and the division of responsibility between DPR and county agencies.

Transcript Highlights:

• It does not establish or require any new incentives.
• It does not establish or require any new incentives.
• and requires a heightened showing to exceed it.
• This isn't require any certain acceptance, right?
• This bill would require that same team to send a report to the Um, this bill would require that same

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:14:41.760><c> the</c><00:14:42.000><c> Navy</c> included a requirement that the Navy included a requirement
• So, something like the groundwater modeling that was required under the 2015 AOC, that's still required
• ><c> 2023</c> &gt;&gt; that's still required under the 2023 &gt;&gt; that's still required under the
• </c> requires us to to approve it, per se. requires us to to approve it, per se.
• </c><01:10:35.120><c> the</c> we we've been we've been requiring the we we've been we've been requiring

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Special Committee on Red Hill received an update from the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 on regulatory oversight of the Red Hill facility, the Navy drinking water system, and ongoing environmental investigation and cleanup. The agencies reviewed the authorities governing the work, including DOH’s emergency orders, EPA’s 2023 administrative consent order, and the older 2015 agreement, and explained that the newer framework is being used for most current oversight because it includes closure, remediation, drinking water protections, and stronger community engagement requirements, even though some requirements overlap. EPA and DOH reported major milestones and current work. Defueling was completed in March 2024, with about 104 million gallons removed, and the agencies said this eliminated the risk of another catastrophic release. They described the current tank-closure phase, expected to finish in July 2029, along with site assessment, site investigation, remediation, and long-term monitoring that may continue through at least 2040. They also summarized drinking water actions: emergency response flushing and sampling after the 2021 spill, lifting of the public health advisory in 2022, completion of extended drinking water monitoring in 2025, and ongoing system improvements such as repairs, flushing plans, valve work, complaint-response protocols, and upgrades to storage tanks and pumps. Members asked several questions about monitoring results, the meaning of TPH, the status of the 2015 agreement, and the Navy’s groundwater model. EPA said its sampling and the Navy’s results were in alignment during extended monitoring, and that it plans to issue a summary report covering the full response period. On the groundwater model, EPA and DOH said they have not yet approved it for decision-making, are reviewing it iteratively with outside experts and University of Hawaii data, and may approve it for specific uses in the future. DOH said its latest comment letter states the model cannot yet be used for decision-making purposes, and noted that UH’s separate modeling work is contingent on funding and may not be completed until next spring. The agencies also said they continue community outreach through open houses, webinars, neighborhood boards, legislative hearings, and fuel tank advisory committee meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also codifies existing background check requirements that are in rule and adds a requirement
• Requiring the committee to be subject to open meetings requirements.
• It's the HP would codify existing background check requirements and add a requirement for first aid and
• Yeah, so it's required right there.
• It doesn't require consult.

Bills: HB 265 , HB25

Committee: House Public Health

Keywords: youth camp, safety regulations, advisory committee, child welfare, health standards, summer camp, camp safety, child abuse reporting, child neglect, mandatory reporting, background check, criminal history check, sex offender registry, CPR training, first aid, public health, child protection, camp operator, camp counselor, Health and Safety Code

Transcript Highlights:

• I will do all that my nation requires of me.
• After that, there's a requirement that a judge sign off.
• And then there's also requirements that doctors sign off.
• Why are we removing that requirement?
• The notices are required.

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, opened with prayer, and heard several announcements and recognitions, including remarks from the new Democratic caucus leader, Senator Berman, who emphasized bipartisan work on education, health care, the environment, and family issues. The chamber also recognized military leaders, an intern, and guests connected to later bills. No committee reports or executive messages were on the desk at the start of the session. The Senate then took up a series of bills, many of them with House companion substitutions and technical amendments. Major measures included the Pam Rock Act on dangerous dogs, which passed 36-0; a local government land regulation bill that was amended after questions about quasi-judicial hearings, impact fees, and county costs, then passed 26-8; a vessels/boating bill that incorporated related legislation and passed 35-0; a blood clot screening and treatment bill creating the Emily Adkins Family Protection Act, which passed 36-0; a fleeing or eluding law enforcement bill, amended to remove vehicle impoundment in the House version, which passed 36-0; a concealed carry/firearms bill for certain law enforcement and military personnel, which passed 33-3; and a timeshare management bill, which passed 36-0. The chamber also passed a disability history and awareness instruction bill, the Evan B. Hartzell Act, after extensive debate about language and the meaning of disability versus “unique abilities”; it received 35 co-sponsors and passed 35-0. Other bills passed included manufacturing and related fee legislation, public education on background screening requirements, utility service restrictions, educational opportunities for military children, Medicaid oversight, health facilities authorities, and veteran and spouse nursing home beds, most by unanimous or near-unanimous votes. Several bills were temporarily postponed, including measures on human trafficking, waste management, Bright Futures, mammogram coverage, Parkinson’s disease, and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• No state appropriation is required. This bill does not require new state spending.
• The state of Ohio requires—requires, let me say that one more time—requires their educators and their
• We are concerned about requiring the State Board of Education to adopt standards requiring instruction
• Representative Gutierrez: Yes, there is no requirement. There is no requirement of notification.
• It does supermajority requirements or unanimous requirements.

Committee: House House Education Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2076, which would create a program and fund within ADE, in consultation with AZPOST, to reimburse eligible schools and employees for approved training, certification, and school safety equipment, and would allow schools to adopt policies permitting certain employees to carry concealed firearms on campus if they meet training, notification, and confidentiality requirements. The sponsor, Rep. Bliss, framed the bill as an optional, fiscally responsible medical-response measure focused on bleeding control and emergency preparedness, not a mandate to arm schools. Supporters said the bill adds guardrails, expands access to training, and could help staff respond in emergencies. Opponents, including Giffords, Arizona for Gun Safety, and the Arizona Education Association, argued it would normalize firearms in classrooms, create confidentiality and law-enforcement concerns, expose students and staff to new risks, and divert attention from prevention, mental health, and other school safety investments. After debate, the committee voted 6-5-1 to give HB 2076 a do-pass recommendation. The committee then took up House Bill 2830, which directs the State Board of Education to adopt science standards requiring instruction on fetal and prenatal development and specifies that the content is not sex education. Supporters, including the sponsor, a school board president, and a biology teacher, said the bill is about age-appropriate, medically accurate science, parental rights, and clear statewide guidance. Opponents, including the AEA and Reproductive Freedom for All, said it fragments science instruction, politicizes the curriculum, and omits the broader reproductive and public health context students need. Members debated whether fetal development can be taught without discussing reproduction, and whether the bill is an education measure or an anti-abortion effort. The committee approved HB 2830 on an 8-4 vote. The transcript also included discussion of House Bill 2093, which would repeal required mental health instruction and social-emotional learning in schools; supporters argued it restores parental control and refocuses schools on academics, while opponents said school-based mental health education saves lives and helps students who may not have support at home.

Transcript Highlights:

• That means requiring a certification.
• That means requiring a certification.
• requiring at least two hours of suicide prevention training each year, but only 13 states require it.
• Requiring opioid use disorder education.
• Over 40 states already require it.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with the chairs emphasizing time limits, written testimony, and grouping similar measures together. Early testimony focused on opioid use disorder education in schools (S.382), with Senator Keenan arguing that students should be taught about the risks of substance use disorder and naloxone use as part of health curricula. Representative DeCost also briefly introduced H.551, a narrow bill concerning parent rights for children in third grade and younger. Several bills were then closed without testimony, including measures on type 1 diabetes informational materials and other diabetes-related proposals. A major portion of the hearing centered on school health and emergency response bills. Supporters of H.652/S.342 on diabetes management in schools described inconsistent district practices and urged clearer standards so students can receive care in classrooms rather than being sent out of instruction. Bills on epinephrine access and seizure disorders drew extensive testimony: advocates for stock epinephrine in schools argued that unassigned epinephrine can save lives and should be funded in a cost-neutral way, while a pediatrician opposed one version as an unfunded mandate. For seizure-safe schools (S.422/H.635), students, parents, educators, and advocates described missed or delayed responses to seizures, stigma, and the need for staff training, seizure action plans, and emergency medication protocols. A separate bill, H.645, allowing anti-seizure medication on school buses, was supported by a parent and student who said current law forces costly and restrictive transportation arrangements. The committee also heard testimony on youth skin health bills (S.334/H.600/H.619), which would let students carry and apply sunscreen at school and camp without a physician’s note. Supporters from melanoma prevention, dermatology, and industry groups said the bills would remove unnecessary barriers and promote sun-safe habits, while one witness cautioned about drafting details and unintended consequences. The hearing then moved to CPR/AED education for graduation (S.456), where Senator Tarr, a student advocate, and the Red Cross all supported requiring hands-on CPR certification for high school students. Finally, the committee took testimony on healthy school lunches (H.539/S.401): supporters from the Healthy School Lunch Coalition and school food directors backed stronger nutrition standards and a standing advisory council, while Consumer Brands Association witnesses opposed the bill as too vague and potentially disruptive. A nutrition scientist also warned about unintended restrictions on medically necessary or innovative foods. The chairs closed the hearing on the healthy lunch bills and then opened testimony on universal school meals for virtual schools (H.700), with Superintendent Patrick Latuka supporting access for students in Commonwealth virtual schools who currently receive no meal support.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this doesn't require every parish to vote on it.
• And this doesn't require every parish to vote on it.
• to the grade required in wells.
• One thing I do want to reiterate, though, what is required by law is a thing. required by law is a 30
• That's the federal requirement.

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Adding the requirement, in addition to already requiring that the owner be arrested or charged with a
• ><c> addition</c><00:25:35.919><c> to</c> Adding the requirement in addition to Adding the requirement
• So there, this requires that certain forms be filed electronically. I see.
• /c><01:07:16.559><c> elections</c><01:07:16.960><c> to</c> requires the office of elections to requires
• Elections</c><01:07:21.359><c> to</c> Require the Office of Elections to Require the Office of Elections

Bills: SB2444 , SB2446 , SB2450 , SB2453 , SB2461 , SB2457 , SB2462 , SB2313 , SB2528 , SB2532 , SB2571 , SB2678 , SB2529

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: real property, exemption, attachment, execution, consumer protection, financial security, inflation adjustment, head of family, senior citizens, Intermediate Court of Appeals, judges, Hawaii judiciary, court membership, legal system, presidential preference primary, elections, political parties, Hawaii voting, 2028 election, voting

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 2444 would raise the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution, which the Attorney General said could create vague retroactivity language and litigation risk; the committee noted the exemption had last been adjusted around 1978. SB 2446 would add a seventh associate judge to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Judiciary staff testified in opposition, saying recent internal restructuring and a pending vacancy had improved output and that it would be prudent to wait and see the effect before adding another judge. The Public Defender supported the goal of faster appellate resolution but said it would defer to the court’s assessment and had no objection to revisiting the issue later. The committee also discussed current appellate timelines, with staff saying at least 225 days is built into the process before a case reaches a merit panel, and that a two-year delay from panel assignment was realistic under the current structure. The committee then heard SB 2450, which would establish a presidential preference primary for the 2028 cycle. The Chief Election Officer said the election would cost about $4 million, less if combined with the regular primary. Several opponents argued the bill would add bureaucracy, duplicate or undermine party-run processes, and waste taxpayer money; one speaker estimated the total cost could be closer to $6 million when county costs are included. Supporters and committee members discussed that the measure would not require parties to use the results and that Hawaii remains one of the few states still using caucuses. The committee also asked whether counties could staff the election and whether the results would be useful given Hawaii’s current primary timing. SB 2453 would require the Office of Elections to include a notice with each ballot that a digital and printed voter information guide is available, with the notice in 32-point font as a separate insert. The Chief Election Officer said the insert would cost about $90,000 and asked for an effective date of January 1, 2027 because mailing preparations for the primary would already be underway. The Disability and Communications Access Board, League of Women Voters, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, and others supported the bill. The committee also began hearing SB 2461, which would have the Office of Elections prepare a questionnaire for candidates and publish responses online and in the voter guide; the Chief Election Officer said the office did not think it should be the agency to shape campaign questions, though he said it could work if the questions were specified in statute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2457, which would require a criminal conviction before seized property could be forfeited. The Attorney General and Honolulu Police Department opposed the bill, arguing it would prolong cases, increase storage costs, and make forfeiture less effective against crime, especially where owners flee, die, or hide assets through shell companies. The Public Defender strongly supported the measure, saying forfeiture should be tied to convictions and that people challenging forfeiture often lack counsel. The Honolulu Prosecutor also opposed the bill, but said it supported transparency, due process, and even a right to counsel; it argued conviction-only forfeiture would fail in cases involving fugitives, deceased suspects, or hidden ownership structures. The committee questioned what would happen to property if an owner could not be found, and the prosecutor said the outcome would depend on the type of property and could involve abandonment or interpleader proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• As I previously stated, promote requires two things. It requires more than speech.
• This does not require the due process that is required at the level of the court system when you're taking
• This does not require the due process that is required at the level of the court system when you're taking
• The amendment only requires a summary of the basis of designation.
• It adds section 4 from SB 1234 that requires manufactured housing.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, quorum calls, and introductory remarks, including recognition of former Representative Ardian Zika and law enforcement officer of the day Representative Chuck Brannan. Members also unveiled a portrait of Speaker Daniel Perez, with extended remarks praising his leadership and the institution of the House. The Speaker then explained the process for taking up returning messages from the Senate, noting that the House would consider Senate amendments to bills already passed by both chambers. The House first concurred in Senate amendments and passed CS/CS/HB 1503 on computer science education and certification, which adds computer science and artificial intelligence content to high school instruction and creates a teacher certification program, with implementation delayed to give the Department of Education time to develop curriculum. The chamber then considered CS/CS/HB 1085 on local government cybersecurity, adopting a House amendment to allow local governments to buy into the cyber grant program whether or not they receive a grant, add a five-year sunset, and keep the program under the Florida Digital Service rather than a university. The House concurred in the Senate amendment and passed the bill 104-1. Members also refused to concur in Senate amendments to CS/HB 351 on concurrent legislative jurisdiction over military installations and HB 6011 on reporting gifts or honoraria, sending both bills back to the Senate. The most extensive debate centered on CS/CS/HB 1471, which would create a process for designating domestic terrorist organizations and related restrictions. Supporters said the Senate amendment clarified the definition of “promote,” refined notice and timeline requirements, and aligned the bill with federal-style procedures; opponents argued it lacked due process, could chill speech, and gave the governor and cabinet unprecedented power without adequate evidentiary standards or judicial review. Members also debated a related public records bill, CS/CS/HB 1473, which would exempt certain records tied to the designation process; critics said the exemption would further reduce transparency and due process. Despite objections, the House adopted the amendments and passed HB 1471 by 80-25, while the public records measure was taken up as a technical companion to align with the newly amended bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> requirement sunset. Thank you, Mr. requirement sunset. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair. Chair.
• HR1 which requires HR1 which requires significant<00:20:30.880><c> amount</c><00:20:31.280><c> of</c>
• </c> requirements in that bill. requirements in that bill.
• Um, it is already required. &gt;&gt; Thank you. Um, it is already required.
• </c> there's a process that is required. there's a process that is required. there's<01:36:08.880><c>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> capping the maximum amount of required capping the maximum amount of required parking<00:04:08.959
• </c> with exceptions for ADA uh requirements. with exceptions for ADA uh requirements.
• c><00:04:26.960><c> local</c> streamlines approval by requiring local streamlines approval by requiring
• </c> government thinks should be required. government thinks should be required.
• </c> infrastructure, parking uh requirements. infrastructure, parking uh requirements.

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Amends eligibility requirements. Amends eligibility requirements.
• </c><00:27:28.960><c> or</c><00:27:29.279><c> requirements</c> uh 21H requirements or requirements uh
• required unit.
• </c> occupant required unit. occupant required unit.
• . requirements. requirements.

Bills: HB1604 , HB1713 , HB1722 , HB2270 , HB2401 , HB2515 , HB1979 , HB1593 , HB1743 , HB2122 , HB1756 , HB1837 , HB1729

Committee: House Housing

Keywords: agriculture, housing, workforce, land use, zoning, public-private partnerships, tax credit, school impact fees, impact fee exemption, school facilities authority, residential development, housing shortage, affordable housing, infill housing, land dedication, fee in lieu, school construction, developer exactions, fair share contributions, education contribution agreement

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1604, which would create an agricultural workforce housing group within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to address shortages of farmworker housing. The department said it supported the bill’s intent but emphasized that the group’s early work should focus on gathering data and surveying farm operators to assess actual demand, to avoid “mission creep.” Testimony from the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Housing Hawaii’s Future, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce was in support, with one witness suggesting a housing advocacy nonprofit be added to the working group for balance. The committee then discussed HB 1713 on school impact fees, which would clarify exemptions for certain affordable housing projects and exempt new residential developments of fewer than 100 units. The Attorney General’s office said the bill should define “low to moderate income households” because that term is not defined in chapter 302A. HHFDC, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and others supported the measure, arguing it would reduce administrative burden and remove barriers to housing. Members questioned whether the bill should instead repeal the school impact fee entirely; supporters said they also favored full repeal but viewed this bill as a more feasible step. The School Facilities Authority also explained that about $28 million in school impact fees had been collected across four districts and none had yet been spent, and discussed how recent nexus requirements limit how the funds can be used. HB 1722, relating to residential condominiums, drew extensive testimony and questioning. HCDA supported the bill and explained that it amends the 99-year leasehold pilot program created by Act 97 of 2023 by reducing owner-occupancy restrictions from 100% of units to 60%, allowing some rental or subleasing flexibility for the owner-occupied units, and permitting up to 40% of units to be sold to qualified residents after being on the market for more than 60 days. HCDA said the original restrictions, combined with rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and competition from nearby projects, made the pilot project difficult to market and finance; it said the changes are needed to make the project feasible and competitive. Supporters including AP Hawaii, Kila LLC, and project representatives said the amendments would help make the demonstration project in Kakaʻako viable. Some members raised concerns that the changes could weaken long-term affordability and questioned why certain ownership language was being deleted if rentals would still be restricted. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.