Transcript Highlights:

• This measure restricts the use of restrictive housing in state-operated and state-contracted correctional
• </c><00:11:37.760><c> the</c> Corrections this measure restricts the Corrections this measure restricts
• That is very restrictive housing.
• That is very restrictive housing.
• It's just that their movement is restricted. They're not restricted from legal contact.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard SB 104, which would restrict the use of restrictive housing or solitary confinement in state-operated and state-contracted correctional facilities, with specified exceptions. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation strongly opposed the bill, saying its existing policy already meets or exceeds ACA and National Institute of Corrections standards, and objecting to language they said would give the oversight commission operational decision-making authority. The Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission supported the bill, but also said it was not intended to run operations and described concerns about restrictive housing practices, including CoreCivic’s SHIP program at Saguaro. Supporters included the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Office of the Public Defender, the Disability Rights Center, ACLU Hawaii, Easter Seals Hawaii, and individual testifiers. They argued that Native Hawaiians are disproportionately impacted by incarceration, that solitary confinement is harmful and linked to depression, anxiety, suicidality, and poor reentry outcomes, and that confinement beyond 15 days is widely condemned under international standards. Several testifiers cited suicides and deaths in custody as reasons to codify limits in statute rather than rely on policy alone. The department responded that it already has 24/7 medical care, though not 24/7 mental health coverage at one facility, and explained that it uses four custody categories: disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, protective custody, and placements for inmates seeking separation for safety reasons. Members questioned the department and commission about the SHIP program, whether the bill was based on other states’ laws, and how current policies compare with national standards. The director said the bill was too ambiguous in places and that the department was willing to work with the commission on policy changes, but still opposed the measure as written. The committee took testimony and questions; no vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am here to present Senate Bill 1157, which will create a framework for less restrictive placements
• It does not place restrictions on transitional housing.
• It does not place restrictions on transitional housing.
• But in these less restrictive placements, they essentially are detention facilities, right?
• At the center of that vision are our less restrictive programs, or LRPs.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We aren’t restricting those being put in there.
• So, I believe that restrictive deeds are present in a number of communities, and I think removing restrictions
• However, these restrictions are still in place.
• It eliminates deed restrictions.
• It is not just a deed restriction bill.

Summary: The House first approved the previous day’s journal by roll call vote, 116-0, and then spent a long portion of the morning recognizing visiting students, homeschool groups, professional associations, veterans, and other guests in the gallery. A moment of silence was held in honor of Conrad Ashcraft after a member introduced his grandmother, who was present to testify on a bill related to his death. The chamber also recognized a birthday page, a 90th birthday for a House staff member, and Chiropractic Physicians Day. The main floor debate centered on House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2710, which would create an A-through-F school grading system for public schools and charter schools. Supporters said the bill would give parents a simple, transparent way to understand school performance, while also preserving more detailed underlying data and adding a climate scorecard amendment covering suspension, restraint, and satisfaction measures. The bill sponsor and supporters emphasized that the measure was revised from earlier versions, that the A grade would be based on the top decile rather than a moving target, that literacy and growth measures were important, and that any teacher incentive funding would be handled through appropriations and the teacher retention and recruitment fund rather than direct bonuses. Opponents argued that letter grades would stigmatize schools, destabilize staffing, and oversimplify complex school conditions, especially in districts with high poverty, mobility, or special education populations. Several members questioned the fairness of comparing schools with different funding levels, demographics, and student turnover, and others argued that the bill would not solve concerns about the MAP test or broader school funding. One member objected that the bill applied only to public and charter schools while state dollars are also now going to private-school tuition support. Despite those concerns, the House adopted the amendment offered by the St. Louis member, then adopted the committee substitute and ordered House Bill 2710 perfected and printed. Afterward, the House took up House Committee Substitute for House Bills 2404 and 2172, a measure to remove deed restrictions on unused public school property and create a right of first refusal for public entities, including charter schools. Supporters said the bill would allow vacant school buildings to be reused for education rather than sit unused or be demolished, and could generate revenue for school districts. The bill was advanced after discussion, with members citing examples from St. Louis and other areas where unused buildings could have been repurposed for charter or other educational use.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, it removes the restriction for alcohol sales on the St. Paul campus.
• Lastly, it removes the restriction for alcohol sales on the St. Paul campus.
• Lastly, it removes the restriction for alcohol sales on the St. Paul campus.
• Lastly, it removes the restriction for alcohol sales on the St. Paul campus.
• </c><00:28:10.080><c> wine,</c><00:28:10.320><c> and</c> be restricted to beer, wine, and be restricted

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> uh and and violations of the restrictive uh and and violations of the restrictive procedure<00:49
• </c><00:52:12.960><c> procedures</c> district-based uh restricted procedures district-based uh restricted
• </c> include the use of restrictive include the use of restrictive procedures<00:52:45.880><c> for</c
• </c><00:54:32.720><c> procedure</c> provided in the restrictive procedure provided in the restrictive
• <01:32:17.320><c> procedure</c><01:32:18.320><c> restrictive</c> restrictive procedure restrictive restrictive

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's less restrictive for the board so people can provide these services.
• The use right now is prohibited and restricted, so the use is really what I care about.
• The last thing I’m trying to do is loosen treatment restrictions.
• It’s just that you are saying that you can’t prohibit it and you cannot restrict it.
• I know that we are one of few states that completely restricts this, as my understanding.

Bills: HB946, HB1093, SB26, SB29, SB30, SB195, SB219, SB222, SB255, SB314, SCR2, SCR22

Keywords: healthcare transparency, hospital pricing, consumer protection, collection actions, fines, naturopathic medicine, Louisiana Board of Naturopathic Medicine, licensing, healthcare, prescriptive authority, natural therapies, opioid treatment, regulation, addiction recovery, state law, SB 29, Act 732, coroner, autopsy, child death

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Why would we want to restrict? Why would we want to restrict?
• It's not a statewide bill that's restricted to the TVA area.
• </c><00:22:27.840><c> I</c><00:22:28.080><c> understand</c> restricted to the TVA area.
• I understand restricted to the TVA area.
• This is pretty restrictive, and that's what we're trying to do. We don't want it broad.

Bills: SB176, HB155, HB247, HB311, HB312, HB317, HB466, SB176, HB155, HB247, HB311, HB312, HB317, HB466

Keywords: controlled substances, unlawful distribution, marijuana, violent offense, sentencing guidelines, criminal justice, state holidays, federal holidays, public holidays, legal holidays, office closures, state employees, personal leave, compensatory leave, bank closures, school closures, Mardi Gras, Mobile County, Baldwin County, Rosa Parks Day

Transcript Highlights:

• offenses be subject to work restrictions and no-contact restrictions as a condition of bail.
• It's important to put in place restrictions on non-governmental actors.
• It's important to put in place restrictions on non-governmental actors.
• narrow time, manner, and place restrictions.
• The lawn itself, not necessarily, because that would not be a narrow enough restriction.

Bills: HB63, HB91, HB98, HB108, HB131, HB151, HB161, HB294, HB305, HB310, HB320, HB336, HB622, HB789, HB1040

Keywords: HB63, Louisiana bail, bail bond, surety, failure to appear, FTA, bench warrant, NCIC, National Crime Information Center, criminal procedure, Article 331, defendant registry, surrender of defendant, rule to show cause, law enforcement records, pretrial release, bond forfeiture, disclosure, criminal records, witness protection

Transcript Highlights:

• De-escalation and elopement are defined, first responder, less restrictive intervention.
• It clearly defines key terms like physical escort, timeout, de-escalation, elopement, and less restrictive
• The bill emphasizes de-escalation strategies and less restrictive interventions.
• Allowing the use of restraint and seclusion without restriction puts a band-aid on a major wound.
• These tactics should be significantly restricted since the long-term effects are negative for everyone

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 120, which would revise New Mexico law on restraint and seclusion in public schools. The sponsor and supporters said the bill grew out of a year-long stakeholder working group and would clearly define terms such as chemical, mechanical, prone restraint, seclusion, timeout, de-escalation, and elopement; prohibit chemical, mechanical, and prone restraint; require continuous supervision during seclusion; update school safety plans and staff training; and improve reporting to parents and the state. Testimony from disability advocates, the Public Education Department, educators, and parents emphasized that students with disabilities are disproportionately affected, that clearer rules would help staff act safely, and that better reporting and de-escalation practices would reduce trauma. Committee members asked about the meaning of timeout, chemical restraint, data accuracy, and the juvenile detention facility exception, and the sponsor indicated an amendment on parent-notification timing would not be pursued to avoid delay. The committee then began House Bill 213, which would expand the Optometry Act to allow trained optometrists to perform certain laser procedures, including treatment for capsular clouding and glaucoma-related procedures. The sponsor said the bill adds training, certification, supervised live-procedure requirements, adverse-outcome reporting, and an Optometry Board member qualified to perform the procedures. Supporters argued the measure would improve access to care, especially in rural areas, and that the procedures are already performed safely in other states. Opponents, including ophthalmologists and the New Mexico Medical Board, argued the bill would move surgery outside the Medical Practice Act, lower the standard of care, and create regulatory and malpractice-accountability concerns because optometrists would not be subject to the same oversight and emergency-care authority as physicians. The committee did not reach a final vote on HB 213 before the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• And just for transparency, I also had concern about non-traditional learners and restricting the use
• It's putting restrictions and protections on the schools.
• This, all of the PIPAA is in currently, restrictions and protections on the schools, this, all of the
• And do we anticipate any unintended restrictions for students?
• These animals are already subject to extensive state and federal regulatory restrictions.

Summary: The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard several bills focused on public safety, privacy, animal welfare, and elder protection. AB 634 by Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez would ban the manufacture, distribution, and sale of tianeptine, described as “gas station heroin,” with supporters citing addiction and hospitalization risks and noting the bill had been narrowed to civil penalties and research exceptions. AB 1159 by Senator Addis would expand student data privacy protections to higher education and limit how ed tech companies use student information, including a narrow private right of action; supporters emphasized student privacy and opponents warned it could chill innovation and create litigation risk. AB 1382 by Assemblymember Castillo would prohibit the sale of genetically modified animals for cosmetic purposes, with supporters pointing to animal welfare and shelter overpopulation concerns and opponents seeking a narrower exemption for glowfish and other already regulated aquatic species. The committee also heard AB 871, which would strengthen reporting and training requirements for financial institutions responding to suspected elder financial abuse and scams, including reporting to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center and encouraging rapid client reporting. Supporters said the bill could help recover funds and improve pattern detection across jurisdictions, while one member raised concerns about duplication with existing suspicious activity reporting and bank procedures. In discussion, members generally supported the bill but noted the need to refine it; the author said it was intended as a practical step to improve existing processes. All four bills were moved out of committee with do pass recommendations, with AB 634, AB 1159, AB 1382, and AB 871 each passing on recorded votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also adopted consent calendar items and ended with a recognition of Republican caucus judiciary consultant Daryl Thomas, who is retiring after more than 20 years of service.

Transcript Highlights:

• For instance, sex offenses that would subject a person to residency restrictions such as these would
• "Are they unintentionally captured in this and then therefore would be subjected to the restrictions?
• The amendment limits the restrictions to those whose offenses were committed on or after July 1, 2026
• because more restrictions, you will have more homelessness.
• We have pools, lakes, beaches, and parks, places that would create restricted zones everywhere.

Summary: The Criminal Justice Subcommittee met to consider three bills. HB 199, relating to Veterans Court, was presented as a repeat measure aligning Veterans Court procedures with mental health and drug court laws and allowing post-adjudicatory referrals. A technical amendment was adopted, numerous witnesses waived in support, and the bill passed unanimously 17-0. The committee then took up HB 45, which would add public swimming pools and public bathing places to existing sex offender residency, work, volunteer, and visitation restrictions. The sponsor argued it would protect children and apply only to specified sex offenses. Several members and public witnesses raised concerns that the bill’s definitions were overly broad, could effectively ban registrants from much of Florida, and could increase homelessness and make offenders harder to track. An amendment narrowing the bill’s scope and definitions was adopted after debate, and the bill passed 11-5 as amended. Finally, HB 17, the Jason Rayner Act, was heard to clarify that force may not be used to resist an arrest by an officer acting in the performance of official duties, retain good-faith language, add manslaughter to offenses requiring a life sentence when reclassified, and increase the severity level for battery on a law enforcement officer. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen protections for officers; opponents argued it could sweep in accidental or less culpable conduct, while supporters said existing law already covered serious cases. A clarifying amendment was adopted, and the bill passed 16-0 as amended. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The restrictions on expressive activities effectively silence students during critical periods.
• The undefined term reasonable restrictions gives me significant pause.
• And any restriction or attempt to put restrictions on this right should, as a matter of course, be met
• Now, you are giving public universities the tools and language to restrict free speech further.
• Please do not give them the tools to further restrict our speech and vote no on 2972.

Summary: The Senate Education Committee K-16 resumed public testimony on Senate Bill 735, a Holocaust education bill. Alice Min spoke in support, saying learning about difficult parts of history is important for understanding American history and the experiences of minority communities. Sheila Hemphill also supported the bill but urged broader language to include multiple genocides and more instructional material. After a brief exchange, public testimony on SB 735 closed and the bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 800, which would strengthen higher-education orientation materials on sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking policies, and Senate Bill 2310, which would require public institutions to post clearer online degree and transfer requirements. Both bills were explained by their authors, committee substitutes were adopted, no public testimony was offered, and each bill was left pending. Senate Bill 2055, a cleanup bill for the Texas Leadership Scholars Program, was also heard and left pending after no testimony. A major portion of the meeting focused on Senate Bill 1069, which would require investigations and mandatory termination for faculty found to have discriminated against students based on religion, with a department placed under conservatorship after a termination. The author said the bill was meant to address religious discrimination and protect students; several witnesses, including Muslim and Jewish law students and other advocates, argued it was too vague, lacked a definition of religious discrimination, threatened academic freedom, and could chill speech. The bill was left pending after testimony. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2972, which would set new limits on expressive activity on public university campuses, including restrictions on encampments, masks, sound amplification, and protests during finals; opponents said it would restrict free speech and protest rights, while the bill was adopted as a committee substitute and left pending. Senate Bill 2815, allowing students to choose the diploma name after a university merger or renaming, was briefly heard and left pending. Later, the committee took up pending business and voted out several bills. SB 2920, SB 2398, SB 2927, SB 2929, SB 1241, SB 1395, SB 401, SB 1972, and SB 2540 were reported favorably, with some committee substitutes adopted and several placed on the local and uncontested calendar. SB 1241’s substitute would have the Higher Education Coordinating Board study standardized test equivalency scores for admissions. The committee then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is more restrictive than the proposal last year.
• This bill will allow optometrists to prescribe oral antivirals without any restrictions.
• This bill restricts injection for the eyelid only.
• So we added restrictions to not allow any back-of-the-eye injections.
• A goodwill, we put in some restrictions, some further injection restrictions after previous discussions

Transcript Highlights:

• Restricting direct sales to protect legacy business models is protectionism at the expense of consumer
• Our current law restricts New Mexico consumers from choosing from the entire supply of vehicles.
• Our current law restricts New Mexico consumers from choosing from the entire supply of vehicles, and
• New Mexico New Mexico has some of the most restrictive car-buying laws in the nation.
• Some states have a lot more restrictions than we do, and I just want to reiterate that.

Bills: SB22, SB310

Keywords: motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County, 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That places key definitions directly in the criminal code and adds a narrowly defined restricted presence
• About a dozen states have no residency restrictions whatsoever.
• Over a 12-year period, they found that not one would have been prevented by residency restrictions.
• Housing restrictions have had no proven impact. Thank you.
• I haven't looked at the exact time restrictions.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Summary: The committee took up a series of criminal justice, public safety, and records-related bills. SB 1084, exempting certain identifying and location information of non-legal support staff in State Attorney and statewide prosecutor offices from public records access, was supported by prosecuting attorneys and reported favorably. SB 212, as amended, revised sexual offender/predator laws to add definitions for public bathing places and pools, create a 200-foot restricted presence rule with exceptions, and update notification and enforcement provisions; it drew testimony both for and against, with supporters emphasizing child safety and opponents arguing the bill lacked evidence and would worsen housing instability, and it was reported favorably. SB 682, as amended, expanded domestic violence law to include coercive control and animal cruelty-related protections, with extensive survivor testimony and support from animal welfare groups; it was also reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 656, creating and renaming FDLE Internet Crimes Against Children funding and grant programs, with support from law enforcement groups. SB 810, which would expand opportunities to seal certain non-conviction records and allow sealing of one low-level misdemeanor conviction after waiting periods and judicial review, received support from defense and reform advocates but drew concern about broader consequences; it was reported favorably, and the related technical bill SB 812 was later amended to align public records law and allow prosecutors access to sealed records for subsequent cases before being reported favorably. SB 890, creating a standalone battery-by-strangulation offense applicable outside domestic relationships, and SB 892, revising habitual offender and violent career criminal sentencing procedures and notice requirements, both passed after brief debate and supportive testimony. The committee further approved SB 928, “Missy’s Law,” requiring immediate remand to custody after conviction of dangerous crimes and expanding the list to include certain computer pornography and child exploitation offenses; family testimony supported the measure. SB 1284 modernized arrest and search warrant rules, expanding judicial discretion for misdemeanor summonses and certain warrantless arrests and search warrants, including DUI/BUI and domestic violence-related evidence; it passed despite concerns from defense lawyers about unintended consequences. All measures considered in the meeting were reported favorably, with recorded no votes on SB 810 and SB 812 from Senator Pizzo and on SB 1084 and SB 1284 from Vice Chair Smith.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach have already restricted the retail sale of these nitrous
• And it does that by imposing measured and reasonable restrictions on those containers and devices most
• It's not less restrictive than the one for adults and not more restrictive; it is setting the same standard
• The bill further prohibits detention in juvenile hall unless the court finds that a less restrictive
• We should not further restrict judges' ability to offer treatment to those who need it.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Public Safety met on March 17, 2026, with no quorum at the start and throughout much of the hearing, so bills were presented and discussed but no final votes were taken. The committee heard SB 936 on nitrous oxide sales, SB 941 on commissary price caps in private immigration detention facilities, SCR 118 urging release of Jeffrey Epstein-related files, SB 1009 on juvenile detention standards, AB 46 on mental health diversion, and SB 948 on firearm safety training and registration for new residents. The chair explained public comment procedures and noted that SB 891 was on consent, but the transcript focused on the other measures. SB 936 drew strong support from the author, prosecutors, local officials, and public health/environmental groups, who described rising misuse of flavored large nitrous oxide canisters, youth targeting, impaired driving crashes, deaths, and waste disposal costs. Opposition from the ACLU argued the bill was too broad and should use a regulatory rather than criminal approach, warning about overreach into ordinary household items. Members generally expressed support, though some asked for narrowing amendments to avoid unintended coverage. SB 941 was presented as a cap on markups for commissary goods sold to detainees in privately run federal immigration detention facilities, modeled on prior prison commissary limits. Supporters described severe price inflation for basic necessities and the burden on families, while no opposition testified. SCR 118, calling for full release of unclassified Epstein investigation files, was supported by the author, a survivor statement, and anti-trafficking advocates; one member objected that the resolution could implicate people without full facts, while others emphasized transparency and survivor accountability. SB 1009 and AB 46 both centered on criminal justice discretion: SB 1009 would require clear and convincing evidence before detaining youth and was supported by defenders and youth advocates but opposed by probation and district attorneys who warned about public safety and resource constraints; AB 46 would narrow mental health diversion by allowing judges to deny diversion when public safety is at risk, with prosecutors and victims’ families supporting it and public defenders, ACLU, and behavioral health groups opposing it as an unnecessary restriction on treatment. SB 948 would expand firearm safety certificate requirements to include live-fire training and require new California residents to register firearms within 60 days; the author and gun-safety advocates supported it as a common-sense safety measure, and the hearing moved into support testimony as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• purpose of eliminating the individual income tax and exempt sales tax expansions from existing restrictions
• Perhaps the more urban areas have adopted the more recent codes, but they become extremely restrictive
• I know you talk about special use areas, permits, and things like that. ...mention about restricting
• But real quick, are a lot or the majority of municipalities have restrictive rules?
• They're not a whole lot, but they're... ...municipalities have restrictive rules on?

Summary: The committee first met in executive session on House Joint Resolution 173 and 174, which would put a tax-reform proposal before voters. Members debated a failed amendment to change the ballot language, with supporters saying it would more honestly describe the measure as a tax replacement that could expand sales taxes, and opponents saying it would be misleading and overly restrictive. The committee then adopted a House committee substitute that clarified the proposal, including a phased reduction in the individual income tax tied to revenue growth, and voted the substitute do pass by a 7-3 roll call. The committee next took up House Bills 321 and 2531 under a new committee substitute. The substitute made a series of technical and policy changes involving redevelopment, tax increment financing, public safety funding, Missouri Opportunity Zones, baseline revenue calculations, and local property tax diversion, including reducing one diversion requirement from 50% to 25%. Members and the sponsor described the changes as clarifying agency roles and addressing constitutional and administrative concerns. The committee adopted the substitute and then voted the combined bill do pass by a 9-0-1 vote. In public hearing, House Bill 3230 by Rep. Hardwick would bar cities and counties from outright banning modular or qualified manufactured homes in areas where single-family homes are allowed, while still allowing reasonable safety, zoning, and compatibility standards. The sponsor and supporters from the Missouri Manufactured Housing Association argued the bill would expand affordable housing and prevent discriminatory local restrictions; the Missouri Municipal League said it supported the goal but wanted more work on language to preserve local flexibility. The committee also heard House Bill 2888 by Rep. Deal, which would limit standalone medical-monitoring claims without present physical injury. The sponsor and a civil justice coalition supporter said the bill would align Missouri law with court precedent and require an actual injury, while opponents and affected residents argued it would block needed monitoring for exposure to PFAS and other contaminants and could leave exposed communities without a remedy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Anyone who has a restriction on being able to drive and needing the device should know those restrictions
• Anyone who has a restriction on being able to drive and needing the device should know those restrictions
• There are restrictions on...
• There are restrictions on ...emergency, a person whose driving privilege is limited.
• Town of Gilbert, content-based speech restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny.

Bills: HB2495, HB2557, HB2594, HB2615, HB2800, HB2861, HB2862, HB2931, HB2995, HB4042, HB4070, HB4117, HB4136

Keywords: vulnerable adults, sentencing, felonies, criminal justice, enhanced penalties, medical records, patient rights, healthcare access, privacy, healthcare providers, timeliness, address confidentiality, domestic violence, privacy protection, voter registration, court proceedings, parenting time, supervised visitation, family court, high-risk cases

Transcript Highlights:

• We hope you pass this measure. that it removes a restriction that that it removes a restriction that
• This one would add additional restrictions.
• </c> that is a sort of limited restriction. that is a sort of limited restriction.
• This one would add additional<00:30:12.600><c> restrictions.
• </c> additional restrictions. additional restrictions.

Bills: HB1518, HB1699, HB1747, HB1705, HB1565, HB1801, HB1645, HB2115, HB2114

Keywords: HB1518, Hawaii SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, food stamps, Department of Human Services, DHS, pre-release SNAP, pre-release application process, incarcerated individuals, prisoner reentry, reentry services, formerly incarcerated, jail release, prison release, recidivism, food security, benefits eligibility, controlled substance felony, drug felony, drug conviction

Summary: The committee opened its first meeting of the 2020 session and heard testimony on several measures, beginning with HB 1518, which would allow people incarcerated and nearing release to apply for SNAP benefits before release. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of Human Services said they support the bill and are already piloting a pre-release application process at two facilities, with plans to expand it. The Attorney General’s Office supported the intent but noted a technical issue: one section of the bill appears to affect TANF as well as SNAP, while the title refers only to SNAP. A wide range of advocates, including Catholic Charities, the Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Hunger Action Network, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, ACLU of Hawaii, and others, testified in strong support, emphasizing food insecurity after release, reentry stability, and reduced recidivism. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing. The committee then heard HB 1747, which would direct the Department of Human Services to seek federal waivers or extensions related to restricting certain SNAP purchases, including sugary drinks. DHS said it had already been approved for a narrow demonstration waiver and was working with retailers on implementation, with a target date of August 1. Supporters of the measure argued it would promote healthier choices, while opponents, including Hawaii Appleseed, the Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, and the Hawaii Food Industry Association, said such restrictions are ineffective, stigmatize low-income residents, create burdens for retailers and DHS, and may be difficult to implement. Members asked DHS to clarify the scope of the waiver and confirmed it applies to sugary drinks and beverages containing more than 10 grams of sugar. Finally, the committee took up HB 1705, which would allow licensed mental health counselors to serve as child custody evaluators, but there was no testimony from the relevant agencies and the item was quickly set aside. The committee also heard HB 1565, which would establish a judiciary working group to improve family court processes and legal representation for youth in the child welfare system. The Attorney General’s Office offered minor technical amendments, and supporters from the Office of Wellness and Resilience, High Hopes Hawaii, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, and a social work student described the need for legal representation, citing better reunification and stability outcomes and the importance of youth voice in court proceedings. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 670 to prevent CC&Rs from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting
• Now, the bill removes the 180-day resale restriction in state law if the developer is under contract
• If these are deed-restricted units, I'm trying to understand what the risk is with a nonprofit buyer
• Regardless of the deed restriction, it's still limited in the title records to who you can sell it to
• Regardless of the deed restriction, it's still limited in the title records to who you can sell it to

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing met without a quorum at first and operated as a subcommittee, then later established a quorum and took up several housing-related bills. Early presentations included AB 2390, a cleanup bill on housing streamlining and project modifications, which was described as clarifying that minor and subsequent modifications are reviewed under the standards in effect when the original application was filed; there was no opposition, and the bill was moved on a due pass motion but held on call for absent members. AB 1890, which would increase state matching support for Napa County farmworker housing centers from $250,000 to $500,000 annually and extend the program through 2036, drew strong support from Napa County officials, the Farm Bureau, hospitals, and vintners, and was also moved to Appropriations and held on call. AB 956, an ADU bill allowing more flexibility in how accessory dwelling units are built and clarifying application of ADU law in common interest developments, drew support from housing advocates and opposition from the League of California Cities over density, infrastructure, and local control concerns; the committee discussed amendments to avoid triggering density bonus law, then passed the bill as amended to Local Government, with some members expressing reservations or abstaining. The consent calendar, including AB 739, AB 2162, AB 2320, and AB 2692, was also acted on and held on call for absent members. Later, the committee heard AB 939, which would remove a 180-day resale restriction for certain income-restricted ownership units when a nonprofit affordable housing organization is ready to buy and sell them to qualified low-income buyers. Supporters, including Habitat for Humanity and California YIMBY, said the bill would reduce vacancy, carrying costs, and delays in getting affordable homes to buyers; the California Association of Realtors opposed unless amended, arguing the bill could limit buyer choice, codify first-right-of-refusal provisions, and reduce wealth-building opportunities. Members questioned those concerns, and the author said amendments were being worked on; the bill was moved to Appropriations and held on call. AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act, would require state housing agencies to develop a fiscal analysis and long-term financial plan for ending homelessness and addressing housing affordability; it received broad support from supportive housing, civil rights, and homelessness organizations, with no opposition filed, and was moved to Appropriations and held on call. AB 1184, an HOA transparency bill requiring more notice and access around litigation and recordings, was moved to Judiciary after discussion about whether it duplicated existing HOA law and whether the proposed amendments were too broad. AB 2035, a narrowly tailored bill for Laguna Woods Village to lower the vote threshold needed to petition a court to amend outdated CC&Rs, was supported as a one-time fix and moved to Judiciary. Finally, AB 1573, pulled from consent, would add survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking to housing element target populations; supporters said these groups are overrepresented among people experiencing housing instability and should be explicitly included in local housing planning.