Transcript Highlights:

• Sexual behavior is inadmissible across all covered offenses; however, it does preserve.
• Of specific instances of past sexual behavior is presumed inadmissible unless it falls within some exceptions

Bills: SB535 , SB664 , SB1019 , SB1020 , SB1120 , SB1537 , SB1804 , HB3207

Committee: House Criminal Jurisprudence

Keywords: SB 535, Texas criminal procedure, rape shield, victim sexual history, past sexual behavior, sexual assault evidence, trafficking of persons, continuous trafficking, indecency with a child, continuous sexual abuse, aggravated sexual assault, indecent assault, consent defense, in camera hearing, Rule 412, Rule 609, victim protection, evidence admissibility, criminal evidence, sexual offense prosecution

Transcript Highlights:

• Pres through 11 where it reads the Pres presumption<01:59:53.000><c> of</c><01:59:53.199><c> inadmissibility
• </c><01:59:54.040><c> of</c> presumption of inadmissibility of presumption of inadmissibility of statements
• <02:12:12.880><c> would</c><02:12:13.119><c> then</c><02:12:13.280><c> be</c><02:12:13.480><c> inadmissible
• </c> interrogation would then be inadmissible interrogation would then be inadmissible in<02:12:14.679
• all you must do is say inadmissibility all you must do is say these<02:16:55.120><c> weren't</c> these

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• sections 1 and 2, as well as on R18 Senate section 3 and House section 13, govern the privacy and inadmissibility
• ><c> privacy</c><00:55:50.640><c> and</c> 13 govern the privacy and 13 govern the privacy and inadmissibility
• 52.000><c> of</c><00:55:52.240><c> certain</c><00:55:52.559><c> data</c><00:55:52.880><c> and</c> inadmissibility
• of certain data and inadmissibility of certain data and statements<00:55:53.599><c> related</c><00:55

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also provides that evidence obtained in violation of these provisions is inadmissible, requires

Bills: HJR11 , HB59 , HB418 , HB342 , HB408 , HB409 , HB133 , HB134 , HB414 , HB355

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee met and heard presentations on several bills. House Amendment 1 to Senate Substitute 1 for House Bill 145 would restrict government use of reverse keyword searches, generally prohibiting reverse keyword court orders and voluntary requests, with a narrow exception for Class A violent felony investigations and rules on notice, deletion, and inadmissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence. House Substitute 1 for House Bill 368, with House Amendment 1, would limit Delaware law enforcement and the Department of Correction’s participation in federal civil immigration enforcement, especially regarding civil immigration warrants and detainers, while preserving exceptions for serious offenses and valid judicial processes; the Department of Correction said it had no operational or fiscal impact and supported the exclusions, and an ACLU-affiliated witness testified in support. House Substitute 1 for House Bill 427 would allow certain 16- and 17-year-olds to participate in hunting and target practice without direct adult supervision if they have parental permission, hunter education, and a valid Delaware hunting license. House Bill 355, the “Speak Your Truth Act,” would expand anti-SLAPP-style protections for survivors of sexual assault, discrimination, and harassment by raising the burden in defamation suits and allowing attorney’s fees and damages; advocates from the National Women’s Defense League and the Speak Your Truth movement supported it. House Bill 134 would increase penalties for repeat animal cruelty offenders and lengthen animal ownership bans. The committee also heard House Bill 133, as amended, which would create a hardship waiver process allowing courts to waive fines and fees for defendants who cannot afford them, while preserving restitution and exempting certain traffic-related penalties and victim compensation assessments. The administration said the bill is intended to address uncollectable debt and noted millions in outstanding fines and fees, while local government and police representatives raised concerns about lost revenue, administrative burden, and consistency; the Fines and Fees Justice Center supported the measure. Committee members asked about how the waiver funding would affect local governments, volunteer fire companies, and related fees, and the administration said the $5 million budgeted this year would cover the waiver costs and be treated as an annual expense going forward. No committee votes were taken during the excerpted discussion, but the chair indicated that bills ready for action would be circulated for signature or moved to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• gentleman hadn't been deceased, he was tending to his 20 acres of marijuana plants, that would be inadmissible
• of marijuana plants, that would be acres of marijuana plants, that would be an<01:08:48.880><c> inadmissible
• c> in</c><01:08:49.600><c> court</c><01:08:49.839><c> because</c><01:08:50.000><c> they</c> an inadmissible
• in court because they an inadmissible in court because they they<01:08:50.480><c> didn't</c><01:08:50.640

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• and National nationality act to make illegal<07:32:33.398><c> immigrants</c><07:32:33.958><c> inadmissible
• </c><07:32:34.638><c> and</c> illegal immigrants inadmissible and illegal immigrants inadmissible and
• illegal immigrants who have been convicted of or admitted to sex offenses or domestic violence inadmissible
• illegal immigrants who have been convicted of or admitted to sex offenses or domestic violence inadmissible
• inadmissible and deportable this<07:56:44.958><c> bill</c><07:56:45.318><c> is</c><07:56:45.478><c>

Bills: HR44 , HR43 , HR42 , HR33 , HR144 , HR164

Keywords: committee appointments, House of Representatives, agriculture committee, foreign affairs committee, natural resources committee, science and technology committee, member elections, legislative process, inauguration, Congress, House attendance, ceremony, legislative session, inaugural ceremony, President, Vice President, adjournment, committees, membership, election

Transcript Highlights:

• Someone could be here and have legal permanent residency, and the 365 days could render them inadmissible
• ><c> if</c><00:40:42.720><c> they</c><00:40:43.040><c> ever</c><00:40:43.280><c> left</c> them inadmissible
• So if they ever left them inadmissible.
• someone who's here on a green card, who's a legal permanent resident, isn't that deportable or inadmissible
• someone who's here on a green card, who's a legal permanent resident, isn't that deportable or inadmissible

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1768, which would prohibit state and county law enforcement agencies and officials from entering into federal immigration-enforcement agreements under 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) and from assisting in certain immigration enforcement actions except in limited circumstances. The Office of the Public Defender, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi all testified in strong support, arguing the bill would protect due process, reduce fear in immigrant communities, preserve trust in local police, and keep local resources focused on public safety. Testifiers said cooperation with immigration enforcement can chill court attendance, crime reporting, and cooperation with police, and they emphasized that the bill would not stop federal enforcement or affect other deputization agreements for environmental or other criminal matters. Committee members asked whether any 287(g) agreements currently exist in Hawaiʻi; testifiers said they were unaware of any and believed the bill would maintain the status quo. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 1548, which would reduce the maximum sentence for misdemeanors from one year to 364 days and allow people previously sentenced to one year to seek sentence modification. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Legal Clinic, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, and the William S. Richardson School of Law immigration clinic all supported the measure, saying the one-day change could prevent severe immigration consequences such as detention, removal, and bars to relief that can be triggered by a sentence of 365 days or more. Testifiers stressed that the bill would not change criminal liability or public safety, but would align Hawaiʻi law with similar reforms adopted in other states. Members questioned whether the change would affect citizens or create an automatic immigration process; witnesses responded that the issue is the federal immigration consequence tied to the maximum sentence, not actual time served, and that citizens would not face that consequence. The transcript ends during continued discussion of HB 1548, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• federal agency, um, stating a policy to execute immigration removals against all, quote unquote, all inadmissible
• 00:22:18.080><c> unquote</c><00:22:18.640><c> all</c><00:22:18.960><c> in</c><00:22:19.360><c> inadmissible
• </c><00:22:20.000><c> and</c> quote unquote all in inadmissible and quote unquote all in inadmissible

Summary: The committee held an informational briefing on federal and state authority over National Guard deployment in response to civil protest or unrest, prompted by recent federal actions and the California litigation in Newsom v. Trump. The chair explained the purpose was to help lawmakers and the public understand the legal background, the status of the California case, and possible Hawaii policy responses. David Day of the Attorney General’s office outlined several recent federal immigration-related executive actions and enforcement directives, then described Hawaii’s participation in multiple lawsuits challenging federal funding conditions, data-sharing demands, and the birthright citizenship order. A major portion of the briefing focused on Newsom v. Trump. Day summarized the June 2025 Los Angeles protests and the president’s memorandum federalizing National Guard units under 10 U.S.C. 12406, which California challenged as ultra vires, procedurally improper, and violative of the Posse Comitatus Act, the Tenth Amendment, and the APA. He said the district court initially granted relief, but the Ninth Circuit stayed the TRO and held, in a published decision, that review under section 12406 is highly deferential and that the president lawfully exercised authority under paragraph 3. He also noted California-law issues about orders being issued through the governor, and said Hawaii had supported California through amicus briefs and would continue to do so; the bench trial was scheduled for August 11-13. Members then asked how Hawaii law differs from California’s and whether the Ninth Circuit ruling would control here. Day said the standard-of-review aspects would likely apply, but the California-specific procedural language about orders issued in the governor’s name does not appear in Hawaii law. The committee also heard from Colonel Lloyd C. Phelps of the Hawaii Department of Defense, who explained that National Guard activations generally occur under Title 10 federal orders, state orders, or other statuses, and said the June 2025 federalization mechanism was a Title 10 call-up. He began addressing the president’s authority, the Posse Comitatus Act, and Hawaii’s own preparedness, but the discussion was cut short and members indicated they would return to the topic later. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under this legislation, statements made in the context of a restorative practice setting would be inadmissible

Transcript Highlights:

• They identify circumstances in which there's a presumption of inadmissibility.
• Um, there is that presumption of inadmissibility, but they can overcome it if they have a good reason
• It's very clear that this is inadmissible at any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding, parole
• It's very clear that this<04:18:39.279><c> is</c><04:18:39.439><c> inadmissible</c><04:18:40.000><c>
• at any criminal or this is inadmissible at any criminal or juvenile<04:18:41.439><c> delinquency</c>

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• It's usually inadmissible if offered to prove liability or absence thereof.

Summary: The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 413, relating to attorney’s fees, suit money, and costs in family law cases. Representative Gottlieb explained that the bill and strike-all amendment were intended to promote fairness, create more uniformity across circuits, expand judicial discretion in awarding fees, and strengthen enforcement language. Members discussed how the amendment’s reference to good-faith settlement offers would apply only after trial in fee determinations, not during the trial itself. Jamie Epstein of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section supported the measure overall, saying it would improve consistency and deter bad-faith litigation, but noted concern about one paragraph creating a presumption of entitlement to fees in contempt actions. The committee adopted the strike-all amendment and then passed HB 413 favorably as amended by a 13-0 vote. Chair Koster said the bill would provide needed clarification in family law practice and help parties litigate more professionally and amicably. After the vote, the committee heard a presentation from Florida Bar President Sayah Baker Barnes on the Florida Bar’s role and the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession. Baker Barnes described the Florida Bar as an arm of the Florida Supreme Court responsible for regulating lawyers, protecting the public, handling discipline, reimbursing some victims of lawyer theft through the client security fund, and providing continuing legal education. She said AI use among lawyers has grown rapidly and that the Bar has created committees, guidance, and an ethics opinion to help lawyers use AI responsibly. She emphasized that lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of AI-generated citations and work product, noted that Florida courts have already disciplined lawyers and a pro se litigant for fake AI-generated citations, and discussed confidentiality, privilege, and deepfake concerns. Members asked about protecting client information and finding best-practice resources, and she directed them to the Bar’s LegalFuel site and AI guidance materials. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Colorado, Indiana, and Nevada have enacted laws making a young person's statement inadmissible if deceptive
• young have enacted laws making a young person's<00:47:16.920><c> statement</c><00:47:17.400><c> inadmissible
• </c><00:47:18.760><c> um</c> person's statement inadmissible um person's statement inadmissible um if

Summary: The Juvenile Justice Oversight Council met with a quorum, approved the October 8, 2025 minutes, and welcomed guests including Marshall County Attorney Jason Darnall. The main topic was juvenile interrogation, with a presentation from Kentucky Youth Advocates by Courtney Downs and Shannon Moody. They said their organization is supporting a 2026 Blueprint priority requiring children to consult with an attorney before waiving Miranda rights, and they emphasized research on adolescent brain development, susceptibility to peer pressure and impulsive decision-making, and the risk of false confessions. They cited National Registry of Exonerations data showing high rates of false confessions among exonerated youth, especially younger children, and described approaches in other states such as Maryland’s Child Interrogation Protection Act, Indiana’s statute allowing certain adults to waive rights in some circumstances, and laws in other states requiring recording of interrogations or limiting deceptive tactics. Members asked about trauma and adverse childhood experiences, whether the proposal would require attorney consultation in every juvenile interview, whether parents could instead be the ones consulted, and how such a rule would affect law enforcement investigations and juvenile accountability. Senator Carroll and others raised concerns about feasibility, delays, and whether juveniles might avoid accountability if attorneys are required before questioning. The presenters responded that they were focused on ensuring children understand their legal rights, that some states use age- or offense-based limits, and that parent consultation is another model used elsewhere, though they said a lawyer is best suited to explain legal rights and process. Members also discussed the role of the Department of Public Advocacy and whether legislative action or court decisions should address the issue. The council did not take final action on the policy, but requested additional materials, including the text of laws from Maryland, Indiana, and North Carolina, for further review.

Transcript Highlights:

• to legislate is due to the fact that um... ...anything that isn't being recorded is therefore inadmissible
• recorded, and they make um... and you're talking to them and you don't have a recording, it's all inadmissible
• paragraph 594-A2 has a very substantial exception to it that says uh there's a presumption of inadmissibility
• statement and that is excluded from the Miranda exclusion rule because it's not interrogation. inadmissibility
• , it may be overcome if inadmissibility, it may be overcome if the<02:03:49.679><c> court</c><02:03:50.000

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• And therefore, anyone who is inadmissible. of U.S. code is an illegal alien. interpretation really is
• So a current non-citizen, those that are currently. still inadmissible, not that have gone through the
• point in that, yes, preemption and exclusion, the states do not determine who is or isn't. is not inadmissible
• Constitution, but also through jurisprudence that they do have exclusive authority over that, over the inadmissibility
• A detainer request makes an allegation that somebody is deportable or inadmissible.

Bills: HB36 , HB75 , HB76 , HB166 , HB799 , HB 1135 , HJR15 , HJR16 , HB36 , HB75 , HB76 , HB166 , HJR15 , HJR16

Committee: House Criminal Jurisprudence

Keywords: family violence, global positioning monitoring system, victim resources, electronic monitoring, protective orders, magistrate, criminal procedure, probable cause, written findings, law enforcement, bail bonds, bail fund, charitable bail fund, nonprofit bail organization, public funds, local government spending, political subdivision, county, city, taxpayer lawsuit

Transcript Highlights:

• The court actually takes the record below as hearsay; it's inadmissible.
• It's inadmissible. It cannot be considered by the court.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a hybrid hearing on bills related to land use, zoning, permitting, municipal governance, and homelessness. Early testimony focused on a home rule petition for Ipswich to remove a residency requirement for a town manager, with supporters saying it would broaden the applicant pool and help fill a vacant permanent manager position. Another panel backed legislation to change the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission’s governance so ratepayers in surrounding communities would have representation, arguing the current board structure leaves many users without a voice in rate-setting and capital decisions. Several housing and zoning bills drew testimony. Senator Keenan and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association supported a bill to toll the one-year period for acting on a variance while an appeal is pending, saying appeals should not consume the time needed to implement approved projects. Representative Murray and the Real Estate Bar Association also testified on broader zoning reforms, including changes to undersized lots, merger rules, hearing deadlines, appeals, and variance standards; they argued the proposals would reduce delay and uncertainty and help housing production. Committee members questioned whether shifting zoning appeals from de novo to closed-record review would limit new evidence, and the witnesses said the change would speed cases while preserving limited opportunities to supplement the record. The committee also heard testimony on bills to end the criminalization of homelessness. Representatives, advocates, and shelter organizations said local camping bans and fines are counterproductive, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision, and urged a statewide response centered on housing and public health rather than punishment. Other municipal bills included remote participation in open town meetings for Wayland and a statewide local option, Fairhaven and Mattapoisett charter changes, and Cambridge’s request to use automated parking enforcement and mail parking tickets. The hearing also included testimony supporting fairground zoning flexibility, a Shrewsbury solar siting bill, and an Inspector General bill clarifying county land disposition procedures by requiring written notice to DCAM and a defined response period. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It would be inadmissible, so it should fully protect in a way that exists now anyone who's getting wiretapped
• It would be inadmissible, so it should fully protect in a way that exists now anyone who's getting wiretapped
• It would be inadmissible, so it should fully protect in a way that exists now anyone who's getting wiretapped
• It would be inadmissible, so it should fully protect in a way that exists now anyone who's getting wiretapped
• on to the next measure: Senate Bill 1231, Senate Draft 1, relating to parentage. ...it would be inadmissible

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee met on March 13, 2025, and took up several firearms and fireworks measures. On SB 227, which would create an illegal fireworks enforcement division in the Department of Law Enforcement and appropriate funds, DLE supported the bill, saying fireworks enforcement has become a full-time job requiring dedicated staff rather than a collateral-duty task force. Members discussed whether the bill and the related task force bill were both needed; DLE said yes, explaining that the new division would provide full-time state employees while the task force funding covers interagency costs such as transportation, storage, overtime, and personnel. Testimony on SB 227 was reported as 12 in support and 6 in opposition. On SB 222, which would fund the illegal fireworks task force and extend its sunset to June 30, 2030, DLE and the Honolulu Police Department supported the measure, emphasizing continued enforcement pressure and interagency coordination. An opponent from the Libertarian Party of Hawaii argued the bill was a waste of time, criticized fireworks prohibition as cultural overreach, and performed a song in opposition. Representative Shimizu asked about results from the extra enforcement effort, and DLE said enforcement has driven up street prices and made investors think twice, which they described as a goal of pricing people out of the market. The chair reported 13 testimonies in support and 6 in opposition. The committee then heard SB 1324, a more comprehensive fireworks bill that would revise definitions and penalties, create first- and second-degree fireworks offenses, add infractions, and increase penalties for serious injury or death. DLE and the Attorney General strongly supported it, saying the bill would improve enforcement, address black-market activity, and help prosecutors when fireworks have already exploded and evidence is destroyed. The Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing existing laws already punish these offenses and that the real issue is enforcement; the office also raised constitutional concerns about the bill’s concurrent civil infraction and criminal trial process. Honolulu Police supported the bill, while the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office said the alternative definitions would help in cases involving exploded versus seized fireworks. The chair noted 17 testimonies in support, 7 in opposition, and 3 comments, and members discussed whether the bill could be amended to address the public defender’s concerns. The committee also began hearing SB 308, which would expand the state’s magazine-capacity restrictions to firearms with detachable magazines over 30 rounds, with a grandfathering provision for certain magazines obtained before January 1, 2026. DLE supported the bill as a fair balance that would grandfather existing magazines while preventing new high-capacity acquisitions. Opposition testimony from Jerry Yuan of the Pool, Oil, Rifle, and Pistol Club argued the proposal was another shifting restriction and opposed magazine bans generally. The hearing continued with additional testimony not fully captured in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• is to avoid relying on evidence during their investigations which they believe might later be inadmissible
• It provides some clear guidance, making any evidence obtained in violation of these rules inadmissible
• Six and seven say any evidence obtained pursuant is inadmissible, meaning you would exclude all that
• </c><03:53:32.080><c> meaning</c><03:53:32.800><c> you</c> pursuant is inadmissible meaning you pursuant
• is inadmissible meaning you would<03:53:33.159><c> exclude</c><03:53:33.560><c> all</c><03:53:33.720

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• So some judges may believe that an MPO is inadmissible, but this bill makes it clear that the judge is
• ...may believe that an MPO is inadmissible, but this bill makes it clear that the judge is allowed to

Summary: The committee heard and acted on several bills. SB 479 by Senator Arreguín would allow Berkeley, Long Beach, and Pasadena, as local health jurisdictions, to use multidisciplinary homeless response teams and share specified information across departments; supporters said it would improve coordination and services for unsheltered residents, and the bill passed 9-0 to Appropriations. SB 46 by Senator Umberg would direct the Secretary of State to keep constitutionally ineligible presidential candidates off the California ballot, including anyone who has already served two terms; supporters argued it was a constitutional enforcement measure, while Senator Niello questioned whether it was needed, and it passed 6-1 to Appropriations. SB 99 by Senator Blakespear would improve coordination between military and civilian systems by requiring courts and law enforcement to account for military protective orders and notify military authorities of possible violations; the Department of Defense supported it, while the ACLU raised due process concerns, and it passed 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 719 by Senator Cabaldon would extend the sunset on state reporting about high-risk automated decision systems from 2029 to 2032, and it passed 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 300 by Senator Padilla would strengthen California’s new AI chatbot law by requiring operators to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material; supporters said the existing law was insufficient, while industry groups warned against expanding a brand-new regime before it had been tested, and it passed 9-0 to Appropriations. SB 381 by Senator Wahab would allow adult adoptees, and descendants of adoptees, to obtain original birth certificates and create a nonbinding contact preference form for birth parents; supporters described health, identity, and dignity concerns, while some members raised privacy concerns, and it passed 13-0 to the Senate Health Committee. SB 33 by Senator Cortese would eliminate the sunset on the public works contractor claim-resolution process, with supporters saying it reduces litigation and speeds payment, and it passed 10-0 to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• look at, for example, just this last session we passed legislation around confidentiality and inadmissibility
• confident</c><01:21:14.480><c> um</c> legislation around confident um legislation around confident um inadmissibility
• 15.760><c> of</c><01:21:16.080><c> evidence</c><01:21:16.480><c> in</c><01:21:16.640><c> the</c> inadmissibility
• of evidence in the inadmissibility of evidence in the context<01:21:17.040><c> of</c><01:21:17.199><

Transcript Highlights:

• We need a consistent and reliable process to determine what evidence is inadmissible and should be considered

Committee: House Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first heard House Bill 2255, sponsored by Rep. Barry Hovis, which would update Missouri’s expert witness statute to align with the amended federal Rule 702 and the Daubert reliability framework. Supporters, including defense lawyers, the Missouri Hospital Association, business groups, insurers, and a sterilization company, argued the bill would clarify judges’ gatekeeping role, require expert testimony to be shown reliable by a preponderance of the evidence, and reduce inconsistent rulings and costly retrials. Opponents, including the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, a public advocate, and a justice reform group, argued the bill was unnecessary, would shift too much discretion from juries to judges, and could increase pretrial litigation and costs, especially for plaintiffs. No vote was taken on HB 2255 during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 3155, sponsored by Rep. Benny Cook, on sentencing and parole eligibility changes. Cook and supporters, including prosecutors and some public safety advocates, said the bill would improve transparency in sentencing, make parole timing clearer, and help address repeat serious offenders by setting firmer service percentages. Opponents, including justice reform and anti-poverty advocates, argued it would increase incarceration costs, especially for lower-level and drug offenses, without improving public safety, and would reduce incentives for rehabilitation. Some members questioned whether the bill could lead to longer time served, while supporters said it would apply evenly and clarify existing sentencing practices. At the end of the hearing, the committee took up an executive session on House Bill 2637 and House Bill 3155 together under a House Committee Substitute. The substitute was adopted, and the combined committee substitute for HB 2637 and HB 3155 was voted do pass by an 8-3 roll call.