Transcript Highlights:

• Once they have done that, a rebuttable presumption is created, signaling that the electric utility has
• Is that correct, or would this say with rebuttable presumption that there is no negligence if they're
• Rebuttable presumption, clear and convincing evidence.
• Again, on the requirements for overcoming the rebuttable presumptions are powerful things.
• Rebuttable presumptions are powerful things. Starting on page 13, there are five requirements.

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 55, which would expand New Mexico’s solar market development income tax credit from 10% to 30% after the federal solar credit expired, raise the per-credit cap from $6,000 to $15,000, and keep the existing overall $30 million cap with a sunset in 2032. The sponsor and industry witnesses said the bill would help stabilize the residential solar sector, protect jobs, and support consumers, small businesses, small agriculture, and tribal communities. Public testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, though some members raised questions about fiscal capacity and the bill’s impact. The committee passed SB 55 on a 7-4 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 267, the Wildfire Mitigation and Liability Act, on a committee substitute. The bill would require utilities to file and maintain wildfire mitigation plans, obtain PRC approval, and receive a rebuttable presumption in civil actions if they substantially comply; it also includes access provisions for mitigation work on private and public property, cost recovery, damage limits, and a one-year statute of limitations. Utilities and co-op representatives supported the bill as a way to reduce wildfire risk and address rising insurance costs, while insurers, OSI, and wildfire-victim advocates opposed it, arguing it overly limits liability, shifts losses to homeowners and insurers, and does not fully compensate victims. Several committee members expressed concern about the liability standards, deemed approval, access to property, and the short limitations period, but the bill ultimately passed on an 8-3 vote after the chair corrected the motion and revote. Next, House Bill 320, the Industrial Carbon Reduction Act, was presented. It would create production incentives and capital grants for industrial materials made at least 40% cleaner than the industry average, with clawbacks for underperformance and competitive review by EDD and Environment. Supporters from the gas company and chambers of commerce said it uses performance-based incentives to encourage cleaner manufacturing, attract investment, and create jobs. One member raised an anti-donation clause concern, but the sponsor said the bill’s performance requirements and clawbacks address that issue. The committee passed HB 320 on a 10-1 vote. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 104, a follow-up to last year’s wildlife agency reform bill. It would replace vetoed language by creating a process for a governor’s removal of a wildlife commissioner that includes notice, a hearing, and direct review by the New Mexico Supreme Court, while keeping the governor’s removal authority for cause. Ranching, angling, outfitter, and conservation groups supported the bill as a bipartisan fix that adds accountability and avoids political retaliation. Members asked about the removal process and direct Supreme Court review, and some who had initially been skeptical said the testimony changed their view. The bill was moving forward with support at the end of the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, at the federal level, rebuttable presumptions have been recognized
• It also adds a rebuttable presumption. Now, Mr.
• What's different about this is that it includes what are called rebuttable presumptions.
• And rebuttable presumptions are a highly technical part of the law.
• And this was discussed with respect to the federal rebuttable presumptions by Justice Breyer when he

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you look in the proposed section 49015, it says that the rebuttable presumption is created if it
• If there's a rebuttable presumption, the hair on the back of my neck stands up every time I hear "rebuttable
• Do we have other rebuttable presumptions like this in criminal law that I'm not... aware of?
• We have a rebuttable presumption that the use of an elderly person's money is wrongful if it's shown
• You see the headline is rebuttable presumption of intoxication.

Bills: HB 1194, HB 1221, HB1738, HB1913, HB2177, HB2178, HB2180, HB2229, HB2282, HB2448, HB2492, HB2777, HB2984, HB3357, HB3553, HB3602

Keywords: emergency protection order, protective order, magistrate, criminal procedure, victim safety, family violence, domestic violence, stalking, assault, magistrate's order, temporary protection, court order duration, defendant restrictions, Article 17.292, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, emergency restraining order, victim protection, firearm restriction, pretrial intervention, reimbursement fee

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation establishes a rebuttable presumption that any uniform member of a police department,
• This legislation establishes a rebuttable presumption that any uniform member of a fire department suffering
• This legislation establishes a rebuttable presumption that any uniform member of a fire department suffering
• These identical bills create rebuttable presumption for public safety personnel who are exposed, quarantined
• What's more, the presumption within the Heart Law is rebuttable, requiring medical scrutiny to rule out

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service heard testimony on a wide range of bills affecting public safety and public sector employees, with most of the discussion focused on expanding occupational presumptions and retirement protections for police, firefighters, correction officers, court officers, and other public employees. Testifiers from the Legislature, police and fire unions, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, PERAC, and the AFL-CIO generally supported bills covering cancer presumptions, contagious disease presumptions, Parkinson’s disease for firefighters, PTSD-related disability and death, and equity for post-certified police officers under the Heart Law. Several speakers emphasized that these conditions are linked to long-term occupational exposure, that current law leaves out agencies such as UMass police, Environmental Police, DMH police, and other state or campus police, and that the bills would correct gaps in existing benefits and presumptions. Representative Colleen Garry and Senator Joan Lovely spoke in support of expanding the Heart Law and cancer presumption protections, while Representative and Senator sponsors for the firefighter and PTSD bills described the health risks faced by first responders and urged favorable reports. PFFM and MassCOP representatives argued that firefighters and police officers face toxic exposures, infectious disease risks, and chronic stress, and cited studies and other states’ laws in support of the measures. PERAC testified that the PTSD accidental disability bill would clarify confusing case law and update filing requirements so traumatic incidents can be used in applications even when PTSD develops later, while still requiring medical review and retirement board approval. Additional testimony came from correction officers and trial court officers seeking comparable disability and pension protections, including a bill to extend a 100% disability pension to correction officers injured in violent attacks and a bill to treat court officers more like police and firefighters when injured in the line of duty. The committee asked a few clarifying questions, including about whether the PTSD bill would address post-retirement claims and about the impact of excluding “forgotten” police agencies. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee ultimately adjourned after hearing all scheduled testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> include the presumption. include the presumption.
• This bill creates a rebuttable presumption that if a highway contractor—now they're the committee-sub-identified
• However, the reason it is a rebuttable presumption is that it can still be challenged if they have acted
• </c> However, the reason it is a rebuttable However, the reason it is a rebuttable presumption<00:50:
• > was</c><00:51:07.720><c> a</c> rebuttable presumption that that was a rebuttable presumption that that

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section two would create the rebuttable presumption and place that in KRS.
• Section two would create the rebuttable presumption and place that in KRS.
• Section two would create the rebuttable presumption and place that in KRS.
• Section two would create the rebuttable presumption and place that in KRS.
• presumption that the the uh rebuttable presumption that the child<00:13:50.519><c> is</c><00:13:50.720

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:20 Discussion of 25RS HB 479 00:03:22 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 479 00:04:51 Discussion of 25RS HB 574 00:21:49 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 475 00:23:41 Discussion of 25RS HB 291 01:04:38 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 291 01:05:42 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Families and Children met and first took up House Bill 479, which would require one hour of dementia training for DCBS workers. Representative Derrick Lewis and the Alzheimer’s Association said the bill was a straightforward, bipartisan effort to address dementia awareness and improve worker training, with no fiscal impact. Members spoke in support, including remarks about personal family experiences with dementia and the importance of recognizing symptoms early. The committee voted 11-0 to pass the bill with favorable expression. The committee then heard House Bill 574, the “Baby Maya” child protection bill, sponsored by Representatives Dossett and Lewis. The bill would require reporting when a child is born to a parent who previously had children removed for neglect or abuse, create a rebuttable presumption allowing the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to make an initial safety determination, authorize emergency custody procedures, and name the measure the Baby Maya Law. Sponsors said it was intended to add guardrails after the Baby Maya case and stressed that it would not automatically remove children or add new mandatory-reporter penalties. Members asked about hospital involvement, HIPAA, and information-sharing; the Cabinet commissioner said the agency would be open to better data-sharing with hospitals, but currently has no such system. The bill passed 12-1 with favorable expression. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 291, the Family Preservation and Accountability Act, with a committee substitute. The bill would expand sentencing alternatives for primary caregivers convicted of nonviolent offenses, allowing judges to consider family status and use options such as counseling, parenting classes, and related services. Supporters argued it would keep families together, reduce harm from parental incarceration, and save money; one witness cited a report estimating $4 million in direct incarceration savings and broader economic benefits. Another witness, Amanda Hall, gave emotional testimony about the long-term harm of parental incarceration and said access to help would have been better for her family than prison. The committee adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill 12-1 with favorable expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• Once the presumption becomes rebuttable, then it shifts over; the burden of proof then shifts over to
• back of my neck stands up every time I hear rebuttable presumption.
• Well, it's the rebuttable nature of the presumption, that it does shift the burden of proof.
• Do we have other rebuttable presumptions like this in criminal law that I'm not aware of?
• presumption that those elements... ...rebuttable presumption that those elements of the offense, outside

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2777 by Representative Rose, which would bar the death penalty for defendants who can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they had schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and active psychotic symptoms at the time of the offense. Rose said the bill would still hold defendants accountable through life without parole, would save money by avoiding lengthy capital litigation, and would address cases where severe mental illness was not adequately considered. Supporters from NAMI Texas, the Catholic bishops, and a forensic psychologist said the bill is narrowly tailored, consistent with neuroscience and moral principles, and would prevent executions of people whose psychosis substantially impaired reality testing. Committee members questioned how the bill interacts with existing competency and insanity law, whether the diagnosis is sufficiently defined, and whether the statute requires active psychosis at the time of the offense. An opponent argued the death penalty should remain available for juries to decide in all cases. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard House Bill 1221 by Representative Lozano, which would raise the cap on pretrial intervention program fees from $500 to $1,200. Lozano and a district attorney witness said the increase is needed because program costs have risen and the fees help make diversion programs self-sustaining, allowing first-time or low-level offenders to complete rehabilitation and potentially obtain expunction. Opponents from the Texas Fair Defense Project argued the higher fee could make diversion unaffordable for indigent defendants and undermine an important alternative to incarceration, especially where related supervision and monitoring costs already add up. Members discussed whether the fee applies only to PTI participants, how payment plans and waivers work, and whether ability to pay should be addressed more explicitly. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1738 by Representative Jones, which would repeal Penal Code Section 21.06 and related Health and Safety Code references concerning homosexual conduct. Jones said the law is unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas, remains harmful on the books, and has led to confusion and unnecessary costs even though it is unenforceable. Supporters said the bill simply removes outdated language and protects civil liberties, while opponents from Texas Values argued the statute still serves as a statement that homosexual conduct is unacceptable and should remain as a warning, even if unenforceable. Members debated whether the law’s remaining language is merely symbolic or still harmful, and whether other criminal statutes already cover conduct such as prostitution, incest, and offenses involving minors. The bill was left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• And really, where we're headed is that there's a rebuttable presumption.
• So, if you look at line 38, it says there shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint... ...rebuttable
• That's really all that it is doing in the sense of simply establishing a rebuttable presumption.
• It only changes it to... ...the point where there's a rebuttable presumption.
• </c> To bring this rebuttable presumption.

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 1 April, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• An amendment was proposed, a rebuttable presumption, that the conduct was the result of the person being
• presumption and affirmative defense is an offer for an amendment regarding rebuttable presumption and
• The language that I saw previously regarding a rebuttable presumption would create a presumption that
• And when you put that rebuttable presumption together with the affirmative defense, the feedback that
• Not always, but we know that happens, and rebuttable presumption would place a real burden on the trafficking

Bills: HB2028, HB2047, HB2136, HB2244, HB2364, HB2406, HB2415, HB2557, HB2573, HB2589, HB2720, HB2749, HB2825, HB2861, HB2862, HB2870, HB2970, HB4070, HB4117, HCR2004, HCR2051

Keywords: community restitution, homelessness, indigence, court assessments, monetary obligations, forcible entry, detainer, writ of restitution, criminal trespass, judgment enforcement, civil terrorism, disorderly conduct, vandalism, political activism, public order, subversion, government security, evictions, judgment satisfaction, tenant rights

Transcript Highlights:

• So this bill would create a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody and frequent and continuing
• So a rebuttable presumption is that the court accepts as true unless someone brings enough evidence to
• Um, and the presumptive, the rebuttable presumption that both parents are just assumed to be fit parents
• ><c> rebuttable</c> and the presumptive the rebuttable and the presumptive the rebuttable presumption
• ><00:20:11.600><c> every</c> the rebuttable presumption in every the rebuttable presumption in every

Bills: HB19, HB170, HB171, HB173, HB174, HB19, HB170, HB171, HB173, HB174

Keywords: Ebony Alert, missing youth, public safety, law enforcement, racial equity, HB170, supplemental appropriations, Education Trust Fund, Alabama education budget, school funding, K-12 education, local boards of education, textbook adoption, school buses, school safety, charter schools, summer programs, afterschool programs, reading intervention, college and career readiness

Transcript Highlights:

• So is the presumption a rebuttable presumption, or is it like a binding presumption?
• So, like, there's a presumption.
• Is there any mechanism for challenging that presumption, or does it stick always? Mr. Chair, Mr.
• Collins's point, it is a rebuttable presumption.
• presumption.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety and Law Enforcement met and first announced that HB 2691 would be held and not heard further that day. The chair also limited testimony to three speakers for and three against, with two minutes each unless extended by a minority leader. The committee then took up HB 2993, which would allow the Department of Public Safety to spend on legal services independent of the Attorney General and, as amended, redirect $5 million from the Consumer Protection Consumer Fraud Revolving Fund to the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund. Supporters argued the bill would give DPS outside counsel and shift money toward front-line public safety work; opponents said it was political retaliation that would weaken consumer protection enforcement and divert funds from Arizonans who benefit from AG actions. The committee adopted the chairman’s amendment and then approved HB 2993 on an 8-6 vote, with one absent. The committee next heard HB 2231, a clarifying bill updating the list of cancers covered under the occupational disease presumption for firefighters, peace officers, and fire investigators. The sponsor and firefighter testimony said the bill does not expand benefits but fixes a drafting problem, including a disputed comma that had been used by insurers to challenge claims; the Industrial Commission was listed as neutral if needed. Members discussed whether the presumption is rebuttable and how punctuation affected the statute’s meaning. During roll call, several members explained their votes in favor as a matter of grammar and statutory clarity, and the committee passed HB 2231 by a 14-0 vote with one absent. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So is the presumption a rebuttable presumption, or is it like a binding presumption?
• So, like, there's a presumption.
• Like, is there any mechanism for challenging that presumption, or does it stick always? Mr.
• Collins's point, it is a rebuttable presumption.
• presumption.

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety and Law Enforcement met and announced that HB 2691 would be held and not heard further that day. The committee also set limits on testimony for the meeting. The first bill considered was HB 2993, which would allow the Department of Public Safety to obtain legal services independent of the Attorney General and redirect $5 million from the Consumer Protection Consumer Fraud Revolving Fund; an amendment changed the destination of the funds from the Peace Officers Training Fund to the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund. Supporters argued the bill would protect law enforcement from political interference and better fund public safety efforts, while opponents said it was political retaliation that would divert money from consumer protection work. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed HB 2993 with a do pass recommendation by an 8-6 vote, with one member absent. The committee then heard HB 2231, which makes clarifying changes to the list of cancers covered under the workers’ compensation occupational disease presumption for peace officers, firefighters, and fire investigators. The sponsor and firefighter testimony said the bill does not expand benefits but fixes a drafting problem involving punctuation that had led to litigation and claim disputes with insurers. Members discussed whether the presumption is rebuttable and the effect of the comma issue, with several noting the importance of precise statutory language. HB 2231 was passed with a do pass recommendation by a 14-0 vote, with one member absent. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><03:54:40.239><c> presumption</c><03:54:41.199><c> that</c> there's a rebuttable presumption that
• </c> there shall be a rebuttable presumption. there shall be a rebuttable presumption.
• </c><04:03:46.960><c> If</c> then there's a rebuttal presumption.
• If then there's a rebuttal presumption.
• Uh, Representative Faulkner, let's talk about rebuttable presumption.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• An amendment was proposed, a rebuttable presumption, that the conduct was the result of the person being
• presumption and affirmative defense is an offer for an amendment regarding rebuttable presumption and
• The language that I saw previously regarding a rebuttable presumption would create a presumption that
• And when you put that rebuttable presumption together with the affirmative defense, the feedback that
• Not always, but we know that happens, and rebuttable presumption would place a real burden on the trafficking

Summary: The Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee approved the minutes from its March 18, 2026 meeting and then took up a long agenda of bills and a clemency nomination. HB 2825, as amended, was heard first. The bill would replace criminal enforcement tools for nonpayment of fines, fees, restitution, and surcharges with a civil collection process, including a required summons and civil default procedures. Supporters said it would streamline restitution collection and reduce costs, while opponents argued it would weaken victims’ rights and remove effective enforcement leverage. The committee adopted the Rogers amendment and passed the bill 5-2. The committee also confirmed Neil McDowell to the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency by a 6-0 vote after hearing his background in corrections and his plans to help the board function efficiently. The committee then passed HB 4070, as amended, 5-2. That bill bars incorporation of corporations whose officers, directors, or trustees have been convicted of sex trafficking or human trafficking, and expands civil liability to those who facilitate trafficking. Supporters framed it as a corporate accountability tool to deter trafficking, while the ACLU opposed it as overbroad and potentially sweeping in people not intended to be covered. HB 2720, which increases penalties for paying or agreeing to pay for sexual conduct and adds a fee to support anti-trafficking services, also passed, 4-3. Supporters, including survivors and law enforcement, said it targets demand and helps victims; opponents warned it could criminalize victims and lacked sufficient safeguards. The committee heard several additional bills. HB 2047 would raise trespass penalties after eviction-related writs of restitution from third-degree to first-degree trespass; the sponsor and constables said it would improve scene safety and encourage law enforcement response. HB 2136 would create new crimes for “civil terrorism” and “subversion” and increase penalties for certain highway obstruction; the ACLU argued it would punish protest and speech critical of government. HB 2406 would make images and recordings of abused children and deceased minors confidential, limit dissemination, and impose civil and criminal penalties for misuse; supporters said it would prevent re-victimization and reduce trauma, while defense and media concerns were raised about access. HB 2415, dealing with kratom and 7-OH products, drew sharply divided testimony over whether the bill is a needed safety regulation or an overbroad ban that could push users to illicit drugs; the transcript ends before a final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• presumption and any rebuttal to the report.
• presumption and any rebuttal to the rebuttable presumption.
• If the court determines that a parent committed an act of domestic violence, there is a rebuttable presumption
• presumption.
• If there's mutual, without defining mutual, if there's mutual domestic violence, the presumptions are

Summary: The committee first heard HB 2793, which would let cities and towns expedite annexations when 100% of the affected property owners request it, and would modernize notice requirements by allowing electronic newspaper publication and a single on-site notice for small single-parcel annexations. Buckeye supported the bill as a way to streamline uncontested annexations and reduce delay and cost, while a senator raised concerns based on a recent contentious Tucson annexation and the speed of public notice. The committee voted 4-3 to give HB 2793 a do pass recommendation. Members then considered HB 2041, which would prohibit a parent, guardian, or custodian from being found to have abused or neglected a child solely because poverty prevented them from providing supervision, clothing, food, shelter, or medical care. Child welfare advocates supported the bill as a step toward decriminalizing poverty, while another witness argued it did not go far enough because it still allowed investigations based on poverty. Several members said they supported the concept but wanted further changes, and the bill passed 4-3. The committee also approved HB 2239, creating a child care grant program and infrastructure fund at DES to expand access in underserved areas; testimony from child care providers and parents emphasized shortages, workforce challenges, and the need for facilities, and the committee adopted an amendment adding tax credit language and eligible applicants before passing the bill 6-0 with one not voting. HB 2321, requiring DCS to place a credit freeze on a child’s credit report when the child enters care, passed 7-0 without testimony. HB 2371, allowing consenting divorcing parties without minor children to use AI-assisted arbitration and adding an amendment on therapeutic interventions and expert testimony in parenting cases, drew concerns about using AI for binding family-law decisions and about the amendment’s relevance; it passed 4-3. HB 2594, strengthening protections for participants in the address confidentiality program in family-law matters and sealing related voter records, received strong support from a witness describing repeated attempts by an ex-partner to obtain a protected address and passed 7-0 after amendment. HB 2661, requiring DCS to inform parents under investigation that they may delegate temporary guardianship and, as amended, limiting additional documentation requirements, passed 4-3 despite concerns that it gave too much discretion to parents accused of abuse or neglect.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2027, joint custody rebuttable presumption.
• Senate Bill 2027, joint custody rebuttable presumption.
• Uh, I guess if it's the rebuttable presumption, so how do you rebut the presumption?
• 16:25.279><c> presumption,</c><00:16:25.920><c> so</c> if it's the rebuttable presumption, so if it's
• It creates a rebuttable presumption, but it's not that heavy of a burden.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 2:00 P.M., 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:38:12.400><c> presumptions</c><01:38:13.040><c> and</c><01:38:13.360><c> other</c> rebuttable presumptions
• So we would also highlight that the rebuttable presumption might also be problematic.
• </c> highlight is um there is a rebuttable highlight is um there is a rebuttable presumption<01:42:19.760
• </c> highlight that the rebuttable highlight that the rebuttable presumption<01:42:44.960><c> might</
• ><c> on</c> rebuttable presumption based on rebuttable presumption based on structural<01:48:46.639><

Bills: HB1846, HB2205, HB1802, HB1571, HB2047, HB2434, HB2426, HB2361, HB2395, HB1712, HB2544, HB1619

Keywords: coastal erosion, shoreline properties, regional planning, mitigation districts, sediment management, environmental impact, public access, community financing, shoreline erosion, emergency permits, coastal management, erosion control, Hawaii Revised Statutes, HB1802, conservation banking, conservation bank, mitigation banking, compensatory mitigation, incidental take permit, incidental take license

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1846, relating to shoreline mitigation districts. DLNR and the Office of Planning opposed the bill, arguing it would improperly shift regulatory roles between the agencies and prioritize private land interests over public trust and natural and historic resources. Supporters, including the Shoreline Preservation Coalition, Kahana Bay residents, and Hawaii Realtors, said regional planning is needed to address severe erosion, especially in Kahana, and that better coordination between state and county agencies could help move stalled projects forward. Testifiers emphasized that shoreline conditions vary by area and that science-based, region-specific solutions are needed. Members asked questions about whether existing law already allows regional planning and emergency shoreline responses. DLNR said it already has authority to process regional projects and cited an existing draft EIS for Kahana Bay that would proceed through normal permitting and public hearing channels. Supporters responded that the bill would provide a clearer regional planning framework and help communities facing urgent erosion impacts. No vote was taken on HB 1846 in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 2205, relating to emergency erosion mitigation. DLNR opposed the bill, saying it already has authority to issue emergency permits and had recently done so quickly for a collapsed sidewalk at Queen Surf Beach, and warning that the bill’s language could weaken Act 16 by changing a prohibition on shoreline hardening to a requirement to merely minimize it. Kahana Bay representatives and other supporters argued the bill would create a limited, regulated short-term pathway for emergency shoreline solutions while long-term plans are developed, and said current permits have expired or stalled, leaving dangerous sandbags and no practical relief. Additional testimony from a private homeowner stressed that erosion is threatening homes and that private owners are often bearing the cost of protecting public shoreline access. The discussion remained focused on balancing emergency protection, public access, and long-term shoreline management, and no final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 6352 addressed both of these portions, the first on the rebuttable presumption process for
• Senate Bill 6352 addressed both of these portions, the first on the rebuttable presumption process for
• following year of that initial infraction, this striker version would simply remove the current presumption
• rebuttal process for traffic safety camera violations in totality and require registered owners to overcome
• the presumption they're operating the vehicle at the time of any traffic safety camera violation by

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 6352 addressed both of these portions, the first on the rebuttable presumption process for
• Senate Bill 6352 addressed both of these portions, the first on the rebuttable presumption process for
• This striker version would simply remove the current presumption rebuttal process for traffic safety
• camera violations in totality and require registered owners to overcome the presumption that they're

Summary: The Transportation Committee met in executive session on Gross Substitute House Bill 2711, a transportation resources measure, after a staff walkthrough of the Senate striking amendment S-5820.4. Staff explained that the striker largely replaced the bill with provisions from Senate Bill 6352 and related transportation revenue and policy changes, including updates to mobile driver’s licenses, account interest provisions, recreational vessel and luxury vehicle tax clarifications, peer-to-peer tax administration changes, fuel tax timing changes, aircraft fuel tax and account changes, bicycle education grants, ferry payment-card fee authority, traffic safety camera revenue and rebuttable presumption rules, online driver education regulation, transit annexation tax/liability clarification, Sound Transit 75-year bond authority limits, stolen copper protections for light rail and DOT communications infrastructure, and a highway contracting threshold change. Staff also reviewed fiscal impacts, including revenue gains from trade-in value clarifications and aircraft fuel changes, and losses from the diesel tax delay, motorhome exemption, and repeal of the luxury aircraft tax. Members asked several clarifying questions, including the luxury RV tax threshold, how trade-in value is treated under the luxury vehicle tax, whether ferry debit-card fees are authorized, and the legality of passing card-processing fees to customers. Staff and counsel said the luxury vehicle tax applies to value over $100,000, trade-in value is added back for the luxury tax calculation, and the ferry provision is intended to clarify that both credit and debit card surcharges may be passed through. On the traffic safety camera section, staff described a revised approach that would require stronger proof from registered owners to rebut presumed responsibility, and on Sound Transit bonds, staff clarified that bonds over 40 years would be limited to federal transportation loan purposes and would affect eligibility for certain state grants. After caucus, the committee returned to executive session, waived the amendment posting deadline under Senate Rule 45, adopted the striking amendment, and then voted to advance ESHB 2711 as amended with a do pass recommendation to the Rules Committee. The motion carried, and the chair thanked staff before adjourning the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Support the court's finding that the presumption has been overcome and the extent to which the presumption
• presumption established by this bill.
• Modification suits, which is the same burden of proof required to overcome a rebuttable presumption established
• It ensures the parent retains the presumption that the parent acted in the child's best interest.
• The parent retains the presumption that the parent acted in the child's best interest.

Bills: SB302, SB1335, SB1734, SB1760, SB1975, SB2127

Keywords: probate court, statutory judge, reimbursement, court costs, court proceedings, judicial assignments, judge assignment, cost reimbursement, judicial expenses, estate management, statutory requirement, court expenses, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, real property, deed fraud, title fraud

Summary: The committee heard several probate, family law, judicial, property, and contract-related bills. Senate Bill 1335, relating to decedents’ estates, would remove outdated references to a clerk’s certificate, allow courts to remove personal representatives on their own motion with notice by qualified delivery method, and add independent administrators to provisions that referenced only independent executors; an estate-planning attorney testified in support, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1760, concerning guardianship transfer fees and procedures, was described as setting a $45 filing fee for transferred guardianship cases and clarifying completion and dismissal procedures; it received no testimony and was left pending. Senate Bill 2127 would shorten the eligibility period for retired judges to serve as visiting judges from eight years to six, restrict practice in their assigned region for two years, and require conflict-related certification; it also was left pending without testimony. Senate Bill 302 would shift the cost of a traveling probate judge to the requesting estate or parties rather than the county; one witness registered in favor, no one testified, and the bill was left pending. The committee then considered a committee substitute for Senate Bill 252, which would clarify the parental presumption in conservatorship cases, require non-parents seeking relief against a parent to file an affidavit showing significant impairment to the child if relief is denied, require courts to state specific findings when overcoming the presumption, confirm the clear-and-convincing standard, and clarify that agreed prior orders do not defeat the presumption. The substitute was explained as consensus language from a work group, public testimony was reopened, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1734, on deed fraud, would create a streamlined ex parte process for property owners to have fraudulent deeds declared void, modeled on the fraudulent lien statute; county clerk and title association representatives testified that it would provide a low-cost self-help remedy for a growing problem, and the bill was left pending subject to the chair. Senate Bill 1975 would prevent Texas contractors from being forced to litigate disputes in foreign jurisdictions and require disputes to be handled in the county where the project is located; it was presented as a repeat of a previously vetoed bill and was left pending. Finally, the committee took up a substitute for Senate Bill 1940, concerning transfer-on-death style beneficiary designations for manufactured homes. The substitute would allow one or more beneficiaries instead of only one, transfer the interest to surviving designated beneficiaries who survive by 120 hours, extend the application period for transfer to 365 days, void the designation if not timely filed, and require mailing by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested. The substitute was adopted without objection. The committee then recessed subject to the call of the chair.