Transcript Highlights:

• It enacts the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act.
• <00:14:06.079> Law legislative council for the Uniform Law legislative council for the Uniform
• <00:16:09.680> law like the bill is it's it's a uniform law like the bill is it's it's a uniform
• Elizabeth Kent, one of Hawaii's uniform law commissioners, testified on Zoom: "Aloha.
• I'm Elizabeth Kent, one of Hawaii's uniform law commissioners. You have my testimony.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 2567, a Judiciary package measure concerning temporary restraining orders for threats and harassment tied to a public employee’s official actions. Representatives from the Attorney General’s Office and the Judiciary said they had worked out a compromise to address earlier concerns, including a two-year pilot project, broader coverage for state officers and employees across all branches and counties, a special fund to pay for private counsel in some cases, and authority for Judiciary staff attorneys or Judiciary funds to represent Judiciary personnel. Members asked about coverage for retired judges, funding limits, and whether the measure could be used for workplace disputes; the witnesses said retired judges and per diem judges could be covered if the harassment related to their work, the fund would be limited and subject to available appropriations, and petitions would not be allowed between employees in the same branch. The chair recommended passage with amendments, and the committee adopted the recommendation unanimously. The committee then heard SB 2448, which creates a civil remedy for the unauthorized disclosure of intimate images under the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act. The bill’s proponent from the Uniform Law Commission explained that a plaintiff would need to show intentional disclosure or threat of disclosure of a private intimate image without consent, and said the privacy question would be fact-specific. Supporters, including the Commission on the Status of Women and Imua Alliance, favored giving survivors civil recourse. Opponents from the Sex Abuse Treatment Center and others warned that the term "private" could invite victim-blaming and broad discovery into a survivor’s past, while still acknowledging the need for some privacy limitation to avoid overbreadth, especially for people who intentionally distribute intimate content online. Committee members questioned whether the definition of "private" should be tightened. The bill’s proponent said the term should remain because it aligns with the related criminal statute and helps keep the measure focused on classic revenge-porn situations, while still allowing Hawaii-specific changes if needed. The committee did not take final action on SB 2448 in the portion provided, but testimony and discussion centered on balancing survivor protections with concerns about discovery and the scope of liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Uniform Act that this bill is based on is the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure
• Promote Uniform Laws. Promote Uniform Laws.
• the Commission to Promote Uniform Laws. the Commission to Promote Uniform Laws.
• First, this bill is based on a uniform First, this bill is based on a uniform law<01:10:40.280><
• companion bill, which is the Uniform companion bill, which is the Uniform Civil<01:45:15.200>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several Senate bills. On SB 2530, relating to campaign contributions, the State Procurement Office suggested clarifying that contractor disclosure information be submitted within 30 days of a fully executed contract, while the Campaign Spending Commission supported the bill but asked that the restriction on contributions by officers be expanded beyond compensated officers. Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action supported the measure and urged keeping the Senate language, arguing it better addresses contractor influence, while no other testifiers appeared. On SB 2970, relating to standards of conduct, the State Ethics Commission supported the bill and proposed amendments to consolidate the new language into existing Chapter 84 contract provisions and use “department head” instead of “director.” The State Procurement Office supported the measure but recommended closing a perceived loophole by limiting the covered contracts to those under $10,000. No opposition testimony was offered. The committee then heard SB 2919, which would fund one full-time Deputy Public Defender position focused on immigration-related advice under Padilla v. Kentucky. The Office of the Public Defender, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrants’ Rights, and the ACLU of Hawaii supported the bill, explaining that the position would help public defenders advise clients about immigration consequences of criminal cases, not provide immigration representation. Members asked several questions about the scope of the position and whether it could assist with citizenship; testimony clarified that it would not handle civil immigration matters. The bill was also described as creating a statewide consistent resource for the public defender system. Finally, on SB 2446, relating to the judiciary, the Intermediate Court of Appeals supported adding a seventh associate judge position but noted the court has only recently been fully staffed at six judges and has improved output through internal changes. The chair emphasized that the bill authorizes the position without funding and encouraged the judiciary to return later if appropriations are needed. The committee also began hearing SB 2730, a criminal justice reform bill on warrantless arrests and citations. OHA supported reducing unnecessary arrests but objected to making citations visible on criminal records; the Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, citing law enforcement flexibility, identification concerns, and possible litigation costs; and the Judiciary requested a later implementation date and suggested changes to citation-resolution language. The transcript ends while testimony on SB 2730 was still underway.

Transcript Highlights:

• Commission on Uniform State Laws.
• Commission on Uniform State Laws.
• Commission on Uniform State Laws.
• Chuck Mooney is New Hampshire's representative on the Uniform Commission on Uniform State Laws.
• Like all uniform acts, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act has gone through a multi-year process with

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• portions of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017.
• This is a uniform act based on the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017.
• Next up, we have Elizabeth Kent, testifying for the Uniform Law Commission to promote uniform laws.
• <00:13:01.920> law bill to include the uniform law bill to include the uniform law commission
• language from section 806 of the uniform language from section 806 of the uniform parenting<01:20

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard SB 1231, which would repeal the Parentage Uniform Act of 1973 and update Hawaii’s parentage laws, including parts of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017. Supporters said the current statutes are outdated and do not adequately address assisted reproduction, surrogacy, and modern family formation. The Attorney General’s office supported the bill with technical amendments, including conforming changes to the Probate Code and child support provisions, and several testifiers urged passage as a needed modernization of the law. A major point of disagreement was Part 10, which concerns donor anonymity. Some supporters, including members of the task force, the Uniform Law Commission, fertility and family law practitioners, and LGBTQ+ advocates, backed the bill as written or said it should move forward even if Part 10 is removed. Others, including donor-conceived adults, parents, and advocacy groups, opposed Part 10 and urged the committee to adopt the 2024 version of Article 9 or delete Part 10 entirely, arguing that anonymous donation harms donor-conceived people’s access to genetic, medical, and identity information and that anonymity is not realistic in the DNA-testing era. One task force member and attorney said she supported the bill but preferred removing Part 10 if necessary to pass the rest. The hearing included extensive public testimony both in support and opposition, with many individuals describing personal experiences with adoption, IVF, surrogacy, and donor conception. No committee vote or final action on the bill was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• across the country, uh, to try to provide some uniformity between the states.
• <00:20:32.559> Law representative on the Uniform Law representative on the Uniform Law Commission
• uniform law commission for the house. uniform law commission for the house.
• know you've heard of the uniform know you've heard of the uniform commercial<00:20:54.960> code
• <00:21:07.679> between<00:21:08.000> the to provide some uniformity between the to

Bills: HB55, SB15, SB247

Keywords: fishing, licensing, jubilee, Marine life, Alabama, regulations, sex offenders, employment restrictions, first responders, public safety, juvenile offenders, local laws, registration requirements, picketing, protesting, residential protest, noise amplification, amplified sound, residential picketing, harassment

Transcript Highlights:

• Prior testifiers that there are issues with uniformity.
• Right now there is no uniform standard across the state.
• Right now there is no uniform standard across the state.
• Right now there is no uniform standard across the state.
• statutory uh requirement for uniformity statutory uh requirement for uniformity and<02:10:38.040

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You'll see in front of you, we have Florida Scholars Academy, uniforms for detention staff and youth,
• Next is uniforms for detention staff and youth.
• Our juvenile detention officers are expected to meet a professional uniform standard.
• standards. ...to meet a professional uniform standard.
• , will be dress shirts and pants, as well as purchasing new uniforms for the youth.

Summary: The committee received a presentation on the Governor’s fiscal year 2026-2027 public safety budget, which totals $8.2 billion for the public safety silo and includes funding for the Departments of Law Enforcement, Juvenile Justice, and Corrections, along with courts and legal affairs. The Governor’s Office highlighted recurring reductions and vacancy eliminations, while agency heads outlined their major requests: FDLE sought funding for fentanyl enforcement, career offender registry staffing, alert-system upgrades, alcohol testing modernization, officer wellness, criminal intelligence, and immigration-related intelligence work; DJJ requested money for the Florida Scholars Academy, uniforms, residential services, a new Broward detention center, and facility maintenance; and DOC requested major increases for officer pay, additional staff, facility construction and maintenance, communications upgrades, inmate health care, pharmaceuticals, and food service. Members questioned FDLE about immigration enforcement and public records burdens, and DOC about staffing, capacity, mental health services, contraband, housing, and whether prison beds were being used for immigration detainees. Public testimony also urged better prison conditions and basic necessities for incarcerated people. The committee then took up and reported favorably CS/SB 156, the Jason Rayner Act, which would strengthen penalties and clarify that a person may not resist an officer with violence when the officer is performing official duties. An amendment conforming the bill to House language was adopted, and the bill passed with Senator Smith voting no. The committee also adopted an amendment and reported favorably CS/SB 54, which concerns use of substances affecting cognitive function and limits certain medical-record disclosures to information relevant to investigations of violent offenders; Senator Smith voted no on that measure as well. Next, the committee considered Senator Berman’s bills on domestic and dating violence. CS/SB 296 would direct a study of a secure web-based alert platform for victims, including a discreet phone-number/code system and geolocation support, and would expand the Address Confidentiality Program to dating-violence victims. The bill drew emotional support testimony from survivors and advocates describing the dangers victims face when trying to leave abusive situations, and it was reported favorably. Its companion, CS/SB 298, would extend public-records protections in the Address Confidentiality Program to dating-violence victims; it was also reported favorably. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• forward refer to as the Uniform Disclaimer Act, in 1986.
• That version was drafted by the Uniform That version was drafted by the Uniform Laws<00:32:27.400
• In the interim 40 years, the Uniform Laws Commission has updated the Uniform Disclaimer Act to take care
• Our current uniform disclaimer law has not kept up with the times.
• > law<00:38:24.040> has Our current uniform disclaimer law has Our current uniform disclaimer

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House opened with a devotional by former member Jason Lorber, who spoke humorously about the difference between asking questions and making statements, urging members to be direct and add value in deliberation. The chamber then took up several resolutions: JRH 11, urging Congress to enact the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2025, was read and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development; JRS 51, setting weekend adjournment for May 1, 2026, was adopted in concurrence; and H.C.R. 261 was read, recognizing May 2026 as Older Americans Month and designating May 6, 2026 as Age Strong Vermont Day. Members also used announcements to welcome guests and highlight events, including the Age Strong Vermont initiative, a former member’s return, visitors connected to psychedelic medicine advocacy, an art social, fisheries and trout-in-the-classroom guests, a legislative intern, and a reminder about the May 16 NAMI walk. The House then took up Senate Bill 230, an omnibus labor measure relating to fair employment practices. The committee explanation described technical clarifications to parental and family leave for full-time teachers, expansion of protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, removal of outdated statutory language on mandatory retirement for tenured faculty, and clarification that elected and appointed municipal officers are not employees for minimum wage and overtime purposes. The main new policy in section 3B would prohibit non-compete agreements for non-exempt employees, with an exception for collective bargaining agreements, and would restrict certain non-compete and related clauses in health care provider contracts while preserving continuity of care and excluding non-clinical business support services. The committee reported extensive testimony and voted 11-0-0 to recommend the bill favorably with amendment; the House agreed to propose the amendment to the Senate and ordered third reading. The House also began consideration of Senate Bill 179, updating Vermont’s Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act. The committee presentation explained that the bill would eliminate the current 9-month deadline for disclaimers, reflecting changes in federal tax law and the much larger modern estate and gift tax exclusion, and would modernize the statute in several ways. Proposed changes include clearer rules for jointly held property, allowing pre-death disclaimers, authorizing trustees and parents in limited circumstances to disclaim on behalf of trusts or minor children, permitting disclaimers by proxy for infirm persons, clarifying partial disclaimers and entity disclaimers, improving delivery rules for non-real-estate property, and specifying that a disclaimer is not a transfer for transfer-tax purposes. The bill was described as a response to outdated law in light of an impending large intergenerational wealth transfer, and the House proceeded with second reading discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The lack of uniformity creates disparity.
• creates disparity Senate bill uniformity creates disparity Senate bill ensures<00:09:29.959> that
• <00:09:53.000> among<00:09:53.360> the<00:09:53.560> agencies directs uniformity
• among the agencies directs uniformity among the agencies participating<00:09:54.800> in<00:09
• introduce uniform reporting requirements and<00:11:18.519> oversight<00:11:19.079> of<

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate State and Local Government Committee met and first took up Senate Bill 193, described as a simple measure to restore a wallet card for jailers to carry when outside the jail. The chair noted the fiscal impact was essentially zero, there were no questions, and the committee voted to pass the bill 9-0. The committee then heard Senate Bill 9, a proposal focused on the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS). The sponsor argued TRS remains underfunded despite large state contributions, cited rising unfunded liability and negative cash flow, and said the bill is intended to standardize and limit what sick leave, personal leave, and annual leave can count toward retirement calculations. The bill would generally cap TRS retirement credit at 10 sick days and 2 personal days per year, prevent annual leave from being rolled into sick leave, require more uniform reporting and oversight from participating districts and agencies, and shift costs to districts that offer benefits beyond TRS limits. The sponsor also said the bill would add 30 maternity leave days, allow voluntary supplemental contributions for Tier Four teachers, and include a floor amendment directing the state auditor to audit TRS and report on agency leave policies. During the presentation, the sponsor emphasized fairness, transparency, and accountability, and used a hypothetical high-salary administrator to illustrate how leave payouts can increase retirement benefits and create additional unfunded liability. Senator Mills thanked the sponsor and said members had been working to understand the issue, but no committee action on Senate Bill 9 was completed in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• For most serving in uniform, you could probably thank a recruiter.
• , in uniform, in uniform, but<00:21:03.039> by<00:21:03.280> how<00:21:03.520> that
• > different In uniform, vermoners from different In uniform, vermoners from different backgrounds
• <00:21:46.640> The long after the uniform comes off.
• The long after the uniform comes off.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The caucus of the whole was held as the annual State of the Guard address, featuring Adjutant General Gregory Knight’s remarks to legislators and guests. Knight said this would likely be his final address before retirement and thanked Gold Star families, military survivors, Governor Phil Scott, honorary commanders, legislative leaders, his family, and many Guard and community partners. He emphasized that the Vermont National Guard is a civic institution, not just a military force, and said its strength depends on a strong relationship with the legislature. Knight reviewed several priorities and accomplishments, including regular transparency updates to the governor, legislature, congressional delegation, and force; the creation of the Vermont National Guard and Veterans Caucus; and legislation supporting education, workforce development, benefits, and service members’ families. He highlighted recruiting and retention efforts, including the Prime employer partnership program, which he said now has 40 employer partners and 24 more pending, and argued that Vermont can attract and retain service members by connecting military experience to civilian jobs and education opportunities. He also discussed organizational climate improvements, mental health and prevention staffing, and the need for more providers who accept military patients and Tricare, noting the Howard Center and other health centers are expanding military and veteran care. The address also covered the Guard’s broader role in emergency response, citizenship, diversity, and international partnerships. Knight described recent deployments and state responses to COVID-19, flooding, and other emergencies, explained Guard duty statuses and called for congressional reform to simplify them, and outlined state partnership work with Austria, North Macedonia, and Senegal, as well as related educational and economic initiatives. He recognized numerous Guard members, recruiters, fiscal staff, media partners, and outside collaborators for their contributions. No votes were taken. The meeting concluded with Speaker recognition of Knight’s service and an announcement that the caucus had ended and the House would gavel in shortly afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• to amend the Executive Law in relation to expanding remedies for violations of the New York State Uniform
• act to amend the Executive Law in relation to ensuring proper administration and enforcement of the Uniform
• act to amend the executive law in relation to ensuring proper administration and enforcement of the uniform
• fire prevention and building... ...law in relation to requiring the updating of the state uniform fire
• Code Act, there's not a statutory requirement when these... ...Uniform Fire Prevention and Building

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Housing, Construction and Community Development Committee met with quorum present and considered a full agenda of housing, code enforcement, and rent regulation bills, many of which had passed the Senate in prior years. Early measures included a statewide residential rental registry (S.912), penalties and reporting for vacant and abandoned properties (S.925), and extending tenant response time for major capital improvement rent increase applications (S.1461). The committee also advanced several code-enforcement and fire/building-code bills, including measures to expand remedies for Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code violations (S.3406), increase the Secretary of State’s code enforcement powers (S.4165 and S.4534), and authorize investigations into code administration and enforcement (S.4535). Members raised concerns about local fiscal impacts, the scope of state authority, contractor use, and whether the bills adequately define or limit “imminent threat” and related enforcement powers. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on S.4852, which would require the Codes Council to review and act on updates to international model codes within 18 months. Senators debated whether the bill would speed up code adoption or, as some feared, weaken economic reasonableness considerations by striking the word “economically” from the statutory standard. Supporters said the bill was intended to ensure prompt review of widely used model codes and noted other statutory safeguards remain in place; opponents worried about reduced attention to cost and practical impacts, especially amid housing and utility capacity constraints. The committee also discussed S.6368A, requiring complainants to receive copies of compliance orders issued after code complaints, and S.6600B, mandating inspections of certain non-fireproof buildings in New York City. Additional bills advanced included standards for all-gender bathroom design and construction (S.7131A), compensation for required code-enforcement personnel training (S.7159), and audits of individual apartment improvements in rent-regulated units (S.8046A). Several measures were reported to Finance, while others were reported to the floor. Throughout the meeting, votes were largely along expected lines, with some members voting negative or “without recommendation” on the more expansive code-enforcement bills. No bill was defeated, and all items on the agenda were reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, if we're going to do a separate, I think there's another bill that talks about making uniform
• I mean, it would make more sense to me if we were going to change uniform rules or procedures that it
• And I cannot tell you that there's a uniform way of doing things in the state of North Dakota despite
• There are Zoom opportunities that are uniform throughout the state.
• Should be uniform for both of those notes. Okay.

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met to approve prior minutes and then worked through draft legislation related to a possible family court study committee. The group discussed the proposed 15-member committee’s makeup in detail, including whether to add parent representation, judges, family law section members, child support, clerks of court, domestic violence advocates, and other stakeholders. The task force ultimately agreed to keep the committee at 15 members, reduce the legislative membership from eight to six, add two judges from different districts, add two family law section members with rural and urban representation, include one parent subject to a custody order, and replace the mental health professional with a clerk of court representative appointed through the trial court administrator’s office. The draft was also revised to keep domestic violence advocacy representation and to clarify that the study could consider juvenile court issues as part of the family court umbrella. The committee voted to approve the revised draft and recommend it to Legislative Management, with one recorded “no” vote from Judge Hovey after the meeting resumed. The task force then turned to a second draft dealing with requiring participation in a family transition program, which was renamed in discussion to a parenting education course. Members debated whether the bill should simply refer to an existing program like Parents Forever or instead specify broader education about the court process, parental rights, co-parenting, and related issues. Some members supported the requirement as a way to reduce conflict and improve understanding of the system, while others raised concerns about vague language, cost to parents, lack of exemptions, and whether the bill was too open-ended or potentially duplicative of other legislation. The discussion became lengthy and unresolved, with the drafter noting that more specific direction would be needed to revise the bill. The transcript cuts off before a final vote or action on this second draft is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Democrats have made Minnesota less safe, especially for those people who put on the badge and uniform
• the defunding and dismantling of police departments and even encouraged violence against those in uniform
• the defunding and dismantling of police departments and even encouraged violence against those in uniform
• for years they vilified an uniform for years they vilified an honorable<00:08:38.440> profession<
• truth that the men and women in uniform truth that the men and women in uniform protecting<00:09

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's just making that uniform<00:05:17.280> throughout<00:05:18.080> statute.
• <00:05:19.280> uh<00:05:19.520> further uniform throughout statute. uh further uniform
• And this was a Uniform Mortgage Modification Act.
• The Uniform Mortgage Modification Act. This was a joint committee bill.
• the Uniform Mortgage Modification Act. the Uniform Mortgage Modification Act.

Bills: SF0114, SF0102, SF0117

Keywords: elections, Wyoming House of Representatives, state representatives, multi-member districts, county-based districts, party list voting, list voting, proportional representation, Jefferson method, greatest divisors method, ranked choice voting, RCV, primary elections, party conventions, minor parties, major parties, ballot design, apportionment, redistricting, nomination procedures

Transcript Highlights:

• She has multiple combat tours, and she still wears the uniform to this day.
• I'd like to begin by thanking you for your decades of public service, both in uniform and as a member
• I question the qualifications of a woman who's worn the uniform of her nation for 22 years and never
• Tulsi was serving in uniform three years before some of us here today voted to create the Director of
• She upheld honor while breaking barriers both in uniform and in her civilian leadership roles.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our position on this Brady bill has been consistent. uniformed process of Brady application, uniformed
• We need We need a uniform Brady process.
• We want a uniform standard.
• We want a uniform<00:28:45.120> standard.
• It's been, you know, uniform standard.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 962, the Brady-Giglio bill, which seeks to create a more uniform statewide process for how prosecutors identify and manage law enforcement officers whose credibility may be questioned. The author explained that the bill grew out of stakeholder work over the past year, and the committee adopted the DE3 amendment, which reflected much of that negotiated language. Testifiers from the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, Law Enforcement Labor Services, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association all said the bill was moving in the right direction and emphasized the need for consistency, predictability, security, and due process in Brady-Giglio decisions. Several witnesses said the bill should prevent Brady designations from being used as the sole basis for discipline and should prohibit prosecutor-maintained do-not-call lists. County attorney and law enforcement representatives said the current draft is a major step forward but that work remains, especially on data access, data retention, sharing, and security provisions. They also noted that the language had not yet been fully approved by all stakeholder boards, though they supported continuing the process and asked the committee to advance the bill so negotiations could continue. Members raised questions about whether public defenders, defendants’ rights groups, and other public employees had been included in the discussions. The author and other supporters said the main alignment so far has been among prosecutors and law enforcement, with additional input from other groups to come later. In closing, the author described personal experiences that illustrated how an error or misunderstanding could unfairly affect an officer’s career and argued for a statewide standard. The committee then voted to re-refer House File 962, as amended, to the Judiciary Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Peter Hamasaki, Commission to Promote Uniform Legislation Commissioner, in support.
• I'm sorry, you didn't sign up for the Uniform Law Commission member in support.
• Peter Hamasaki, Commission to Promote Uniform Legislation Commissioner, in support.
• I'm sorry, you didn't sign up for the Uniform Law Commission member in support.
• I'm sorry, you didn't sign up for the Uniform Law Commission member in support.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held a Governor’s Message hearing on two nominations. For GM 750, Tracy Fujita was nominated to the Commission to Promote Uniform Legislation for a term ending June 30, 2030. Testimony in support came from several officials and commission members, including the Deputy Attorney General, Maui Behavioral Health Resources CEO Nicole Hokoana, Maui Council Chair Alice Lee, and Uniform Law Commission members. Fujita said her county-level legislative law background at the Department of Corporation Counsel and Office of Council Services would help her serve, and she expressed particular interest in health care legislation. For GM 778, Jessica Schafer was nominated to the Commission on the Status of Women for a term ending June 30, 2030. Support testimony came from Commission Executive Director Yasmin Chaney and multiple others. Schafer said her background includes prosecuting domestic violence cases, working in a human trafficking clinic, investigating sexual misconduct in higher education, and leading gender-based violence programming at the University of Hawaii; she said she is especially interested in sexual and gender-based violence issues but is open to broader commission work. After questioning, the committee moved to decision-making on both nominations. The chair recommended advise and consent for each, and the committee adopted both measures without any no votes or reservations. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the word 'uniformed' will be brought back into Sections 18544 and 18544.
• In today's political climate, intimidation does not always come in the form of a marked uniform.
• In today's political climate, intimidation does not always come in the form of a marked uniform.
• It's creating uniformity across the state.
• I think it was during the Kirkringle contest, and legislation was passed to prevent uniformed guards

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and heard one bill, SB 73. The author described the measure as a response to perceived threats to California elections, including restrictions on armed or non-uniformed personnel at polling places, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on law enforcement access to election materials without a court order. The chair reviewed a set of agreed amendments, including removing a section conflicting with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties, clarifying the role of the Attorney General and Secretary of State, and refining language on signature challenges, law enforcement support, and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force, CHIRLA, the League of Women Voters of California, and Common Cause, argued the bill would protect voters from intimidation and preserve election integrity. Opponents from CALA argued the bill was unnecessary, would hinder legitimate investigations, and reflected distrust of law enforcement and federal oversight. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill was responding to real-world threats and on the ballot seizure in Riverside County. Members questioned how the measure would affect signature challenges, chain of custody, and investigations into possible fraud. The author and supporters said ballots should remain in election officials’ custody and that federal or local agents should not be able to interfere with election materials or intimidate voters. The chair and other members also discussed the urgency clause and the need to move the bill quickly despite the proximity of the June election. The committee voted to do pass and re-refer SB 73 to the Committee on Public Safety. The roll call initially showed the bill passing 5-1, then after the absent member arrived, the final vote was 6-2, and the bill was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• support during the voting period on election day or during the canvass of the vote; and the word "uniformed
• And the word uniformed is, will be brought back into sections 18544 and 18544.
• In today's political climate, intimidation does not always come in the form of a marked uniform.
• In today's political climate, intimidation does not always come in the form of a marked uniform.
• It's creating uniformity across the state.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and took up one measure, SB 73 by Senator Svantez. The author described the bill as an urgency measure intended to strengthen protections around California elections, including restrictions on law enforcement or military presence at voting locations, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on access to election materials. The chair also outlined a set of agreed-upon amendments, including removing a section to avoid conflict with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties in one section, clarifying language on vote-by-mail signature challenges, and refining provisions related to law enforcement support and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force and CHIRLA, argued the bill was needed to protect voters from intimidation and to safeguard election administration from interference, citing concerns about immigration enforcement at polling places and the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of ballots. Additional supporters from the League of Women Voters and Common Cause registered their support. Opposition testimony from CALA argued the bill would impede legitimate investigations and federal oversight of elections, and questioned the need for the measure. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill addressed a real threat, the chain of custody for ballots, and the scope of the signature-challenge provisions. After closing remarks from the author and the chair, the committee voted to pass SB 73 and re-refer it to the Committee on Public Safety. The initial roll call was 5-1 with one member absent, and after the absent member’s vote was added, the final vote was 6-2-1. The bill advanced from committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> about transparency, uniformity, and about transparency, uniformity, and making<00:04:01.840> sure
• They're using the it in uniform manner.
• <00:24:46.159> as I appreciate the idea of uniformity as I appreciate the idea of uniformity
• :47.200> transparency<00:26:47.840> of uniformity.
• I like the transparency of uniformity.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.