Transcript Highlights:

• First, it allows a judge at the time of sentencing to issue a protective order of up to 25 years for
• First, it allows a judge at the time of sentencing to issue a protective order of up to 25 years for
• orders that are valid up to 25 years. ...granting judges the discretion to issue protective orders that
• And there are practical reasons why a 25-year protective order is not going to protect the victim and
• Because in order to issue a protective order, the judge has to write on the protective order who the

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing several bills, with members repeatedly noting that votes would be taken later once a quorum was established. Early in the meeting, the committee heard SB 1446 on parole en banc review and SB 1278 on elderly parole eligibility for certain sex offenses. SB 1446’s author said the bill would give commissioners more discretion in en banc review, make votes public, and allow referral for sexually violent predator evaluation in certain cases; supporters included the California District Attorneys Association, while opponents from Uncommon Law, the Ella Baker Center, and public defender groups argued it would add confusion, create constitutional and litigation concerns, and duplicate existing safeguards. SB 1278 would exclude certain rape, child sexual abuse, and habitual/serial sex offense convictions from elderly parole eligibility; district attorneys and police chiefs supported it as a victim-safety measure, while civil rights and defense organizations opposed it as unnecessary, costly, and inconsistent with evidence on aging and recidivism. Both bills were discussed but not voted on due to the lack of quorum. The committee then heard SB 1354, which would bar out-of-state military or law enforcement personnel from entering California to perform such functions without the Governor’s permission. The author and supporters framed it as protecting state sovereignty and limiting unauthorized armed incursions; the committee accepted an amendment removing a criminal penalty and leaving enforcement to the Attorney General. No opposition testimony was offered, and members expressed support, but no vote was taken because quorum was still lacking. The committee also heard SB 926, a bill to fund implementation of Proposition 36. Supporters, including sheriffs, district attorneys, probation officials, and the League of California Cities, said local agencies need funding for treatment, supervision, and administration; opponents argued the proposal was fiscally reckless, lacked accountability, and overemphasized incarceration. Amendments removed a specific appropriation and shifted funding decisions to the budget process, but the bill was also held pending quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 874, which would require background checks for unlicensed providers of Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, create a stakeholder workgroup, and direct DHCS to issue guidance and report on program integrity. Support came from local health plans and behavior analysis providers, who said the bill would improve safety and consistency; there was no opposition testimony. The committee then heard SB 1210, which would extend CalGang oversight and due process protections to local gang databases as well as shared ones. Supporters described privacy abuses, racial disparities, and personal harm from inaccurate gang labels; law enforcement opposition argued the bill would impose CalGang standards on informal investigative files and would significantly change the gang definition. The author said the bill closes a loophole and preserves prior reforms, but no vote was taken. The committee also began hearing SB 1019 on creating a California Cargo Thief Task Force, with strong support from BNSF, trucking, shipping, port, and supply-chain representatives who described organized, multi-jurisdictional cargo theft and rail sabotage; no opposition was heard, and members indicated support, but action was deferred pending quorum. The meeting then moved to SB 1217 on a non-consensual intimate image clearinghouse, with the chair and author describing privacy-related amendments and the bill’s focus on helping survivors remove exploitative images; the transcript cuts off as that presentation began.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there a cost to file for a protective order? No, ma'am.
• I guess more specifically to protective order proceedings.
• for a hearing on the final protective order.
• order or permanent protective order at that point.
• It's not a permanent order, protective order at this point. It's just temporary.

Summary: The committee first took up SCR 30 by Senator Connick, which memorializes Congress to compel the Department of Justice to release unclassified Epstein-related records. Senator Connick gave personal remarks about child sexual abuse and the need to hold powerful people accountable. Representative Newell supported the resolution, and the committee reported it favorably without opposition. Next, the committee considered SCR 40 by Senator Selders, urging Congress to timely pass defense appropriations that fully fund and align with the National Defense Authorization Act. The measure was briefly explained as a statement of support for military readiness and proper appropriations, and it was moved favorably with no opposition. The main substantive discussion centered on SB 259 by Senator Barrow, which would authorize an online portal for civil protective order applications. A Supreme Court protective order registry representative explained that the portal would let domestic and dating violence survivors complete petitions online, with the same judicial review, service, and hearing process that exists now; the bill would not eliminate manual filing. Members asked about fees, guidance for applicants, verification, judicial review, public access, and the risk of false filings. The witness and several members emphasized that the process remains temporary and ex parte at the outset, that final orders are issued by judges, and that the registry is not public. A domestic violence coalition representative also testified in support. Representative Newell moved favorable, Representative Edmondson objected, and the committee reported the bill favorably by a 10-1 vote. Finally, Representative Baham presented HR 245 condemning political violence in the United States. He cited recent and historical examples of political attacks and argued that violence against public figures and activists is harmful regardless of party. Members voiced support, no one objected, and the resolution was adopted before the committee adjourned, with the chair noting it was the last meeting of the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• and improve coordinated responses to military protective orders in cases of domestic violence.
• Military protective orders, or MPOs, are similar to civil restraining orders.
• Military protective orders, or MPOs, are similar to civil restraining orders.
• The bill will importantly grant judges the additional discretion to issue protective orders valid for
• Being subject to such a protective order has many collateral consequences.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and orders for protection.
• and orders for protection.
• and protective orders.
• and protective orders.
• You know, protective orders.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. SB 1296 HD1, relating to disaster recovery, would exempt reconstruction of lawfully constructed structures damaged or destroyed in a declared disaster from special management area permits under certain conditions. OPSD, DLNR, the County of Maui, Front Street Recovery, and the Grassroot Institute supported the bill, saying it would speed rebuilding after disasters like the Maui fires; one witness noted the bill would not cover shoreline parcels unless amended, and members asked about the five-year rebuild window, the meaning of “lawfully constructed,” and whether unlawful structures were excluded. Testimony was also heard on SB 1413, which would allow the Hawaii Public Housing Authority to dispose of abandoned property in federal public housing projects after notice and within five days; HPHA said the bill would help address illegal dumping and clarify procedures. SB 31 HD1, concerning discriminatory restrictive covenants, was briefly described and had support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and comments from the Uniform Law Commission, with no in-person testimony. The committee then heard SB 1341, which would add HEMA and the Office of Homeland Security to agencies allowed to review energy industry information and would expand the program’s emergency-management purpose. The Hawaii State Energy Office supported the measure, saying the data is important for emergency response and fuel-supply planning. SB 10008 HD1 would authorize counties to adopt ordinances enforcing accessible parking space requirements and clarify county enforcement of EV-related parking provisions; the Disability and Communication Access Board strongly supported the accessible-parking provisions, saying current enforcement is weak, while noting section three on EV spaces is already largely in statute and could be struck if the committee preferred. Tina Yamaki of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii testified in opposition. Finally, the committee heard SB 1028 SD1 HD1, which would eliminate fees, fines, and court costs for offenses committed by minors, discharge existing related debt, limit community service for minors to 72 hours, and repeal certain penalties tied to minors and their parents or guardians. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council, Community Alliance on Prisons, and DebtFree Justice Hawaii supported the bill, arguing that youth fines burden families, worsen poverty, and disproportionately affect Native Hawaiian youth. The Department of the Attorney General offered comments, raising possible constitutional title issues because the current draft incorporates material from HB 129 and includes sections that may relate more to restitution or curfew than to fines and fees; supporters responded that the title is sufficient and cited case law. No votes or final actions were taken on the measures in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is relating to the transfer of a protective order.
• divorce or child custody orders involving... ...protective orders and subsequent divorce or child custody
• You have another court then that orders a protective order that completely contradicts what the first
• . ...for a protective order so that a court can address the issue of modifying a protective order to
• and the protective order is going to get moved.

Summary: The committee first adopted its rules, which were distributed in the same form as the prior session’s rules. Members then took up several bills, beginning with SB 711, an HOA/condominium association bill that would extend and conform property-owner protections to condominium associations; the bill’s author and a Community Associations Institute representative testified in support, and the bill was left pending. SB 942 would allow child support and certain prenatal/postnatal medical expenses to be calculated from the date of conception rather than birth; it drew supportive testimony from the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Attorney General’s Child Support Division, and was also left pending after testimony. SB 1448, an estates and probate cleanup bill, would require transfer of original wills by qualified delivery, add notice and electronic-order requirements for statutory probate courts, and make other clarifications; it received supportive testimony from the Texas Real Estate and Probate Institute and was left pending. The committee also heard SB 1403, the Attorney General’s Title IV-D child support modernization bill, which updates notice, review, remote-hearing, and administrative-process provisions and clarifies several enforcement and evidence rules; the AG’s office testified that it would improve efficiency, and the bill remained pending. SB 1404 would allow courts to require an email address in final SAPCR orders when other contact information is nondisclosed and clarify service and judgment requirements; the Attorney General’s office described it as a good-government measure, and it was left pending. SB 1559 would require transfer of protective orders into divorce or custody cases to avoid conflicting orders; family-law practitioners and a family court judge testified that it would resolve longstanding conflicts identified by multiple courts of appeals, and the bill remained pending. Finally, the committee considered SB 746, a guardianship bill that would address conflicts of interest in guardianship proceedings, allow guardian ad litem appointment earlier in the process, and require timely court action on annual guardianship reports and accounts; a committee substitute would remove some provisions and extend a reporting deadline from 20 to 30 days. TREP supported the bill, and one practitioner suggested requiring courts to state reasons when rejecting annual accounts. SB 1536 would require dementia and Alzheimer’s training for certain family guardians, with a committee substitute narrowing the scope and reducing the training time from three hours to one; the Alzheimer’s Association supported the measure and the substitute, and the bill was left pending. No bills were voted out of committee during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to protect people from faith leaders being protected when they are assaulting children.
• Protecting feelings over privacy is not protecting.
• , to protect their property.
• Texas aims to protect the unborn from abortion pills while, importantly, to protect their moms.
• It has to be done to protect our moms. It's about protecting our moms.

Bills: HB7, SB 8, HB7, SB 8

Keywords: abortion, healthcare, jurisdiction, civil action, qui tam, prohibition, state law, sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• House come to order.
• So ordered. ordered. ordered. >> Gentle<00:13:53.279> from<00:13:53.360> McCracken.
• So ordered.
• It does nothing to protect my constituents, to protect your family members, to protect our neighbors.
• It does nothing to protect my constituents, to protect your family members, to protect our neighbors.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• orders that are valid up to 25 years. ...judges the discretion to issue protective orders that are valid
• And there are practical reasons why a 25-year protective order is not going to protect the victim and
• Because in order to issue a protective order, the judge has to write on the protective order who the
• They may have been family members to start with, and then the protective order is still in place, and
• This comes off if the person that the restraining order is meant to protect dies, then it goes away.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing a long agenda of public safety bills. Early announcements covered consent calendar items, a pulled bill (SB 906), testimony limits, and a recess for lunch. Several measures were heard in special order and file order, with votes deferred until quorum was established. The committee also accepted or discussed amendments on multiple bills during presentation. SB 1446, by the committee, would change parole en banc review procedures by giving commissioners more discretion, making en banc votes public, and allowing CDCR referrals for sexually violent predator evaluations in certain cases. Support came from the California District Attorneys Association, while opposition came from Uncommon Law, the Ella Baker Center, and public defender and youth justice groups, who argued it would add confusion, raise constitutional concerns, and duplicate existing safeguards. SB 1278, by Senator Nilo, would exclude certain sex offenses from elderly parole eligibility; the author and district attorney supporters cited high-profile cases and victim trauma, while opponents said the current process is already rigorous, low-risk, and evidence-based. SB 1354, by Senator Archuleta, would prohibit out-of-state military or law enforcement personnel from entering California to perform such functions without the Governor’s permission; the committee amendment removed a criminal penalty, and the bill drew support from the California Public Defenders Association and allied groups, with no opposition heard. SB 926, by Senator Strickland, would fund implementation of Proposition 36 through a public safety services support fund; supporters said local agencies need resources for treatment, probation, and accountability, while opponents argued the bill was fiscally reckless, lacked guardrails, and prioritized incarceration over community-based treatment. The chair and author discussed amendments removing a fixed appropriation and shifting funding decisions to the budget process. SB 874, by Senator Weber Pearsons, would strengthen oversight of Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, especially ABA services, by requiring background checks for certain unlicensed providers, creating a stakeholder workgroup, and directing DHCS to issue guidance and report to the Legislature. Supporters said the bill would improve patient safety and program integrity, and no opposition testified. SB 1210, also by Senator Weber Pearsons, would extend CalGang oversight and due-process protections to local gang databases; supporters described privacy harms and inaccurate labeling, while law enforcement opposition said local investigative databases need flexibility and that the bill could significantly expand regulation. SB 1019, by Senator Grove, would create a California Cargo Thief Task Force in the Attorney General’s Office to combat organized cargo theft; it drew broad support from rail, trucking, shipping, and port interests, with testimony describing organized, dangerous theft rings and supply-chain disruption, and no opposition was heard. SB 1217, the non-consensual intimate image clearinghouse bill, was introduced at the end of the transcript after committee and privacy amendments were summarized, but its testimony and any action were not included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're officially called to order.
• for protection as well in the workplace.
• We support the intent of Senate Bill 1277 and House Bill 1934, Humane Protection of Animals, to protect
• And crucially, it incorporates confidentiality and protective orders to prevent abuser retaliation.
• It creates confidentiality and protective orders to prevent abuser retaliation.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy public hearing on a wide range of civil actions, labor, consumer protection, and animal welfare bills. Chair Lydia Edwards and Representative Michael Day opened with strict testimony rules and time limits, then heard from legislators and advocates on measures including animal-abuser pet ownership bans (S. 1207/H. 1914), a name-change privacy bill (S. 1045/H. 1973), tort claims reform (H. 1724), law enforcement council coverage under the Tort Claims Act (S. 1199), civil rights and qualified immunity-related proposals (H. 1641), employee free speech/captive audience restrictions (S. 1078/H. 1653), consumer protection and civil rights jurisdiction expansion (S. 1041), private right of action for wage theft (H. 1916), gun-owner liability insurance (H. 1836), pseudoephedrine sales tracking (S. 1243/H. 1581), prepaid legal services plans (H. 1612), structured settlement protections (H. 1863), third-party litigation financing disclosure (H. 1861), antitrust reform for small businesses and workers (S. 1038/H. 1982), legal notices in online-only newspapers (S. 1279/H. 1632), and several animal cruelty and protection bills including H. 1938, H. 1949, S. 1277/H. 1934, and H. 1764. Testimony was largely supportive from bill sponsors and advocacy groups, with repeated themes of protecting vulnerable people and animals, improving access to justice, and updating outdated laws. Supporters of the animal bills argued for stronger possession bans, broader cruelty citations, and civil removal tools to prevent repeat abuse; opponents or conditional supporters raised due process and enforcement concerns, especially around warrantless seizures and requiring retail or shelter staff to check registries. On the labor and consumer side, supporters said the antitrust bill would curb monopoly power and help small businesses and workers, while opponents warned it could destabilize competition and burden successful firms. The employee free speech bill was backed as a response to captive audience meetings, and the wage-theft bill was presented as a way to let workers or organizations pursue claims when individual employees are afraid to come forward. Several public officials and association representatives testified on the law enforcement and civil rights bills. Chiefs of police supported adding law enforcement councils to the Tort Claims Act, saying it would close a liability gap for regional mutual-aid collaborations. But police representatives opposed changes to the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and qualified immunity-related provisions, arguing the federal system already provides a workable forum and that expanding liability could increase costs, reduce morale, and worsen recruitment and retention. On the consumer/civil rights bill, Senator Collins and a veteran described an out-of-state assault case that they said showed the need for Massachusetts to let residents seek redress at home when rights are violated elsewhere. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing itself; the committee mainly received testimony and questions. Several witnesses indicated they had submitted written testimony or proposed amendments, and some bills drew requests for favorable reports while others were explicitly opposed unless amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• and gun violence protective orders.
• and gun violence protective orders.
• and gun violence protective orders.
• and gun violence protective orders.
• due<00:11:09.920> to protection orders aren't issued due to protection orders aren't issued

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs took up several measures, beginning with House Bill 2413 on pre-trial reform, which had been deferred from a prior agenda. The chair said the committee would incorporate judiciary recommendations and other technical, non-substantive amendments to continue discussion, and the measure was adopted with amendments by a 2-1 vote, with one member excused. The committee then heard extensive testimony on House Bill 2062, which appropriates funds for gun violence prevention efforts, including processing temporary restraining orders and gun violence protective orders and funding public awareness campaigns. Supporters, including county, advocacy, law enforcement, and student witnesses, said the bill would improve implementation of an existing law, save lives, and reduce suicides and violence. Opponents argued red flag laws can be abused, raise due process concerns, and may create dangerous enforcement situations. Written testimony was reported as 60 in support, 47 in opposition, and one comment. The committee later passed HB 2062 with amendments, including a corrected effective date, by a 3-1 vote with one member excused. The committee also considered House Bill 1957 on safe entryways, which would establish enforcement procedures in larger cities to prevent blocking of private doorways and entrances. Written testimony included support and opposition, but no oral testimony was offered, and the bill was passed with technical, non-substantive amendments. House Bill 253 on fireworks, which expands civil asset forfeiture for felony fireworks offenses and clarifies air-delivery provisions, was also passed with an amended effective date. House Bill 2581 on emergency management, which would narrow the definitions of disasters and emergencies, drew testimony both supporting the bill as a check on emergency powers and opposing it as incomplete or too broad in its current form; decision-making on that measure was deferred to the committee’s March 23 meeting. House Bill 2498 on a care home resilience pilot program was also deferred to March 23 after no testimony was offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><01:04:32.640> granted protection orders and had them granted protection orders and had them
• effective the extreme risk protection effective the extreme risk protection order<01:04:47.520><
• So, extreme um risk protection order.
• Uh, I'm going to risk protection order.
• before requesting the protection order. before requesting the protection order.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the pledge, approved the January 30, 2026 journal, and then proceeded out of order for several personal privileges and resolutions. Members welcomed delegates from Poland and noted the Jewish holiday of Tu Bishvat. The chamber then took up Senate Joint Resolution 001, which approves the water project revolving fund eligibility list administered by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Sponsors explained that the resolution only establishes project eligibility and does not itself set funding amounts. The resolution passed 32-0, and the current roll call was added as co-sponsors. The Senate next considered Senate Joint Resolution 006, a lengthy measure affirming civil rights and dignity for immigrant Coloradans and calling for transparent, accountable federal immigration enforcement. The resolution urged an end to anonymous enforcement tactics, protection of access to schools, health care, courthouses, and other public spaces, and broader federal immigration reform. Senator Weissman moved a technical amendment correcting a reference from ICE to CBP in one example; the amendment was adopted 32-0. Debate featured personal stories from supporters about immigrant family histories and service, while the Minority Leader said he appreciated the sponsors’ engagement but could not support the resolution as drafted, though he agreed with much of its intent and called for more constructive dialogue. The resolution passed 20-12, and several senators were added as co-sponsors. After the resolutions, the Senate moved into the Committee of the Whole for second reading of bills on the consent calendar. Senate Bill 10, concerning clarification of definitions used in the taxation of agricultural property, was adopted on second reading and reported out favorably. The chamber then began consideration of Senate Bill 4, concerning who may petition a court for an extreme risk protection order, with the sponsor noting two technical amendments had been added to improve the language. The committee report on that bill was adopted, and the bill was moved forward on second reading.

Transcript Highlights:

• So ordered.
• The House will come to order. The House will come to order.
• Point of order has been called. Point of order. Representative Way? What is your point of order?
• Point of order. Division. Respect. Point of order.
• So ordered.

Summary: The House convened, completed roll call, approved the journal, and took up several Senate bills and one Senate concurrent resolution through motions to reconsider, return bills for reconsideration, and refer measures to additional Committee of the Whole sessions for further amendment. Early actions included returning SB 1175 and SB 1198 to the Senate for reconsideration, rescinding passage of SB 1336 so it could be reconsidered, and referring SB 1111 and SB 152 to an additional COW. The House also recognized Representative Travers for a personal privilege statement honoring National Women Veterans Recognition Day and recorded attendance. In Committee of the Whole, members adopted floor amendments and recommended passage for SB 1511, SB 1552, SB 1198, SB 1110, SB 1618, SB 1431, and SCR 1004, with some debate on SB 1110’s home-confinement/reentry program, SB 1618’s Military Affairs Commission changes, and SB 1431’s city and town authority over residential project standards and streetscapes. The House later adopted the COW reports and moved the measures to engrossing or third reading as appropriate. SB 1336 and SB 1519 were also advanced from committee, while SB 1004 was reconsidered and ultimately failed on reconsideration. On third or final reading, the House passed SB 1127, SB 1180, SB 1428, SB 1198, SB 1336, SB 1511, SCR 1004, SB 1552, HB 2104, HB 2105, HB 2114, HB 2311, HB 2729, and HB 4117. SB 1687, SB 1004, SB 1519, and SB 1502 failed. Members explained votes on several measures, including support for tax administration clarity in SB 1180, objections and support for the May primary proposal in SB 1687, concerns about sex offender monitoring in SB 1004, support for the Arizona Beef Council in SB 1198, and debate over the photo enforcement referral in SCR 1004. The session also included recesses for caucuses, lunch, and dinner, plus a brief technical outage of the live stream.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're officially called to order.
• There should be a felony, and it gives us the protections to protect our people.
• There should be a felony, and it gives us the protections to protect our people.
• Unlike those individuals who obtain a restraining order, a 209 restraining order, they may now seek protection
• orders or financial assistance and pursue immigration relief or other or protective orders however the

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy hearing on a wide range of bills involving domestic violence, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, trafficking, victim compensation, and related criminal justice reforms. Testimony focused on measures to support survivors and close perceived legal gaps, including bills to protect domestic violence survivors in child welfare proceedings, expand victim compensation for homicide families and trafficking survivors, create a DNA exception to the rape statute of limitations, eliminate or extend statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse, and strengthen laws on upskirting, sexual abuse by adults in positions of authority, and sexual assault by rideshare drivers. Several speakers also addressed bills concerning vulnerable adults, harassment and custody-related abuse, and early evidence kits. Witnesses included legislators, prosecutors, advocates, and many survivors who described personal experiences with abuse and barriers to justice. Supporters argued that current laws often leave survivors without meaningful remedies, especially where consent, reporting requirements, evidentiary rules, or statutes of limitations prevent prosecution or compensation. Prosecutors and advocates said the bills would clarify vague statutes, increase penalties in some cases, and better reflect the realities of coercion, grooming, trafficking, and delayed reporting. Some testimony also urged amendments, including changes to victim compensation reporting rules and clarifications to avoid unintended conflicts with other wage-recovery laws. No committee votes or final actions were taken in the hearing itself. The chairs emphasized strict time limits, respectful conduct, and the submission of written testimony, and several witnesses were called out of order to accommodate the large number of speakers.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:28.240> speech bill reaffirms that protected speech bill reaffirms that protected speech
• c> and protections protecting free speech and protections protecting free speech and combating<00
• of, you know, protecting free speech, protecting the First Amendment, protected speech, it’s a real,
• of free speech, protecting the First Amendment, protected speech, it’s a real concern.
• to do its work of of rights in order to do its work of legitimately<00:11:02.160> protecting<

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 768, sponsored by Vice Chair Hudson, was heard with an author’s amendment (A4) adopted to remove a technical section and put the bill in the intended form. Hudson described the bill as a response to concerns about government monitoring of protected speech, saying it would bar the Minnesota Department of Human Rights from creating or maintaining a database of constitutionally protected speech while preserving the department’s ability to investigate actual discrimination, harassment, threats, or illegal conduct. He emphasized First Amendment protections and argued the state should not track speech simply because it is controversial or unpopular. The main testimony in support came from Ran Lee of Americans for Prosperity, who echoed the free-speech concerns and said databases of bias incidents can capture lawful speech and create a chilling effect. Representative Rest said she generally supported the free-speech goal but wanted to preserve the Department of Human Rights’ ability to produce biennial reports and analyze de-identified trend data on civil rights incidents, including emerging threats or hateful rhetoric, so lawmakers can respond to patterns without recording individuals’ protected speech. Representative Curran raised concerns that speech trends can relate to public safety and argued that attacks on human rights often begin as speech. Hudson responded that the Department of Human Rights is not a law enforcement agency and that the bill would not impede criminal investigations. He argued that trying to monitor “trends in thought” would be constitutionally problematic and produce unreliable data, and he distinguished protected speech from criminal conduct. Representative Feist said the department’s existing report already uses aggregate, non-investigative data and suggested there may be room to refine the bill’s language. The bill was laid over for further consideration, with Hudson indicating he was open to continued discussion and possible language changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Protect the girls, protect the boys, protect women and men, protect our futures, and vote no to the ceremonial
• Protect the girls, protect the boys, protect women and men, protect our futures, and vote no to the ceremonial
• Protect the girls, protect the boys, protect women and men, protect our futures, and vote no to the ceremonial
• . >> Point of order.
• It is good to see that the point of order, Madam Speaker. >> Same point of order.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• today on this bill it is protecting today on this bill it is protecting women<00:10:58.480> in
• <00:16:51.680> to has to be based on a rule in order to has to be based on a rule in order
• This is about protecting Title IX as it was intended, and that is to protect women and girls.
• Point of order, Mr. President. Senator Latz, point of order under Mason section 491, paragraph 4.
• Point of order, Mr. President. Senator Latz, point of order under Mason section 491, paragraph 4.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• established strong data protection established strong data protection privacy<00:04:19.440> protections
• Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order?
• protect the public. protect the public.
• <01:54:39.800> the protect public safety and to protect the protect public safety and to protect
• be protected on the other. be protected on the other.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first returned to Senate Bill 71, a consumer data privacy and online surveillance bill. Members debated a proposed amendment that would have removed language allowing companies to rely on consumer consent to sell certain sensitive data. Supporters argued consent pop-ups and terms-of-service notices are not meaningful consent and that sensitive data should be categorically protected, citing Maryland and other states. Opponents, including the committee presenter, said the bill was a carefully negotiated compromise needed to establish Vermont’s first data privacy framework and warned that adopting the amendment could jeopardize passage in the Senate or with the governor. The committee reported the amendment unfavorable on a 9-0 straw poll, the House rejected the amendment, and then approved the committee’s recommended proposal of amendment by roll call vote, 129-3. During questioning on S. 71, members discussed the bill’s applicability thresholds, with the presenter explaining that the 35,000-consumer threshold was modeled on Connecticut, while lower 3,000 thresholds for sensitive data and data sales were based on business testimony and intended to capture smaller entities such as accountants, lawyers, nonprofits, and trade associations that share or sell lists. Members also asked about the bill’s many exemptions, which were described as covering entities already regulated by state or federal law, including health care entities under HIPAA and banking and insurance sectors. The presenter and supporters emphasized that the bill still requires clear privacy notices, limits data collection to what is reasonable and disclosed, and gives consumers rights to opt out, correct, and delete data. After the roll call vote, the House ordered third reading, suspended rules to place S. 71 in all remaining stages, passed it in concurrence with proposal of amendment, and suspended rules to message the action to the Senate forthwith. The House then moved to Senate Bill 193, relating to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice-involved persons. The committee presenter from South Burlington previewed that the bill would create a permanent forensic facility, with a separate amendment expected to address interim arrangements while the facility is being developed. The transcript ends as the House begins second reading of S. 193 and the committee reports are introduced, with further debate not shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• It treats a protective order just like a temporary restraining order.
• <00:36:04.280> order, it does is it treats a protective order, it does is it treats a protective
• <00:36:28.160> order, Once somebody gets a protective order, Once somebody gets a protective
• <00:36:37.280> first protective order are treated as first protective order are treated as
• This is the one that aligns temporary restraining orders and protective orders.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 963, which would make crimes against elders age 60 and over strict liability offenses by removing the requirement that the perpetrator knew or should have known the victim’s age. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing that removing the state-of-mind element would create unfair and subjective results and suggesting sentencing enhancements or broader vulnerability-based language instead. Supporters, including Sandy Wong and another testifier with elder-abuse experience, said the current knowledge requirement creates a loophole that lets offenders avoid the elder enhancement even when they target vulnerable older adults. No vote was taken on the measure in the portion provided. The committee also heard HB 384, which increases penalties for promoting minor-produced sexual images, extends probation terms for felony obscenity offenses, tolls the statute of limitations during a victim’s minority, and requires sex offender registration for certain felony obscenity offenses involving minors. The Public Defender opposed the bill as overly broad and warned of absurd results, while the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney supported it, saying the bill addresses sextortion and other exploitation cases where adults solicit images from minors and that the 3-year age-gap threshold preserves ordinary teen relationships. Committee members questioned whether the bill was aimed at adults only and whether the age-gap carveout was narrow enough; the prosecutor said it was intended to cover adult predators and not consensual peer conduct. No final action was reported. HB 1100, which renames the Neighbor Islands Blind and Visually Impaired Service Pilot Program to use “low vision” instead of “visually impaired,” was supported by the Department of Human Services and disability advocates, who said the current term is derogatory and that the change responds to the blind community. The department said it was beginning work on administrative rules and expected to seek an appropriation, with implementation hoped for in 2026. The committee then heard HB 1283, exempting paternity proceedings from mediation when domestic abuse is alleged; the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and others supported it as consistent with divorce law and important for survivor safety. HB 689, creating safe harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement help, drew support from HPD, Emua Alliance, the Judiciary, and others, who said it would prevent traffickers from using prostitution charges to silence victims. Finally, HB 383, reinstating mandatory minimum jail terms for successive violations of protective orders and removing the court’s ability to suspend those minimums, drew opposition from the Public Defender, who said some repeat violations stem from mental health or substance use issues, and support from the Prosecuting Attorney, who argued the bill treats protective orders like temporary restraining orders and preserves judicial discretion within a misdemeanor framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• It safeguards evidence of forensic medical examinations by placing them under a protective order, and
• So it prohibits live streaming of trials relating to sexual crimes and for certain protective orders
• forensic medical examinations by placing them under a protective order.
• order, as currently these recordings are only protected for children.
• orders protecting sensitive information.

Bills: SB693, SB781, SB836, SB860, SB906, SB993, SB1101, SB1321, SB1370, SB1537, SB1563, SB1610, SB1637

Keywords: notary public, notaries, acknowledgment, jurat, personal appearance, remote notarization, online notarization, e-notary, electronic notarization, fraud prevention, identity verification, real estate fraud, property transfer, state jail felony, Class A misdemeanor, secretary of state, continuing education, record retention, notarial act, Texas Government Code

Summary: The Senate Committee on Criminal Justice heard a series of bills focused on criminal procedure, public safety, victim protections, and law enforcement administration. SB 1537 would require criminal-proceeding interpreters to meet the same appointment standards used in the Government Code, and SB 993 would let the Comptroller’s Criminal Investigative Division seek mobile-tracking warrants directly in motor fuel theft and related tax-fraud investigations. SB 693, as substituted, would create a criminal offense for notaries who notarize documents without the signer personally appearing, with a higher penalty when real property is involved, and would add continuing education for notaries. SB 1610 would tighten rules for civilly committed sexually violent predators at the Texas Civil Commitment Office, including penalties for new crimes and assaults on staff, sex-offender registration requirements, and removal of certain provisions from the filed version; the substitute reduced some of the harsher penalties and preserved parole/community-supervision eligibility. SB 836 would expand privacy protections for sexual assault survivors by limiting livestreaming of certain trials, allowing pseudonyms earlier in the process, and protecting forensic exam evidence and invasive recordings under protective orders. SB 1563 would require county jailers to receive training on interacting with veterans, with testimony emphasizing suicide risk, PTSD, and the need for better identification and support in jails. SB 906 would give the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo authority similar to other Texas tribes to commission peace officers under state law to enforce Texas laws on tribal land. SB 781 would standardize confidentiality rules for peace officers’ personal information and create a confidential departmental file system modeled on Chapter 143 civil-service practices, though members raised concerns about whether the bill could affect disciplinary records and existing disclosure rules. Testimony was largely supportive for the bills, especially from prosecutors, law enforcement representatives, victim advocates, and agency officials. Supporters of SB 693 described widespread deed fraud tied to improper notarizations; supporters of SB 836 stressed survivor privacy and the harms of livestreamed sexual-assault proceedings; supporters of SB 1563 said jailer training could help prevent veteran suicides and improve treatment; and supporters of SB 906 said state commissioning would improve public safety and coordination on tribal lands. SB 781 drew support from police and TCOLE witnesses who said the bill would extend confidentiality protections already used in civil-service departments, while some members questioned whether the bill duplicated existing law or could be read to shield misconduct information. Public testimony included opposition to SB 1610 from a civil-rights advocate who urged waiting for Sunset review, and opposition to SB 781 from a family member of a person killed by police, who objected to expanding confidentiality for officers. Several bills were left pending after testimony because the committee lacked a quorum or chose to hold them for later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to protect people from, uh, faith leaders being protected when they are assaulting children.
• Protecting feelings over privacy is not protecting my privacy.
• Proponents of this bill would like to believe that this bill protects women, that it protects them from
• They rely on abortions in order to protect and enable them to continue perpetrating.
• So something has to be done to protect our moms. It's about protecting our moms.

Bills: HB7, SB 8

Keywords: abortion, healthcare, jurisdiction, civil action, qui tam, prohibition, state law, sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy