Transcript Highlights:

• We have a motion and a second. Assembly Member Connolly, whenever you're ready. Thank you.
• Confusion about calculating response deadlines for motions served electronically remains.
• Negotiated and reviewed over two years to improve civil procedure in California.
• We already have a motion. We're ready to go.
• We already have a motion. We're ready to go.

Summary: The Assembly Judiciary Committee met with quorum established and heard AB 540, which the author described as a civil procedure cleanup bill aimed at improving clarity, efficiency, and privacy protections. The bill would clarify that electronically served motions do not receive extra response time, narrow the reach of lawyer referral service enforcement so it does not inadvertently cover ordinary attorney-to-attorney referrals, and create a voluntary template for a “first-look” process to screen sensitive medical records for relevance and privacy before they are produced in litigation. Supporters, including representatives of the California Defense Council and Consumer Attorneys of California, said the bill was the product of extensive negotiation and would help protect sensitive health information while preserving existing referral practices. Committee members praised the balance struck by the measure and the voluntary nature of the first-look procedure, with no opposition voiced during the hearing. The committee then took up a motion to concur and approved the bill on a roll call vote, with members voting aye and the measure passing out of committee. The transcript ends with additional roll calls and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:26:06.000><c> to</c> Madam Speaker, I make a motion to Madam Speaker, I make a motion to suspend
• The next change is a procedural change.
• The next change is a procedural change.
• And again, this is a procedural change.
• </c> procedures and priorities. procedures and priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• You've heard the motion. Is there further debate on the motion?
• The lady from 18 seconds the motion. The motion is not debatable.
• The lady from 18 seconds the motion. The motion is not debatable.
• For the motion, for debate on the motion. Hearing none. Debate is closed.
• The good lady from 18 seconds the motion. You heard the motion. It is not a debatable motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to make a motion. to make a motion. Thank<00:30:48.799><c> you,</c><00:30:49.039><c> Mr.
• I’ll comment about my motion.
• I'll comment about my motion. Chairman. I'll comment about my motion.
• </c> is a procedural due process right now. is a procedural due process right now.
• That is the motion. HB553FN as amended. That is the motion.

Summary: The committee opened with a brief update and prayer for Oscar, a person known to members, noting he was making slow but encouraging progress and awaiting transfer to rehab. The hearing then began on House Bill 518, which would require the commissioner of DHS to provide a detailed annual report of DCYF costs. Representative Erica Leyon, the sponsor, said the bill was intended to improve transparency, clarify how DCYF resources and shared services are used, and help future discussions about staffing, funding, and whether DCYF should remain within DHHS or become a separate department. She said the department could likely comply without additional cost and was open to adjusting the reporting date, with the department preferring December 31 instead of September 1. Committee members and the DCYF director, Marie Nunan, discussed whether the bill was duplicative of existing reporting and whether it should also include federal funding mandates. Nunan said DCYF already has many policies and reports, but does not currently produce one consolidated DCYF-specific report in this form; she also said the department believed it had the capacity to file the report and was not taking a position on the bill. Several members questioned whether the measure was necessary, while others supported transparency but suggested the information was already available or could be obtained without legislation. In executive session, the committee voted 15-1 to retain HB 518, meaning it will not advance to the calendar at this time. The committee then opened House Bill 775, sponsored by Representative Jod Nelson, concerning supervised visitation centers. Nelson introduced Dr. Scott Hampton, who testified that supervised visitation is important for child safety, domestic violence prevention, and family preservation. Hampton described the history of visitation centers in New Hampshire, saying funding cuts had reduced the number of centers over time and that prior legislation had failed due to budget reductions. He argued that supervised exchanges can reduce risks such as abuse, abduction, and homicide, and said the service can prevent harm without adding cost by avoiding more serious incidents. The hearing on HB 775 was still underway at the end of the transcript, with no vote or final action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Show the motion adopted.
• Members, this is purely just a cosmetic procedure, or not even a procedure.
• It does not have anything to do with changing a procedure to a medical procedure that is a medical procedure
• Show the motion adopted. Read the bill a third time by title. Show the motion adopted.
• Show the motion adopted. Read the bill a third time by title. Show the motion adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• May I make a motion at this time to set aside sunset motion at this time to set aside sunset motion at
• Uh, the motion passes. motion passes. motion passes. All right. Senator Wagner. Mr. President, Mr.
• Um now move on to motions or Um now move on to motions or Um now move on to motions or resolutions.
• Tailoring motion. Uh on the Yeah, right. Tailoring motion. Uh on the Yeah, right. Tailoring motion.
• All right, we're on the B motion to All right, we're on the B motion to All right, we're on the B motion

Bills: SJR 4 , SJR 40 , SJR 81 , SCR 37 , SCR 39 , SB 22 , SB 32 , SB 33 , SB 36 , SB 38 , SB 95 , SB 209 , SB 249 , SB 311 , SB 326 , SB 365 , SB 458 , SB 609 , SB 660 , SB 664 , SB 693 , SB 732 , SB 745 , SB 760 , SB 762 , SB 779 , SB 783 , SB 785 , SB 868 , SB 871 , SB 883 , SB 921 , SB 955 , SB 993 , SB 996 , SB 1008 , SB 1057 , SB 1067 , SB 1151 , SB 1171 , SB 1210 , SB 1255 , SB 1265 , SB 1267 , SB 1271 , SB 1307 , SB 1313 , SB 1316 , SB 1318 , SB 1321 , SB 1332 , SB 1365 , SB 1426 , SB 1470 , SB 1484 , SB 1494 , SB 1559 , SB 1592 , SB 1596 , SB 1598 , SB 1637 , SB 1677 , SB 1706 , SB 1758 , SB 1762 , SB 1786 , SB 1809 , SB 1818 , SB 1822 , SB 1841 , SB 1871 , SB 1967 , SB 2064 , SB 2077 , SB 2112 , SB 2148 , SB 2320 , SB 2406 , SB 2407 , SJR 36 , SJR 81 , SJR 50 , SJR 4 , SJR 40 , SJR 27 , SCR 22 , SCR 12 , SCR 39 , SCR 38 , SCR 37 , SB 921 , SB 609 , SB 660 , SB 765 , SB 62 , SB 666 , SB 888 , SB 687 , SB 847 , SB 1248 , SB 504 , SB 305 , SB 296 , SB 284 , SB 304 , SB 1023 , SB 204 , SB 670 , SB 850 , SB 854 , SB 413 , SB 1346 , SB 1033 , SB 1220 , SB 1073 , SB 810 , SB 1539 , SB 447 , SB 1119 , SB 1505 , SB 1215 , SB 1302 , SB 583 , SB 673 , SB 681 , SB 1172 , SB 955 , SB 957 , SB 541 , SB 266 , SB 1415 , SB 53 , SB 1352 , SB 785 , SB 1450 , SB 1502 , SB 1566 , SB 1062 , SB 711 , SB 746 , SB 1404 , SB 1448 , SB 507 , SB 1026 , SB 1349 , SB 1355 , SB 1433 , SB 1434 , SB 1596 , SB 1403 , SB 667 , SB 1059 , SB 1567 , SB 310 , SB 311 , SB 505 , SB 1210 , SB 1470 , SB 264 , SB 1358 , SB 1364 , SB 1569 , SB 1376 , SB 1228 , SB 519 , SB 1350 , SB 462 , SB 827 , SB 1585 , SB 1484 , SB 1273 , SB 927 , SB 1227 , SB 1229 , SB 1353 , SB 1464 , SB 1709 , SB 1729 , SB 1733 , SB 1744 , SB 1772 , SB 1841 , SB 1008 , SB 2016 , SB 1173 , SB 1163 , SB 996 , SB 1370 , SB 1321 , SB 1101 , SB 860 , SB 993 , SB 693 , SB 1537 , SB 1332 , SB 1307 , SB 963 , SB 493 , SB 984 , SB 619 , SB 1122 , SB 455 , SB 522 , SB 1057 , SB 1239 , SB 1254 , SB 1255 , SB 1259 , SB 1341 , SB 1877 , SB 1277 , SB 32 , SB 732 , SB 731 , SB 268 , SB 1822 , SB 1589 , SB 397 , SB 1058 , SB 1267 , SB 2112 , SB 1930 , SB 532 , SB 508 , SB 292 , SB 291 , SB 901 , SB 1333 , SB 1436 , SB 1494 , SB 964 , SB 779 , SB 1378 , SB 2312 , SB 1719 , SB 287 , SB 2143 , SB 1245 , SB 261 , SB 1247 , SB 2406 , SB 2407 , SB 1882 , SB 618 , SB 38 , SB 393 , SB 1371 , SB 1365 , SB 2243 , SB 2226 , SB 2039 , SB 1919 , SB 1895 , SB 1598 , SB 1493 , SB 1810 , SB 1791 , SB 1706 , SB 1644 , SB 1238 , SB 783 , SB 458 , SB 22 , SB 651 , SB 897 , SB 1809 , SB 1080 , SB 745 , SB 826 , SB 989 , SB 1320 , SB 1437 , SB 2320 , SB 2289 , SB 1171 , SB 664 , SB 1637 , SB 2064 , SB 868 , SB 1079 , SB 1243 , SB 1504 , SB 1851 , SB 1879 , SB 2237 , SB 1257 , SB 2034 , SB 1522 , SB 883 , SB 249 , SB 1318 , SB 1151 , SB 596 , SB 1191 , SB 226 , SB 570 , SB 870 , SB 991 , SB 60 , SB 365 , SB 1067 , SB 1786 , SB 326 , SB 1401 , SB 1592 , SB 1728 , SB 1265 , SB 586 , SB 529 , SB 217 , SB 209 , SB 1923 , SB 1559 , SB 1839 , SB 387 , SB 1874 , SB 1872 , SB 1873 , SB 1921 , SB 1883 , SB 1677 , SB 95 , SB 1620 , SB 1838 , SB 2024 , SB 2429 , SB 1999 , SB 511 , SB 2309 , SB 2166 , SB 871 , SB 510 , SB 33 , SB 2420 , SB 1860 , SB 1541 , SB 1316 , SB 1314 , SB 1313 , SB 1426 , SB 1398 , SB 1869 , SB 1750 , SB 1871 , SB 36 , SB 855 , SB 1233 , SB 760 , SB 2425 , SB 2037 , SB 1758 , SB 1759 , SB 2365 , SB 1924 , SB 762 , SB 1271 , SB 1818 , SB 605 , SB 1405 , SB 1762 , SB 1968 , SB 1977 , SB 2077 , SB 2148 , SB 2321 , SB 1967 , SB 1662 , SB 1663 , SB 2124 , SB 2204 , SB 1855 , SB 863 , SB 37 , SJR 39 , SCR 1 , SCR 27 , SCR 32 , SCR 42 , SCR 6 , SB 2232 , SB 819 , SB 2078 , SB 2252 , SB 1962 , SB 2253 , SB 825 , SB 1577 , SB 1184 , SB 2018 , SB 2206 , SB 1901 , SB 1030 , SB 2368 , SB 1963 , SB 1960 , SB 1643 , SB 1625 , SB 1299 , SB 841 , SB 668 , SB 584 , SB 231 , SB 2411 , SB 1085 , SB 2431 , SB 2231 , SB 1490 , SB 530 , SB 34 , SB 1261 , SJR 81 , SB 32 , SB 458 , SB 664 , SB 693 , SB 868 , SB 1008 , SB 1267 , SB 1307 , SB 1321 , SB 1484 , SB 1637 , SB 1809 , SB 1822 , SB 2064 , SB 2112 , SB 2320 , SB 2406 , SB 2407 , SB 609 , SB 660 , SB 921 , SB 779 , SB 1470 , SR 388 , SB 3042 , SB 440 , SB 2876 , SB 3042 , SB 440 , SB 2876

Transcript Highlights:

• I urge my colleagues to vote down the interim study motion so a better motion may be made.
• I urge my colleagues to vote down the interim study motion so a better motion may be made.
• I urge my colleagues to vote down the interim study motion so a better motion may be made.
• </c> The motion is to refer to interim study. The motion is to refer to interim study.
• . motion. motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill adds a requirement that the Secretary of State establish procedures for reinstatement.
• The bill adds a requirement that the Secretary of State establish procedures for reinstatement of an
• “One acceptable procedure is provided for the notary to confirm that the record before the notary is
• House Bill 2178 concerns court rules and procedures and revises several areas of law.
• The motion before the committee is that proposed substitute House Bill 2158 be reported out of committee

Summary: The Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 2248, described by the prime sponsor and Secretary of State staff as a technical cleanup and clarification measure affecting several Secretary of State programs. The bill would redirect portions of annual business filing fees over $50 into the Secretary of State’s revolving fund, require initial reports from nonprofit corporations and limited liability partnerships, clarify that employing a remote worker in Washington does not by itself constitute doing business in the state, remove a requirement to issue a new trademark certificate to an assignee, create reinstatement procedures for terminated international student exchange placement organizations, and limit certain notarization authentication practices. The sponsor and agency witness said the bill does not change policy or raise fees, but improves clarity and aligns statute with current practice. A committee member asked about trademark transfers, and staff said the bill would not affect public tracking of ownership changes. No vote was taken on HB 2248 during the hearing. The committee then moved into executive session on House Bill 2178 and House Bill 2158. For HB 2178, staff said the proposed substitute would remove a two-year extension for courts of limited jurisdiction to implement electronic submission of protection order petitions and would place into statute the treasurer’s authority to distribute appropriated local fiscal officer collection grant funds to county clerks, while repealing AOC’s role in administering those grants. Members generally supported the substitute, though one member voted no without recommendation, citing concern about how the Administrative Office of the Courts would comply with earlier legislation after removal of a section from the original draft. The committee approved the substitute and reported HB 2178 out with a due pass recommendation by a vote of 10 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 excused. For HB 2158, staff explained that the bill updates the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts to address remote notarization of tangible records, with proposed substitute H-2937.1 narrowing the procedure to one acceptable method for confirming the record and adding the word “tangible” for clarity. Supporters said the substitute incorporated helpful technical changes from the Court Reporters Association and added a two-year delay to allow the Department of Licensing time for rulemaking. The committee approved the substitute unanimously and reported HB 2158 out with a due pass recommendation by a vote of 12 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• Motion to table is adopted.
• I rise to table the motion. Is there a second? I second the motion. Second. Second.
• Motion by Ms.
• Speaker, I make a motion to second. Motion to second. Table the motion. So we'll open the machine.
• The motion passes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair: Wiley, who has a do pass motion, very timid do pass motion.
• I'm going to treat the motion as a motion to reinstate paragraphs A and C after Senator Dewey's motion
• Is there anyone else on that motion? Was the motion clear to anyone?
• The motion of course.
• Uh, so I think we have to take the motion first, yeah. There's a motion on the table.

Committee: Senate Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> should just be a purely procedural law. should just be a purely procedural law.
• Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk. The clerk will report the motion. Ms.
• The motion is not agreed to. motion to recommmit. The question is on motion to recommmit.
• The question is on motion to recommit. The question is on the<03:42:27.920><c> motion.
• </c> transition procedures for minors. transition procedures for minors.

Bills: HR498 , HR845 , HR1366 , HB4776

Keywords: antisemitism, Jewish safety, civil rights, hate crimes, freedom of expression, political protest, drowsy driving, road safety, public awareness, preventative measures, traffic accidents, NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, environmental review, permitting reform, permit streamlining, infrastructure, economic development, federal agencies, categorical exclusion

Transcript Highlights:

• The motion is agreed to.
• The motion is agreed to. Mr.
• As many in favor, the motion will say aye. Those opposed, no. The motion is agreed to.
• Those in favor of the motion will say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The motion is agreed to.
• Those in favor of the motion will say aye. Those opposed, no. The motion is agreed to.

Transcript Highlights:

• The motion prevails and the minutes are approved. Thank you, members.
• The motion prevails and the DE1 amendment is adopted. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• you could just give us a little bit more of a road map because I think this is kind of an unusual procedure
• Seeing none, Chair Bman<00:06:13.919><c> renews</c><00:06:14.319><c> his</c><00:06:14.560><c> motion<
• The motion prevails, and House File 2435 as amended is referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Bills: HF2435

Committee: House Health Finance and Policy

Keywords: healthcare, dementia services, public health funding, opioid prevention, women's health, community health boards, mental health

Transcript Highlights:

• I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON SENATOR McCLAIN FOR A MOTION. >> Sen.
• MOTION IS ADOPTED. LET'S MOVE TO TAB THREE.
• ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CONSIDER THE MOTION?
• \ ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, \ REP GOSSETT-SEIDMAN, WOULD YOU SHARE THE MOTION?\ >> Rep.
• SHOW THE MOTION IS ADOPTED. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY?

Transcript Highlights:

• Procedures and reduced access to care. So the negotiating stuff is very complicated.
• if the procedures are rendered in a non-discriminatory manner.
• if the procedures are rendered in a non-discriminatory manner.
• if the procedures are rendered in a non-discriminatory manner.
• Members, the motion before you is the Bliss Amendment dated February 6, 2020 6, at 911 a.m.

Bills: HB2176 , HB2333 , HB2435 , HB2447 , HB2617 , HB2683 , HB2686 , HB2725 , HB2726 , HB2906 , HB2953 , HB2958

Committees: House Health & Human Services , House House Health & Human Services Committee of Reference

Keywords: health care, licensure, complaints, investigation, safety, patient care, regulatory compliance, prosthetics, orthotics, health insurance, Medicare, medical necessity, disability rights, coverage, reimbursement, internationally trained physicians, medical board, clinical training, provisional license, healthcare workforce

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, so this is a procedure.
• Yeah, this is a procedural motion; one person from each side can explain the vote.
• Okay, so this is a procedure. Yeah, this is a procedure motion, one person from each side.
• This is a procedure motion, one person from each side can explain the vote. Pick who you want.
• Remember, the motion before you is...

Committees: House Government , House House Government Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• There's not a motion. >> Wait, Mr.
• Is there a motion?
• Is there a motion?
• A motion, judge. &gt;&gt; mercifully. A motion, judge.
• </c> a motion for favorable report. a motion for favorable report. &gt;&gt; Second.

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll entertain a motion. Thank you, Senator Laird, for that motion. Can we please call the roll?
• I'll entertain a motion. Thank you, Vice Chair Grove. Can we please call the roll?
• I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Thank you, Vice Chair Grove. Can we please call the roll?
• I'll entertain a motion. Okay, that's a question, Madam Chair. Sure.
• So with that, I will entertain a motion. Thank you, Senator Laird. We have a motion.

Committee: Senate Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• Who will second this motion?
• Um, we do have a screening procedure policy and procedure for the judicial center, and we do limit all
• Who will second this motion? report. Who will second this motion?
• Who will second the motion? report. Who will second the motion? &gt;&gt; Second. &gt;&gt; Second.
• </c> Who will second the motion? Who will second the motion?

Summary: The committee reconvened in open session after a closed discussion of sensitive security details and reviewed the public executive summary of the Minnesota State Capitol Complex Security Assessment by Axtel. Members discussed weapon screening and access control at length, including testimony from Capitol security and judicial center staff about screening procedures, prohibited items, and how screening is managed for visitors and authorized personnel. The chair emphasized that the committee was voting on high-level recommendations to be included in the final ACAST report and that the Department of Public Safety and Department of Administration would be encouraged to pursue the necessary work, including any legislative or budget requests. The committee then took a series of roll-call votes on the Axtel recommendations. Access control screening and visitor management (5.11) passed 4-2, while authorized access control and credential oversight (5.12), internal circulation and zoning controls (5.13), perimeter and exterior grounds (5.14), staffing models/post orders/operational readiness (5.15), technology and system integration (5.16), and protective intelligence (5.18) all passed unanimously 6-0. Each approved item was added as a recommendation in the final report. After the votes, the Department of Administration, Department of Public Safety, and House and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms offices walked through the draft final report. They highlighted staffing improvements, security infrastructure already installed, and remaining needs, including an estimated $41.008 million request for future enhancements such as kiosks, glass-resistant film, door access controls, cameras, lighting, bollards, and an updated distributed antenna system. The report also includes recommendations on trauma-informed safety drills, conduct rules for hearings, and designating the Minnesota State Patrol Capital Security Division as the primary investigative authority for potential criminal activity on Capitol grounds.

Transcript Highlights:

• And before we move into what that motion looks like, I just want to be clear.
• So there's a motion and second. Is there any discussion, Dr. Baines? Thank you.
• So there's a motion and second. Is there any discussion? Dr. Baines? Yeah.
• So this is a procedural concern, and as stated, we're happy to help.
• So this is a procedural concern, and as stated, we're happy to help. concern.

Committee: House Emergency Management

Summary: The Assembly Emergency Management Committee heard SB 1079 by Senator Stern, which would establish Cal Fire’s Fire Innovation Unit in statute and allow field testing of new technologies for wildfire and emergency response. The senator and sponsor explained that the goal was to pilot innovative tools before major procurements, and that the bill had been amended back toward its earlier version after concerns about floor changes. Committee members and the sponsor also discussed whether the bill should include Cal OES in addition to Cal Fire, with the senator saying the broader version was intended to support a multi-hazard approach, including evacuation, notifications, and other emergency technologies. A major issue was contracting authority. The chair and committee expressed concern that some language could create no-bid or sole-source contracting authority and had not been fully vetted through the normal policy process. The sponsor acknowledged that if the bill were stripped back to the earlier version, Cal Fire could retain no-bid authority, and offered additional language to require competitive contracting for initial awards while allowing later amendments or follow-on work under limited conditions. The committee also noted procedural concerns about the addition of a new unit and contracting provisions without review by other policy committees. Testimony was in support from the California Fire Chiefs Association, the Fire Districts Association of California, and other supporters. Committee members raised related policy points, including the need to address toxic fires and better federal coordination. The committee then voted due pass as amended and re-refer to the Assembly Floor; the roll was unanimous in favor, and the bill passed out of committee.