Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:29:55.000><c> I've</c> the discretion from from the judge I've the discretion from from the judge
• But when this law is applied, judges see that, judges know that, and judges can take that into account
• </c><01:37:29.960><c> see</c> but when this law is applied judges see but when this law is applied judges
• ><c> um</c><01:37:31.679><c> and</c><01:37:31.800><c> judges</c><01:37:32.119><c> can</c> that judges
• know that um and judges can that judges know that um and judges can take<01:37:32.480><c> that</c><01

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• So now I'm getting into the administrative law judge part.
• to the judge findings of fact or feedback to the court and make recommendations to the court.
• There an opportunity at these ALJ hearings for the administrative law judge to have certain questions
• That it could recommend that the ALJ could recommend that to the district court judge.
• Are any of those other states better at making those allocations or on the shared parenting judge?

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• , but no staff to go along with those judges.
• , but no staff to go along with those judges.
• for fiscal year 2026-2027, authorizing 13 new circuit court judges and 12 new county court judges.
• for fiscal year 2026-27 authorizing 13 new circuit court judges and 12 new county court judges.
• The circuit court judge ships are allocated as follows.

Transcript Highlights:

• Below us in the court structure, so to speak, is the... 10 of those judges.
• There are your municipal judges you may have heard from on occasion.
• We do regulate judges, and we regulate municipal judges, and we regulate probate judges through the probate
• And what we're discovering, Chair, is if— And it's part of training judges.
• Some judge that has stepped out.

Committee: House Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome, Judge. We show you registered as Travis Ransom.
• If you take the election judge problem...
• Once those judges It's not an easy thing to do.
• So the election judge said, thank you.
• The election judge drops those off.

Bills: HB569 , HB766 , HB1638 , HB2316 , HB2773 , HB2785 , HB3113 , HB3709 , HB3775 , HB4275

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: early voting, ballot correction, voting rights, election integrity, mail-in voting, voter notification, HB 766, precinct chair, precinct chair candidate, ballot application, Texas Election Code, Section 172.021, election administration, candidate filing, party precinct chair, county party, political party office, email address, telephone number, confidential candidate information

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 3709, which would change the partial manual audit process so early voting could be audited by voting location rather than by randomly selected precincts. The author and several supporters said the current precinct-based process is antiquated, labor-intensive, and especially difficult in countywide voting systems and large counties. Opponents and some neutral witnesses raised concerns about whether the change would still allow an apples-to-apples audit against official precinct results, whether random selection procedures should be more clearly defined, and how ballot secrecy and mail ballots would be handled. The Secretary of State’s office said counties already use random selection methods and that the bill would largely standardize early voting audits with election-day procedures, while also noting ballot privacy issues can arise in public records requests. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee then took up House Bill 766, as substituted, which would require precinct chair applicants to provide an email address, phone number, or both, while making that contact information confidential. Supporters said the change would help parties and local officials contact applicants more efficiently. Opponents argued it could expose personal contact information to public records requests and harassment, and some suggested the information should instead be handled through party rules. The bill was left pending after the committee substitute was withdrawn. House Bill 3775 followed and would set clearer timelines for when early voting ballot boards may begin opening carrier envelopes, with different start times based on county size. Supporters said the bill would address counties opening ballots too early and improve ballot security, while opponents warned it could delay defect notices and cure opportunities for mail voters and create problems in large counties that process high volumes of ballots. Testimony also focused on whether the bill referred to carrier envelopes or secrecy envelopes and on how counties like Harris County currently image and secure ballot materials. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 4275, which would require countywide polling systems to have polling places in each election precinct, intended to address uneven distribution of polling locations across county commissioner precincts. Supporters said the bill would make polling place distribution fairer and more consistent, especially in Harris County, while opponents said it would undermine countywide voting, increase costs, require more equipment and staff, and reduce local flexibility. Several witnesses also raised concerns about ballot secrecy and the practical burden on large and rural counties. The bill remained under discussion as testimony continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• The judge has to say it this way.
• The judge has to say it this way.
• Next, we have Judge Ron Cunningham.
• Well, thank you, Judge, for being here. We have Judge J.R. Woolley again.
• Judge, any questions, members?

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

Committee: House Criminal Jurisprudence

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• This is just another tool in the toolbox for judges, and this will be a bail denial for repeat offenders
• That the public and the judges have a tool that will keep Texans safe.
• They give the judges discretion, and they are again just for the most serious offenses.
• Then, the judge shall deny bond. So, there's no question on what the judge's role is in that.
• This gives some judges, who have expressed a desire to act, the ability to do so.

Bills: SB3073 , SJR87

Committee: Senate Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:

• And we were set for a trial in front of Judge Baker.
• And Judge Baker actually, in hindsight, won't have to approve it.
• Judge Susan Hickey in the Western District of Arkansas was the federal judge on the federal case that
• That's how it got before Judge Hickey.
• But I have the thorough order from Judge Hickey.

Committee: All ALC-CLAIMS REVIEW/LITIGATION REPORTS OVERSIGHT

Summary: The committee first reviewed litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing involving wage claims brought under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Members questioned the department’s authority, jurisdiction, use of attorney fees and costs, and whether defendants had to be licensed. The department explained it has long enforced wage and overtime laws, that the claims were small-dollar cases handled by investigators and counsel, and that one case had been paid and dismissed while others were unresolved or had service issues. The committee voted to review or batch-file the labor cases after discussion. The University of Arkansas System then reported three pending lawsuits: an age- and race-discrimination claim by a tenured professor that was resolved early; an ADA/FMLA retaliation claim by a former employee that survived in part on a motion to dismiss and was moving into discovery; and a Section 1983 claim against a UAMS sergeant arising from a parking-ticket dispute, with the university explaining that only punitive damages could create personal exposure for the officer. The committee reviewed each report and voted to accept them. The Department of Finance and Administration presented a proposed tax settlement reducing a sales-and-use tax assessment from about $48,000 to $20,000 and waiving interest and penalties, which the committee approved for review. The Claims Commission then presented several claims: an unpaid salary differential for a Department of Health employee, reissued warrants, unpaid DHS bills, and multiple negotiated settlements involving ATRS, UAMS, Arkansas State Police, and ARDOT. Members approved or affirmed most of these items, including a $65,000 settlement in the Tetronics/ATRS matter, a $150,000 medical-negligence settlement, and several vehicle-accident settlements. The most extended debate involved a tax-delinquent property sale claim by Sharon Greer and relatives. The claimant argued they were not properly notified and sought the $4,200 excess from the 2009 sale. Land Commissioner counsel explained the excess had escheated to the county after the statutory claim period expired, while members debated sovereign immunity, standing, heirs, and whether the committee could or should award money anyway. The committee ultimately chose to hold the matter over for further review in a future joint session rather than decide it immediately. The committee also heard appeals from dismissed claims, including a UAMS medical-negligence claim, a land-sale notice claim, a pothole claim against ARDOT, and a judicial-immunity claim against the Court of Appeals; most dismissals were affirmed, and the Simpson matter was held over for additional review after the claimant testified.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we were set for a trial in front of Judge Baker.
• Judge Susan Hickey in the Western District of Arkansas, she was the federal judge on the federal case
• The only other judicial court is Judge Hickey's court. Mr.
• Issued by the federal judge. Yes.
• But I have his thorough order from Judge Hickey.

Committee: All ALC-CLAIMS REVIEW/LITIGATION REPORTS OVERSIGHT

Transcript Highlights:

• Judge DiMai? Present. Judge Devereux. Mr. DeWire. Mr. Harbison? Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Harbison, present.
• Judge Katie, Mr. Langernaud, and Judge Thakston. You have quorum. We have a quorum, okay.
• Judge DeMaio, do you have any...
• Harvinson, Judge Keady, any... nothing? No? All right.
• Judge DeMaio? In favor. Judge Zamiya? In favor. Tarbison? Adopt with the understanding.

Summary: The Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board met on June 18, 2026, established a quorum, and adopted the agenda. Public comment took up most of the meeting, with numerous district defenders and chief defenders speaking in support of State Public Defender Remy Starns. Speakers from several districts said the system is more unified, communication with the state office has improved, and local offices feel better supported than in the past. Several also credited Starns with visiting districts, helping with local issues, and improving coordination on capital and non-capital work. One speaker, Richard Thompson, emphasized Starns’ background and training under Sam Dalton, and another noted that a recent staffing decision in St. John the Baptist Parish ultimately proved beneficial for mentorship and resource sharing. Starns then gave his state public defender report. He said the system has improved over the last seven years and argued that public defense still needs a stable, renewable funding source comparable to other parts of the criminal justice system. He discussed legislative changes affecting public defense, including a cleanup bill, a law eliminating filing fees for writs and appeals, and a new procedure related to expert-fee claims after a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision. He also described ongoing efforts to integrate capital and post-conviction work into district offices, expand the laws/writs program, and use local and state resources more efficiently. He thanked the board, the Public Defenders Association, and the late Mike Ginnart, whom he praised for his leadership and service. The board then considered and adopted proposed bylaws. Members discussed the need for a vice chair and a secretary, the role of special committees, and whether committee meetings should be public and limited to less than a quorum. The bylaws were adopted with the understanding that a committee would review and refine them later; volunteers were named for that committee. The board then elected a vice chair and designated the Office of the Public Defender, with staff assistance, as secretary for recordkeeping. Finally, the board heard a presentation on the strategic plan, which was described as largely unchanged from FY25 except for updates to reflect current law, accessibility requirements, training, compliance, and communication goals. The strategic plan was adopted by resolution, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Judge DiMai? Present. Judge Devereux. Mr. DeWire. Mr. Harbison? Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Harbison, present.
• Judge Katie, Mr. Langernaud, and Judge Thakston. You have a quorum. We have a quorum, okay.
• Judge DeMaio, do you have any?
• Judge DeMaio. In favor. Judge Zamiya. In favor. Tarbison? Adopt with the understanding.
• And Judge Katie? Approve. Okay. And I approve as well.

Summary: The Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board met on June 18, 2026, with a quorum present and adopted the agenda. Public comment was dominated by district defenders and other public defense leaders praising State Public Defender Remy Starns for improving communication, collaboration, and overall system performance. Speakers from multiple districts said the system is more unified, better supported, and more stable than in prior years, and several credited Starns with helping resolve long-standing tensions and improve coordination across capital, district, and appellate work. One speaker also paid tribute to the late Mike Ginnard, describing him as instrumental to earlier public defense reforms. In his report, Starns said the system has improved over the last seven years but still needs a sustainable funding source. He discussed legislative changes affecting public defense, including a cleanup bill, elimination of filing fees for writs and appeals, and a new procedure related to expert-fee requests in light of recent court rulings. He also described ongoing efforts to integrate capital and appellate work into district offices, expand the laws/writs program, and continue post-conviction work under new statutory rules. Starns emphasized recruitment and retention, including the need for affordable health insurance and retirement benefits, and again honored Mike Ginnard for his leadership and service. The board then adopted proposed bylaws, after some discussion about special committees and public meeting requirements. Members agreed to create a committee to review and refine the bylaws later, and they also elected a vice chairman and designated the Office of the Public Defender, with staff support, as secretary for recordkeeping. Finally, the board heard a presentation on the strategic plan, which was described as largely an update to the prior version with terminology changes, new accessibility-related goals, and added performance measures for training, compliance, and communications. The strategic plan was adopted by resolution, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's Chief Judge Medina. There are 10 of those judges.
• That's Chief Judge Medina. There are 10 of those judges.
• Let me follow up with Chief Judge Bysheide and Chief Judge Noll, if it came from that representative,
• There was a request for judges in the Second Judicial District, or an increase in a family court judge
• The last time they had added a family court judge was 1997, although they added a criminal court judge

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Summary: The committee first heard an Aging and Long-Term Services Department budget presentation comparing the LFC and executive recommendations. The main differences were in the Aging Network, Adult Protective Services, Program Support, and Long-Term Care Division, especially the executive’s proposed $10 million infusion into the Kiki Savadra Senior Dignity Fund and $6.2 million for expanding New Mexico Care. LFC staff explained that the committee recommendation was lower in general fund and fund-balance use, while the executive emphasized rising senior population needs, meal and transportation costs, and the cost savings of keeping older adults at home. The secretary also reviewed the department’s special requests, including the conference on aging, outreach, emergency preparedness, and the Kiki fund, and described New Mexico Care’s growth, its evaluation results, and the department’s plan to separate Kiki into its own accounting fund. Members largely focused on senior services, rural meal delivery, transportation, caregiver support, and the Kiki fund. Several members urged stronger support for non-metro aging providers and for New Mexico Care, citing its role in keeping seniors out of nursing homes and the program’s reported savings and outcomes. Questions also covered eligibility, background checks for caregivers, respite care, dementia and Alzheimer’s screening, and whether Kiki funds can support home modifications such as ramps. The committee then voted to adopt the LFC recommendation with one executive language change: adding the executive’s page 14 language allowing an additional 12.5% distribution for initial payments to aging network providers at the start of FY27. Representative Dow opposed the motion. The committee then moved to the Attorney General’s budget. LFC staff explained that the office’s budget relies heavily on the Consumer Settlement Fund, with both recommendations reducing general fund revenue while increasing settlement-fund use, and that performance measures were in consensus. The Attorney General said the office was not seeking more general fund, but wanted greater ability to use funds it recovers. He highlighted major consumer and public safety work, including litigation against major social media and AI platforms, a case involving Snapchat and child exploitation/extortion, the statewide crime gun intelligence center, efforts to address oilfield theft, work on missing and murdered Indigenous persons, and efforts to protect federal funds coming into New Mexico.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, any judge serving after reaching age 70 is required to retire.
• Probate judges, I think it does. That's a great question.
• It just says "judges."
• It just says "judges." Yes, sir. Thank you. Does it... okay, so that’s all right.
• So, I... ...it does not specify either District, Circuit, or Appellate level judges.

Bills: SB210 , SB176 , SB167 , SB244 , SB218 , SB9 , SB153 , SB9

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Since 1977, Penal Code Section 1016.2 has required judges to inform anyone entering a plea that there
• In recent years, however, some judges have been deviating from the required language in...
• Senate Bill 281 corrects this issue by requiring judges to use the exact statutory language that has
• We have been saying this for quite a while that judges need to follow the law.
• By inserting one word into statute verbatim, we hope that judges will actually follow the law.

Committee: House Public Safety

Summary: The Assembly Public Safety Committee met to consider several Senate bills, first adopting a five-bill consent calendar that included measures on missing and murdered Indigenous persons, peace officers, prison clearances, and related public safety topics. SB 221 by Senator Ochoa-Bogh was pulled from the agenda for later consideration. The committee then heard SB 281 by Senator Perez, which would require judges to use the exact statutory immigration-consequences advisement for noncitizen defendants. Supporters said the bill would restore consistency and avoid confusion, while district attorneys warned it could create plea-withdrawal problems and sought amendments; the bill was held on call after a split vote. The committee next heard SB 337 by Senator Menjivar, a broad prison-safety bill focused on women’s prisons, including documentation of searches, body-camera rules, grievance timelines, hiring restrictions for staff with violent or sexual convictions, and stronger oversight of investigations. Supporters said it would improve transparency and protect incarcerated people from abuse; opposition testimony focused largely on transgender inmate placement and was criticized by members as not germane. The bill passed 9-0 to Appropriations. SB 379 by Senator Jones, which would add Department of State Hospitals oversight to sexually violent predator conditional release placements, also passed to Appropriations after support from law enforcement and district attorney groups and opposition from criminal justice advocates. Later, SB 734 by Senator Caballero passed to Appropriations. It would give law enforcement officers due process protections when findings from California Racial Justice Act hearings are later used in employment or decertification proceedings. Supporters argued officers should have notice and a chance to defend themselves, while the bill was presented as not changing defendants’ CRJA rights. Finally, SB 551 by Senator Cortese, which would codify normalization and dynamic security principles in corrections policy to promote rehabilitation and safer prison conditions, passed to Appropriations despite objections that prisons should remain punitive. The committee adjourned after updating vote records and announced its next hearing would be July 1 in Room 126.

Transcript Highlights:

• currently has more than one circuit judge and designates a duty judge to hear emergency matters.
• Judge Clay Roberts, Florida Conference of DCA Judges, waiving in support.
• Judge Joe Foster, Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, waiving in support.
• Judge Clay Roberts, Florida Conference of DCA Judges, waiving in support.
• Judge Joe Foster, Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, waiving in support.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard three bills. SB 514, by Senator Harrell, clarified that medical quality review committees used by managing entities are treated like other medical review committees for purposes of civil liability and public records protections. The committee adopted a Harrell amendment removing the word “malpractice” from the title, heard support from the Florida Hospital Association, Florida Association of Managing Entities, and Florida Smart Justice Alliance, and then voted 11-0 to report the bill favorably. The committee then took up SB 734, by Senator Yarborough, which would repeal the current wrongful death exception that bars certain parents and adult children from recovering non-economic damages in medical negligence cases. The bill drew extensive testimony from families describing deaths they said were caused by medical negligence and from supporters including AARP and the Florida Justice Association, while opponents from the health care, insurance, and business sectors argued it would raise malpractice premiums, increase litigation, worsen physician shortages, and reduce access to care. After debate, the committee voted 9-2 to report the bill favorably. Finally, SB 538, by Senator Bradley, was presented as the state courts legislative package. It updates court operations by clarifying duty judge requirements, removing a location limit on duty hearings, repealing a cap on arbitrator compensation in court-ordered non-binding arbitration, and allowing alternative judicial authentication of oaths and acknowledgments when a court seal is unavailable. The bill received supportive waiver forms from the Florida Bar ADR section and several judges, and was reported favorably on an 11-0 vote. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Doctors do not want to step in the shoes of judges.
• Can you put that in front of the judge and is it ultimately the judge going to make the determination
• If you do that, the judge will hammer you.
• It goes before the judge for a preliminary determination, and the judge can decide if they had the right
• And then the judge can give their ruling, and all the judge has got to do is say, hey, you should sign

Bills: HB282 , HB293 , HB390 , HB456 , HB460 , HB561 , HB819 , HB1023 , HB1047 , HB1101

Committee: House Labor & Industrial

Keywords: employment discrimination, criminal history, rehabilitation, hiring process, human rights, gender identity, sexual orientation, workplace equality, labor rights, domestic abuse, unpaid leave, employee rights, workplace protection, mental health, survivor support, workers' compensation, employment benefits, claims process, fraud prevention, legal petition

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't judge content at all. It is. ...It's judging the conduct, right?
• That’s prejudicial, which is the job of the judge. That’s taken away from the judge in this.
• It is a judge looking at the evidence over the jury's shoulder.
• The judge shall consider remittitur if it's manifestly unjust.
• And the trial judge—if the trial judge says, I'm not going— ...to order remittitur, then the trial judge

Bills: SB30 , SB517 , SB1313 , SB1314 , SB1316 , SB1541 , SB1698 , SB1845 , SB1860 , SB2420 , SB2429 , SB 30

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c> the interim we have gathered judges, the interim we have gathered judges, administrative<00:32:
• We don't allow the judges to of them.
• We have one judge that does one day a week.
• We have one judge that does one a week.
• So, every judge is unique in day a week.

Committee: House Families & Children

Transcript Highlights:

• Next up, Judge Cindy Wheelis.
• I'll show you as a Collin County Judge of Judge Cindy Wheelis: the 417th District Court.
• Judge Cindy Wheelis: That is correct, neutral. Chairman: All right, please proceed, Judge.
• Judge Cindy Wheelis: Thank you. Thank you, Judge.
• Judge Wheelis: Right.

Bills: HB31 , HB3360

Committee: House S/C on Juvenile Justice

Keywords: juvenile justice, community supervision, felony offenses, treatment of children, juvenile facilities, chemical dispensing device, solitary confinement, rehabilitation, criminal proceedings, delinquency

Transcript Highlights:

• This removes, um, requirements that all wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied
• They would be able to go to the judge directly without our oversight.
• I mean, if you've already, if a judge has already ruled that it's...
• </c><00:10:58.440><c> thing</c> There's no judge thing.
• </c> petition that's reviewed by the judge petition that's reviewed by the judge it's<00:21:16.840><c

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SB 284, which would remove the requirement that wiretapping applications to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill as drafted and instead proposed a new emergency-wiretap procedure allowing county prosecutors to seek immediate judicial authorization in exigent circumstances, followed by AG review and a follow-up application within 48 hours. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s office supported creating an emergency exception, citing a kidnapping case involving a missing material witness and the need to obtain live phone location data quickly, but asked that the AG be required to respond clearly within the follow-up period. The AG said the current wiretap process often arrives incomplete and noted a prior Honolulu application that was returned for more information and then abandoned. The committee also heard public testimony, including one speaker in support and another in opposition, and discussed whether the proposed emergency process should include imminent danger findings and what happens if the follow-up application is not approved. No vote or final action was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up SB 295, which increases penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and makes related changes. The Deputy Public Defender opposed the bill’s higher penalties, arguing that not all restraining-order cases involve domestic violence and that the measure could affect family disputes, property conflicts, custody battles, and other non-domestic situations. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney supported the bill, saying it would create a more uniform and efficient charging framework and that violations of court orders can be serious even when the conduct appears minor in isolation. Domestic violence advocates also supported the measure, emphasizing the need for meaningful enforcement and deterrence; one witness cited statewide data showing thousands of TRO petitions but relatively few convictions and fines. A representative from the Domestic Violence Action Center supported the bill but requested amendments to reduce unintended consequences for survivors. During discussion, the committee focused on the proposed minimum sentence, with the Domestic Violence Action Center recommending reducing it from 15 days to 5 days. The witness explained that longer minimums can create hardships such as job loss, housing instability, and child care problems, while still allowing time for survivors to access shelter and services. The committee chair indicated support for amending the bill to reflect that recommendation. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney also clarified that the bill is intended to address violations of already-issued protective orders after judicial review, not the initial issuance of restraining orders, and said the office supports eliminating the distinction between domestic and non-domestic protective-order violations because charging decisions are often made under time pressure. Multiple individuals and organizations signed up in support, and one witness testified in opposition. No vote or final committee action was announced in the transcript.