Transcript Highlights:

• <00:22:18.760> now<00:22:19.120> so Voter registration is electronic now, so it's an
• This was because the process to update the voter records and electronic poll pads was taking place at
• the same time voters were trying to check in, which slowed down the electronic poll pads normally.
• This was because the process to update the voter records and electronic poll pads was taking place at
• the same time voters were trying to check in, which slowed down the electronic poll pads normally.

Keywords: Consideration of HB 27 00:04:20 Presentation by Secretary of State 00:10:44 Presentation by Karen Sellers and Jason Denny 00:35:56 Consideration of HB 45 00:55:36, 958, all

Summary: The committee first handled House Bill 27, which would remove the prohibition on political yard signs in planned communities statewide while still allowing communities to regulate size, placement, and duration. The sponsor said the 2023 Planned Communities Act created an unintended consequence by treating similar homeowners differently based on grandfathering dates, and a legal explanation was offered that the bill would clarify the law and avoid constitutional problems. After discussion, the committee voted 15-0 to pass the bill with favorable expression. The next item was an update from the Secretary of State on the 2024 election and implementation of House Bill 53, which created prompt post-election audits. He said the audits were carried out smoothly, most found no discrepancies, and no election winners changed, though he recommended adding a specific timeline to the law. He also discussed voter-roll maintenance, saying Kentucky has removed more than 440,000 ineligible voters since 2020, and argued that federal law and limited access to federal databases remain the main obstacles to faster cleanup. Members asked about the possibility of improper removals, double voting across states, and how provisional voting works. The Secretary said anyone improperly removed can reregister, that any double-voting abuse is likely marginal but still unacceptable, and that provisional ballots are available when eligibility is in doubt and can be reviewed by the county board of elections. He also urged Congress to modernize the 1993 federal voter-registration law, improve access to death and citizenship data, and create a central interstate information-sharing system for election officials.

Transcript Highlights:

• THEM IN IMPLEMENTING ELECTRONIC HEALTH WORKER AS AN EXAMPLE.
• WITH HISTORY HAS TAUGHT US IN NURSING IS WHEN WE LOOKING AT THE INNOVATION, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC HEALTH
• ALL THE INFORMATION IS STILL SECURELY RECORDED IN OUR ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD, JUST LIKE ALL CLINICAL
• AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER WE WILL GIVE THE CLIENT NOTIFICATION WE WILL GET THEIR CONSENT TO USE IT.
• FOR PROVIDERS CONNECTED THROUGH ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS, AI SERVES AS THE DIGITAL ASSISTANT THAT CAN

Transcript Highlights:

• rolling out in June, um, the electronic rolling out in June, um, the electronic record<00:30:05.000
• for where it requires DCYF notification for where it requires DCYF to<01:15:09.720> note<01:15
• She also raised concerns about the maltreatment notification provisions and said more information about
• , about uh maltreatment notifications, about uh maltreatment notifications, sort<01:25:01.520>
• of the end I think lastly notification of the end of<01:26:32.760> investigation.

Bills: HF4277, HF3819, HF3489, HF4408, HF3901, HF4316

Keywords: child care, child care center, day care, licensed child care, video security cameras, surveillance, security cameras, maltreatment, child abuse, child safety, public and shared areas, camera mandate, child care assistance program, CCAP, Great Start Compensation Support, early learning scholarships, licensed provider, Minnesota Statutes 142B.68, Harvey's Law, privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• Taylor Crittle with the Electronic Security Association, in opposition unless amended. Thank you.
• Becca Kramer on behalf of Greenlining Institute and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.
• Electronic Frontier Foundation in support. Thank you.
• Becca Kramer on behalf of Greenlining Institute and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.
• Electronic Frontier Foundation in support. Thank you.

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.