Transcript Highlights:

• driving material down that that driving driving material down to<00:17:20.400><c> bow</c><00:17:21.461
• </c> warehouse back into my truck and driving warehouse back into my truck and driving it<00:17:26.079
• </c><00:18:04.160><c> drive</c><00:18:04.480><c> back</c> back in my truck, and drive drive back back
• in my truck, and drive drive back to<00:18:06.080><c> to</c><00:18:06.480><c> move</c><00:18:06.640>
• </c><03:59:41.120><c> No</c> road driving. They're legal, right? No road driving.

Committee: House Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• I do like to drive.
• , or impaired driving defense.
• , or impaired driving defense.
• > I</c><04:07:28.479><c> should</c> driving, uh, impaired driving I should driving, uh, impaired driving
• </c><04:07:40.640><c> And</c> in our impaired driving laws. And in our impaired driving laws.

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on House Bill 1087 and House Bill 123, both related to firearms. HB 1087 was introduced as a Second Amendment measure, but after questions from the chair and discussion with law enforcement, the sponsor agreed it should be set aside and referred to a study committee for further review, rather than advanced as written. The New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association testified in opposition to the bill as written, while also indicating support for the sponsor’s proposed amendment or a study approach. The bulk of the discussion centered on HB 123, which would require the return of firearms after a not guilty verdict or dismissal. The sponsor and several members described the bill’s purpose as speeding up the return of property, but law enforcement and judicial branch witnesses raised concerns about federal law, the need to ensure a person is still legally eligible to possess firearms, and the bill’s 24-hour return requirement. Witnesses from the State Police and judicial branch explained the current process, including background checks through the state police gun line, and said the existing procedure already aims to return firearms promptly while allowing time to verify disqualifying information. Members and witnesses discussed possible amendments, including removing language that would bar background checks and instead tying return of firearms to completion of the check within a set time frame. Judicial branch and State Police witnesses said a process that requires a background check and return within a reasonable period, with notice if there is a delay or denial, would better address safety and legal concerns. The hearing ended without a vote; the committee closed the public hearing and indicated it would continue working on the language before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill, I think, was designed to drive private investment into Minnesota or into Wisconsin and away
• This bill uh I think was uh designed<00:04:13.040><c> to</c><00:04:13.200><c> drive</c><00:04:13.519>
• <c> private</c><00:04:13.840><c> investment</c> designed to drive private investment designed to drive
• Representative Warwas said that the concern about driving up food costs would be a concern, and that
• </c><00:41:02.319><c> up</c> quick comment uh about the um driving up quick comment uh about the um driving

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, you know, parents need to drive their kids to school. They need to go to work.
• And if they are to drive under current law, it is a misdemeanor for them.
• And this is, you know, driving to a doctor's appointment, driving to your job.
• That is what is driving this, which this bill curiously omits. Nothing about E-Verify.
• Charge them with felonies for driving their kids to work or going to school.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee took up SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. Gruters described the measure as a broad crackdown on illegal immigration that would replace a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, create a $250 million grant program for local law enforcement, fund additional Department of Agriculture interdiction staff and facilities, expand pretrial detention for certain unauthorized immigrants, increase criminal penalties, require more cooperation with ICE, and eliminate in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students. He and supporters framed the bill as a way to support law enforcement, deter illegal immigration, and align Florida with federal enforcement efforts. Committee questioning focused heavily on the bill’s education, detention, and enforcement provisions. Senators pressed Gruters and Fine on why the bill did not address employer sanctions or E-Verify, whether the tuition changes would affect students who had grown up in Florida, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, and whether the bill would create practical burdens for prosecutors, jails, and local officials. Gruters said he was open to working on E-Verify in regular session but not to amending this bill, and Fine argued the tuition repeal would apply to undocumented students who had qualified under existing law. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified in support, saying ICE bed capacity was still insufficient and that county jails needed more resources to honor detainers. Mark Schlachman of FSU Law offered historical context, noting prior state-federal cooperation efforts and warning of unintended consequences, while several public witnesses opposed the bill as unconstitutional, costly, and harmful to immigrant families and the economy. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida Policy Institute, AFL-CIO, and immigrant advocacy groups argued the bill would invite litigation, encourage racial profiling, harm the workforce and higher education, and punish law-abiding immigrants and their families. They emphasized that immigration is a federal matter, that K-12 education must be provided regardless of status, and that removing in-state tuition would reduce access to college and hurt Florida’s economy. Some speakers urged the committee to grandfather current students if the tuition waiver is repealed. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote reflected in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Brilliant at law but horrible at driving.
• You could literally hear Colleen drive. I don't know how you do that. But you could.
• And she would tend to call me when she was in the drive-thru at McDonald's.
• And she didn't go to the drive-thru to buy food for her or John.
• She went through the drive-thru to buy food for her dogs, Franny and Puppers.

Bills: HB1800 , HB1860 , HB2250 , HB472 , HB649 , HB1391 , HB1481 , HB1509 , HB1511 , HB1515 , HB1518 , HB1541 , HB1548 , HB1576 , HB1618 , HB1642 , HB1643 , HB1661 , HB1667 , HB1678 , HB1682 , HB1688 , HB1692 , HB1707 , HB1710 , HB1711 , HB1713 , HB1718 , HB1721 , HB1728 , HB1737 , HB1740 , HB1741 , HB1785 , HB1801 , HB1802 , HB1804 , HB1810 , HB1815 , HB1824 , HB1838 , HB1839 , HB1853 , HB1854 , HB1864 , HB1870 , HB1881 , HB1888 , HB1890 , HB1891 , HB1894 , HB1920 , HB1959 , HB1960 , HB1969 , HB1973 , HB1974 , HB2023 , HB2050 , HB2078 , HB2094 , HB2095 , HB2104 , HB2137 , HB2152 , HB2158 , HB2171 , HB2207 , HB2218 , HB2246 , HB2270 , HB2271 , HB2272 , HB2279 , HB2282 , HB2289 , HB2293 , HB2297 , HB2300 , HB2309 , HB2310 , HB2314 , HB2319 , HB2329 , HB2338 , HB2339 , HB2344 , HB2361 , HB2385 , HB2395 , HB2417 , HB2429 , HB2443 , HB2452 , HB2474 , HB2475 , HB2498 , HB2505 , HB2547 , HB2576

Transcript Highlights:

• And so what drives that? What drives that?
• What drives that is something that takes decades to build, right?
• poverty. and so I would just say That is really what's driving poverty.
• You know, why are you driving Uber?
• That's why they're driving Uber. It's not because they're dumb.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion

Transcript Highlights:

• extends well beyond the driving credential itself, unquote.
• It's not enough to just learn how to drive that vehicle.
• Part of driving that vehicle means understanding what the signs are telling you.
• It's drivers from all over the world that are driving equipment.
• Is there any requirement... ...driving equipment.

Bills: HB2056 , HB2057 , HB2224 , HB2257 , HB2265 , HB2311 , HB2352 , HB2367 , HB2369 , HB2446 , HB2532 , HB2592 , HB2752 , HB2809 , HB2957

Committee: Senate Appropriations, Transportation and Technology

Keywords: brackish water, groundwater, desalination, water resources, feasibility study, environmental impact, special plates, centennial, Arizona Department of Transportation, vehicle registration, commercial discounts, Arizona Centennial, produce incentive, agriculture, economic support, funding, Arizona, boating, watercraft licensing, law enforcement

Transcript Highlights:

• These are industries that drive the economy back in my home district for many of our students.
• These are industries that drive the economy back in my home district.
• Assembly Bill 714 removes commercial driving from the program. Good afternoon.
• My name is Steve Gold, and I own the 160 Driving Academy Truck Driving Schools.
• The 160 Driving Academy is the largest commercial truck driving school in the country.

Committee: House Higher Education

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met for a policy hearing and first took up a consent calendar, approving several bills on consent before moving through a series of higher education measures. The committee heard AB 977, which would require the CSU to audit surplus land and work with California tribes to identify burial sites for Native American remains as part of repatriation efforts; the bill was supported by tribal representatives and others, with CSU expressing no formal position but saying it was working on repatriation. Members spoke strongly in favor of returning remains home, and the bill passed 5-0 to Appropriations. The committee then considered AB 1093, creating a California-Mexico higher education exchange program, but members raised concerns about border issues, sewage contamination, and funding; the author said the program would be funded through university dollars and was intended as a one-for-one exchange. AB 1035, which would extend the California College Promise to cover tuition for students pursuing community college bachelor’s degrees, drew support from community college leaders and faculty, but some members questioned the use of Prop. 98 funds and whether the bill would divert resources from other students; it passed 3-2 to Appropriations. AB 922, giving the UC statutory authority to maintain access to federal background-check systems for hiring, passed unanimously to Public Safety, and AB 1346, protecting in-state residency and tuition status for dependents of military service members, also passed unanimously to Military and Veterans Affairs. The committee also heard AB 1212, allowing UC campuses to use low-income housing tax credits to build affordable housing for faculty and staff on UC land. UC and labor supporters argued it would help recruitment and retention and increase affordable housing supply, while opponents objected to the preference for UC employees over the general public; the bill was supported by the chair in closing. Finally, the committee took up AB 500 and AB 684, both focused on UC admissions transparency: AB 500 would require consultation with students, K-12, and CSU before UC admissions changes, and AB 684 would subject UC BOARS meetings to the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. Both measures were framed as transparency and accountability bills, with some UC opposition or neutrality, and both advanced on 5-0 votes to their respective committees. The committee also heard AB 1122 on universal dual enrollment access, with strong support from educators and community college partners and favorable comments from members about expanding college access.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, you know, parents need to drive their kids to school. They need to go to work.
• And if they are to drive under current law, it is a misdemeanor for that. >> And this is, you know, driving
• to a doctor's appointment, drive into your job.
• That is what is driving this, which this Bill curiously a Mets. Nothing about e verify.
• Charge them with felonies for driving their kids to work or going to school.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm just wondering about what it is that you could post that you could drive people to with using
• So I'm driving the information to them versus them coming to me on a website.
• So I'm driving the information to them versus they, perspective here.
• So I'm driving the information to them versus them coming to me on a website.
• Well, I’ll be honest with you, particularly the Democratic caucus in the House is going to drive a truck

Summary: The board opened its public meeting with a quorum, approved the prior minutes by motion and voice vote, and noted there were no employment disclosure forms. The main substantive item was an advisory opinion request from the chief clerk about whether legislators may include information about other governmental agencies or events in constituent newsletters, especially when the same material can be posted on official legislative websites or social media under a statutory safe harbor. Board members discussed the scope of the statute and whether the safe harbor for official websites and social media should be read to extend to printed newsletters. Some members argued the newsletter context is different because it is distributed directly to constituents and has limited space, while others said the same principle should apply and that the statute is not an exclusive list of permissible content. The discussion also touched on examples such as public health notices, bike safety events, and other government-published information, with concern expressed that a broader reading could allow too much unrelated content. No final advisory opinion was adopted during the meeting. Instead, the board directed staff to rewrite the draft opinion to reflect the discussion and bring it back later. The meeting then moved toward public testimony, but no testimony was taken before the public portion was adjourned and the board proceeded into executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> road is in fact the mailo Drive road is in fact the mailo Drive Extension<00:24:19.960><c> itself
• serves as the whereas makakilo Drive serves as the only<00:24:46.760><c> Access</c><00:24:47.120><c>
• As you know, Chair, Makakilo residents currently have one way in and one way out using Makakilo Drive
• Makakilo residents currently have one way in and one way out using Makakilo Drive, and in the event of
• </c><00:31:29.919><c> and</c> one way out using the makakilo drive and one way out using the makakilo

Committee: House Public Safety

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety met on Wednesday, April 2 at 11:05 a.m. and began with housekeeping instructions for Zoom testimony and meeting conduct. The first major item was House Resolution 43, HD1, which urged the City and County of Honolulu to work with stakeholders on an emergency access road on the West Coast. The acting chair proposed a substantial HD2 amendment to add Makakilo language, expanding the resolution to call for two emergency access roads—one on the Ewa coast and one in Makakilo—and to request community meetings and a timeline for an alternative Makakilo access road by early 2026. Testimony on the resolution was strongly supportive overall, with 14 written testimonies in favor and none opposed. The committee then debated whether the proposed HD2 was appropriate without prior concurrence from the original introducer or prior committee chair. Several members objected to the amendment process and said they would vote no because the amendment had not been posted in advance and lacked concurrence, while the acting chair argued the rules did not require concurrence for resolutions and that the amendment was needed to address Makakilo residents’ safety concerns. The discussion also included references to prior conversations with leadership and the Speaker about whether resolution titles could be amended. After debate, the committee first voted on the amended version of HR 43, but the recommendation was not adopted. The acting chair then moved to pass HR 43 HD1 as originally presented, without the new Makakilo amendments. That motion was adopted, with the committee voting to pass the resolution as is. The record notes that members supporting the original measure cited the written testimony and the need for a second access point on the West Coast, while others voted no because they viewed the Makakilo language as duplicative or preferred a separate measure. After HR 43, the committee moved on to HCR 9, and the acting chair indicated that the committee would need to take a reconsideration vote before proceeding to a final vote on that resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our accidents and fatalities due to drunken driving are getting worse.
• Our accidents and fatalities due to drunken driving are getting worse.
• </c> drunken driving are are getting worse. drunken driving are are getting worse.
• </c> people driving over 100 miles an hour. people driving over 100 miles an hour.
• </c><01:26:11.760><c> over</c> have people who are going to drive over have people who are going to drive

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that a driving factor at all?
• It is the LCFS that is supporting that drive and that investable signal to the state.
• cars that they’re probably going to be driving for much longer.
• “Think it’s very untrue to say that the LCFS is driving consolidation.
• The LCFS program drives in-state economic investments and creates high-quality jobs.

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• In my home state of West Virginia, I've seen firsthand how these drive-up in costs, these delays, not
• A driving force behind these exorbitant credit prices is the shortage of mitigation banks across the
• Delays also drive up costs.
• It purely is just driving down, driving out the length of the review process and driving up costs.
• It will lower the price because the cost of regulation continues to drive.

Committee: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Keywords: environmental review, permitting process, infrastructure, bipartisan legislation, economic growth, Nucor, West Virginia

Summary: The meeting focused on critical discussions surrounding the need for modernizing the federal environmental review and permitting processes. Witnesses from various sectors, including Nucor, provided testimony on the delays and costs associated with current regulations, emphasizing the impact on infrastructure and economic growth. Major projects in West Virginia, such as the Corridor H and Coalfield Expressways, were highlighted as examples of initiatives stalled by excessive permitting hurdles, prompting calls for bipartisan legislation to streamline these processes while maintaining environmental protections. The committee expressed a commitment to address these issues immediately, highlighting the urgency to enhance efficiency in permitting to facilitate economic development.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of course, I drive only electric cars. A lot of my friends drive electric cars.
• Of course, I drive only electric cars. A lot of my friends drive electric cars.
• </c><01:35:03.520><c> only</c> against the bill of course I drive only against the bill of course I drive
• </c><03:15:39.120><c> a</c> license uh if they are going to drive a license uh if they are going to drive
• <05:25:22.760><c> many</c><05:25:23.000><c> treasured</c> driving one of his many treasured driving one

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 105, which would create a new conservation license plate and direct the added fee to the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund. The sponsor, Rep. Rosemarie Rung, said the bill would create a non-tax revenue source to help address toxic cyanobacteria blooms in New Hampshire lakes, ponds, and rivers. She described the public health, environmental, and economic harms from blooms, the high cost of watershed management plans and mitigation projects, and the limited current funding available through state and federal sources. She argued that a voluntary plate program could provide sustainable support and raise awareness. Supporters, including Reps. Katie Pell and McDonald, said the bill would help affected lake communities and tourism-dependent areas. New Hampshire DES testified neutrally but confirmed that blooms have increased sharply, that the agency has issued more than 120 warnings in the past two years, and that the existing mitigation fund is nearly depleted after one-time appropriations. DES said the proposed plate would not solve the entire funding need but could provide dedicated revenue for studies and implementation projects. DMV testified that the operational impact of adding a new plate would be minimal. New Hampshire Lakes also supported the bill and said survey results suggested some current Moose plate holders and new registrants would likely choose the Loon plate. Committee members asked about the health effects of cyanobacteria, the expected revenue from the plate, and whether the problem is natural or human-driven. Testimony said exposure can cause skin irritation, gastrointestinal illness, and more serious liver or neurological effects, with pets and children at higher risk; one witness also cited research suggesting aerosolized toxins may affect people several kilometers from a bloom. DES explained that while lake sediments can release nutrients, the underlying problem is largely driven by watershed inputs and worsened over time. No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting provided, and the chair invited written testimony and additional questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> program, these offenses, them driving program, these offenses, them driving without<00:05:29.120
• was able to keep driving.
• Driving in Minnesota is a this.
• </c> aren't driving impaired. aren't driving impaired.
• </c><00:09:32.160><c> If</c> driving was able to keep driving. If driving was able to keep driving.

Transcript Highlights:

• it, even after. 1965 Impala, then you could still drive it, even though they were no longer providing
• If there is, you know, if I'm driving, if I own the car and my son is, If I'm driving, if I own the car
• car or he was driving the car, then I would receive the warning, right?
• And then I make the determination, as the owner of the car, who was driving it at that time.
• I make the determination of the owner of the car who was driving it at the time.

Summary: The committee heard several privacy, technology, and public safety measures. SB 898 by Senator Weber Pearson would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose the minimum period of software support and notify consumers when support is nearing or has ended. Consumer Reports supported the bill as a consumer protection and cybersecurity measure, while some members raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law and the possibility of private lawsuits. The bill was moved on a 5-1 vote to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with amendments to be taken there. SB 1279 by Senator Gonzalez would authorize Long Beach to place speed safety cameras on Pacific Coast Highway under the same privacy and equity guardrails as the existing pilot program, including no facial recognition, confidentiality of DMV data, warning notices, and reduced fees for low-income recipients. Supporters said the cameras would address severe speeding and fatal crashes on PCH, while opponents raised civil liberties, due process, and concerns about automated enforcement and identifying the actual driver. The committee voted 6-2 to send the bill to Appropriations, and it was placed on call. The committee also advanced SB 1111 by Senator Ashby, the Artificial Intelligence Abuse Protection Act, which would create civil remedies for nonconsensual AI voice, image, and video cloning. Support came from SAG-AFTRA and Common Sense Media, and members discussed concerns about employer liability and the scope of the bill, but no opposition testified. The measure passed 7-1 to Public Safety and was placed on call. SB 1217 by Senator Grove, backed by survivors of trafficking and nonconsensual intimate imagery, would create a DOJ-run clearinghouse to verify removal requests and require platforms to take down intimate images within 48 hours. Survivors described ongoing harm from images still circulating online; members focused on privacy, DOJ capacity, cybersecurity, and the lack of a private right of action. The bill passed 8-0 to Public Safety and was placed on call. Finally, SB 1095 by Senator Perez would require fusion centers and participating agencies to adopt MOUs limiting the sharing of sensitive personal information for immigration enforcement or racial profiling, require annual reporting, and add oversight and audit provisions. Supporters argued fusion centers have operated with too little transparency and have been used to circumvent California privacy and immigration laws; some members raised operational concerns about defining prohibited sharing and how the restrictions would work in practice. The discussion continued, with the author noting committee amendments and existing state law as the basis for the bill's guardrails.

Transcript Highlights:

• drive. drunk driving convictions in four years, yet still held a valid California driver's license.
• He was killed by fentanyl in a drive-by by somebody he knew. His death was not an accident.
• This was a drunk driving, a fentanyl poisoning, whatever the case. I get that.
• This was a drunk driving, a fentanyl poisoning, whatever the case. I get that.
• These decisions are made quickly at a counter, at a drive-through, or on a digital screen.

Committee: Senate Health

Summary: The committee heard SB 1422, which would restore Medi-Cal access for income-eligible undocumented adults beginning January 1, 2027. Senator Durazo and county, labor, health, immigrant-rights, and provider supporters argued the current enrollment freeze shifts costs to counties and hospitals, worsens preventive care, and increases expensive emergency treatment. No opposition testified. Several senators voiced support but also raised concerns about funding and the need for new revenue sources; the chair said she supported the concept and would continue working on financing, but the bill was not voted on because quorum was lost. The committee also heard SB 1023 on PrEP access, SB 1071 on amending death certificates after a homicide finding, SB 1057 on conviction-history review for CNA and home health aide certification, and SB 1088 on advance care planning and POLST/DNR updates. SB 1023’s author and supporters said requiring pharmacy-benefit coverage for injectable PrEP would reduce administrative barriers and improve access, while health plans opposed it as an improper benefit-design mandate; members sought clarification about how the billing pathway would work. SB 1071 drew strong support from victims’ families, law enforcement, and prosecutors who said death certificates should reflect later legal homicide findings, while coroners opposed it as blurring medical and legal determinations and risking data integrity. SB 1057 was presented as a fair-chance workforce measure to expand caregiving jobs for rehabilitated people with records, with no opposition heard. SB 1088 would modernize POLST/DNR rules, including electronic signatures, out-of-state recognition, and clearer signer authority; supporters backed the changes, while clinical nurse specialists opposed the bill for not including them as authorized signers. After quorum was established, the committee took up SB 869, which would require large chain restaurants to display an added-sugar icon next to beverages exceeding half the daily recommended sugar limit. Senator Weber Pierson and supporters from the American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association framed the bill as a transparency measure to help consumers make informed choices and reduce chronic disease risk. The senator responded to opposition concerns by saying existing nutrition information is often hard to find and that the icon would not unduly crowd menus. The hearing continued with testimony on the bill after quorum was reached, but no final vote is reflected in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't support drinking and driving; I do not.
• It doesn't directly relate to what you're driving. record; it's just your credit score.
• , but they do not have anything to do with your actual driving experience.
• on the rating algorithm on actual driving behavior.
• So there could be a bias against women driving.

Committee: House House Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> citizens got together a petition drive citizens got together a petition drive to<00:27:07.440><c
• Um locking election medium V drive.
• </c> handle of the case the V drive handle of the case the V drive compartment<01:25:05.840><c> and</
• So just any flash drive the machine.
• ,</c><01:39:26.880><c> USB</c> And as far as the flash drive, USB And as far as the flash drive, USB

Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.