Transcript Highlights:

• And students who may have autism might also have an emotional behavior disorder or other health impairment

Committee: Joint JLARC I-900 Subcommittee for SAO Performance Audits

Summary: The JLARC I-900 Subcommittee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on special education services, focused on comparing student needs, district identification practices, and funding. Auditors said Washington does not appear to under-identify any particular population for special education, though districts face ongoing challenges with identification, documentation, staffing shortages, and inconsistent referral tracking. They explained that their analysis used statistical models because the true prevalence of disabilities is unknown, and found Washington districts generally clustered near the national average, with little evidence that any demographic group was systematically under-identified. The audit also found that special education funding has historically been insufficient, with districts collectively covering about $500 million in costs not paid by state or federal sources, and that districts spent about 26% more per student than they received in funding. Auditors noted recent legislative changes that removed the special education enrollment cap and changed the safety net process, but said it was too soon to assess their effects. Their recommendations to OSPI included clarifying what counts as an official special education referral, requiring districts to report referral data even when no evaluation follows, and ensuring the new statewide data system is developed with district input, training, and possibly a mandate for uniform use. OSPI staff said they concurred with the report and appreciated the work of the auditor’s office and JLARC. During member questions, Representative Paulette raised concerns that the audit did not directly examine prevalence of specific disabilities, such as autism and dyslexia, in vulnerable populations or compare Washington’s identification practices to medical and peer-reviewed prevalence data. Auditors responded that medical prevalence is not known in a systematic way, that educational eligibility differs from medical diagnosis, and that the report’s conclusions should not be read as proving no populations are under- or over-identified. No public testimony was offered, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• to 8 a.m. on children and family intervention issues, protective services, juvenile justice, and behavioral

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Walter, and I would like you to support HB 662.
• </c><00:55:07.240><c> HP</c> to support HP to support HP 667<00:55:10.359><c> and</c><00:55:10.599><c
• </c><01:09:55.400><c> HB</c> would like you to support HB would like you to support HB 667<01:09:57.600
• I would like you to support HB 730 to that extent.
• </c><01:39:13.800><c> HB</c> would like you to support HB would like you to support HB 730<01:39:16.520

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 662, which would require public schools to include discussion of abortion procedures and show specified videos in health education classes. The prime sponsor argued the bill would ensure students receive medically accurate, age-appropriate, and nonpolitical information about abortion, saying the topic is important for informed decision-making and should be taught consistently statewide. He said the videos were intended for grades 9-12, that parents could opt out, and that the requirement was meant to supplement, not sway, students’ views. He also acknowledged the bill could be seen as limiting local control over curriculum and said the intent was to prevent the topic from being missed due to scheduling disruptions. Committee members questioned the sponsor about local control, the need for a video mandate, the source of his statistics, whether the bill could be biased or inflammatory, and whether the requirement should apply every year in high school. The sponsor said the videos were only a starting point, could be replaced by others, and were meant to be informational. He also said the bill was not intended to influence students’ decisions about abortion. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives of New Hampshire Right to Life and others who said students should be told the “truth” about abortion and its consequences. They emphasized graphic or emotionally difficult aspects of abortion and argued that young people need this information to make informed choices. Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised concerns about prescribing curriculum, eroding local control, and the appropriateness of the material for younger high school students. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association said the bill was overly prescriptive, that health education standards are already set by the State Board of Education, and that the topics in the bill are not part of the current standards. That witness recommended the committee consider retaining the bill for further work or making it less prescriptive. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:17:36.000><c> for</c> same core values that is our support for same core values that is our support
• </c> to thank you all again for your support to thank you all again for your support and<00:19:56.160
• </c><00:50:43.760><c> Um,</c> going to support the bill, too. Um, going to support the bill, too.
• </c> their their nature, and their behavior their their nature, and their behavior changes<01:07:40.960
• </c> support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for the support SF1085.
• </c><00:44:02.160><c> of</c> Minnesota, I am testifying in support of Minnesota, I am testifying in support
• I urge you to support this bill. Thanks.
• I urge you to support this bill.
• I urge you to support this offered. I urge you to support this bill.<00:46:21.960><c> Thanks.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Board supports the passage of this bill. Board supports the passage of this bill.
• So we support this.
• So we support this.
• So we support this.
• So we support this.

Committee: House Transportation

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Support for SB 964. Thank you.
• Hello, Jess Vine with UIW in support. Hello, Fallon Duffy. Jess Vine with UIW in support.
• Thank you, in support. Paul Skillen, at UC Davis, graduate student researchers, in support.
• Ernest Walker, with UAW 41, in strong support. Hello, Arthy Sakhar, UAW, in support.
• Lee Schuller, I support it.

Committee: House Health

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Sorry, in support? Primary witnesses in support? Any additional folks in the room in support?
• I support SB 509.
• support.
• I support SP509. Thank you. from Sacramento and I support 509.
• I support SB 509.

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Really want to credit CEC staff, DPMO has been collaborating there, supporting CEC's We really want to
• We do uplift the importance of not having reactive crisis, asset-by-asset behavior and really doubling
• competitiveness, and help support that production to be able to meet California demand.
• So that brought us to think, well, what if we used the mitigation fee revenues to support accelerated
• We fully support the policy concept outlined by Dr.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing on managing the transportation fuels transition, fuel pricing, and supply reliability. Chair Allen opened by discussing prior legislation, including SB 1322 and special session measures, that expanded reporting to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and gave the state tools to study gasoline costs, refinery margins, inventories, and potential supply disruptions. He framed the hearing around refinery closures, rising imports, global conflict affecting crude markets, and the need to balance affordability, reliability, and the state’s long-term clean-fuels transition. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda, CDTFA Chief Deputy Director Gentian Droboniku, and DPMO Director Ty Miller presented data showing California’s growing dependence on imported crude and refined products, declining in-state refining capacity, and stable-to-tight inventories that are being supported by higher imports. They said the new transparency laws have improved understanding of the market and pointed to the proposed Gateway Pipeline, marine imports, and distribution constraints as important supply issues. CDTFA and DPMO emphasized that retail margins, especially for branded gasoline, have widened significantly, with large price gaps between branded stations and hypermarts/unbranded stations, and that some of the recent price increases were tied to the Iran conflict while earlier spikes were more consistent with localized market behavior and possible price gouging. DPMO also said it is investigating high-priced branded stations, monitoring algorithmic pricing under AB 325, and continuing to analyze diesel spot-market transparency. The CEC and CARB also discussed the Transportation Fuels Transition Plan and the SB 237 assessment, describing them as efforts to plan for a managed decline in fossil fuel demand while protecting workers, communities, and consumers. They said California’s climate goals remain centered on an 85% greenhouse gas reduction by 2045, with continued use of liquid fuels expected but with lower-carbon alternatives, more efficient vehicles, and alternative fuels playing a larger role. Committee members focused heavily on workforce impacts, the need for concrete transition planning, and whether the agencies could provide a clearer picture of what California’s fuel system will look like under the state’s long-term goals. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also wanted to take this opportunity to express our support for S. 285, filed by Senator Tar. ...support
• 3159, an act supporting family caregivers.
• I'm here to voice strong support for House Bill 3159 and Senate Bill 1938, an act supporting family caregivers
• with dignity—I urge you to support this bill.
• So we are very, very much in support of the legislation. much in support of the legislation we there

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing focused largely on tax-credit proposals tied to children, families, caregivers, child care, health care workforce development, and public health. A major portion of the hearing concerned bills to expand the state earned income tax credit and child and family tax credit, including H. 3073/S. 1957 and S. 1975. Testimony from advocacy groups, legal services, tax assistance organizations, and health providers supported increasing the EITC match from 40% to 50% of the federal credit, expanding eligibility to immigrant and mixed-status ITIN filers, larger families, younger and older workers, and SSI recipients, and raising the child and family tax credit to $600 per child with inflation adjustments and possible advance payments. Witnesses said these changes would reduce poverty, improve health and educational outcomes, and help families meet basic expenses; committee members asked questions about ITIN filers and expressed support for the policy goals. The committee also heard extensive testimony on S. 1938/H. 3159, An Act Supporting Family Caregivers. Speakers described the scale of unpaid caregiving in Massachusetts and supported a package that would create a refundable tax credit, respite vouchers, workplace and housing protections, unemployment insurance access for those who leave work to care for relatives, a permanent advisory council, and a provision allowing spouses to be paid caregivers under MassHealth. Several witnesses shared personal caregiving experiences, and committee members responded favorably, noting the emotional and financial strain on caregivers and the importance of supporting them as Medicaid and long-term care systems face pressure. Additional bills discussed included H. 3174 on a child and dependent care tax credit, which was presented as a way to offset the high cost of child care; H. 3197/S. 2019 to improve the financial security of family child care providers through a tax credit; H. 3218/S. 1960 to create tax credits for health care preceptors to address workforce shortages; S. 2064 to establish a living organ donor tax credit; S. 2034 to promote healthy alternatives to sugary drinks through a tiered tax; H. 3015 to create a tax-return checkoff for the YMCA Youth and Government Program; and several public testimony ideas including vaccination, literacy, and grade-improvement tax credits. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing, which ended after all testimony was heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• We support this bill.
• Because I think support can change lives and lack of support endangers them.
• I'm here in support of SB 5826.
• I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 5828.
• I am here in strong support of Senate Bill 5828.

Summary: The Workforce Development Committee heard public testimony on several higher education bills. Senate Bill 5954 would expand veteran survivor tuition waiver eligibility to better align state law with federal DEA benefits, allowing eligible children and surviving spouses/domestic partners to use the waiver outside current age and time limits. The sponsor and veteran advocates said the change would help families access earned benefits; no opposition was heard, and the public hearing was closed. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5826, which would require public postsecondary institutions to provide access to medication abortion through student health centers or referrals and web-based information by the 2027-28 academic year. Supporters, including students and reproductive health advocates, said the bill would reduce barriers, travel burdens, and stigma and help students stay enrolled. Opponents, including clergy, Catholic Conference representatives, and other individuals, argued the bill promoted abortion, raised safety and moral concerns, and was outside the mission of colleges. The public hearing was closed after extensive testimony. Senate Bill 5828 would restore and adjust Washington College Grant and College Bound Scholarship awards for students attending private not-for-profit four-year institutions, using the average award at public institutions rather than the reduced formula adopted last session. The sponsor and many students, private college leaders, and business and workforce groups supported the bill as a matter of fairness, access, and student choice, while public university faculty and representatives opposed it, saying state aid should prioritize public institutions and that the bill would deepen funding inequities. The committee also heard Senate Bill 5909, which would require public baccalaureate institutions to review and potentially discontinue low-enrollment degree programs; supporters framed it as a transparency and efficiency measure, while faculty and student representatives opposed it as too blunt and potentially harmful to smaller, specialized, or equity-focused programs. No votes were taken on any of the bills during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We stand in support of this resolution.
• We strongly support this bill and hope you vote in support. Thank you so much. Thank you. Dispora.
• I do in concept support this.
• And I fully support this, but I'll be happy when we see some of those outcomes and how... ...support
• We want to fully support this bill. So thank you, Madam Chair. We want to fully support this bill.

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We stand in support of this resolution.
• I'm speaking in strong support of H.J.R. 5.
• We strongly support this bill and hope you vote in support. Thank you so much. Thank you. Dispora.
• I do in concept support this.
• We want to fully support this bill. So thank you, Madam Chair. We want to fully support this bill.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and heard three measures: H.J.R. 5 on legislative compensation, Senate Bill 29 as amended on math instruction, and Senate Bill 37 on literacy instruction. H.J.R. 5 was presented as a constitutional amendment to create a paid legislature tied to New Mexico’s median household income, with supporters arguing it would broaden access to public service, reduce conflicts of interest, and better reflect the realities of modern legislative work. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support, including from advocacy groups, civic organizations, faith groups, and veterans; one member raised concerns about fairness, attendance, and whether outside employment would still be allowed. The committee adopted an amendment to move the ballot question from 2028 to 2026, then approved H.J.R. 5 on a 5-1 vote. Senate Bill 29, endorsed by the Legislative Education Study Committee, would strengthen math instruction by improving teacher preparation, requiring PED to set up statewide math supports, and creating early screening and family engagement for students. Supporters, including educators, business groups, and education nonprofits, said New Mexico’s math outcomes are too low and that early intervention and better teacher preparation are needed. Members asked about teacher licensure requirements, parent support, standardized testing concerns, and district implementation. The committee heard that the bill’s screenings are intended to be developmental rather than high-stakes tests, and that parents would be supported through school-based guidance. The bill passed unanimously. Senate Bill 37 would codify a science-of-reading framework, require high-quality instructional materials, add literacy coaches and assessments, and expand support for bilingual and dual-language instruction. Supporters said the bill builds on recent gains in reading proficiency and strengthens teacher preparation and early intervention. Opponents, including tribal leaders, bilingual education scholars, and advocacy groups, argued the bill was too English-dominant, could conflict with existing bilingual and tribal language laws, and did not go far enough to protect indigenous languages and community-based approaches. Sponsors said amendments were being developed to clarify biliteracy, culturally responsive instruction, and protections for native language learning, and the committee advanced the bill on a vote with several members noting their support was contingent on those promised amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• We support this bill.
• Because I think support can change lives and lack of support endangers them.
• I'm here in support of SB 5826.
• I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 5828.
• I urge you to support this bill.

Bills: SB5826 , SB5828 , SB5909 , SB5954

Committee: Senate Higher Education & Workforce Development

Keywords: medication abortion, public education, access, healthcare rights, postsecondary institutions, college grant, scholarships, higher education, private institutions, Washington State, undergraduate programs, enrollment, program review, public institutions, veterans, tuition waiver, education, survivors, eligibility, 904

Transcript Highlights:

• ; Legal Defense Fund, in strong support; and the UCLA Voting Rights Project, in strong support.
• Community Foundation, in support. Karen Stout with Power California Action, in support. Thank you.
• I'm going to be happy to support this today.
• Strong support. Thank you. Sydney Fong was APAs for civic empowerment and strong support.
• Anybody in the room wishing to come on as support? Any primary witnesses in support?

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on July 1, 2026, heard a full agenda of election-related measures, and took final votes on several bills and one resolution. The committee also adopted two consent items, SB 1429 and SB 1430, without opposition. Members and the chair repeatedly noted committee membership changes and the final meeting of the session, and the chair emphasized the committee’s focus on protecting democracy and election integrity. Among the bills heard, SB 1369 would shorten the signature-gathering period for judicial recalls in larger counties and require paid gatherers to disclose they are compensated; supporters argued it would protect judicial independence, while the chair and some members noted the need to balance recall rights with county differences. SB 900 would reformat campaign disclosure language on large print ads and billboards to improve readability while preserving transparency, with broad support from outdoor advertising, clean money, and good-government groups. SJR 18, which condemns Citizens United and urges action against corporate spending in elections, drew support from reform advocates but also concerns about the resolution’s focus and scope; it was advanced on a party-line split with some members voting no. The committee also advanced SB 1164, a major voting-rights measure expanding California protections against vote dilution and voter suppression, adding preclearance-style review for some jurisdictions, and directing courts to interpret election laws in favor of voting access. Local government representatives opposed it unless amended, citing uncertainty, loss of safe-harbor protections, and implementation concerns, while civil-rights and labor groups strongly supported it. SB 1360, which expands language-access requirements for voters with limited English proficiency and lowers coverage thresholds, was supported by voting-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups but opposed by elections officials unless amended; the committee acknowledged the need for further work on county-level implementation and data standards. The committee also approved SB 1418, which extends protections against seizure of election records and voting systems beyond voted ballots, and SB 884, which creates a buffer zone around polling places and vote-by-mail drop locations to prevent interference with voting and ballot custody, though sheriffs and police groups opposed the arrest restrictions. SB 46, which would give the Secretary of State clearer authority to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential and vice-presidential candidates from the ballot, and SB 715, which moves candidate ballot-designation challenge deadlines earlier, also advanced. Most measures were sent to Appropriations or otherwise held on call for absent members, and the meeting ended with final roll calls and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, Ali McNair waives in support, William Smith, Florida PBA waives in support.
• Sarah Mileg waives in support. Johnny Hadjetian, Village of Palm Springs waives in support.
• Or are you waiving in support? The Bishop waives in support. Smart Justice Alliance.
• Support this bill and support those who put their lives on the line every day. Thank you.
• She waives in support.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:26:48.640><c> the</c> and that will work to support the and that will work to support the division
• Um, they have crumbling infrastructure which we should also be supporting.
• Um, they have crumbling infrastructure which we should also be supporting.
• Um, they have crumbling infrastructure which we should also be supporting.
• . supporting. supporting.

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 252 will help support improved health outcomes, reduce reliance on emergency services, and provide
• I strongly urge you to support Senate Bill 252.
• urge you to support Senate Bill 252<00:34:03.880><c> I</c><00:34:03.960><c> want</c><00:34:04.039><c
• I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill 254.
• of Senate Bill 254 as Senator support of Senate Bill 254 as Senator Roser<00:46:18.839><c> mentioned

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm asking you to support SB 953.
• I respectfully urge you to support SB 953, as the Committee on Public, I respectfully urge you to support
• In support. Christina Thompson, on behalf of Connor Lopez, strong support.
• Riverside Sheriff's Association, in support.
• We're in support. Similia Rogers, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Summary: The Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety heard several bills, with testimony largely focused on criminal justice, public safety, and detention-related issues. SB 498 by Senator Becker would make electronic messaging free for incarcerated people in CDCR facilities and end 15-minute limits on voice calls; the author and supporters argued it would strengthen family ties and rehabilitation, while no opposition testified. SB 953 by Senator Niello would require two DMV points for misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter cases even when diversion is granted; victims’ family members and law enforcement groups supported it as an accountability measure, while the ACLU and Debt-Free Justice California opposed it, arguing diversion should remain an incentive for rehabilitation and safer roads. The committee also heard SB 1306 by Senator Cortese, which would align state law with federal exemptions for certain GBL-containing chemical mixtures used in semiconductor manufacturing; the author and SEMI said it would reduce unnecessary regulation and protect California’s semiconductor industry, and there was no opposition testimony. Members also considered SB 941 by Senator Padilla, which would cap commissary markups in private immigration detention facilities at 35% above vendor cost. The author and supporters described high prices for basic necessities and poor conditions in private detention centers, while no opposition witnesses appeared. SB 691 by Senator Wahab would require law enforcement body-camera policies to include a process for EMS personnel to request redaction of recordings before public release when patients are receiving medical treatment; supporters said it would protect patient privacy, while the Sheriff’s Association opposed it as duplicative and potentially confusing. SB 562 by Senator Ashby would allow partial refunds of bail bond premiums when charges are not filed or are dropped early; supporters framed it as a fairness measure for low-income families, while bail industry representatives and victims’ advocates warned it could discourage bail agents from posting bonds and could affect domestic violence cases. The committee also took up several additional measures on consent or with no opposition testimony, including AB 2796, SB 891, SB 1012, and SB 1143. After discussion, the committee voted to pass SB 953, SB 1306, and SB 941, and to move SB 498, SB 691, and SB 562 forward as well, with some votes initially held open for absent members. Several bills were pulled by their authors and not heard, including SB 1004, SB 1208, SB 1338, and SB 1401. The meeting concluded with the committee adjourning until the following week.

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m asking you to support SB 953.
• I respectfully urge you to support SB 953.
• In support. Christina Thompson, on behalf of Connor Lopez, strong support.
• We're in support. Good morning.
• California's Civil Liberties, and we support.

Committee: House Public Safety

Keywords: 988, house, all