Transcript Highlights:

• trying to ensure that these county jails that are housing inmates on behalf of other governmental entities

Bills: HB2299, HB2939, HB2941, HB2960, HB3062, HB3087, HB3114, HB3244, HB3262, HB3304, HB3345, HB3386, HB3431, HB3498, HB3581, HB3645, HB3648, HB3764, HB3852, HB3974, HB4141, HB4144, HB4227, HB4237, HB4343, HB4425

Keywords: Article V, convention, amendments, criminal penalties, legislative authority, absentee voting, electronic communication, facsimile device, voting materials, military voters, fentanyl, overdose, first responders, drug reporting, immunity, controlled substances, penalties, firearm liability, tort reform, manufacturers

Transcript Highlights:

• witnessed spirited debate regarding the acquisition of property in this state by individuals and entities
• CFIUS identifies potential risks, especially where a foreign government or a government-controlled entity
• It requires all law schools affiliated with public or private institutions. of higher education in Texas
• to be accredited by an entity recognized by the U.S.
• Bill 240, Senator Middleton's bill about policies for entering or using certain private spaces.

Bills: SB1065, SB2117, SB2217, SB2363, SB2533, SB2742, SB2743, SB2881, SB2964, SB3013, SB3014

Keywords: SB 1065, handgun carry, license holder, concealed carry, open carry, government contracts, governmental entity, property lease, state agencies, local government, higher education, university, Texas Government Code, Penal Code 30.06, Penal Code 30.07, Penal Code 46.03, Second Amendment, gun rights, firearms, civil penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• This initiated legal challenges and debate over whether a private entity operating on public land has
• This situation highlights a broader issue of conflicting state firearm policies enforced by private entities
• Contractors using property owned or leased to them by government entities have recently imposed whose
• That trust is undermined when private entities operating on a public land impose restrictions that exceed
• in Texas to be accredited by an entity recognized by the U.S.

Bills: SB1065, SB2117, SB2217, SB2363, SB2533, SB2742, SB2743, SB2881, SB2964, SB3013, SB3014

Keywords: SB 1065, handgun carry, license holder, concealed carry, open carry, government contracts, governmental entity, property lease, state agencies, local government, higher education, university, Texas Government Code, Penal Code 30.06, Penal Code 30.07, Penal Code 46.03, Second Amendment, gun rights, firearms, civil penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• This initiated legal challenges and debate over whether a private entity operating on public land has
• This situation highlights a broader issue of conflicting state firearm policies enforced by private entities
• This situation highlights a broader issue of conflicting state firearm policies enforced by private entities
• This bill simply requires that contracts for the use of property owned or leased by government entities
• That trust is undermined when private entities operating on public land impose restrictions that exceed

Bills: SB1065, SB2117, SB2217, SB2363, SB2533, SB2742, SB2743, SB2881, SB2964, SB3013, SB3014

Keywords: SB 1065, handgun carry, license holder, concealed carry, open carry, government contracts, governmental entity, property lease, state agencies, local government, higher education, university, Texas Government Code, Penal Code 30.06, Penal Code 30.07, Penal Code 46.03, Second Amendment, gun rights, firearms, civil penalty

Summary: The Senate State Affairs Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 1065, which would require government property contracts to prohibit contractors from barring licensed handgun holders from carrying firearms on leased or owned public property, with civil penalties and attorney general enforcement for violations. Senator Hall and invited witnesses from the Texas State Rifle Association, NRA, and Texas Gun Rights argued the bill would close a loophole exposed by the State Fair of Texas gun ban and protect law-abiding Texans’ self-defense rights. Opponents, including Moms Demand Action/Everytown, said the bill would undermine event organizers’ ability to set site-specific safety rules and could increase liability and insurance costs. Public testimony was then closed and the bill was left pending. The committee next took up Senate Bill 2742, which would create civil penalties for independent school districts and officials who use public resources for electioneering, waive immunity defenses, and expand attorney general enforcement. Senator Hagan-Bood said current law bans the conduct but lacks meaningful penalties, making injunctions the only remedy. No public testimony was heard, and the bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2743, also by Senator Hagan-Bood, which would allow a court to disqualify local prosecutors who refuse to prosecute election offenses and appoint the attorney general to handle the case, with a committee substitute adjusting the removal process through an adjacent-county judge. Opponents from the Texas Civil Rights Project argued the bill would undermine prosecutorial discretion and was vague and open to abuse, while a Harris County election official described past instances where alleged voter fraud cases were not pursued. After testimony, public comment was closed and SB 2743 was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Texans also have a private right of action to ensure the law is followed.
• And the private cause of action, however, does not require that.
• Men shouldn't be in women's private spaces in all areas.
• Men shouldn't be in women's private spaces in all areas.
• a simple solution: Don't look at their private parts.

Bills: SB7, SB14

Keywords: gender designation, civil penalties, private civil rights, multiple-occupancy spaces, Texas Women's Privacy Act, law enforcement, confidentiality, personnel files, employee records, misconduct

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs heard testimony on Senate Bill 7, the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, with the author and committee substitute explaining that the bill would require public facilities to designate multi-use private spaces by biological sex, restrict access to women’s restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping quarters, shelters, and correctional facilities, and create civil penalties and enforcement mechanisms. Members asked about how the bill would apply to family violence shelters, children in mixed-family settings, venue layout, and venue for lawsuits; the author said the bill was similar to prior legislation but with stronger penalties and the 15th Court of Appeals as the exclusive intermediate appellate court for challenges, while clarifying that trial venue should generally be local except for state agencies. The committee also heard that the bill would be amended to better address local venue concerns and shelter-related issues. Invited testimony was largely in support of the bill from witnesses who described personal experiences in women’s sports, prisons, shelters, and public facilities, arguing that single-sex spaces are necessary for privacy and safety. Supporters included parents, former incarcerated women, a Republican county chair, a legal advocate, and a prison educator, who cited incidents involving transgender-identifying individuals in locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and restrooms, and said the bill would restore sex-based boundaries and protect vulnerable women and girls. One witness from Texas Values said the bill was needed despite the recently enacted Women’s Bill of Rights, and another ADF witness said the measure would protect privacy in schools and shelters. Opponents testified that the bill would harm transgender and intersex Texans, create harassment and “gender policing,” and expose cisgender women and children to invasive enforcement. Several witnesses argued there is no evidence that transgender women pose a restroom safety threat, while others said the bill would worsen mental health, employment, and school conditions for trans people and could conflict with prison standards and federal law. Family violence advocates urged changes to protect shelter operations and clarify that children can stay with parents, while other witnesses said the bill would create barriers for victims seeking help. The hearing featured extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Bills: SB7, SB14

Keywords: gender designation, civil penalties, private civil rights, multiple-occupancy spaces, Texas Women's Privacy Act, law enforcement, confidentiality, personnel files, employee records, misconduct

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs took up Senate Bill 14, which would create a confidential department file for law enforcement officers and jailers and limit public access to records involving unsubstantiated misconduct, while preserving access for hiring agencies, TCOLE, and certain criminal justice uses. TCOLE’s Gretchen Grigsby explained the current rollout of law enforcement recordkeeping reforms, including the distinction between the public personnel file and the confidential G-file, and answered questions about when TCOLE would request files during investigations. Senator Perry and other members focused on how the bill would interact with existing personnel-file rules, public transparency, and criminal discovery obligations. Public testimony was largely opposed. Critics argued the bill was drafted too broadly, could sweep in records beyond misconduct files, and would reduce transparency for the public, journalists, oversight bodies, and families seeking answers in cases such as Uvalde and jail deaths in Tarrant County. Several witnesses said the bill could allow small or single-officer agencies, including elected constables, to shield their own records, and some warned it could chill reporting and oversight. Supporters, including law enforcement representatives, said the bill would protect officers from false or unsubstantiated allegations, align agencies without civil-service protections with those that already have G-files, and preserve confidentiality for records that should not be public. Dallas County prosecutors and Harris County deputies supported the general policy but asked for clarifying amendments, especially to separate language they said could affect the Michael Morton Act and to preserve existing protections through in-camera review or protective orders. Committee members spent significant time questioning witnesses about how substantiated versus unsubstantiated allegations would be handled, whether body camera footage and case files would remain public, and how the bill would affect discovery in criminal cases. After hearing all registered witnesses, the chair closed public testimony. Senate Bill 14 was left pending, and the committee recessed.

Transcript Highlights:

• is that when we did the stakeholder engagement, we engaged with many, most of the users of these private
• <00:05:05.280> activity<00:05:05.760> bonds, users of these private activity bonds,
• users of these private activity bonds, uh<00:05:06.919> developers<00:05:07.800> um<00
• <01:31:51.880> sector<01:31:52.160> workforce, Minnesota's private sector workforce
• , the real problem when, um, entities, the real problem when, um, entities, when<01:35:22.440>

Bills: HF4234, HF3697, HF1183, HF4738

Keywords: HF4234, Minnesota private activity bonds, tax-exempt bonds, bond cap, aggregate bond limitation, residential rental projects, multifamily housing, affordable housing finance, housing bonds, public finance, bond allocation, private activity bond cap, Minnesota Statutes 474A.02, tax committee, tax refund, Minnesota Statutes, time limit, claims, tax overpayment, taxation

Summary: The committee first adopted the April 14, 2026 minutes as amended, correcting a misspelling in the reference to Chair Davids. It then heard House File 4234, a tax-exempt bonding/affordable housing bill from Representative Rey Rower, and adopted a technical A1 amendment before laying the bill over for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill. The bill would conform Minnesota law to recent federal changes to low-income housing tax credit rules by lowering the amount of tax-exempt bonds needed for projects to qualify, with the stated goal of spreading bond allocations across more projects and increasing affordable housing production without additional state funds. Testimony in support came from the bill author, the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, and Mary Tingerthal, who said the change would increase efficiency in the use of federal bond authority and could raise the number of funded housing projects from about 16 to 25 per year, bringing in roughly $120 million more annually for housing. Members discussed where the benefits would be felt statewide, including greater Minnesota and larger metro areas, and the author said the bill would help address shortages in affordable and senior housing. The committee took no final vote on the bill, instead laying it over. The committee next heard House File 3697 from Vice Chair Norris, which would change Minnesota’s tax refund claim timelines to better align with federal law and most other states. The author and a tax attorney testifier said the bill would reduce confusion and help taxpayers, especially vulnerable individuals who may overpay or be overassessed and then miss the current deadline to seek refunds. The Department of Revenue said it had no concerns with the language and did not oppose the bill, and the committee laid the bill over for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill. Finally, the committee began hearing House File 4738 from Representative Keeler, a Safe Harbor funding proposal for victims of sex trafficking and sexually exploited youth. The author described Safe Harbor as a statewide program serving youth across Minnesota and said the committee should consider creative funding options, but Chair Davids stated the proposed funding source would not work because it would take money from women’s sports scholarships. Testifiers from Lake House in Duluth and a former Safe Harbor youth described the program’s impact on homeless and trafficked youth, including shelter, mental health services, education, and transition to adulthood. The hearing continued with testimony, but no action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 8 simply requires that public entities. Establish a policy.
• Designating private spaces owned and controlled by the entity be designated for use by individuals based
• It is a private person.
• The tax office is the most customer facing entity within our county.
• Should be Um, private For women and private for men and be separated.

Bills: HB7, SB 8

Keywords: abortion, healthcare, jurisdiction, civil action, qui tam, prohibition, state law, sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• Relating to the use of the Skills Development Fund by certain entities, this is the Senate companion
• penalties under this. ...chapter for a violation, and Section E states that it will not create a private
• Because it says it does not create a private cause of action or change any common law.
• So every municipality or entity that will fall under this...
• They were often false or misleading, or they're phishing for my private information.

Bills: HB1958, HB2031, HB2879, HB3285, HB3995, HB4487, HB4558, HB4560, HB4876, HB4899, HB5212, HB5317, HB5543, HB5567, SB1333

Keywords: firearm possession, tenant rights, landlord regulations, civil penalties, property code, justified use of force, deadly force, property rights, home defense, smart devices, data privacy, personal data collection, user consent, mobile application, data transparency, HOA, property owners association, property owners' association, Texas Property Code, Chapter 202

Bills: SB8, SB1

Keywords: sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 8 simply requires that public entities establish a policy designating private spaces owned and controlled
• by the entity for use...
• Because women deserve to have their private spaces.
• Policy should recognize that those spaces should be private for women and private for men and be separated
• I said in my private capacity, not in my capacity.

Bills: HB7, SB 8, HB7, SB 8

Keywords: abortion, healthcare, jurisdiction, civil action, qui tam, prohibition, state law, sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are a variety of private sector vendors that offer...

Bills: SB8, SB 8

Keywords: education, accountability, public school assessment, state law, transparency, intervention, performance ratings, sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• certain attorneys ad litem in suits affecting the parent-child relationship filed by a governmental entity

Bills: SB387, SB1650, SB1838, SB1839, SB1923, SB1940, SB2052

Keywords: judicial bond, guardianship, probate law, county judge, statutory county court, attorney general, criminal prosecution, public order, law enforcement, jurisdiction, attorney ad litem, parent-child relationship, compensation, legal representation, government entity, probate, court proceedings, record delivery, wills, legal documentation

Summary: The Senate Committee on Jurisprudence heard several family-law and probate bills. Senate Bill 2052 would codify a rebuttable presumption that a parent acts in the best interest of a child and require clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption in disputes involving non-parents; the author and several witnesses supported the bill as a clarification of existing case law, while one witness suggested refining the modification language. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1923, which would allow child support to follow a child placed temporarily with kin or fictive kin under a parental child safety placement or authorization agreement; the bill’s author and a grandparent caregiver testified in support, while one witness suggested the Attorney General could handle the change administratively. That bill was also left pending. Senate Bill 1838 would standardize fee schedules and compensation rules for attorneys ad litem and related court-appointed counsel in DFPS child-protection cases. The author said the bill would clarify unclear current law, and witnesses from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and family-defense bar supported it, though one asked that expert-witness expenses be expressly included. Senate Bill 387 would raise the bond requirement for county judges handling guardianship proceedings to at least $500,000; the author described it as a refiling of a prior bill that passed unanimously but was vetoed, and a statutory probate judge testified in support. Senate Bill 1839 would require original or paper wills to be delivered to the transferee court when probate proceedings are transferred; the committee substitute broadened the delivery methods, and the district clerk witness supported the change. All three bills were left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 1536, which had previously been voted out with the wrong committee substitute; members reconsidered the vote, adopted the corrected substitute, and then voted 3-0 to report the bill favorably to the full Senate, with local and contested calendar certification. Finally, Senate Bill 1940 would create a transfer-on-death mechanism for manufactured homes classified as personal property, similar to existing tools for real property and vehicles; the author and an estate-planning attorney testified that it would streamline transfers and reduce probate costs. A non-substantive committee substitute was still being prepared, and the bill was left pending.

Bills: HB2, HB43, HB49, HB94, HB137, HB156, HB200, HB250, HB3, HB42

Keywords: vaccination, parental consent, minors, medical consent, guardian approval, criminal procedure, split sentencing, probation, Class A felony, Class B felony, minimum confinement, HB49, Alabama criminal code, capital offense, capital punishment, death penalty, rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual torture, child sexual abuse

Transcript Highlights:

• juvenile court provide written notification to the superintendent or the headmaster, principal of a private
• There are multiple entities that would be able to compete in this market.
• allowed the schools to tap into any one of three sources, such as the K12 capital grant programs, entities
• Private school would not be an option, and we believed that homeschooling was not a viable option for

Bills: SB166, HB365, HB272, HB232, HB234, SB278, SB277

Keywords: Ten Commandments, public education, displays, funding, Alabama law, STEM, science education, technology education, engineering education, math education, workforce development, career pathways, Alabama STEM Council, Department of Workforce, education policy, higher education, community colleges, K-12 education, teacher pipeline, STEM careers

Transcript Highlights:

• Locked down so that Minnesotans can trust that their private data is kept private and in the state of
• that we are protecting motans private that we are protecting motans private data.<00:09:31.760><
• The companies also grant... involvement of private companies and the involvement of private companies
• But what this will do is maintain an expectation that their private data is private, and so we have a
• that their private data is private<00:21:49.120> and<00:21:49.280> so<00:21:49.440>

Bills: HF3479, HF4205, HF3782, HF4081, HF4138

Keywords: foreclosure, mortgage, redemption period, homestead, Minnesota Statutes, automated license plate reader, ALPR, license plate recognition, vehicle surveillance, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, BCA, data privacy, government data practices, law enforcement data, surveillance technology, location data, vehicle tracking, warrant requirement, probable cause, exigent circumstances

Transcript Highlights:

• The pass-through entity tax is an elective tax that pass-through owners can elect to file and pay at
• the entity level.
• At the state level, 100% of the tax that those pass-through entity taxpayers pay is then refunded.
• tax which was no pass through entity tax which was no cost<01:01:11.760> to<01:01:11.920>
• passing the pass through entity tax. passing the pass through entity tax.

Bills: HF3127, HF3816, HF3814, HF3815, HF3817

Keywords: taxation, pass-through entity, qualifying owner, partnership, S corporation, tax return, corporate franchise tax, individual income tax, research expenditures, federal compliance, Minnesota Statutes, income tax, corporate tax, section 179, federal conformity, HF3815, Minnesota taxes, tax conformity, Internal Revenue Code, IRC conformity

Transcript Highlights:

• attorneys said light them in suits affecting the parents. child relationship filed by a governmental entity

Bills: SB387, SB1650, SB1838, SB1839, SB1923, SB1940, SB2052

Keywords: judicial bond, guardianship, probate law, county judge, statutory county court, attorney general, criminal prosecution, public order, law enforcement, jurisdiction, attorney ad litem, parent-child relationship, compensation, legal representation, government entity, probate, court proceedings, record delivery, wills, legal documentation

Bills: HB37, HB51, HB173, HB180, HB192, HB306, HB366, HB393, HB485, HB516, HB521, HB526, HB638, HB752, HB817, HB976, HB1006, HB1044

Keywords: HB37, expropriation, eminent domain, property rights, foreign entity, foreign corporation, limited liability company, LLC, reciprocal expropriation agreement, Louisiana property law, land acquisition, utility infrastructure, public utilities, railroad, waterworks, sewerage, natural gas pipeline, electric utility, telecommunications, carbon dioxide pipeline

Transcript Highlights:

• entities.
• ICE or the largest owner of private detention facilities in America.
• created, whether it's owned by a private created, whether it's owned by a private entity,<00:15:
• Nor is there any entities that are potentially even planning to open.
• <00:22:33.520> even entities that are potentially even entities that are potentially even

Bills: HF3611, HF3659, HF3909

Keywords: taxation, income tax, damage awards, sexual harassment, abuse claims, immigration enforcement, taxpayers, file income tax return, Minnesota-source income, tax regulations, detention facilities, gross revenues, private prisons, Minnesota law, 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the March 3, 2026 minutes and then laid over House File 3611 for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill. Representative Finke described HF 3611 as creating a state income tax withholding deduction for damages awarded to individuals in lawsuits against federal agents such as ICE or CBP, including emotional and financial awards. There was no public testimony or member discussion on the bill before it was laid over. The committee then took up House File 3909, which Representative Hansen said would impose a 50% tax on the gross receipts of detention centers operated by private nongovernmental entities. Hansen argued the measure would recapture public money, deter what he characterized as misuse of taxpayer dollars, and target profits made by private detention contractors such as GEO Group and CoreCivic. He also cited projected revenues and profits for those companies and said the bill was a response to human rights and civil rights concerns tied to private detention operations. Testimony on HF 3909 included support from Nancy Fitz Simmons, a Minnesota State University, Mankato social work professor, who said social workers see the effects of these issues across the state and that the bill could return money to Minnesotans in need. Representative Swedzinski opposed the bill’s impact on the Appleton facility and emphasized local jobs and economic opportunity, while Representative Lee said Minnesota should seek better economic options than jail-related work. Representative Holland supported the bill as a way to offset costs to families and the state from detentions and deportations. Representative Weiner questioned the bill’s revenue potential and criticized the 50% gross-receipts tax as politicizing taxes. Representative Hansen responded that similar proposals were being explored in Washington and California and that the bill was intended to stand up to large corporate interests. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill.