Transcript Highlights:

• that he said it or if he did not say it, either way it should be prohibited.
• it do?
• does it do?
• They requested it and it was denied. It stayed on the consent agenda.
• And if I don't see it in there, I can do it. I can do it.

Committee: House Education

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It says, 'If it was before the legislature,' ...manual.
• It says, 'If it was before the legislature, it may be discussed in the newsletter to the same extent
• And where in 180, does it suggest that? It doesn't.
• It may slightly be, or it may be part of a bill. I'm—that, you know, today it is, but could...
• Yes, it is.

Summary: The meeting focused on whether legislators and legislative staff may use official resources, including newsletters and social media, to comment on a bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members discussed older ethics guidance allowing comments on legislation previously before the legislature, but questioned whether that rule still applies to modern social media posts and to ballot measures, especially when the language is strong or could be seen as an indirect appeal to voters. Several members argued that once a bill becomes a ballot measure, using state resources to advocate for or against it is prohibited, while others emphasized the importance of allowing officials to explain their votes and speak to their legislative record. The group debated possible guardrails, including whether comments should be limited to the bill itself, whether tone and timing should matter, and whether the rule should apply only to members not subject to election-year restrictions. One motion proposed extending the prior ethics guidance from the immediately preceding legislative session to the full biennium and applying it to social media, but that motion failed. Members then shifted toward a brighter-line approach tied to the primary election date, with discussion that after the primary officials should not use state resources to talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to ballot challenge. A second motion to use the primary date as the cutoff for monitoring these discussions was made, seconded, and passed. The chair then noted that officials are still free to speak on personal or campaign accounts, and to respond to questions, but the board’s guidance would help distinguish permissible official communications from campaign-like advocacy. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it necessary? Did I get it right? The reason why we’re doing it?
• Is it necessary? Did I get it right? The reason why we’re doing it?
• Is it necessary? Did I get it right? The reason why we’re doing it?
• Is it necessary? Did I get it right? The reason why we’re doing it?
• If it were, you would know it.

Committee: House House Education Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee began with brief announcements, including an invitation from Chad Heinrich of the University of Phoenix to an upcoming lunch-and-learn on artificial intelligence and education, and then members and staff exchanged end-of-session धन्यवाद and appreciation. The committee then took up several education-related bills, hearing sponsor presentations, public testimony, and member questions before voting on each measure. SB 1497 would require larger school districts that operate self-insurance programs to obtain quotes for coverage and services at least every four years and to receive certain information from providers in advance. Supporters said the bill would increase competition, transparency, and cost savings for school employee health benefits; it passed 10-0. SB 1711 would direct the State Board of Education and ADE to compile and post age-appropriate resources on preventing and recognizing inappropriate contact, and to make those resources available to schools and families. Supporters framed it as a voluntary, parent-facing safety tool, while opponents argued it should include stronger evidence-based and trauma-informed requirements; it passed 7-3. SB 1798 would create a FAFSA awareness program recognizing schools that designate a FAFSA point person and promote financial aid completion. Supporters said it would help students access postsecondary funding, especially given Arizona’s low FAFSA completion rate and unclaimed federal aid; it passed 8-2. SB 1143 would require schools and districts to submit federal civil rights data to ADE and would require ADE to publish an annual school safety report. Supporters said it would improve transparency for parents, while opponents called it duplicative and raised privacy and scope concerns; it passed 7-3. SB 1684, as amended, would create a private cause of action against public schools for serious physical injury caused by bullying after a prior report and school negligence, with an amendment limiting the claim to bullying on school property or at school events and requiring written reports. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the bill 6-3, after debate over litigation risk, school discipline, and whether the bill should also cover private schools. The committee also passed SB 1754, which would require ADE’s special education division to help complete incomplete complaints, post redacted complaint reports, and adopt related procedures; members emphasized transparency and privacy protections, and the bill passed 9-0 after an amendment extending the posting timeline and clarifying report contents. SB 1423, continuing the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education until 2036, passed 8-1, with one member objecting to the long sunset extension. Finally, SB 1763, dealing with school district “additional monies” funds and financial reporting, was discussed with an amendment to remove unemployment-compensation transfers and require board approval for expenditures, but the transcript cuts off before the final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's it.
• It is.
• It is clear that it provides for certain rights. It is clear that it designates...
• It is clear that it provides for certain rights.
• We send it on to DCAM, and DCAM includes it in its report that it sends on to the committee.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight held an oversight hearing on draft regulations implementing Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution under Chapter 274 of the Acts of 2022, the Open Space Act. Chairs Cabral and Collins framed the hearing as a review of how the new process for dispositions or changes in use of Article 97 land would work, including public notice, environmental justice protections, replacement land, appraisals, and the role of the legislature. Under Secretary Stephanie Cooper and Commissioner Adam Bakke testified for EEA/DCAM, followed later by Deputy Inspector General O’Neill and Deputy Inspector General Giles on appraisal review. Much of the discussion focused on how the draft regulations would operate in practice. EEA said the regulations would require advance public notice, define “comparable location” for replacement land, and allow the Secretary to make findings on whether an action would adversely affect environmental justice communities. Members pressed for longer public comment periods, clearer notice to local officials, more frequent updates to the site evaluation tool, and a clearer definition of terms such as “limited duration” for permits and licenses. EEA said the regulations are intended to standardize a process that has been handled through policy and case-by-case review, and that the legislature still retains the final authority to approve any Article 97 disposition. Committee members also questioned whether the draft rules shift too much discretion to the Secretary and whether the proposed “proponent” process could allow private entities to drive Article 97 actions. EEA responded that non-public proponents would still need municipal support and legislative sponsorship, and that the regulations do not create a new avenue to bypass the existing home rule and legislative process. Members raised concerns about the current policy’s unanimous-vote requirements for municipal commissions, the proposed waiver provisions, whether MEPA applies, and the lack of explicit enforcement or penalty language in the act or regulations. EEA and DCAM said the act does not provide an enforcement mechanism and that disputes would generally be handled through the courts or the Attorney General. The Inspector General’s office explained its role in reviewing appraisals for special legislation, including Article 97 matters, to ensure compliance with USPAP standards and to forward its review to DCAM. The hearing did not include any votes or formal committee action; members indicated that the committee may later issue recommendations to the executive agencies based on the testimony and questions raised.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can it run on electricity? No, sir. It does not. No, sir. It does not plug in.
• It does not. I mean, it is not classified as a hybrid.
• It does.
• locals have to vote on it and put it in order.
• I get it.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 11, 2026, approved the April 27 minutes, and then took up several House bills. HB 618, by Rep. McMakin, would update Louisiana Economic Development fees and filing charges by indexing them to inflation and allowing some discretion to waive or reduce fees for small businesses; it was reported favorable. HB 732, by Rep. Owen, drew extensive discussion because it combined two issues: temporary OMV relief for a hospice-related ID problem and a suspension of the new hybrid vehicle road usage fee. Members and the OMV commissioner raised constitutional and drafting concerns about waiving or eliminating obligations, and the committee discussed how newer vehicle classifications blur the line between electric, hybrid, and gas-powered vehicles. The committee ultimately reported HB 732 favorable, with the understanding that amendments and further work would be needed before floor action. The committee also reported favorable on HB 217 and HB 214 by Rep. Henry, which would authorize local governments to grant property tax exemptions for the rehabilitation of blighted property and place the related constitutional amendment before voters. Testimony emphasized that the measure is permissive for local governments, applies only after a property is formally blighted and rehabilitated, and is intended to encourage redevelopment while preserving some tax revenue. Members discussed the exemption level, duration, and the need for clearer definitions of blight, but no objections were raised. HB 593, also by Rep. Henry, would raise the maximum service fee for OMV public tag agent offices statewide; the commissioner explained that many offices are locally operated and that the increase would help cover costs, and the bill was reported favorable. Later, HB 514 and HB 961, by Rep. Foreman, were reported favorable. HB 514 would allow local governments, by referendum, to provide additional property tax relief for seniors who meet income and freeze requirements, with phased age-based eligibility steps; HB 961 would extend a similar concept to certain homesteads held in trust. Members discussed the optional local nature of the program and the need to avoid overly broad rules. HB 908, by Rep. Mina, would increase certain Secretary of State business services fees to support operations and system upgrades; agency officials said the fees had not been comprehensively adjusted since 2013 and remained below regional averages, and the bill was reported favorable. The committee then heard an informational update on the capital outlay bill from the Division of Administration, including the use of bundled projects for universities and DOTD, the status of P1/P2/P5 funding, and available cash capacity. Finally, HB 1010, by Rep. Deshotel, was reported favorable after brief discussion; it would require assessors to report property tax collections to the Louisiana Tax Commission for centralized public reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• It wasn't ever taken away. It was part of the SCG. Negative units. It wasn't ever taken away.
• It took up a lot of time. It took up a lot of time the last time we talked about it.
• Is it a letter? Is it a conference?
• for it.
• for it.

Summary: The committee first heard a detailed staff presentation on the LESC FY27 public school support recommendation. Staff reviewed the budget structure and explained that, despite a downward revision in state revenue estimates, the recommendation still relied on recurring and non-recurring revenue to support educator compensation, insurance, transportation, literacy, math, special education, and other school programs. Major recurring items included a 3% compensation increase, funding for an 80-20 health insurance cost share, insurance premium growth, and transportation adequacy funding. Staff also flagged a possible supplemental need of up to $35 million for virtual education tied to rapid enrollment growth in Chama and Santa Rosa, and members raised concerns about the quality, accountability, and funding model for virtual programs. Members asked questions about transportation for rural districts, the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit fees, the treatment of enrollment declines in the school funding formula, and whether the word “average” in salary language should remain in the budget. Staff explained that the SEG should remain whole, that the insurance and transportation recommendations applied to all public school employees but not contractors, and that the budget included multiple math-related investments spread across several lines rather than one single appropriation. There was also discussion of out-of-school learning grants, school meals, literacy center operations, special education training, and the Public Education Reform Fund, including the use of multi-year, evaluation-based appropriations for high-impact tutoring and community schools. After discussion, the committee adopted the LESC budget recommendation. The committee then moved to endorsed legislation proposals. It endorsed a bill allowing the secretary to suspend an individual school board member, with notice and appeal procedures clarified, and a bill creating an 80-20 health insurance cost-share requirement for public school employees, along with a study of the sustainability of public school insurance programs. It also endorsed a bill on attendance provisions for students with severe medical conditions, which would keep those students from being classified as excessively absent. Finally, the committee discussed a teacher residency bill that would raise stipend levels, allow residents to complete service anywhere in New Mexico, and remove the requirement that sponsoring schools must hire them, though the bill did not include an appropriation. Members also raised questions about bilingual, Hispanic, and Black education funding, cultural and linguistic supports in teacher preparation, and where various programs should be placed in the budget or PERF framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we did put it in our budget, asked for it.
• it right.
• it right.
• It was random. It was random. It was random.
• We'll try not to cut it in his absence. Is that it for me? It appears to know. Is that it for me?

Committee: Senate Appropriations - Human Resources Division

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The HR division continued work on the behavioral health budget, with members revisiting several funding items and generally agreeing to hold provider inflation increases until the full division picture is clearer. They tentatively supported additional funding for Community Connect and Free Through Recovery, as well as increases for the drug court program and peer support, while clarifying that some items were already in the House version and others were one-time or grant-related expenditures. The committee spent considerable time on a proposed $2 million behavioral health services program for nursing homes and basic care facilities. Senator Mathern brought revised language to describe a capitated payment model for training, consultation, and direct patient care for residents with medically based behavioral disorders and disruptive behaviors. Some members remained skeptical and wanted to see the amendment before deciding, but the discussion centered on whether the funding would help nursing homes accept patients who otherwise end up in state hospitals or acute care settings. Members also discussed several one-time funding items, including electronic health record and legacy system upgrades, network redundancy for the state hospital, partial hospitalization/intensive day treatment expansion, and a bathroom remodel at the Southeast Human Service Center. The committee restored the bathroom project to the original $972,000 estimate after concerns that the House reduction would not cover the needed ADA and plumbing work. They also debated a $12.96 million behavioral health facility grant for Altru in Grand Forks, with some members opposing it and others supporting it as a regional service expansion, but ultimately set it aside for later consideration. The meeting ended with staff flagging other sections of the bill, including the opioid settlement advisory language, the state hospital steering committee, behavioral health education grants, and the system of care grant. The chair announced that medical services would be taken up the next day, and members agreed to adjourn after planning to revisit unresolved behavioral health items and vote on the held bill later.

Transcript Highlights:

• Put your initials on it or something? They wouldn't let me get that close to it to write on it.
• do it.
• I got it. I got it. I got it. Let's keep—” “I got it. I got it.
• Something in violation of it, it would still be subject to it. It doesn't change that.
• It should not. It should not.

Bills: HB88 , HB181 , HB210 , HB250 , HB486 , HB529 , HB544 , HB639 , HB996 , HB1036 , HB1071 , HB1113

Committee: House House and Governmental Affairs

Keywords: local law, special bill, legislative process, transparency, election amendment, Medicaid, SNAP, fraud detection, income tax, legislative auditor, data sharing, state revenue, lobbying, public service, ethics, statewide officials, compensation, disclosure requirements, government employment, financial disclosure

Transcript Highlights:

• It ignores it. And this regulation actually fixes it.
• That normalizes it. It makes it look safe. It puts it right next to everyday products people trust.
• It is not just like coffee. And calling it natural does not make it safe.
• It doesn't erase demand. It just puts it in the hands of shady suppliers.
• It requires honest labels: what is in it, who made it, and warnings are clear.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No, it didn't. It was just Tier B.
• yeah accept it it let just accept it yeah accept it accept<01:16:40.159><c> it</c><01:16:40.560><c>
• :56:41.880><c> it</c><03:56:42.120><c> the</c> them it would okay thank you it it the them it would okay
• I mean, we might... then it did it was it like on the then it did it was it like on the consent<04:55
• </c><05:25:51.760><c> it</c><05:25:52.120><c> it</c> important I said Hey listen may it it it important

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 retirement provisions, focusing on Group Two/Tier B changes in pages 25-39. Jan Goodwin of the New Hampshire Retirement System and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions, but it restores certain pre-2011 benefit rules for Tier B members, including changes to average final compensation and earnable compensation, and it also addresses the annuity multiplier for years of service. Members discussed the tier structure, with Tier A referring to vested members, Tier B to those hired before 11/1/12 who were not vested, and Tier C to later hires. Several members expressed concern that the bill’s purpose was to restore Tier B benefits, not to change Tier A rules or create broader changes affecting newer hires. The retirement system flagged two likely drafting problems. First, it said a provision appears to omit a special-duty/earnable-compensation limitation in the Group Two section, which they believed was a scrivener’s error caused by moving language out of the Group One definition without adding it back for Group Two. Second, they noted the bill’s multiplier language overlaps with changes already enacted in HB 1647, which increased the multiplier for service beyond 15 years for Group Two and carried an estimated $26 million cost. The committee discussed that HB 1647 was originally broader in the House, but the Senate narrowed it to Tier B only. The actuary’s comparison of the 2023 and 2025 HB 2 versions showed the bills are close, but the 2025 version differs in funding and timing. Staff said the 2025 bill appropriates $2.5 million more per year for 10 years, and that, together with updated actuarial assumptions and a larger share of the affected tier having already retired or otherwise left service, results in a larger reduction in unfunded liability than the 2023 bill: about $98.2 million versus $68.5 million. Employer contribution impacts were described as small overall, though the 2025 bill was said to be somewhat more favorable than the 2023 version. Members also questioned why House Bill 1 only funds $5 million in the first year, and staff said that was tied to the governor’s revenue estimate and that the full funding does not begin immediately. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the committee mainly received testimony, asked clarifying questions, and noted that some issues would be addressed in the fiscal note worksheet.

Transcript Highlights:

• on it.
• Wouldn't it, do you think? Cheez-Its? Cheez-Its. Well, my kids, they have Goldfish or Cheez-Its.
• And I didn't think a lot about it, but I do remember it. And it was about five...
• So it may make it marginal.
• So it may make it marginally better of the situation, but it definitely wouldn't make it worse.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it a necklace, a pin? What is it?
• is or where it should be or how it should be.
• Is it taken orally or is it injected?” “My impression is it is...”
• I think it stops it even before that.
• it.

Committee: House Crime and Public Safety

Summary: The committee first met in executive session and took up House Bill 3174 by Representative Justice. Members adopted two committee amendments: one removed the bill’s mapping provisions so that the vendor-list portion could move forward separately, and another required schools to have at least one master key box for emergency responders. The amendments were rolled into a committee substitute, which the committee then voted do pass on a 10-0 roll call. A second executive-session bill was postponed until the following week because of a family emergency involving Representative Williams. The committee then heard Senate Bill 982, a cleanup and reorganization bill dealing with Missouri’s sex offender registry and related registration rules. Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman said the bill was intended to align the registry statutes with prior changes, clarify tiering and registration requirements, address offenders with ties to Missouri but living elsewhere, and improve information-sharing rules for law enforcement and victims, including notice when a registrant dies or moves. Testimony in support came from the Missouri Alliance for Family Restoration, which said the bill codifies case law and reduces administrative confusion for the Highway Patrol and registrants. No opposition was offered. The committee also heard House Bill 3414, which would create a state offense modeled on a federal online-fraud law to help law enforcement pursue internet-based fraud, including schemes involving credit cards, account numbers, telecommunication identifiers, and similar access devices. The sponsor and a law-enforcement witness said the bill would give investigators another tool against increasingly common fraud, including elder fraud and VoIP-based schemes; a Maverick convenience stores representative also supported it as a response to changing technology. No opposition was presented. Finally, the committee heard House Bills 2628 and 3460, the CARE Act, which would require hospitals and health facilities treating sexual-assault survivors to inform patients about emergency contraception, provide it if requested, test and treat for sexually transmitted infections, and seek reimbursement through the Department of Public Safety. Sponsor Jacqueline Zimmerman said the bill is meant to reduce trauma and prevent pregnancies resulting from rape, and witnesses from sexual-assault nursing, reproductive-health, anti-poverty, medical, and nursing organizations supported it as a way to standardize care, especially in rural areas. Several members raised questions about whether the bill would require abortion-inducing drugs, whether hospitals could opt out on conscientious grounds, and how reimbursement would work; the sponsor said she intended to add language excluding abortion-inducing medications and that the current DPS forensic-exam payment structure would not change. No votes were taken on the later bills in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• I'm not sure that it borders it. It is absurd.
• Does it make it harder?
• Does it make it harder? Yes. It does not, in fact. Does it make it harder? Yes.
• It makes it harder. It raises the standard.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• What it does mean is that both holding it in cash and bonds, or putting it into private markets... ..
• But it didn't make it through the House last year.
• It will never be devalued, and in fact, it will be just the opposite—it will grow.
• It hasn't been touched. None of it.
• It doesn't have any dividends, so it made it very difficult for traditional finance people to value it

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• It says, if it was before the legislature, Manual.
• It says, if it was before the legislature, it may be discussed in the newsletter to the same extent as
• And where in 180, does it suggest that? It doesn't.
• It may slightly be, or it may be part of a bill.
• We voted on it. We can talk about it. Lori.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The meeting focused on ethics guidance for legislators’ official newsletters and social media posts about a major tax bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members and staff debated whether existing board guidance, which allowed comments on legislation previously before the legislature, should also apply to social media and to the current biennium rather than only the immediately preceding session. Several members argued that legislators should be able to state how they voted on the bill and discuss it as part of their legislative record, while others stressed that using state resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure is prohibited and that posts could become an indirect appeal to voters. The discussion also covered whether there should be a bright-line cutoff tied to the primary election date, after which official communications should stop discussing the bill if it is now a ballot measure. Staff and members raised concerns about tone, tenor, and proximity to the election, and whether official social media, caucus communications, and newsletters should be treated differently. One motion to extend the prior rule to the full biennium and apply it to social media failed. A second motion then passed establishing the primary date as a date certain for monitoring these discussions, with the understanding that official communications should be more limited after that point. Members noted that personal social media and campaign resources remain separate from official legislative resources. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered, before a brief break and executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• I'm not sure that it borders it. It is absurd.
• Does it make it harder? Yes. It does not, in fact. Does it make it harder? Yes.
• It does not, in fact. Does it make it harder? Yes.
• It makes it harder. To draw lines based on racial preference. It makes it harder.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• It makes it easier to sell, and it makes people aware that it could go away.
• . it it makes it easier to sell<00:45:53.040><c> and</c><00:45:53.280><c> it</c><00:45:53.520><c> makes
• </c> sell and it makes people aware that it sell and it makes people aware that it could<00:45:55.520
• c> it, they will pass it.
• But it is well it, they will pass it.

Bills: HB0147 , HB0127

Committee: Senate Revenue

Keywords: property tax, homeowner exemption, Wyoming, voter initiative, tax legislation, HB0127, recreation mill levy, recreational facilities, public recreation, mill levy, local tax, county commissioners, school district levy, voter approval, ballot measure, general election, tax referendum, special purpose tax, Wyoming taxation, W.S. 18-9-201

Transcript Highlights:

• make it.
• make it.
• with it.”
• it.
• Yes, it does, because it doesn't strictly state Missouri. So yes, it would. Okay.

Summary: The House first established a quorum, then heard a presentation from Debbie Huang of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Denver. Huang thanked Missouri lawmakers for their annual Taiwan resolutions and described Taiwan as a democratic and economic partner of the United States, emphasizing cooperation with Missouri in agriculture, manufacturing, logistics, semiconductors, and AI, while also warning about pressure from China and the need for stronger Taiwan-U.S. ties. The chamber then took up House Bill 311, which would move oversight of bail bondsmen under the existing board for private investigators and fire investigators, add bail bondsmen to that board, and increase training and oversight. Members said the bill was industry-requested, had unanimous committee support, and carried no fiscal note. The House adopted the committee substitute and perfected and printed the bill. Lawmakers also debated and adopted a committee substitute for House Bill 3009, a pharmacy bill aimed at clarifying rules for pharmacies serving low-income and underserved patients, emergency medication dispensing, and out-of-state pharmacy accreditation. Amendments were adopted to update the title and align Missouri law with national pharmacy board accreditation standards. The bill was described as a response to access problems during the 2025 St. Louis tornado and was said to have no state cost. A large block of floor action followed on a combined package of bills and amendments covering public safety, criminal law, health, and licensing. Measures discussed and adopted included changes to the sex offender registry and related corrections, an offense for impeding first responders, Mason’s Law to flag drivers with disabilities in law enforcement databases, a hands-free cell phone law update, Highway Patrol equipment purchasing authority, psilocybin language for first responders and veterans, AI-generated explicit material and child pornography provisions, gift card fraud penalties, stronger fentanyl trafficking penalties, Melanie’s Law on ignition interlock/DUI penalties, a domestic violence registry, boiler inspection and Missouri fire/life safety standards, Kansas City police retirement age corrections, and a commercial driver English proficiency bill with stronger penalties for drivers and carriers. One amendment on the sex offender registry was withdrawn after debate, and the House ultimately adopted the remaining amendments and referred the combined House Bills 368 and 3049 substitute to the Committee on Legislative Review.

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn’t look like it has much to do with Florida at all.
• It doesn't go to every student. It only goes to that class.
• It flips.
• Simplest way to do it. But it comes to the same result. But it comes to the same result.
• years if you choose to increase it or include it.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• I'm not sure that it borders it. It is absurd.
• Does it make it harder? Yes. It does not, in fact. Does it make it harder? Yes.
• It is. You've already heard it.
• It makes it harder. It raises the standard.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.