Transcript Highlights:

• In agency proceedings, there is a provision that sets a specific amount of attorney's fees at $75 an
• And so, as you know, in these agency proceedings, this, As you know, in these agency proceedings, this
• And so we want somebody in these administrative proceedings that are fairly compensated.
• Hatfield's rates are considerably higher than mine, as are the size of the businesses he represents.
• taking Committee member Representative Veit, I just want to thank you for taking time out of your busy

Committee: House Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met with a quorum, announced that House Bills 3304, 2777, and 3054 would not be heard that day, and then moved into executive session. In executive session, the committee considered House Bill 1910, which concerns child maintenance/child support obligations for certain persons convicted of DWIs. Representative Davis offered an amendment changing mandatory language from “shall” to “may” to preserve judicial discretion; the amendment was adopted 5-2 with one present. The committee then adopted a substitute and voted the House Committee substitute for HB 1910 do pass 7-0 with one present. The committee next took up House Bill 3116, a civil jurisprudence bill. An amendment was adopted to incorporate provisions from three previously heard bills: HB 1711 (Uniform Deposition Act), HB 1713 (allowing circuit courts to dissolve LLCs), and HB 3072 (workers’ compensation changes). The committee rolled the amendment into a substitute and voted the House Committee substitute for HB 3116 do pass 8-0. The committee also considered House Bill 3289 on court operations. An amendment was adopted to add treatment court administrators in certain circuits, subject to appropriations, then rolled into a substitute. The House Committee substitute for HB 3289 was voted do pass 8-0. In public hearing, Representative Dolan presented House Bill 3443, which would raise the court automation fee from $7 to $10 and add a CPI-based annual adjustment. Supporters from the Judicial Conference of Missouri said the fee has not been updated since the 1990s, that court automation costs continue to rise, and that the surcharge covers only a portion of the system’s expenses; they also noted that salaries are generally funded through general revenue rather than fees. Committee members asked about the new fee amount, what the revenue would support, and the collection-rate assumptions in the fiscal note. No opposition testimony was offered. Representative Parker then presented House Bill 2865, which would remove the statutory cap of $75 per hour for attorney’s fees in certain agency/licensure proceedings and replace it with “reasonable” fees. He and supporters said the current rate has not been updated since 1989 and is too low to attract attorneys for cases involving licensed professionals defending their licenses. Testimony in favor came from a private attorney who practices in this area, the Missouri Bar, and another supporter who said the bill would improve representation for Missouri licensees. No opposition testimony was presented, and the hearing on HB 2865 was concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• In agency proceedings, there is a provision that sets a specific amount of attorney's fees at $75 an
• And so, as you know, in these agency proceedings, this— As you know, in these agency proceedings, this
• And so we want somebody in these administrative proceedings that are fairly compensated.
• Hatfield's rates are considerably higher than mine, as are the size of the businesses he represents.
• Representative Veit, I just want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule and also the

Committees: House Judiciary , House Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman and members, Senate Bill 66 relates to the authority of a supporter regarding legal proceedings
• the program has been successful. persons with SDMAs who are involved in criminal or civil court proceedings
• This presents a serious concern as the outcomes of such proceedings can have significant and lasting
• As a matter of pending business, the Chair lays out Senate Bill 302.
• If there's no other business, the Committee on Jurisprudence with great thanks to our excellent staff

Bills: SB66 , SB2165 , SB2342 , SB2878 , SB2903

Committee: Senate Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:

• Of official business.
• Persons disrupting legislative proceedings are subject to removal, arrest, or other appropriate legal
• Members, we'll now be moving on to business on the daily file, second reading, clerk will read.
• It allows liberal or pro-criminal judges to literally in the middle of the proceedings to undercut a
• Seeing and hearing no further business, I'm ready to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:13:52.880><c> that</c> So asset forfeite is a proceeding that So asset forfeite is a proceeding
• business business uh<00:58:08.160><c> business</c><00:58:08.400><c> owner</c><00:58:08.720><c> or</c
• ><00:58:08.880><c> business</c><00:58:09.119><c> operator</c> uh business owner or business operator
• uh business owner or business operator that<00:58:10.079><c> profits</c><00:58:10.480><c> from</c><00
• That concludes our business. Thanks 016. That concludes our business.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 126, which would change civil asset forfeiture law. The Attorney General’s Office, Honolulu Police Department, and county prosecutors opposed the bill’s proposed SD1, arguing that requiring a criminal conviction and changing how forfeiture proceeds are distributed would weaken or effectively end the tool, create fiscal and law enforcement problems, and make it harder to address organized crime or cases where an owner cannot be identified. The Public Defender’s Office, Community Alliance on Prisons, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, and other supporters argued the measure would improve transparency and accountability, protect property rights, and reduce abuses that disproportionately affect low-income people. The chair questioned law enforcement about fairness, storage of seized property, and access to counsel, and the discussion focused heavily on whether forfeiture should depend on a conviction. No vote was taken. The committee then heard HB 280, which would make the Community Outreach Court permanent and appropriate funds for it as a division of the First Circuit district court. The Department of the Attorney General and Judiciary supported the concept and described the court’s success in helping people resolve cases, clear license stoppers, recall bench warrants, and access services, but suggested amendments to remove the Attorney General from the bill’s definition and funding mechanism. The Public Defender, Department of Human Services, mental health and substance use advocates, neighborhood and community groups, and others strongly supported the bill, emphasizing its benefits for people facing housing instability, behavioral health issues, and transportation barriers. No opposition was voiced, and no vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 370, which would increase partial public campaign financing for elective offices. The Campaign Spending Commission supported the original bill and asked the committee to restore the original percentage amounts, keep the proposed funding increases, and reinstate funding for two additional full-time staff positions. Supporters said the public financing system has not kept pace with inflation and needs modernization to be viable; a few testifiers opposed the measure. The committee reported 30 in support, two opposed, and one comment, and then moved on without a vote. Finally, HB 371 was heard, a campaign contribution bill that would bar state and county contractors, grantees, and certain related persons from contributing during the contract period. The Campaign Spending Commission said the bill is intended to address pay-to-play concerns and false-name contributions, while the State Procurement Office raised concerns about the burden of requiring agencies to provide contract information for all contracts regardless of dollar value. The testimony ended with the commission saying it was working with procurement and the Attorney General on implementation details; no vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next order of business is points of personal privilege. Lady from Jackson County.
• Next order of business is introduction of special guests.
• The gentleman from Cole County then proceeded with an introduction of special guests.
• The gentleman from Scott County then proceeded. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
• The next order of business will be House Bills for perfection.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we will start off with CS for HB 265 by Representative Porras, post-judgment execution proceedings
• Insurance companies, you know, I'm a business person, so I believe in less is more.
• The business aspect of insurance and as well as the consumer protection.
• The minutia, such as this 10 business day clause.
• Members, there's no further business today.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and heard several insurance- and trust-related bills. CS/HB 265, relating to post-judgment execution proceedings involving terrorism, was presented as a measure to help victims enforce long-standing judgments against terrorist assets; it received no opposition in testimony and was reported favorably. CS/HB 1173, concerning the Florida Trust Code, clarified that the Florida Attorney General is the only public official with standing to enforce charitable trusts administered in Florida; members discussed that it was intended to resolve ambiguity identified by a court decision, and it also passed favorably. The committee then took up PCS/HB 643 on residual market insurers. The bill would remove the “diligent effort” requirement for surplus lines placements, revise surplus lines eligibility, and let Citizens policyholders elect arbitration through DOAH or the courts at renewal or issuance. The sponsor argued the changes would reduce red tape and give consumers more options, while an opponent from the Florida Justice Association warned that removing diligent-search protections could push more policyholders into higher-cost, less-regulated surplus lines coverage and that arbitration could favor insurers. Committee members raised concerns about the lack of premium credits for arbitration, the effect on Citizens, and the loss of consumer protections, but the bill was reported favorably. Finally, PCS/HB 1047 on insurance regulation generated extensive debate. The bill would reduce pre-licensure hours for general lines agents from 200 to 60, clarify restrictions on public adjuster conduct, require claims-handling manuals only for active residential property insurers, and define “sufficient evidence” for bad-faith claims with examples and a 10-day objection/response process. Supporters said it would streamline claims handling and clarify timelines; opponents and several members argued it could burden policyholders, especially after disasters, and might make it easier for insurers to delay or deny claims. There was also concern about the reduced training hours for new agents and the lack of detail on what constitutes sufficient evidence or a specific objection. After a divided debate, the bill was reported favorably by a 12-6 vote. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• or disrupting the orderly conduct of official business.
• Okay, we're going to be moving on to business on the daily file.
• The bill applies now more broadly to civil proceedings.
• Now everybody's quiet while there's no business. This is amazing.
• Now everybody's quiet while there's no business.

Summary: The Assembly convened with a quorum call, prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance, then moved through a long daily file of bills. Early procedural motions included a failed attempt to suspend the rules for AB 1219, followed by consideration of numerous measures on housing, veterans, education, elections, energy, wildfire prevention, public safety, and consumer affordability. Several bills drew bipartisan support and passed overwhelmingly, including AB 878 on safety accommodations for survivors of violence, AB 948 on school district facility maintenance, AB 81 and AB 88 on veterans’ mental health and student aid, AB 640 on school board fiscal training, AB 660 on housing permit timelines, AB 1048 on workers’ compensation billing disputes, AB 1119 on dual credentialing, AB 1172 on inhalable anti-seizure medication access, AB 1227 on wildfire prevention, AB 1285 and AB 696 on lithium-ion battery safety, AB 1417 on offshore wind transparency, AB 1530 on disaster recovery assistance, and AB 353 on affordable home internet. Some measures drew opposition or more divided votes, including AB 704 on sealing certain misdemeanor records, AB 1249 on early voting access, AB 1280 on thermal energy incentives, AB 1448 on offshore oil protections, AB 380 on price gouging, AB 402 on Cal Grant increases, AB 1074 on CalWORKs reunification, and AB 1084 on expedited gender-change and name-change court orders. The Assembly also granted reconsideration on AB 435, a child passenger safety bill, and passed it after debate on the five-step safety-seat standard. The floor debate featured recurring themes of affordability, housing, wildfire preparedness, election access, veterans’ services, and public safety. Supporters of the election bill AB 1249 argued it would simply add a Saturday early-voting option in non-VCA counties, while opponents raised concerns about verification and county staffing. AB 30, authorizing E15 gasoline in California, was presented as an urgency measure to lower fuel costs and passed unanimously on the urgency and the bill. AB 1466 on groundwater disputes was also taken up, with the author arguing it would reduce frivolous litigation and better represent all water users; the vote was 42 ayes and 17 noes. After completing the file, the Assembly recessed for lunch, later returned, and continued with additional file items, with many measures passing on strong bipartisan votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I would argue... proceeding after a criminal uh uh a proceeding after a criminal uh uh a judgment
• It is a cash business, and it's quite profitable.
• When I say that we're busy, we're incredibly busy.
• ><c> we</c> that we're busy we're incredibly busy we that we're busy we're incredibly busy we arrest<
• </c> emotional distress businesses emotional distress businesses municipalities<04:48:33.320><c> and<

Summary: The committee first heard CACR 6, a proposed constitutional amendment by Representative Keith Ammon to recognize a fundamental right to use computation resources. Ammon argued that computing is now essential to daily life, speech, education, and economic opportunity, and said the amendment was intended to push back against government or corporate restrictions, citing a 2023 federal executive order on AI registration and reporting as an example of the kind of precedent he wanted to oppose. He said the proposal should be simple and clear because it would go to voters, and he compared the right to compute to other constitutional rights that do not require the government to provide the underlying tools. Committee members raised concerns about the breadth of the language, including whether it could affect encryption, authentication, network security, energy use, and other regulatory issues. Representative McFarland questioned whether the amendment could interfere with security measures, while others asked whether it would prevent ordinary network management such as throttling or require the state to provide internet access or hardware. Ammon responded that the right would not entitle someone to other people’s resources and said encryption and similar issues would sort themselves out. Several members also raised concerns about child safety, public safety, and whether existing laws could still regulate misuse of computing; Ammon said reasonable limits would still apply, similar to other constitutional rights. Sarah Scott of Americans for Prosperity testified in support, saying the amendment would protect innovation, individual autonomy, and economic competitiveness by preventing overregulation. After questions concluded, the chair closed the hearing on CACR 6. The committee then opened House Bill 615, sponsored by Representative Dan Maguire, which would substantially rewrite the state’s drug-forfeiture law. Maguire said the bill is intended to improve fairness and efficiency in cases where property such as cars or cash is seized in connection with drug offenses, noting that the criminal case and the civil forfeiture case are currently handled separately, with the property case prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office. He explained that the bill addresses courtroom procedure for these forfeiture actions and is meant to make the process more specific and orderly.

Transcript Highlights:

• Another area of probate statute revised by House Bill 2445 concerns venue for probate proceedings.
• And once those letters of administration have been issued, all subsequent probate proceedings must take
• . ...in investigations or qui tam proceedings.
• I represent real estate and business cooperatives throughout Washington.
• And my firm serves... ...and business cooperatives throughout Washington.

Bills: HB2453 , HB2590 , HB2445 , HB2386 , HB2585

Committee: House Civil Rights & Judiciary

Keywords: psychiatric pharmacists, mental health, pharmacy regulations, healthcare, pharmacological treatments, limited equity cooperatives, common interest ownership, housing, exemption, community ownership, probate, estate administration, inheritance, heir finder, heir locator, beneficiary interest, transfer of inheritance rights, probate for profit, personal representative, executor

Transcript Highlights:

• resolution of marriage in Chapter 742 paternity proceedings.
• contrary to one way. award of attorney's fees and costs is permitted in paternity appellate proceedings
• But the type of proceedings and the type of client behavior and attorney behavior that can be, you know
• Is there any other objection, any other business before the committee today?
• Is there any other objection, any other business before the committee today?

Bills: S0436 , S0532 , S0600 , S0644 , S0682 , S0928 , S1072 , S1332 , S1632 , S1634

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice

Keywords: foreclosure, court clerks, budget management, judicial sales, Florida statutes, bail bonds, pretrial release, forfeiture, criminal justice, bond conditions, surety, attorney fees, litigation costs, court jurisdiction, equitable awards, financial resources, domestic violence, protective injunctions, electronic monitoring, enhanced penalties

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'll begin first with our special order business.
• Okay, our next bill in the special order business is filed.
• proceedings, so we want to...
• We want to make sure that we distinguish between non-criminal proceedings and criminal proceedings.
• Conservatorships are civil proceedings.

Committee: Senate Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the
• The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few
• As you know, there's a currently open rulemaking proceeding relating to TNCs and so one of the uses is
• As a result, TNC businesses are able to effectively operate, connect drivers to riders throughout the
• And then as far as legal proceedings related to accidents, we provide information in regards to proceedings

Committee: House Communications and Conveyance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> other participants in the proceedings other participants in the proceedings right<00:45:09.200><
• </c> experienced and have the business experienced and have the business knowledge<01:51:18.920><c> as
• </c> Bill 219 FN that concludes our business Bill 219 FN that concludes our business for<05:33:23.600
• </c><06:08:32.840><c> enterprises</c> any commercial or business enterprises any commercial or business
• </c> whether any commercial or business whether any commercial or business enterprises<06:08:40.080><

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• We can work to ensure both reliable cell... subject businesses and housing subject businesses and housing
• It makes me wonder and small businesses.
• </c> is a matter of business. is a matter of business.
• There are four offender proceedings.
• This is the the the heart proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• But relevant to this proceeding, my unit also handles all legal proceedings related to civil forfeiture
• Uh, I can go up to a courthouse, watch the criminal proceedings unfold, the related civil proceedings
• Uh, I can go up to a courthouse, watch the criminal proceedings unfold, the related civil proceedings
• </c> attorneys that are in these proceedings. attorneys that are in these proceedings.
• </c><03:22:24.319><c> of</c> directly undercutting the business of directly undercutting the business

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• or disrupting the orderly conduct of official business.
• or disrupting the orderly conduct of official business.
• then back to the Business and Professions Committee.
• then back to the Business and Professions Committee.
• So we'll move on to the business on the daily file for now.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's why the business model had to be changed.
• proceeding.
• This bill doesn't deal with the cost of capital proceeding.
• , which is a different proceeding.
• This bill doesn't deal with the cost of capital proceeding.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The committee heard a series of energy and utility bills focused largely on affordability, reliability, wildfire costs, grid flexibility, and water rates. SB 254 by Senator Becker drew the most extensive discussion. Becker described it as a broad affordability package that would provide customer credits, create a Power Fund to move certain costs out of rates, tighten scrutiny of utility spending and profits, expand wildfire cost review, and use securitization and public financing to lower long-term costs. TURN and many environmental and public power groups supported the bill, while investor-owned utilities, labor, business groups, counties, and others opposed or opposed unless amended, arguing it did not adequately address underlying cost drivers and needed more analysis. The committee passed SB 254 on a 6-3 vote, with the bill held on call. SB 541, also by Senator Becker, focused on load flexibility and better use of existing grid capacity. Becker and economist Ryan Hledick said the bill would increase transparency on load-shifting progress and direct the CPUC to develop a strategy to capture distribution-level savings by shifting demand away from peak hours. Support came from labor, environmental, solar, storage, and demand-management groups, while CCAs, utilities, and public power agencies raised concerns that the bill could be read as a mandate and needed clearer amendments. After the author described amendments to remove language dividing the state goal among suppliers and to add cost-effectiveness and lessons learned from prior programs, the committee passed the bill 9-1 on call. The committee also approved SB 453 by Senator Stern, which would help return unspent ratepayer-funded microgrid money and support keeping the lights on in at-risk communities. PG&E expressed a concern about timing but no opposition, and local government and environmental groups supported the measure; it passed 12-0. SB 292 by Senator Svantes focused on PSPS and outage data reporting at the census-tract level to better target resilience investments. Supporters said more granular data would improve planning and equity, while utilities sought to avoid duplicative reporting; the bill passed 12-0. Finally, SB 473 by Senator Padilla addressed water affordability and conservation by requiring the CPUC to allow water utility decoupling. Supporters, including water utilities, labor, cities, and business and environmental groups, argued decoupling promotes conservation and can lower bills for low-use customers. The Public Advocates Office and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District opposed, saying prior CPUC studies found no conservation benefit and higher costs under the full RAM mechanism. Members debated the evidence and rate-setting process, and the bill was moved out on a 12-0 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'll begin first with our special order business.
• Okay, our next bill in the special order business is filed.
• and criminal proceedings, so we want to...
• We want to make sure that we distinguish between non-criminal proceedings and criminal proceedings.
• Conservatorships are civil proceedings.

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing a long agenda of public safety bills. The chair announced recess and return times, noted several consent items, and said SB 906 was pulled from the agenda. Testimony procedures were explained, including limits on principal witnesses and public comment. Several bills were heard out of file order with authors presenting and witnesses speaking in support and opposition. SB 1446 would expand discretion in en banc parole review, make votes public, and allow CDCR referrals for sexually violent predator evaluations in certain cases. Supporters, including the author and district attorneys, said it would improve transparency and public safety; opponents from Uncommon Law, the Ella Baker Center, and public defender groups argued it would add confusion, litigation risk, and unnecessary duplication. The bill was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. SB 1278 would exclude certain sex offenses and habitual or serial sexual offenses from elderly parole eligibility; the author and district attorneys cited recent releases of serious sex offenders and the need to respect victims and sentences, while opponents said the elderly parole process is already rigorous and evidence-based and that the bill would reduce rehabilitation incentives. The chair and other members strongly supported the measure, but no vote was taken. The committee also heard SB 1354, which would bar out-of-state military or law enforcement forces from entering California without the governor’s permission; the author and supporters framed it as a state sovereignty and constitutional authority measure, and the committee discussed an amendment removing a criminal penalty and leaving enforcement to the Attorney General. SB 926 would provide funding for implementation of Proposition 36; supporters said counties need resources for treatment, probation, and related services, while opponents called it fiscally reckless and said the budget process was the proper place to address funding. The chair summarized amendments removing a specific appropriation and limiting eligible recipients, and members emphasized that the voters approved Prop. 36 but it remains underfunded. SB 874 would require background checks and clearer oversight for Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment providers, especially ABA providers serving children; it drew support from health plans and behavior analysis groups and no opposition. SB 1210 would extend CalGang oversight and due process protections to all gang databases, including local ones; supporters described privacy harms and racial disparities, while police chiefs opposed applying CalGang rules to informal local investigative files. SB 1019 would create a DOJ cargo theft task force; supporters from BNSF, trucking, shipping, and port interests described organized theft, rail sabotage, and supply-chain losses, and there was no opposition. SB 1217, on non-consensual intimate image removal, was introduced with privacy and public safety amendments and framed as a survivor-driven effort to create a DOJ clearinghouse for rapid takedown requests; the author said it would help end ongoing digital harm from exploitation.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next order of business is the calendar for the day.
• </c> Our goal is to conduct these proceedings Our goal is to conduct these proceedings efficiently<00
• Are these proceedings moving forward?
• </c> Are these proceedings moving forward? Are these proceedings moving forward?
• </c> with impeachment proceedings with impeachment proceedings but<01:14:56.760><c> I</c><01:14:56.840

Bills: HF3900 , HF1849

Committee: House Rules and Legislative Administration

Keywords: permanent school fund, school endowment fund, Minnesota constitutional amendment, school aid, public school funding, State Board of Investment, investment income, distributable amount, school districts, property taxes, income taxes, voter approval, ballot question, constitutional amendment 2026, education finance, fund perpetuity, purchasing power, trust lands, swamp lands, internal improvement land fund