Transcript Highlights:

• Additional comments will be ruled out of order.
• judicial independence.
• We think there's a problem with judicial recalls, and in general, the politicization of the judicial
• Valeo ruled that limits on independent expenditures are unconstitutional.
• Democracy is, by definition, majority rule. If you could wrap up, please.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, we judges talk a lot about what we do to defend the rule of law, and rightfully so.
• rule of law are not courtrooms, and the warriors are not judges.
• No matter what laws you pass, no matter what rulings a judge makes, there will always be bad men who
• them, it is absolutely essential that we raise judicial salaries significantly this session.
• And that is not the rule of the Constitution. It sounds much more like the rule of judges.

Summary: The House and Senate met in joint session under HCR 5 to hear an address from Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, with Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick introducing him. The session included recognition of the justices, judges, law enforcement officers, and interpreters present, and it also marked the formal completion of the joint session once the address ended. Chief Justice Blacklock said the state of the judiciary is strong, while paying tribute to former Chief Justice Nathan Hecht and thanking Governor Abbott for his appointment. His remarks focused on judicial administration and public safety, including a call for a 30% increase in district judge salaries, which he argued is needed to attract and retain qualified judges. He also urged support for law enforcement, backed efforts to keep violent offenders in custody pending trial, and said the court is gathering data to identify underperforming judges and use constitutional remedies where necessary. Blacklock emphasized that Texas courts should interpret statutes and the constitution according to text and original meaning, rejecting the “living constitution” approach. He highlighted reforms to improve efficiency and reduce litigation costs, including changes to docketing practices, civil procedure, and the regulation of legal services, and he urged the State Bar to remain politically neutral. He also discussed family law and child welfare, arguing for stronger legal representation for parents and suggesting repeal of Family Code subsection O, which he said can unfairly lead to termination of parental rights. The joint session concluded after his remarks, and the House stood at ease as guests departed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, let’s say 42 judicial districts.
• Across 42 judicial districts, those judicial districts are responsible for their calendars, the calling
• Across 42 judicial districts, those judicial districts are responsible for their calendars, the calling
• Across 42 judicial districts, those judicial districts are responsible for their calendars, the calling
• It is a new rule. For 30, 40 years, we followed the rule of Apodaca v.

Bills: HCR50, HB123, HB219, HB251, HB404, HB769, HB1065, SB58, SB81, SB92, SB97, SB141, SB156, SB181, SB207, SB396, SB410

Keywords: electronic monitoring, GPS ankle monitor, ankle bracelet, pretrial release, post-conviction supervision, bail monitoring, house arrest, corrections, criminal justice, law enforcement, prosecuting authority, court reporting, provider registration, LCLE, Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice, data privacy, personal information, cybersecurity, confidentiality, monitoring violations

Summary: The Criminal Justice Committee met on May 6, 2026, and first considered SB 396, which would allow children in Office of Juvenile Justice custody to attend review hearings by secure video conference. After adopting an amendment to clarify the in-person six-month review requirement and require OJJ staff to participate virtually as well, the committee reported the bill favorably as amended. The committee then took up SB 181, which creates a limited raffle license for nonprofit health care organizations and allows related entities within a health system to operate under one charitable gaming license; after adopting the amendment, the bill was reported favorably as amended. The committee next debated SB 81 and SB 97, companion measures dealing with waiver of jury trials in non-capital felony cases. Supporters, including the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, argued that requiring prosecutorial consent would align Louisiana with federal practice and many other states and would reduce abuse of jury-trial waivers. Opponents, including criminal defense lawyers, the ACLU, and Vote, argued the bills would shift power to the state, reduce defendants’ control over their mode of trial, and could worsen delays and pressure on jailed defendants. SB 81 and SB 97 both passed on divided roll-call votes, 7-3. The committee also reported SB 207 favorably, extending the prescriptive period for certain public corruption offenses to 10 years after an elected official or public employee leaves office; SB 92, requiring district attorneys to submit sexual assault kits to the statewide tracking system; SB 156, increasing the maximum penalty for negligent homicide, with a technical amendment; SB 58, imposing a mandatory minimum for aggravated flight from an officer and dedicating fine proceeds to pursuit training/technology; SB 141, moving the Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Policy Board to the Louisiana Supreme Court; and SB 410, creating enhanced penalties for accessories after the fact to sex offenses. Later, HB 769, dealing with a holding period for certain domestic violence-related offenders, was reported favorably as amended after debate over its relationship to existing “Gwen’s Law” procedures, and HB 251, requiring notice to victims or families in resentencing matters, was also reported favorably as amended after concerns about post-conviction procedure and possible duplication of existing notice requirements. The committee additionally voluntarily deferred HB 404 and heard HCR 50, which calls for reporting on opioid abatement and treatment programs in correctional facilities and clarification of funding guidance.

Bills: HB1800, HB2095, HB1158, HB1518, HB1752, SCR23, SCR24, SCR25, SCR26, SCR27, SCR28, SCR29, SCR30, SCR31, SCR32, SCR33, SCR34, SCR35, SCR36, SCR37, SCR38, SCR39, SCR40, SCR41, SCR42, SCR43, SCR44, SCR45, SCR46, SCR47, SCR48, SCR49, SCR50, SCR51, SCR52, SCR53, SCR54, SCR55, SCR56, SCR57, SCR58, SCR59, SCR60, SCR61, SCR62, SCR63, SCR64, SCR65, SCR66, SCR67, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR71, SCR72, SCR73, SCR74, SCR75, SCR76, SCR77, SCR78, SCR79, SCR80, SCR81, SCR82, SCR83, SCR84, SCR85, SCR86, SCR87, SCR88, SCR89, SCR90, SCR91, SCR92, SCR93, SCR94, SCR95, SCR96, SCR97, SCR98, SCR99, SCR100, SCR101, SCR102, SCR103, SCR104, SCR105, SCR106, SCR107, SCR108, SCR109, SCR110, SCR111, SCR112, SCR113, SCR114, SCR115, SCR116, SCR117, SCR118, SCR119, SCR120, SCR121, SCR122

Keywords: supplemental appropriations, state budget, Hawaii budget, biennial budget, capital improvement projects, CIP, general fund, special fund, green fee, special land and development fund, clean energy revolving loan fund, agricultural development revolving fund, community grants, nonprofit grants, Office of Community Services, housing, affordable housing, homelessness, health care, mental health

Transcript Highlights:

• We are not subjecting federal officers to state rules.
• This is just a rule that says anybody acting under color This is just a rule that says anybody acting
• dispute resolution. ...and to non-judicial dispute resolution.
• Black Lawyers Association's Judicial Academy in his first ever judicial, excuse me, the first In his
• first ever Judicial Academy—excuse me, the first ever Judicial Academy—of which Judge Harris’s support

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a late-file hearing on several bills, with Chairs Michael Day and Lydia Edwards outlining hearing rules, testimony limits, and written-testimony procedures. The first bill discussed was H. 4876, a proposal to strengthen supports for survivors of abuse. Representative Carol Faiola testified on behalf of a constituent who described how a lifetime restraining order was effectively undermined after a family member’s death, arguing the bill should limit abusers’ legal standing after death, improve survivor notification and privacy protections, expand coercive-control definitions, and create education and resource programs. The committee then heard testimony on H. 5111, which would strengthen the Massachusetts Antitrust Act. Representative Dave Rogers and Attorney General’s Office antitrust chief Anthony Mariano said the bill would give the state more tools to pursue anti-competitive conduct, including conduct with multi-state effects, while allowing enforcement even when federal authorities are also involved. They said it would increase penalties, clarify that invitations to conspire are violations, protect labor markets, remove limits affecting some housing transactions, and extend the statute of limitations. The committee also heard support for a related “universal 1983” bill, S. 2976/H. 2976, creating a state cause of action for constitutional violations by federal, state, or local officers acting under color of law; supporters said it would fill gaps in remedies against federal officers while preserving qualified immunity. Testimony also supported H. 4783, a bill affirming the rights of people experiencing homelessness. The Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless said the measure would push back against growing criminalization of homelessness, especially after the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision and local encampment bans, and would protect the use of public spaces without discrimination based on housing status. On H. 4826, condo owners and advocates said Chapter 183A is outdated and leaves owners with too little say and too few remedies against mismanagement, citing problems such as unsafe water, major assessments, and lack of meaningful dispute resolution. The committee also heard strong support for H. 5116, renaming the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court the Judge Leslie E. Harris Courthouse, with testimony from family members, legislators, attorneys, and community leaders describing Judge Harris’s mentorship, community service, and commitment to second chances. Later testimony covered S. 2975, a bill to deter ICE courthouse arrests and protect access to justice; CPCS, law students, and defense advocates said courthouse arrests chill participation by defendants, witnesses, and victims and disrupt pending cases. The committee also heard support for H. 5244, repealing an archaic law criminalizing concealment of a child’s death, with advocates arguing it has been used to punish pregnancy loss and should be removed. The hearing concluded with additional testimony in favor of S. 2976 and more support for the Judge Harris courthouse renaming, after which the chairs closed the hearing and reminded the public how to submit written testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:14.560> That's court to enforce the ruling. That's court to enforce the ruling.
• That violates judicial discretion.
• they can and cannot rule as admissible. they can and cannot rule as admissible.
• That violates judicial discretion. That violates judicial discretion.
• Uh, Representative Feist, in that reference to the Fifth Judicial District, have they ruled on that?

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee continued its hearing on enforcement and compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, first taking additional public testimony from Melissa Zimmerman and Matt Senot of the East Side Corridor residents in Owatonna. They described submitting roughly two dozen data requests across several government entities related to a proposed highway project, saying some agencies responded but others did not, and that even after they substantially prevailed in a data practices complaint and the court imposed a maximum civil penalty, they still did not receive meaningful access to the records. Zimmerman said the lack of access harmed their ability to comment on the project’s environmental review, and both witnesses argued that the law needs stronger enforcement, realistic timelines, better communication, and more accessible remedies for requesters who cannot afford repeated litigation. They also raised practical barriers such as inaccessible file formats, missing software on a county-provided laptop, and the need for electronic delivery options. The committee then heard from Eric Johnson of Anoka County, who testified about Chapter 13 issues involving third-party polygraph data used in probation monitoring. He argued that when the state relies on third-party-generated summaries, the responsible authority’s obligations for access, retention, and correction are unclear, and there is no effective remedy when the third party does not respond. Johnson said the county directed him to seek raw data from the third party, which had not responded, and he warned that short retention periods can make data subject rights unenforceable if the records are destroyed before a request is resolved. Members asked about statutory citations and retention schedules, and several commented that the issue may warrant review of data-retention rules. During member discussion, legislators broadly agreed that the Data Practices Act’s enforcement mechanisms are not working well enough and that many requesters cannot afford to pursue administrative or court remedies. Co-Chair Scott suggested staff compile the testimony into a report to identify possible legislative fixes, while Senator Lucero said there may be some “low-hanging fruit” that could be addressed quickly in the short session. The chair also floated the idea of involving the Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution in a mediation role to improve communication and reduce gridlock, though members noted that any process would still need to produce results consistent with the law. The committee then moved on to its next agenda item, a discussion of the BCA Fusion Center and its annual reporting requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 600 should pass as consent. rules with Senate Committee Sub 1. rules with Senate Committee
• :07:19.080> with<00:07:19.280> Senate should pass to rules with Senate should pass to rules
• We've heard that through from our judicial branch.
• House Bill 504 is the judicial branch budget.
• Clerk, please report Rules Committee Mr.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Rules are suspended.
• The rule is suspended.
• The rule is suspended.
• Rule moves to suspend the constitutional three-day rule.
• Rules suspended.

Bills: SB66, SB243, SB250, SB317, SB393, SB397, SB456, SB628, SB629, SB636, SB715, SB731, SB801, SB865, SB1012, SB1013, SB1015, SB1032, SB1141, SB1181, SB1224, SB1241, SB1242, SB1250, SB1266, SB1285, SB1376, SB1442, SB1449, SB1502, SB1524, SB1528, SB1551, SB1585, SB1640, SB1708, SB1844, SB1854, SB1863, SB1959, SB1965, SB2035, SB2082, SB2119, SB2138, SB2199, SB2200, SB2201, SB2245, SB2269, SB2284, SB2310, SB2357, SB2419, SB2422, SB2480, SB2514, SB2523, SB2529, SB2533, SB2541, SB2550, SB2568, SB2595, SB2605, SB2608, SB2615, SB2717, SB2721, SB2753, SB2778, SB2841, SB2846, SB2891, SB2925, SB2929, SB2933, SB3016, SB3029, SB3039, SB3044, SJR3, SJR18, SB5, SB326, SB494, SB530, SB767, SB769, SB783, SB914, SB963, SB1035, SB1197, SB1271, SB1415, SB1437, SB1619, SB1637, SB1786, SB1806, SB2312, SB29, SB1238, SB1967, SB1, SB260, SB1637, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR48, SCR19, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB1502, SB507, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB1524, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1845, SB1863, SB2681, SB2200, SB2199, SB2458, SB2201, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB1013, SB2797, SB2119, SB2076, SB2876, SB2284, SB2929, SB2595, SB715, SB1640, SB2514, SB2753, SB1241, SB2538, SB1449, SB2529, SB2846, SB986, SB1181, SB1359, SB2550, SB2245, SB410, SB1234, SB456, SB1012, SB2926, SB2138, SB1242, SB2615, SB2310, SB1224, SB2972, SB2841, SB3016, SB1856, SB2035, SB1528, SB1141, SB1266, SB1373, SB2269, SB2480, SB672, SB2891, SB2422, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB2925, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB2357, SB2721, SB243, SB1285, SB2568, SB1959, SB1442, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, SB1551, SB3039, SB2819, SB66, SB629, SB1015, SB2342, SB2903, SB2933, SB1965, SB2477, SB3029, SB2605, SB2419, SB1957, SB375, SB250, SB777, SB628, SB2523, SB2367, SB2703, SB2608, SB2778, SB3044, SB2965, SB2521, SB865, SB1032, SB2165, SB2501, SB2675, SB2452, SB2835, HB1109, HB1392, HB22, HB2525, HB3093, SB872, SB1212, SB1278, SB1588, SB1602, SB1704, SB1723, SB1833, SB1858, SB1946, SB2009, SB2177, SB2460, SB2785, SB2373, SB1660, SB614, SB867, SB1608, SB1525, SB905, SB640, SB2487, SB1698, SB383, SB705, SB748, SB1113, SB1117, SB1802, SB2340, SB2586, SB2680, SB2690, SB2994, SB2747, SB1950, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB3059, SB2782, SB2781, SB2637, SB2633, SB2337, SB2334, SB1861, SB2043, SB1367, SB946, SB945, SB2857, SB128, SB571, SB1263, SB3058, SB612, SB2221, SB2587, SB2044, SB2363, SB2713, HB517, HB912, HB1130, HB142, HB1689, HB2018

Keywords: disability, supported decision-making, legal assistance, confidentiality, access to justice, autonomy, civil rights, advocacy, migrant labor housing, migrant housing, farmworker housing, migrant agricultural worker, agricultural labor, farm labor contractor, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, TDHCA, civil penalty, housing code enforcement, sanitation, occupancy standards

Transcript Highlights:

• To Rule 39 of the Senate Rules for proceedings with respect to the impeachment of Judge Julie Muth Goodman
• Court did reveal for the first time that Judge Goodman is undergoing a parallel proceeding in the Judicial
• The Supreme Court clearly ruled that further action would be unconstitutional and my preference would
• The Supreme Court clearly ruled that further action would be unconstitutional and my preference would
• The Supreme Court clearly ruled that further action would be unconstitutional and my preference would

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate committee met under Rule 39 to consider proceedings related to the impeachment of Judge Julie Muth Goodman of the Fayette Circuit Court. Chair Storm explained that the House had transmitted impeachment articles on March 24, 2026, and that the Kentucky Constitution requires the Senate to address them. He also noted a preliminary Kentucky Supreme Court order issued April 6, 2026, in Judge Goodman’s separate lawsuit against the House, and said the Court revealed she is also facing a parallel Judicial Conduct Commission proceeding on the same issues. The chair emphasized that the committee’s actions were guided by constitutional duties and fairness to the defendant. Senator Howell moved that the committee recommend to the full Senate that impeachment proceedings be stayed indefinitely pending completion of the Judicial Conduct Commission investigation, with the understanding that the stay would not waive the Senate’s constitutional authority. Senator Carroll seconded the motion. Senator Chambers-Armstrong said she would vote yes on the stay but preferred the body explicitly dismiss the complaint or otherwise state it would take no further action, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling as unconstitutional for further action. The committee voted 7-0 in favor of the motion, with all members present voting aye. Chair Storm then directed staff to prepare the motion as a committee report to the full Senate and stressed that the action should not be construed as an acquittal or as the Senate relinquishing any constitutional rights or duties.

Transcript Highlights:

• A judicial officer, the Commonwealth, is making that determination.
• There were better rules, better equipment, and more protection.
• And in some instances, these actions occurred without judicial warrants.
• It reinforces the role of our courts in protecting the rule of law.
• warrant. ...of our courts in protecting the rule of law.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on several public safety bills, with testimony first on S.2681, Colby’s Law, which would establish safety standards for BMX and motocross tracks. Supporters, including the family of a child killed at a track, argued the bill is needed because some tracks lack basic protections such as barriers, emergency plans, on-site medical staff, and adequate track maintenance. A motocross track representative opposed the bill as overregulation that could impose major costs and argued existing safety efforts and voluntary safety committees are preferable. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on S.2680, which would expand emergency preparedness requirements around aging nuclear power plants and nuclear waste sites from a 10-mile to a 50-mile radius. Supporters from Cape Cod Downwinders, Massachusetts Peace Action, physicians, and other advocates said current law is outdated and insufficient, citing risks from radioactive waste storage, limited federal oversight, and the need for broader evacuation and emergency planning. Testifiers urged the bill’s passage, and no action was taken. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Protect Act, H.5158, dealing with limits on cooperation between state/local agencies and federal civil immigration enforcement. Sheriffs testified about how ICE detainers and notification requests work in practice, emphasizing discretion, public safety, and the difference between sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees. Supporters from labor, education, and health care groups said immigrant communities are living in fear and asked for stronger protections, including bans on 287(g) agreements and clearer limits on ICE activity in schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations. The hearing also included testimony on H.4697 regarding training and certification of constables and civil deputy sheriffs, with the Hampshire County sheriff saying sheriffs are already working with POST and MPTC on training standards and that the bill may be duplicative.

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, we're taking away judicial discretion.
• So, in other words, they get to make up the rules.
• Judicial immunity serves an important but narrow intention to protect those involved in the judicial
• Do you have any examples of significant instances where you've ruled, where OAH has ruled against the
• Do you have any examples of significant instances where you've ruled, where OAH has ruled against the

Bills: SB1285, SB1289, SB1326, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1392, SB1402, SB1425, SCR1013, SCR1014

Keywords: sentencing, correctional facilities, multiple sentences, death penalty, aggravating circumstances, juvenile offenses, class 2 felony, foreign donations, election administration, certification, Arizona Revised Statutes, transparency, public disclosure, victims' rights, attorney fees, government accountability, right to counsel, legal representation, parents' rights, family law

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then took up several election, family court, and criminal justice bills. SB 1425, the “big bill,” would move Arizona’s 2026 primary election date earlier and adjust related election administration timelines; the chair’s amendment moved the primary to July 21 and removed the shortened curing/ID deadlines. County officials testified in support, explaining the timing changes and the need to align dates, and the committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. SB 1289, dealing with certifications for entities providing money or resources for election administration and foreign funding disclosures, also received a do-pass recommendation after testimony from supporters arguing it would block foreign influence in election administration and ballot issue spending. The committee later heard SCR 1013, a related resolution that would more directly prohibit foreign-source money for election administration and ballot measures; the sponsor and supporters said it was similar to SB 1289 but broader, and testimony focused on foreign money flowing through nonprofit networks. The committee then considered SB 1326, which would allow courts to award attorney fees and costs to victims when a party violates or worsens a victim’s rights. A victim’s attorney testified that the bill would provide needed accountability and guidance, while opponents argued the term “exacerbates” was vague and that existing remedies already exist. The committee approved SB 1326 on a 4-3 vote. SB 1402, requiring courts to impose a fee on certain probationers to cover electronic monitoring costs, drew support from the sponsor and advocates who said offenders should pay for monitoring, and opposition from defense attorneys who warned it could burden indigent probationers and divert money from treatment; it also received a 4-3 do-pass recommendation. The most extensive debate was on SB 1330, which would allow a parent in certain custody cases to request a jury trial on parenting time or legal decision-making. Supporters, including several parents, described costly and traumatic family court experiences and argued a jury would provide a neutral check on judges and court-appointed professionals. County and court representatives opposed the bill, saying family cases require specialized judicial expertise, jury trials would delay urgent matters, increase costs, and risk confidentiality. Despite those concerns, the committee adopted the bill on a 4-3 vote. The committee also approved SB 1328, which declares state policy favoring parental rights and a child’s equal access to both co-parents, after adopting an amendment adding legislative intent language. Finally, SB 1329, which would let parents sue court-appointed professionals who deviate from professional ethics or standards in custody matters, passed 4-3 after testimony from parents and advocates who said court appointees lack accountability, while opponents said existing malpractice and licensing remedies already address misconduct.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial um the commission of judicial judicial um the commission of judicial um<01:02:38.000>
• > judicial<01:03:17.200> oppression know the judici the judicial oppression know the judici
• So how did she rule?
• So for non-lawyers, you ruled in her favor. I did rule in her favor.
• [Music] the<01:43:27.840> rules<01:43:28.320> of the rules of the rules of um<01:43:31.360

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard Governor’s Message 790, the nomination of Karen T. Nakasone to serve as chief judge of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals for a 10-year term. The chair announced that no vote would be taken that day and that the committee would vote on Thursday. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, with the chair reading that there were 103 supporters, zero opposed, and one comment. Supporters included current and retired judges, public defenders, bar association representatives, former elected officials, and community members. They described Nakasone as intelligent, fair, hardworking, well respected, and a strong leader with deep legal experience. Several speakers emphasized her judicial temperament, her work as an advocate and judge, and her community involvement, including leadership in civic and civil rights organizations. One pro se litigant also testified that she had been treated kindly and respectfully by Nakasone in prior interactions. The Hawaii State Bar Association reported that it had conducted an interview and review process and found her qualified for the position. In her own remarks, Nakasone introduced family and colleagues, described her 30-year legal career, and said her first job after law school was as an ICA law clerk. She highlighted the court’s backlog reduction efforts under Acting Chief Judge Katherine Leonard, saying the number of older pending appeals had dropped significantly through team-based reforms, and stated that she would continue that work if confirmed. The hearing ended without questions from the committee and with the nomination held for a later vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Brad Burgett, the Seventh Judicial District Court district attorney, in support.
• I did just what the rule says, the steps that I needed to take.
• The rule is, Around five minutes later, she walked out of class.
• So those rules still have to be taken into consideration.
• Andy Shealy, the ADA from the 16th Judicial District District Attorney.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and has been mentioned previously, our judicial center currently conducts screenings.
• And I'm wondering if Miss Super you'd be able to just speak to the judicial branch's weapon screening
• Um, we do have a screening procedure policy and procedure for the judicial center, and we do limit all
• judicial and veteran service<00:22:22.799> buildings.
• <00:36:37.760> branch, to the legislature, the judicial branch, to the legislature, the judicial

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee reconvened in open session after a closed discussion of sensitive security details and reviewed the public executive summary of the Minnesota State Capitol Complex Security Assessment by Axtel. Members discussed weapon screening and access control at length, including testimony from Capitol security and judicial center staff about screening procedures, prohibited items, and how screening is managed for visitors and authorized personnel. The chair emphasized that the committee was voting on high-level recommendations to be included in the final ACAST report and that the Department of Public Safety and Department of Administration would be encouraged to pursue the necessary work, including any legislative or budget requests. The committee then took a series of roll-call votes on the Axtel recommendations. Access control screening and visitor management (5.11) passed 4-2, while authorized access control and credential oversight (5.12), internal circulation and zoning controls (5.13), perimeter and exterior grounds (5.14), staffing models/post orders/operational readiness (5.15), technology and system integration (5.16), and protective intelligence (5.18) all passed unanimously 6-0. Each approved item was added as a recommendation in the final report. After the votes, the Department of Administration, Department of Public Safety, and House and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms offices walked through the draft final report. They highlighted staffing improvements, security infrastructure already installed, and remaining needs, including an estimated $41.008 million request for future enhancements such as kiosks, glass-resistant film, door access controls, cameras, lighting, bollards, and an updated distributed antenna system. The report also includes recommendations on trauma-informed safety drills, conduct rules for hearings, and designating the Minnesota State Patrol Capital Security Division as the primary investigative authority for potential criminal activity on Capitol grounds.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial judicial branch.<00:31:27.760> The<00:31:28.000> independent<00:31:28.640>
• democracy to continue, the judicial democracy to continue, the judicial branch<00:31:47.039>
• The judicial funded appropriately.
• judicial judicial branch.<00:32:14.640> None<00:32:14.960> of<00:32:15.039> us<
• that underfunds the judicial that underfunds the judicial branch<00:32:50.000> that<00:32

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I am the chief defender in the 15th and 16th Judicial Districts.
• I want to say this morning, or this afternoon, that... ...16th Judicial Districts.
• I'm the district defender in the 4th Judicial District, which is Ouachita and Morehouse.
• I'm the chief public defender in the 8th Judicial District, which is Winn Parish.
• Maybe it changes the ruling, maybe it doesn't.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board met on June 18, 2026, with a quorum present and adopted the agenda. Public comment was dominated by district defenders and other public defense leaders praising State Public Defender Remy Starns for improving communication, collaboration, and overall system performance. Speakers from multiple districts said the system is more unified, better supported, and more stable than in prior years, and several credited Starns with helping resolve long-standing tensions and improve coordination across capital, district, and appellate work. One speaker also paid tribute to the late Mike Ginnard, describing him as instrumental to earlier public defense reforms. In his report, Starns said the system has improved over the last seven years but still needs a sustainable funding source. He discussed legislative changes affecting public defense, including a cleanup bill, elimination of filing fees for writs and appeals, and a new procedure related to expert-fee requests in light of recent court rulings. He also described ongoing efforts to integrate capital and appellate work into district offices, expand the laws/writs program, and continue post-conviction work under new statutory rules. Starns emphasized recruitment and retention, including the need for affordable health insurance and retirement benefits, and again honored Mike Ginnard for his leadership and service. The board then adopted proposed bylaws, after some discussion about special committees and public meeting requirements. Members agreed to create a committee to review and refine the bylaws later, and they also elected a vice chairman and designated the Office of the Public Defender, with staff support, as secretary for recordkeeping. Finally, the board heard a presentation on the strategic plan, which was described as largely an update to the prior version with terminology changes, new accessibility-related goals, and added performance measures for training, compliance, and communications. The strategic plan was adopted by resolution, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• education at the expense of the judicial education at the expense of the judicial branch.<01:27:
• > foresee<01:55:34.960> a judicial branch could foresee a judicial branch could foresee
• as less of an attack on the judicial as less of an attack on the judicial branch<02:58:23.200>
• Yes, another case could be um the judicial another case could be um the judicial branch<04:38:54.480>
• <04:42:26.080> I judicial branch. So, is it necessary? I judicial branch.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, if I decide to rule on the point of order, I will rule on the point of order.
• Um, if I decide to rule on the point of order, I will rule on the point of order.
• Um, if I decide to rule on the point of order, I will rule on the point of order.
• Chair. consideration when making a ruling. Um, consideration when making a ruling.
• Is that to only a judicial warrant.

Bills: HF3432, HF3411

Keywords: resident tuition, employment, higher education, Minnesota, tuition rates, state universities, immigration status, immigration, postsecondary education, privacy, data access, federal officers, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And lastly, the judicial review of agency actions must be reformed.
• One, establish a uniform judicial review period.
• Permitting rules should not shift with each administration.
• I want to ask about judicial review. It came up in almost everybody's testimony.
• in an executive order. bill that would authorize permit by rule.

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:50:50.680> have wondering whether um those rules have wondering whether um those rules
• And there's a specific rule for lawyers. It's Rule 4.5 of the code of conduct for lawyers.
• Could you tell me how this relates to Rule 28 of the New Hampshire House of Representatives rules?
• He said that the rule of law was only one benefit that would flow from judicial independence.
• He said that the rule of law was only one benefit that would flow from judicial independence.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met to hear House Bill 520, which would authorize the Department of Education to issue subpoenas in investigations and hearings involving the code of conduct for New Hampshire educators. Representative Lynn, the bill sponsor, said the measure was intended to give the department standard subpoena power during investigations and in later adjudicatory proceedings, with a process for challenging overbroad subpoenas. He argued that agencies with investigative and hearing authority should also have the power to compel witnesses and documents, and said the bill was narrowed from an earlier broader draft to focus on teacher credentialing and address concerns about scope. Members raised several concerns about whether the department already has enough authority, whether the Attorney General could handle subpoenas instead, and whether the bill creates an imbalance by giving subpoena power mainly to the investigating side. Representative Burroughs said she did not feel she had enough information and was uncomfortable with the bill, especially regarding who bears subpoena costs. Representative Biron questioned the trial analogy and whether both sides truly have equal subpoena rights. Lynn responded that the investigative stage is like a grand jury process, where only the investigating body subpoenas witnesses, while the adjudicatory stage allows both sides to seek subpoenas through the hearing officer. Other questions focused on the bill’s scope. Representative Andreos asked what investigative authority the Department of Education already has, and Representative Organ questioned why the bill is limited to educators rather than also covering vendors, charter school boards, or the EFA scholarship organization. Lynn said the limitation to educators was deliberate, because earlier broader versions drew objections for being too expansive. Representative Tur asked whether the Attorney General could already handle such matters, and Lynn said that while the AG might be able to pursue some investigations or court subpoenas, agencies should be able to conduct their own internal investigations. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.