Transcript Highlights:

• The draft also includes review and evaluation of existing alternative dispute resolution roles.
• do in response or that if you don't file a response, that it's basically saying that the party has merit
• McLean said has merit, then I think this is the time to work on this bill to make it say what we want
• McLean just said does not have merit, then let's just kill this bill and move on.

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met to approve prior minutes and then worked through draft legislation related to a possible family court study committee. The group discussed the proposed 15-member committee’s makeup in detail, including whether to add parent representation, judges, family law section members, child support, clerks of court, domestic violence advocates, and other stakeholders. The task force ultimately agreed to keep the committee at 15 members, reduce the legislative membership from eight to six, add two judges from different districts, add two family law section members with rural and urban representation, include one parent subject to a custody order, and replace the mental health professional with a clerk of court representative appointed through the trial court administrator’s office. The draft was also revised to keep domestic violence advocacy representation and to clarify that the study could consider juvenile court issues as part of the family court umbrella. The committee voted to approve the revised draft and recommend it to Legislative Management, with one recorded “no” vote from Judge Hovey after the meeting resumed. The task force then turned to a second draft dealing with requiring participation in a family transition program, which was renamed in discussion to a parenting education course. Members debated whether the bill should simply refer to an existing program like Parents Forever or instead specify broader education about the court process, parental rights, co-parenting, and related issues. Some members supported the requirement as a way to reduce conflict and improve understanding of the system, while others raised concerns about vague language, cost to parents, lack of exemptions, and whether the bill was too open-ended or potentially duplicative of other legislation. The discussion became lengthy and unresolved, with the drafter noting that more specific direction would be needed to revise the bill. The transcript cuts off before a final vote or action on this second draft is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• the resolutions before us we're not speaking about a year ago we're speaking on the merits of the resolution
• unconstitutional, in fact, that the government — the Trump administration — does not even seek to defend the merits
• This includes clinical trials for evaluating psychedelic compounds to treat opioid use disorders, traumatic
• RJA cases are heard based on merit, rather than inadvertently stalled by procedure, and cost by focusing

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we are going to try and establish a program evaluation unit not to duplicate what else?
• a program evaluation unit not to duplicate what LFC does, but to provide a different perspective based
• And so what that means right now is, as we go through this process, we will be evaluating how we need
• And without this data, we can't evaluate the effectiveness of some of our programs.
• What I will say is of the 200 category, our request for appropriate placement or merit-based raises is

Bills: HB1

Keywords: feed bill, legislative appropriations, legislative branch, New Mexico Legislature, general fund, legislative council service, legislative finance committee, legislative education study committee, house chief clerk, senate chief clerk, per diem, mileage, session expenses, interim committees, district staff, capitol complex, capital outlay data system, legislative processing system, redistricting, census redistricting

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill requires agencies receiving growth funds to submit an accountability and evaluation plan.
• So we're able to evaluate this office and understand what they're doing in real time.
• Madam Speaker and gentlemen, that would give the interim the ability to evaluate the program.

Bills: HB111, HB103, HB109, HB128, HJM2, HJM3, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB49, HB60, HB108, HB120, HB124, HB145, HB154, HB158, HB164, HB180, HB291, HJR6, HJR7, HR1, HJM1, HM13, HM47

Keywords: water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order, water rights, overdiversion, illegal diversion, groundwater storage and recovery, well license, permit violation, water enforcement, New Mexico water code, irrigation district, conservancy district, water diversion, unauthorized water sales, measuring device, district court appeal, water resources, water compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• And just to give you a little bit of background of myself, so you can choose whether to give merit to
• my words any merit, I served in the military.
• However, the deaths of 135 Texans need to merit priority over political power grabs.
• However, the deaths of 135 Texans needs to merit priority over political Thank you.
• However, the deaths of 135 Texans needs to merit priority over political power grabs.

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting met virtually for its West Texas regional hearing, established a quorum, and explained that the hearing was part of a series of statewide information-gathering sessions before any map was filed. The chair outlined the Zoom procedures, the two-minute testimony limit, and the availability of written comments through the committee’s public portal. Senators also discussed the logistics and transparency of the process, including the expectation that any proposed map or amendment would be made public once filed and that additional hearings would follow. Senator Blanco, whose district includes West Texas and the border region, said the area’s communities of interest should be kept together and warned against repeating the loss of representation that followed the last redistricting cycle. Senators Alvarado, Hinojosa, Miles, and others debated the value of virtual hearings versus in-person hearings, the number of people who had testified, and whether the committee could subpoena witnesses after the regional hearings ended. The chair said he was awaiting legal guidance and would consider a subpoena motion at a formal meeting the next day. A lengthy exchange also occurred over the tone of public testimony and the chair’s view that some comments directed at Republicans and the president had been offensive or historically inaccurate. Invited witnesses and public commenters largely opposed mid-decade redistricting and argued that any new map should reflect population growth, especially among Latino and other minority communities, and comply with the Voting Rights Act. Nina Perales of MALDEF said the hearings were not meaningful without a draft map and testified that Texas has a long history of discriminatory redistricting; senators questioned her about litigation, DOJ’s July 7 letter, and the 2021 congressional map. Tania Chavez Camacho, Luis Figueroa, and several El Paso residents emphasized that maps should preserve communities of interest, avoid cracking and packing, and be transparent and participatory. A smaller number of witnesses supported redistricting, including one El Paso resident who said the current districting leaves the area underrepresented and another who argued that some communities want to return to a map closer to the earlier District 16 configuration. Several witnesses also criticized the DOJ letter as inconsistent with the state’s position that the 2021 maps were drawn race-blind, while others said the current process was too rushed and lacked sufficient public input.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're gonna finish our annual evaluations; we're actually seeing an increase in active Membership, so
• And Madam Chair, Representative Lujan, like I say, our evaluations should be done by the end of the month
• Obviously, we're responding by adjusting legislation, and it sounds like we're going to need to re-evaluate
• we'll see was a decision that probably is more related to the budget cuts at NSF than any intrinsic merit
• And it's a really important transition point that we evaluate.

Transcript Highlights:

• At this point, we're evaluating what they're submitting to determine what we're going to do one way or
• We are in the process of trying to evaluate many of those sites.
• They're going to have to be evaluated.
• What are you guys evaluating regarding the economics of these projects?
• The review and evaluation of these projects is critical.

Transcript Highlights:

• the House. 3701, which simply codifies existing processes from our state regions when it comes to evaluating
• It does this by strengthening government accountability, promoting fairness, and merit-based practices

Bills: HB4104, HB3722, HB3787, HB3700, HB3701, HB3310, HB3404, HB2964, HB2398, HB3024, HB3499, HB3278, HB3279, HB3645, HB3649, HB2293, HB3260, HB3176, HB3177, HB3114, HB3172, HB3322, HB3323, HB4248, HB3720, HB2210, HB1322, HB1937, HB3301, HB4107

Keywords: Oklahoma criminal law, felony classification, Class B5, Class D1, sentencing enhancement, repeat offender, domestic violence, stalking, voyeurism, peeping tom, clandestine recording, hidden camera, privacy offense, sex offender registry, Sex Offenders Registration Act, protective order violation, animal cruelty, cockfighting, dogfighting, public safety

Transcript Highlights:

• enhanced and NextGen 911 providers, public safety answering points, and law enforcement agencies to evaluate
• example of the type of case that I think would need to have some sort of discretion based on the merits

Summary: The Senate Criminal Justice Committee met with a quorum present and took up several bills, beginning with SB 350 on public records for crime victims. Senator Graal explained that the bill clarifies victim privacy protections under the Florida Constitution and extends temporary confidentiality to the identity of an officer involved in a use-of-force incident for 72 hours, with a possible 60-day extension by written agency findings. Supporters including Marcy’s Law representatives and the Florida PBA said the measure protects victims and officers while preserving public access, and the committee reported the bill favorably. The committee then heard SB 296 and SB 298, both by Senator Berman. SB 296, as amended, directs a feasibility study for a secure web-based silent alert system for domestic violence victims and expands Florida’s address confidentiality program to dating violence victims. SB 298 similarly extends address confidentiality protections to dating violence victims. Both bills received supportive testimony from advocates, including survivors and organizations such as Florida NOW and the Alliance for Safety and Justice, and both were reported favorably. Members also approved SB 398, which replaces references to “child pornography” in Florida statutes with “child sexual abuse material,” and SB 168, which expands public nuisance law to include gambling houses and increases enforcement tools such as penalties, attorney fees, and foreclosure on unpaid fees. SB 54, as amended, was also reported favorably; the amendment broadened the bill’s scope from “mass shooter” to “violent offender,” clarified medical examiner duties, and added reporting requirements related to toxicology and psychotropic substances. The most debated measure was SB 156, the Jason Raynor Act, which would revise resistance-to-arrest provisions and add an automatic life sentence for manslaughter committed against a law enforcement officer. Law enforcement groups supported the bill, but the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and some senators raised concerns about removing judicial discretion and eliminating language about unlawful arrests. After debate, the committee reported SB 156 favorably, with Vice Chair Smith voting no. Several other members later asked to be recorded as voting in the affirmative on multiple bills before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• terms of Individual circumstances, each case, in my opinion, needs to be looked at its own, its own merits
• thing is you have prosecutors all over the state, you know, that are trained to basically do an evaluation

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of individual circumstances, each case, in my opinion, needs to be looked at on its own merits
• The other thing is you have prosecutors all over the state who are trained to basically do an evaluation

Bills: HB1482, HB2017, HB2103, HB2341, HB2756

Keywords: community supervision, repeat offenders, intoxication, Texas Penal Code, criminal justice reform, intoxication manslaughter, criminal penalties, mandatory supervision, parole eligibility, Grayson's Law, mental health, trauma, jailers, law enforcement, occupational health, diligent participation, state jail felony, time credits, rehabilitation programs, de-escalation

Transcript Highlights:

• National Merit Semi-Finalist in 2024.
• Refer to the Committee on Public Education, HB 211 by Bernal, relating to the evaluation of applications

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The President was joined by the State of the Union First Merit Class.
• Office of Legislative Auditor and Legislative Audit Commission process is beginning for program evaluation

Transcript Highlights:

• So regardless of the merits um so regardless of the merits of whether or not a firearm company should
• So regardless of<00:31:32.399> the<00:31:32.559> merits of the merits of the merits um<
• 00:31:35.919> regardless<00:31:36.240> of<00:31:36.399> the<00:31:36.480> merits
• <00:31:36.799> of um so regardless of the merits of um so regardless of the merits of whether
• the defendants of like I'm evaluating the defendants of like I'm evaluating whether<01:07:18.480

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• thus breached, however, the door is open for additional protest, each with more or less plausible merit
• They can figure out an evaluation measure. That was really all I had to say on this bill.
• They can figure out an evaluation measures. That was really all I had to say on this bill.
• I think there's ways to do this when we're looking at evaluation measures, and nothing is going to be
• So I think we need to look at different kinds of ways to evaluate, and I think this is a good deal.

Summary: The committee’s final day focused first on a historical overview of New Mexico tax packages by Pam Stokes of Legislative Council Services. She described how tax packages have alternated over the decades between tax relief, revenue raising, and tax reform, with examples ranging from the creation of the gross receipts tax in 1966 to major packages in 1981, 1986, 1991, 1994, 2005, 2019, 2022, 2024, and the vetoed 2025 package. Members discussed how tax policy often tracks revenue conditions, how packages can combine increases and decreases, and how local government gross receipts taxes and hold-harmless distributions have affected communities differently. Several members reflected on past packages, especially the 2004 food tax repeal and the 2013 film tax and manufacturing changes, and noted that tax policy can have major economic and political effects even when it is not “sexy” legislation. The committee then heard a proposal to expand the health care practitioner gross receipts tax deduction to include co-insurance, and to extend the sunset date. Sponsor Senator Figueroa said the bill was intended to help recruit and retain medical providers and build on prior deductions for co-pays and deductibles. Testimony explained that co-insurance is the patient’s share after the deductible, that providers currently absorb the gross receipts tax on those payments, and that the proposal would cost about $30 million to the state plus about $20 million to municipalities and counties, with the exact fiscal impact likely to be updated. Members raised concerns about the effect on local governments, whether insurers could be required to reimburse providers, whether the bill would actually attract doctors, and whether better evaluation measures and sunsets should be added. The sponsor said the bill was part of a broader set of efforts to address provider shortages and that the discussion would continue. Representative McQueen then presented a bill to update the Land Conservation Incentives Act. He and conservation partners said the program has protected more than 500,000 acres but has not kept pace with rising land values, especially for irrigated agricultural land in the Middle Rio Grande. The proposal would increase the percentage of conservation value eligible for the credit, raise the per-transaction cap from $250,000 to $2 million, and make the credit refundable rather than only transferable. Testimony emphasized that the program is voluntary, keeps land in private ownership and production, and helps land-rich, cash-poor landowners preserve farmland and water rights. Members asked about average credit amounts, how easements work, whether landowners could effectively buy land and then use the credit, and whether there should be inflation indexing or a statewide cap. The discussion also touched on water rights, fencing, and the role of conservation easements in protecting agricultural land and compact water deliveries. Finally, Senator Sharer previewed his 2% tax proposal with a historical presentation on New Mexico tax law, using props to illustrate the evolution from early territorial tax codes to the modern tax system. He argued that the state’s current tax structure is overly complex and that recent federal changes have disrupted the personal income tax base. The committee did not take any votes on the day’s presentations; the meeting was primarily informational, with members offering feedback and raising policy concerns for future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee on Appropriations, after consideration on the merits of committee, recommends the following
• Committee on Finance, after consideration on the merits of committee, recommends the following: Senate
• Committee on State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs, after consideration on the merits of committee
• of the degree of market competition among insurers in those areas, and B. the The division shall evaluate
• Evaluate the feasibility of restructuring the enterprise programs to increase affordability and maximize

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's true for high school where they'll evaluate that and they'll look at more than just GPA.
• Wouldn't it also be true for how different investors might evaluate the merits of any proxy voting agenda
• And right now, are they required to re-evaluate one's insurability? Every so often? No, no.
• So right now, can a consumer request that their insurability be re-evaluated?
• If the consumer wants to have their credit score re-evaluated, like, right now.

Bills: SB15, SB35, SB290, SB1365, SB2568, SB18, SB427, SB1860, SB1864, SB2675, SB596, SB2858, SB3058, SB816, SB1163, SB1484, SB1898, SB1777, SB1802, SB2692, SB315, SB1585, SB1626, SB2058, SB2050, SB2105, SB2245, SB2764, SB2611, SB2497, SB2452, SB2243, SB1705, SB1244, SB1361, SB438, SB578, SB584, SB2690, SB2521, SB2487, SB2342, SB2063, SB125, SB2041, SB1962, SB1413, SB6, SB2878, SB13, SB30, SJR87, SB7, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB57, SB512, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB1346, SB2753, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB552, SB646, SJR1, SB15, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB618, SB414, SB1394, SB2425, SB898, SB993, SB442, SB735, SB784, SB2538, SB1919, SB1013, SB2215, SB2322, SB626, SB570, SB747, SB2183, SB673, SB1015, SB1447, SB1370, SB1784, SB1897, SB2873, SB2891, SB2933, SB2540, SB2681, SB2695, SB1965, SB2203, SB872, SB875, SB1030, SB1277, SB1730, SB1681, SB1152, SB2969, SB2747, SB2705, SB2541, SB1708, SB2080, SB2721, SB1986, SB2392, SB2539, SB2857, SB2799, SB2785, SB2782, SB1531, SB1927, SB1263, SB1098, SB35, SB290, SB1365, SB2568, SB18, SB427, SB1860, SB1864, SB2675, SB596, SB2858, SB3058, SB816, SB1163, SB1484, SB1898, SB1777, SB1802, SB2692, SB315, SB1585, SB1626, SB2058, SB2050, SB2105, SB2245, SB2764, SB2611, SB2497, SB2452, SB2243, SB1705, SB1244, SB1361, SB438, SB578, SB584, SB2690, SB2521, SB2487, SB2342, SB2063, SB125, SB2041, SB1962, SB1413, SCR9, SB21, SB1198, SB1405, SB2601, SB2778, HB5560, HB762, HB1584, HB 107, HB 114, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323, HB4341, HB6, HB171, HB143, HB449, HB3486, HB4263, HB5246, HB2, HB2011, SB17

Keywords: SB 15, Texas Local Government Code, zoning preemption, housing affordability, small lots, lot size, lot density, single-family zoning, residential subdivision, municipal land use, local control, state preemption, parking requirements, setbacks, infill development, missing middle housing, lot width, lot depth, homebuilders, housing supply

Transcript Highlights:

• The closest second person was 3,152 points below CCMSI in the evaluation. >> Well, with all due respect
• . evaluation. evaluation.
• >> and in and evaluated in the score. >> and in and evaluated in the score.
• attempting, and every time being extra careful to remove political influence, ensure that it was merited
• influence ensure that it was merited influence ensure that it was merited employees<00:13:38.959

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the June 9 minutes, then reviewed a deferred personnel contract involving workers’ compensation claims administration. Staff explained that the roughly $50 million figure included about $48 million for claims payments and up to $1.45 million per year for administrative services, with billing based on a fee schedule for specific services rendered. Senator Meredith raised concerns about the vendor’s history, the scoring and bid process, and prior allegations involving the company; the administration responded that the procurement had been conducted under 45A through open competition, with outside scorers and no finding of wrongdoing tied to this contract. Meredith moved to disapprove Contract 167, Hart seconded, and the committee voted 5-2 to disapprove it. The committee then deferred a Western Kentucky University personal services contract because the vendors were still not registered with the Secretary of State’s office. Hart moved to defer the contract until the August 2026 meeting, Meredith seconded, and the motion carried. The committee also approved the agenda covering the various contract lists and deferred items. Next, the committee heard from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services on several personal services contracts for medical staffing and related services. Secretary Steven Stack and staff explained that staffing shortages often require outside vendors, that the contracts were competitively bid under 45A, and that the cabinet uses a streamlined vendor pool for specialized needs such as actuaries, auditors, and technical consultants. The committee approved Contracts 52 through 55 without objection. Discussion then began on Contract 61, with Meredith expressing concern that the committee lacked enough detail to judge whether the services could be performed in-house or whether the exchange of resources was appropriate; Stack said the contract was intended to provide efficient access to specialized outside expertise. The transcript cuts off before a final vote on Contract 61 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• in multiple other states at evaluated in multiple other states at the<00:12:58.000> same<00:12
• Every little product decision will be re-evaluated because of the work you all are doing today.
• will be re-evaluated because of the<01:15:37.679> work<01:15:37.840> you<01:15:38.000>
• We are the first committee to consider the bill on the merits.
• Um there are uh bill on the merits.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that practice of expanding access, opening doors, and believing in the next generation on their own merits
• understanding in Massachusetts now is all bets are off on whatever they awarded you, and they re-evaluate
• It's treated just like a transfer course; it is not re-evaluated.
• understanding in Massachusetts now is all bets are off on whatever they awarded you, and they re-evaluate
• It's treated just like a transfer course; it is not re-evaluated.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its first hearing and heard testimony on a wide range of bills, including hunger-free campuses, FAFSA completion, early college/college-in-high-school programs, banning legacy preferences, AP credit consistency, and tuition equity for the Stockbridge School of Agriculture. Committee leaders opened by outlining the hearing process and noting the three-minute testimony limit. Legislators and advocates generally framed the bills as equity and access measures aimed at improving college affordability, student success, and workforce development. Representative Vargas testified for H. 1466 and H. 1467, arguing that hunger-free campus should be codified because many public college and community college students face food insecurity, and that FAFSA completion should be improved through individualized outreach and an opt-out or completion requirement. Senator Lovely, the Greater Boston Food Bank, and other advocates supported the hunger-free campus bill, citing data that 44% of public university and community college students experienced food insecurity in 2023 and that food insecurity harms graduation rates. Femi Stoltz and Shanti Lopez Toro backed the FAFSA bill, saying many students miss out on Pell grants and need direct support; they pointed to state examples such as Louisiana and to recent state action requiring FAFSA awareness. Committee members asked about the federal FAFSA rollout, regional equity in food access, and the need for long-term funding and data collection. A large panel supported H. 1455 on college and high school/early college, including former Chair Roy, the Massachusetts Alliance for Early College, a student graduate, MBAE, and Tripp Jones. They described early college as a proven model that helps low-income and first-generation students, improves degree attainment, and supports workforce needs; witnesses said the goal is to scale from about 9,000 students and 55 partnerships toward 22,000 to 25,000 students by 2030, with possible future growth beyond that. Members raised questions about funding, public-private partnerships, parental involvement, faculty development, and whether the bill should include data review and more standardized policies across institutions. Representative Garcia also testified for H. 1432 on AP credit, saying students should receive consistent credit for AP scores of 3, 4, or 5. Senator Edwards and James Murphy testified for the legacy preference ban, arguing it is unfair and rooted in exclusionary history; they said some states have already banned legacy preferences in public and private institutions. Finally, UMass Dean Michael Fox, alumnus Dan Mayer, and student Jake Rasmussen supported S. 920 to include Stockbridge associate degree programs in MassEducate, saying tuition equity would help enrollment and support Massachusetts agriculture and green-industry jobs.