Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:34:23.280><c> was</c><00:34:23.599><c> filed</c> this legislation was filed this legislation
• </c><02:25:44.080><c> and</c> or deem it inexpedia to legislate and or deem it inexpedia to legislate
• </c><02:29:12.960><c> with</c> function with this legislation with function with this legislation with
• </c> of the department requested legislation. of the department requested legislation.
• </c> the point of this is when we legislate the point of this is when we legislate down<03:36:00.000>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee discussed House Bill 185, which would amend RSA 3109 to add timelines for OPLC’s complaint review and investigation process. Members reviewed the existing five-year limitation period for misconduct complaints and noted that the bill would add a 30-day deadline for the office to make a recommendation to the board and a 90-day deadline to complete investigations. Some members raised concerns that the new deadlines could conflict with the existing statute of limitations, create pressure to dismiss cases too quickly, and potentially undermine the separation between OPLC’s investigative role and the boards’ adjudicatory role established by House Bill 655. Nicholas Fry, OPLC general counsel, testified that the agency’s fiscal note originally assumed it would need roughly double its staff to meet the proposed deadlines, though a later amendment reduced that estimate somewhat. He said OPLC would still need additional personnel, including investigatory paralegals and a physician investigator for the Board of Medicine, to meet the timeframes. He also explained OPLC’s current complaint and hearing procedures, including new consumer-friendly correspondence, website guidance, and efforts by the enforcement division to improve transparency and communication with complainants and licensees. Bob Quinn of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors testified in support of the bill’s basic goal of speeding up intake and investigation, saying the 30-day intake/review period was reasonable and that the bill would not change OPLC’s role in that first step. He argued, however, that the investigation step is where delays occur, especially for lower-priority complaints, and that some cases have remained unresolved for years. Committee members also questioned how the added staffing costs would be paid, with discussion of whether they would come from license fees or the general fund. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. partnerships, legislative engagement, partnerships, legislative engagement, and<00:03:34.959
• Oh, it says testifying virtually meeting with legislative body. meeting with legislative body.
• Do facing body to a legislative body.
• </c> and the Department of Legislative and the Department of Legislative Services<00:56:30.640><c> to
• In fact, my written legislation.

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Monday, April 13, 2026, 960, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• :18.320><c> to</c> many states passed legislation to many states passed legislation to regulate<00:16
• </c><00:16:22.959><c> uh</c><00:16:23.120><c> I</c> passed legislation to prohibit it. uh I passed legislation
• I mean, court through this legislation?
• Even with great legislators like right?
• These employees also legislation pass.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on SB 60, which would expressly authorize advanced deposit wagering for horse racing in New Hampshire and set the online tax rate at 1.25%, matching the existing rate for in-person horse betting at Seabrook and Belmont. Senator Tim Lang said the bill is intended to clarify that online horse betting is permitted, regulate the activity, and create a revenue stream while keeping the tax rate consistent with brick-and-mortar wagering. Members asked about the rate compared with other states, whether the bill was really about casino front money, and whether geofencing would apply; Lang and later witnesses said the bill is narrowly limited to parimutuel horse racing and would use geofencing to keep wagering within New Hampshire. Peter Bragdon, speaking for Churchill Downs, supported the bill and described advanced deposit wagering as remote betting on horse races under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978. He said Churchill Downs and other operators have long been active in New Hampshire, but the state’s lack of a specific statute has created a gray area. Bragdon said Churchill Downs stopped its own New Hampshire online operations in 2022 after discussions with the Lottery Commission and attorney general, while competitors continued operating, and he framed the bill as a fairness and consumer-protection measure that would clarify the law going forward. He also said the bill would not affect historic horse racing machines and would not create cannibalization of charitable gaming. Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre said the Lottery Commission and attorney general had identified the issue as similar to the earlier fantasy sports situation, where legislation was used to regulate an activity rather than pursue enforcement. He said the commission requested the bill, would serve as the regulator, and would address violations through rulemaking and penalties. McIntyre said operators would maintain customer and transaction records, with the commission reviewing them as needed, and he noted that three operators are currently active in the state and not paying the proposed 1.25% rate. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And one thing, since I have a moment, One thing, since I have a moment, I want to have Legislative Council
• And so part of the legislation that we just passed requiring updated curriculum.
• And so part of the legislation that we just passed requiring updated curriculum.
• forward could be worked on throughout the legislative session in a bill.
• So it added, so legislatively they added that in there to help offset that cost.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then received a lengthy DPI presentation from Stanley Schauer on statewide reading and math assessment data for students with and without disabilities. He explained the assessment systems used over time, the absence of 2019-20 data, and how North Dakota’s standards are set by educators. Members asked about alternate assessments, cohort trends, the apparent drop in proficiency in higher grades, and the new NDA+ assessment. Schauer emphasized that the biggest pattern in the data was the relative stability of students with disabilities, the post-pandemic drop and partial recovery, and the need to focus on reducing the novice category. He also said the state plans to revisit high school standard setting and that future data could be broken out by program, disability category, and schools using science-of-math or other initiatives. Public testimony from special education staff suggested that the flat performance of students with disabilities during COVID likely reflected continued services and intensive supports, and committee members discussed whether the current disparity goal is realistic and whether growth measures would be more useful than simple proficiency buckets. After the presentation, the committee took a short break and then moved into discussion of special education funding models. Chair Richter said members should contact Schauer directly with ideas for additional data views and noted that the committee would continue its work on funding and possible model changes. Brandon Bomback of Grand Forks Public Schools began a presentation arguing that the special education funding formula, especially the weighting factor, should be reconsidered if the committee wants a system that better reflects accountability and student needs. He said his comments were based on the perspective of a larger district and focused on the special education weighting factor rather than other parts of the formula. The remainder of his presentation was not included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the legislative director with Greenbelt Alliance.
• My name is Alan Abbs, and I'm the legislative officer at the Bay Area Air District.
• . ...that has had adverse effects on the costs and how we legislate.
• Generally, the legislation or work has not applied to private utility scope of work.
• David Bullock, neighbors of the 40th Assembly District for sane legislation.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Interfering with legislative proceedings or disrupting the orderly conduct of official business.
• That's what the legislative intent is, that's what the effect is.
• I rise. represent AB 1050 which is part of the fast track housing legislative package.
• This is the type of legislation that we all should support, but it's also the type of legislation that
• California wouldn't be alone in passing this legislation.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Jennifer Smith, legislative director for the New Hampshire Insurance Department.
• Jennifer Smith,<00:08:21.280><c> legislative</c><00:08:21.759><c> director</c><00:08:22.000><c> for</
• c><00:08:22.160><c> the</c><00:08:22.240><c> New</c> Smith, legislative director for the New Smith, legislative
• . legislation. legislation.
• </c><00:29:56.240><c> would</c> that that this this legislation would that that this this legislation

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up several insurance-related bills. Senate Bill 47, concerning health insurance policies related to the birth of the mother, was moved ought to pass with no amendments and was approved on a 6-0 vote. Senate Bill 121, dealing with Medicare Advantage plan notice requirements, was amended to reduce the required notice from 120 days to 90 days and to remove a federal citation; the department said the change was to avoid conflict with federal notice rules. After discussion about the stress caused when carriers leave the Medicare Advantage market, the committee voted ought to pass as amended, 7-0. The committee then heard a detailed explanation of the continuing care retirement communities bill, described by the Insurance Department as a rewrite of a 1989 law to modernize oversight, require quarterly financial reporting as an early warning system, create a bill of rights for residents, and clarify issues such as entrance fees and removal of dangerous residents. A member recalled the bill’s original purpose as protecting solvency because residents pay substantial upfront fees. The bill was moved ought to pass and approved unanimously, 7-0. The final major discussion concerned a pooled risk organizations bill. Members debated whether oversight should remain with the Secretary of State or be moved to the Insurance Department. Supporters of moving it argued the issue is solvency, citing concerns about reserve levels, prior insolvencies, and the Insurance Department’s expertise. Opponents said the Secretary of State’s office had historically overseen the entities and that the bill would fundamentally change how they operate. A straw vote favored an amendment, but the committee ultimately voted to retain the bill for further work, with plans to revisit it later in the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Over the past few years, legislation banning legacy preferences has passed in several states, with the
• </c><00:26:50.520><c> Banning</c> past few years legislation Banning past few years legislation Banning
• How come legislators aren't included on this?
• How come legislators aren't included on this? Mr. Bini, or Senator Utke? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• As legislative investments in higher education increase access to our colleges and universities, our

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• **Julie Lindsey**: I'm **Julie Lindsey** with the Legislative Budget Board.
• I don't remember in the legislation; I can look in the enabling.
• My name is **Charlie Smith**, and I am with the Legislative Budget Board.
• **George Purcell**: Yeah, I'm not aware of any legislation either.
• Again, Charlie Smith, Legislative Budget Board.

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Legislative Assistant will note the roll.
• The Legislative Assistant.
• The Legislative Assistant. Welcome to the committee team.
• </c> revenue and budget effect of legislative revenue and budget effect of legislative and<00:04:33.039
• the legislature enact the legislator the legislature enact legislation<00:47:27.760><c> in</c><00:47

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , and expended to the Legislative Council staff and requiring the Legislative Council staff to publicly
• </c> legislation. Thank you. legislation. Thank you.
• </c><02:04:19.760><c> at</c> landed on this piece of legislation at landed on this piece of legislation
• </c> about this particular legislation. about this particular legislation. um<02:08:43.440><c> simply
• </c> this piece of legislation this piece of legislation which<02:08:54.880><c> I'm</c><02:08:55.119>

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so introducing this legislation.
• ><c> directed</c><02:08:57.920><c> to</c> legislative auditor is directed to legislative auditor is directed
• </c> uh reports by the legislative auditor. uh reports by the legislative auditor.
• </c> all had to do with the legislative all had to do with the legislative auditor's<02:11:00.400><c>
• And so, you know, line legislatively.

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, I move inexpedient to legislate. >> Is there a second?
• </c> inexpedia to legislate. inexpedia to legislate.
• </c><04:39:19.279><c> budget</c> the purview of the legislative budget the purview of the legislative
• </c> clarify that um the uh legislative clarify that um the uh legislative oversight<04:40:09.680><c>
• </c> opinion that this is a legislative opinion that this is a legislative prerogative<05:31:04.240><

Committee: House Education Policy and Administration

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on House Bill 1571, which would direct the Department of Education to review and revise statewide academic standards and curriculum and make an appropriation. Representative Kristen Noble, the sponsor, said the bill is intended to update outdated standards, especially in math, and to have the department create a list of high-quality curriculum and materials aligned to the revised standards. She noted she would likely amend the bill to change a requirement that districts “shall” select from the list to “may,” and said a misplaced crossed-out section would need to be restored and moved by amendment. She also said assessments would need to be updated to match any new standards. Testimony from Marie Banfield strongly supported the bill and the move away from a mandate, arguing that current standards are outdated and that Common Core and related standards have not improved student outcomes. She criticized the math standards for emphasizing multiple strategies and written explanations over computation, and said stronger standards would better support students, including those with learning or communication challenges. She also argued that New Hampshire should follow examples such as Massachusetts, which she said used rigorous standards successfully. Nate Green of the Department of Education did not take a position on the bill but explained that the bill would affect statewide academic standards, state assessments, and potentially federal compliance. He distinguished academic standards from minimum standards in statute, said any standards revision would require work with content experts, State Board approval, and then a corresponding assessment update that could take about two years. He estimated assessment development costs could range from about $200,000 to $500,000 for minor revisions and $1 million to $2 million for a wholesale new set of standards. He also said the bill would apply to public and charter public schools, not private or homeschool students, and that the department does not currently provide a statewide list of curriculum materials because curriculum decisions have historically been local.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> inexpedia to legislate. inexpedia to legislate.
• </c><04:39:19.279><c> budget</c> the purview of the legislative budget the purview of the legislative
• </c> clarify that um the uh legislative clarify that um the uh legislative oversight<04:40:09.680><c>
• The legislator legislature only budgeted The legislator legislature only budgeted enough<05:27:23.040
• </c> opinion that this is a legislative opinion that this is a legislative prerogative<05:31:04.240><

Committee: House Education Policy and Administration

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So for the newer members, this is a great opportunity for you to um just kind of look at the legislation
• </c><00:41:41.280><c> I</c> anticipating with this legislation I anticipating with this legislation I
• </c><00:50:22.599><c> so</c> a whole another year for legislation so a whole another year for legislation
• </c> and I and I think that's the legislative and I and I think that's the legislative intent<00:59:37.520
• </c><04:07:42.239><c> that's</c> have another piece of legislation that's have another piece of legislation

Committee: House Housing

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 998 fulfills our commitment to follow-up legislation.
• I support with legislative findings to protect the law and to avoid protracted litigation.
• I think it's an incredibly important piece of legislation. I would like to be a co-author.
• Morgan Larry Zabal, legislative advocate with the Judicial Council...
• We think this legislation is something modest. It's something concrete.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on civil rights, housing, public safety, and administrative process. Early items included SB 46, which would authorize the Secretary of State to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential and vice presidential candidates from California ballots; SB 1078, requiring notice to the Civil Rights Department when court filings involve civil rights violations; SB 989, expanding access to Care Court by letting first responders refer cases through county behavioral health agencies; SB 998, clarifying and expanding discrimination prevention coordinators in the new Office of Civil Rights; SB 1146, requiring disclosure for AI-generated health advertisements and giving physicians a limited private right of action; SB 1164, a California Voting Rights Act expansion responding to federal voting-rights rulings; SB 1256, a housing bill aimed at limiting repeated litigation over the Harmony Grove Village South project; SB 1267, addressing HOA liability and indemnification for EV charger installations; and SB 1425, authorizing an encroachment permit program for high-speed rail right-of-way management. The committee also later heard SB 873, restricting ICE arrests near courthouses, and SB 1160, requiring eviction data reporting by zip code. Most bills drew support from sponsors, advocacy groups, labor organizations, or local officials, while opposition centered on concerns about county workload, due process, fire safety, civil liberties, or the scope of the policy changes. Members generally expressed support for the bills while noting unresolved issues and the need for amendments or further stakeholder work, especially on SB 1164, SB 1256, SB 1267, SB 1425, and SB 1160. The Judicial Council opposed SB 1160 because of the burden of adding zip-code reporting to court systems, while the author and supporters argued the data would help target eviction-prevention efforts. SB 873 drew strong support from public defenders, immigrant-rights groups, and court-related stakeholders, with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department opposing. SB 989 drew support from firefighters and family advocates, while Disability Rights California opposed, arguing Care Court is too costly and diverts resources from community-based services. SB 1164 received broad civil-rights and voting-rights support, with cities opposing unless amended over definitions, cure periods, and litigation risk. SB 1256 drew support from housing and labor interests and opposition from local residents and environmental groups concerned about fire safety and evacuation. SB 1267 was supported by the HOA and utility stakeholders after amendments addressing liability concerns. After quorum was established, the committee voted to pass a consent calendar and then approved the listed bills, sending them to the appropriate committees or to Appropriations, including SB 46, SB 873, SB 989, SB 998, SB 1078, SB 1146, SB 1164, SB 1256, SB 1267, and SB 1425. The transcript ends with SB 1160 still under discussion, with members indicating support for the bill’s goals but acknowledging the Judicial Council’s implementation concerns and the need for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• And whether we believe them or not, I think this is another example of a piece of legislation that we
• SB 998 fulfills our commitment to follow-up legislation.
• I support the legislative findings to protect the law and to avoid protracted litigation.
• I think it's an incredibly important piece of legislation. I would like to be a co-author.
• Morgan Larry Zobel, legislative advocate with the Judicial Council, here in respectful opposition to

Committee: House Judiciary

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Father, as we're trying to land this plane, possibly for the last time in this legislative season, Lord
• God, we're surrounded by this... ...plane, possibly for the last time in this legislative season.
• You might ask yourself what this legislative body should do.
• I've proposed legislation in the regular session to limit the amount of properties.
• We know this legislation is needed because we saw what happened last election.

Summary: The House took up the special order calendar for a proposed constitutional amendment on property taxes, CS/HJR 1F, which would create a new homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property, and restrict how counties and municipalities may use ad valorem tax revenue. The sponsor, Rep. Overdorf, said the measure would give homeowners tax relief and argued local governments could adjust spending or use other revenue sources. Opponents repeatedly questioned the ballot language, the lack of a fiscal estimate or backfill, and the potential impact on local services, public safety, and debt obligations. The House adopted the special order report and then debated the resolution and a series of amendments. Several amendments were offered to carve out or protect specific services from the tax changes. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to protect Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was supported by members who said those entities fund early learning, mental health, aftercare, and other services for children and working families, but it failed 25-74. Rep. Cross offered an amendment to include water management districts in allowable ad valorem uses, warning of impacts on flood control, water quality, Everglades restoration, and water supply; that amendment also failed. Rep. Eskamani offered an amendment requiring the Legislature to backfill public safety funding if local revenues fall, arguing police and fire services, staffing, and response times would be at risk; it failed 25-71. The chamber then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other local senior programs, and opponents saying the proposal was outside the bill’s scope. Finally, Rep. Gant offered an amendment to protect veteran services, saying local governments fund housing, mental health, transition, and family support programs for veterans; debate emphasized the importance of honoring veterans and avoiding cuts to those services. The transcript cuts off during debate on that amendment, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Brian Metzker from the Legislative Analyst's Office.
• We actually worked on legislation on this issue area last year.
• So, you know, we hope that any legislation comes through.
• We do strongly support a wildfire risk reduction legislative package this year.
• And, of course, your legislation, 179. Can't forget that one. Don't worry. I won't.

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused on California wildfire resilience funding, the SB 254 report on natural catastrophe resilience, and how the state should better prioritize community hardening, recovery, and financing. Senators emphasized that catastrophic wildfires have driven major property losses, insurance cancellations, and affordability problems, and several members argued that prevention and home/community hardening should receive far more attention than they have to date. Members also raised concerns about CEQA and other permitting delays, the need for ongoing rather than one-time funding, and whether the state should rely more on the General Fund, utilities, or other sources such as polluter-pays approaches. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state has appropriated about $4.7 billion for wildfire resilience since 2018-19, with most funding going to forest health, fuels reduction, and related landscape work, while only about $65 million has been specifically targeted to community hardening. LAO also noted that future one-time funding is likely to decline, that GGRF revenues may be limited under the new cap-and-invest structure, and that maintenance costs for treated areas could be substantial over time. Senators pressed LAO on why wildfire resilience is not more often funded through the General Fund and on whether current spending matches the scale of the risk. Cal Fire’s State Fire Marshal described the state’s community wildfire preparedness strategy, centered on home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, and said the SB 254 report aligns with Cal Fire’s direction. He said California has roughly 4 million homes in the wildland-urban interface, most built before modern wildfire-resistant standards, and highlighted recent streamlining that approved 383 fuels-reduction projects in under 30 days during an emergency proclamation. Cal OES described the AB 38 pilot and FEMA hazard mitigation work, saying federal approval delays have been a major barrier and that the state has hardened 155 properties so far through the pilot, with many more in process. The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force said the state has coordinated more than $6 billion in state and federal investments, treated over 700,000 acres annually, and is shifting toward more regional, data-driven planning and block grants. Task force staff and Cal Fire both said they are moving beyond simple acreage metrics toward models that estimate avoided loss and community risk reduction, but acknowledged major data gaps on parcel-level home hardening and defensible space. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members discussing possible future legislation and budget changes, including home inspection reforms and continued CEQA streamlining.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Colorado Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus, a chapter of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, is
• ,</c> Colorado Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus, Colorado Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus, a<00:49:24.359
• We hope that what you see as legislative aides will encourage you to run for office someday.
• We hope that what you see as legislative aides will encourage you to run for office someday.
• We hope that what you see as legislative aides will encourage you to run for office someday.

Keywords: 981, all