Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no one. Raise your hand.
• We represent blue-collar people. Blue-collar people need an opportunity.
• We represent blue-collar people. Blue-collar people need an opportunity.
• No one lives there. It's... ...asphalt. We have 246 acres. No one lives there.
• The vote tally is 10 yes, 2 no. Great. You have a due pass on Senate Bill 48.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 248, the general obligation bond bill, which would authorize about $392.5 million in bond capacity for senior centers, libraries, and higher education, special schools, and tribal school projects. The sponsor highlighted major projects including a new UNM School of Medicine, a multidisciplinary building at NMSU, renovations at New Mexico Tech, a technical innovation center at CNM, an agricultural science and arts building at ENMU, and library renovations at New Mexico Highlands. Public testimony was supportive, especially from the New Mexico Library Association, and members discussed how the bond process works, including application timing, readiness to spend funds, voter approval, and how unspent bond proceeds revert. The committee voted do pass on HB 248 without opposition. The committee then considered House Bill 309, which would clarify property tax valuation rules for electric energy storage facilities by extending the existing special valuation method for electric generation, transmission, and distribution to battery storage and similar technologies. Supporters from PNM, InterWest Energy Alliance, and Inventergy said the bill would provide consistency and clarity as storage becomes more important to grid reliability and clean energy development. Members raised questions about depreciation, the 12-year schedule, the 20% floor on valuation, possible effects on local government revenues, whether the bill would apply to utilities and co-ops, industrial revenue bonds, and whether it covered microgrids or only battery systems. The committee approved HB 309 on an 8-3 vote. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 48, which would authorize $92 million in bonds for the State Fairgrounds District to support redevelopment of the southwest corner of the fairgrounds, including land acquisition, green space, water and sewer infrastructure, and traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements near San Pedro and Central. Support came from neighborhood groups, housing advocates, the city of Albuquerque, the chamber of commerce, and others who described the project as a long-term investment in safety, infrastructure, and economic revitalization for the surrounding area. Members questioned the bond repayment structure, the 25-year term, the use of district gross receipts and gaming tax revenues, parking impacts, and future bonding needs. The committee voted do pass on SB 48 by a 10-2 margin.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, sir, I'm not.
• And they can't say no.
• House Bill 2, so there's no conflict in statute related to special education funding.
• Tinderholt voting no.
• No, absolutely.

Bills: HCR158 , HCR159 , HCR160 , HCR161 , HCR162 , HCR163 , HCR164 , HR174 , HR427 , HR790 , HR810 , HR857 , HR866 , HR882 , HR883 , HR962 , HR966 , HR1001 , HR1045 , HR1085 , HR1097 , HR1127 , HR1138 , HR1141 , HR1150 , HR1152 , HR1292 , HR1296 , HR1304 , HR1305 , HR1306 , HR1308 , HR1309 , HR1310 , HR1311 , HR1312 , HR1313 , HR1315 , HR1317 , HR1318 , HR1320 , HR1321 , HR1322 , HR1323 , HR1324 , HR1325 , HR1327 , HR1328 , HR1329 , HR1330 , HR1331 , HR1332 , HR1333 , HR1334 , HR1335 , HR1338 , HR1340 , HR1341 , HR1342 , HR1343 , HR1344 , HR1345 , HR1346 , HR1347 , HR1348 , HR1349 , HR1352 , HR1353 , HR1354 , HR1355 , HR1358 , HR1359 , HR1360 , HR1361 , HR1362 , HR1363 , HR1364 , HR1365 , HR1366 , HR1368 , HR1369 , HR1370 , HR1380 , HR1383 , HR1384 , HR1385 , HR1386 , HR1387 , HR1388 , HR1389 , HR1390 , HR1392 , HR1393 , HR1396 , HR1397 , HR1398 , HR1399 , HR1400 , HR1402 , HR1403 , HR1404 , HR1405 , HR1406 , HR1407 , HR1408 , HR1409 , HR1410 , HR1411 , HR1412 , HR1413 , HR1414 , HR1415 , HR1417 , HR1418 , HR1419 , HR1420 , HR1421 , HR1422 , HR1424 , HR1425 , HR1426 , HR1427 , HR1428 , HR1429 , HR1430 , HR1431 , HR1432 , HR1433 , HR1434 , HR1435 , HR1436 , HR1437 , HR1438 , HR1440 , HR1441 , HR1442 , HR1443 , HR1444 , HR1445 , HR1447 , HR1448 , HR1449 , HR1450 , HR1452 , HR1453 , HR1454 , HR1455 , HR1456 , HR1458 , HR1459 , HR1460 , HR1461 , HR1462 , HR1463 , HR1464 , HR1465 , HR1466 , HR1467 , HR1469 , HR1470 , HR1471 , HR1472 , HR1473 , HR1475 , HR1477 , HCR132 , HCR154 , HR17 , HR49 , HR170 , HR275 , HR355 , HR356 , HR364 , HR369 , HR672 , HR690 , HR755 , HR756 , HR759 , HR762 , HR763 , HR781 , HR785 , HR848 , HR1240 , HR1265 , HR1303 , HR1307 , HR1314 , HR1316 , HR1319 , HR1326 , HR1336 , HR1337 , HR1350 , HR1351 , HR1367 , HR1371 , HR1372 , HR1373 , HR1374 , HR1375 , HR1376 , HR1377 , HR1378 , HR1379 , HR1382 , HR1391 , HR1395 , HR1451 , HR1457 , HR1468 , HR1474 , HR1476 , SB1637 , SB2878 , HB2885 , HB2017 , HB5246 , SB8 , SB2308 , SB1405 , HB 119 , SB3059 , SB15 , SB568 , SB2900 , HB3642 , HB3909 , SB268 , HB493 , SB2217 , HB2516 , SB650 , HB2963 , SB1610 , HB705 , SB2972 , SB1540 , HB40 , SB2753 , SB1660 , SB2024 , HB1545 , HB46

Keywords: World War II, V-J Day, Victory over Japan Day, Japan surrender, atomic bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, USS Missouri, Douglas MacArthur, Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Potsdam Conference, Pacific Theater, Greatest Generation, veterans, military history, commemoration, concurrent resolution, Texas Legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• Greenbo and Blue Licks bath house renovations.
• </c><00:12:30.720><c> Licks</c> bathous at Greenbo Lake and Blue Licks bathous at Greenbo Lake and Blue
• The plants at Dale Hollow and Blue Lick State Resort Parks will be renovated and replaced.
• No doubt about it. We're going to be able to make progress.
• No doubt about it. We're going to be able to make progress.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Economic Development, Tourism, and Environmental Protection received a detailed update from Kentucky State Parks Commissioner Meyer on capital projects funded through HJR 76, HJR 56, and House Bill 6. He said the department is making steady progress on a large portfolio of park improvements, with regular quarterly reporting to the legislature and ongoing coordination with the Finance Cabinet, the Energy and Environment Cabinet, the Commonwealth Office of Technology, and local utilities and governments. He emphasized that ADA accessibility is a priority across projects and noted that many completed items, including campground bathhouse renovations, broadband upgrades, life safety improvements, playground replacements, and some furniture and mattress upgrades, are already drawing positive feedback. The presentation focused heavily on campground, utility, and infrastructure work. Meyer described $40 million in campground upgrades split between western and eastern Kentucky, including projects at Ken Lake, Carter Caves, My Old Kentucky Home, Cumberland Falls, and others. He also outlined $20 million in utility improvements, including a federal matching grant for grid resiliency at Ken Lake and Kentucky Dam Village, plus wastewater and electrical infrastructure work at parks such as Dale Hollow, Blue Licks, Natural Bridge, and Cumberland Falls. Additional categories included building systems, life safety, structural repairs, accommodations and hospitality upgrades, pool and beach work, dam safety, playgrounds, and golf course improvements. Members asked about the status of Lake Barkley utilities, the possibility of transferring upgraded utility infrastructure to local providers after repairs, and how park repair priorities are set. Meyer said park managers report issues through regional directors and that projects are prioritized through a running capital list, similar to a long-range transportation plan. He said the department has already spent the current $20 million allocation and is requesting $40 million in the next budget cycle, adding that the department believes it could spend and complete projects if that amount is appropriated. The commissioner also said the department is managing 284 additional capital projects outside the main funding streams, totaling nearly $70 million.

Transcript Highlights:

• The blue in looking at the US economy.
• No, they are not inflation-adjusted.
• </c> have an unemployment rate of 2.2% 2% have an unemployment rate of 2.2% 2% second<01:26:14.719><c
• No, and I do appreciate it.
• No, thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• No questions?
• There are no. Mr.
• No. Hearing none, public testimony is now closed.
• We have a Blue Bell freezer in my office that I buy ice cream from Blue Bell on.
• No questions open for public testimony.

Bills: SB2232 , SCR1 , SCR6 , SCR15 , SCR27 , SCR32

Committee: Senate Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• later than 205 as soon as um no later than 205 as soon as 2:00<00:01:15.560><c> um</c><00:01:16.000>
• No. Representative Gillman? Yes. Representative Huot? No. Representative Knudsen? No.
• There's no skipping a dose, no waiting until payday.
• There's no skipping a dose, no waiting until payday.
• Opposed, no.

Bills: HF10 , HF27

Committee: House Health Finance and Policy

Keywords: undocumented immigrants, state funding, MinnesotaCare, scholarship ineligibility, state assistance, permit to carry, concealed carry, handgun permit, firearm permit, pistol training, sheriff, application process, electronic filing, mail application, fax submission, certified mail, certified delivery, gun rights, Second Amendment, firearms regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• No, no, no, no. Okay. Senator Rusan, in questions. You're recognized, sir. Thank you very much, Mr.
• There is no law. There's no state law. There's no state law. There is no law. There's no state law.
• All those opposed, no? No. Show the motion fails. Additional questions. Those opposed? No? No.
• Then we were told, oh, no, no, no, this is actually about malapportionment.
• And there's been no criticism, no debate, no proof, no evidence offered on this floor in the Rules Committee

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

Transcript Highlights:

• No, no, no, no. I will be voting.
• No, 79. SB 79 is a no. Okay. Yes, no. 79. SB 79 is a no. Okay. Yeah.
• No, no. Hoover, no. Ward, aye. The vote is 6-2. The measure is out 6-2. These are add-ons now.
• Ta, no. Codd, no. Hoover, no. Ramos, aye. Ward, aye. Wilson, aye. The measure is out 6-2.
• Hoover, no. The vote is 8-2. The measure is out 8-2. SB 838, Durazo.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 753, which would modernize California’s shopping cart recovery rules by allowing cities and counties to return abandoned carts directly to retailers, recover documented retrieval costs, and avoid the current impound-and-wait process. The author and supporters, including San Jose officials and the League of California Cities, said the bill would help clear streets, sidewalks, and waterways and reduce local costs. Grocers and retailers opposed the measure unless amended, arguing it would turn cart retrieval into a new cost burden and could create incentives for cities to charge too much for stolen property. After extensive discussion about notice periods, cost caps, and local ordinances, the committee adopted amendments and passed the bill 6-0 as amended. The committee then took up SB 445, which would speed up permitting and approvals needed for high-speed rail by requiring early engagement, setting rules for third-party coordination, and creating a dispute-resolution process. The author said the bill was narrowed from an earlier, broader transit proposal and was intended to reduce delays caused by utilities, local governments, and other entities. Supporters said permitting bottlenecks add major costs and delays to infrastructure projects, while opponents from utilities, cities, counties, telecoms, and special districts raised concerns about safety, reliability, affordability, and the need to review the pending amendments. The bill passed 8-1 to the Utilities and Energy Committee. The committee also heard SB 9, a narrower housing bill focused on accessory dwelling units. The author explained that it would require local ADU ordinances to be submitted to HCD for review and would make state standards control if a local agency fails to submit a compliant ordinance or respond to HCD findings. Supporters from housing and YIMBY groups said the bill would improve enforcement of state ADU law and prevent local barriers from slowing housing production. There was no opposition, and the bill passed 6-0. The committee then began hearing SB 79, which would allow more housing near major transit stops; the author and supporters framed it as a response to the housing shortage and transit underuse, and the hearing continued with extensive support testimony as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• /c> capital projects that also added $2 capital projects that also added $2 million<00:10:30.320><c>
• No. No.
• No. No.
• Uh the blue line for each of upwards.
• And in general, no, it does not.

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee for Transportation met without a quorum at first, then later approved the July 15 minutes by voice vote after quorum was reached. The committee heard an update from the Transportation Cabinet on the road fund for FY 2024-25. Cabinet staff reported road fund revenue came in $38.5 million above the enacted estimate, with motor vehicle usage tax receipts setting an all-time high for the fifth straight year. Motor fuels tax revenue was below estimate and down from the prior year, while overall road fund collections totaled $1.86 billion, essentially flat year over year. Staff said the road fund ended FY25 with a $61.6 million surplus, which under the budget bill must be appropriated to state construction. Members discussed the gas tax formula, with Senator Higdon arguing it no longer works well because revenues fall when fuel prices fall, and the chair noting the committee may need to revisit the formula. The committee then received an update on High Growth County projects in the 2024 highway plan. KYTC said $16 million in HGC authorizations had been made, nine projects already had construction funds authorized or were otherwise underway, 12 more were scheduled to be let by the end of 2025 with estimated construction costs above $250 million, and one additional project was expected to be awarded through alternative delivery. The cabinet said it anticipated authorizing the full $450 million appropriated by the General Assembly. Members praised the effort and emphasized the need to get projects to market before the next budget cycle. Jason Sala of KYTC also explained why transportation projects take time, citing planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation as major steps that can delay delivery. He said these processes are complex and require coordination with property owners, utilities, consultants, contractors, and local governments. Eric Pelfrey then briefed the committee on professional and personal service contracts, saying they are used to expand cabinet capacity for design, inspections, right-of-way appraisal, safety, and related work. He reported that authorizations and payments for these contracts have trended upward over the past decade, and that the number of contracts has also increased. In response to questions, Pelfrey said design-build can speed some projects by overlapping steps, but it does not eliminate right-of-way or utility work when those are required; he said KYTC has been using alternative delivery more often, but project complexity still limits how quickly work can move.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c><00:27:18.080><c> no</c> no public hearing, no feedback, no no public hearing, no feedback, no actual
• &gt;&gt; no. &gt;&gt; no.
• &gt;&gt; no. &gt;&gt; no.
• &gt;&gt; no. &gt;&gt; no.
• &gt;&gt; no. &gt;&gt; no.

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Lane no. Representative Ward no. Representative Mirad no. Representative Bay no.
• > no</c> Mirad no representative Bay no Mirad no representative Bay no representative<03:36:52.520><c
• no. Representative Ward? no. Representative Mirad? no. Representative Bay? no.
• no Representative wilham no Grill no Representative wilham no representative<03:58:02.279><c> Nome</c
• Representative Lane: no. Representative Ward: no. Representative Mirad: no. Representative Bay: no.

Committee: House Election Law

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no combined report form.
• The blue columns contain the income and sales The blue columns contain the income and sales for the domestic
• Sure, sure, sure, no problem.
• Sure, sure, sure, no problem.
• Please, no. Por favor, no agraven la crueldad de H.R. 1.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on California’s taxation of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, especially the state’s water’s-edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Committee members and witnesses discussed how unitary taxation and sales-factor apportionment work, why multinational corporations are a small share of filers but a large share of tax liability, and how foreign income, profit shifting, and double taxation concerns affect policy choices. The Franchise Tax Board explained current filing rules, the seven-year water’s-edge election, and recent filing statistics showing about 21,562 water’s-edge returns in 2023, roughly 6% of C corporation filers but about half of corporate tax liability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and FTB staff emphasized that revenue effects from eliminating water’s edge are uncertain because foreign affiliate income is not directly observable, and they noted possible revenue volatility and administrative complexity. Several committee members asked about foreign government pushback, the burden on FTB, whether certain industries are more likely to shift profits, and whether companies would leave California; witnesses generally said there was no strong evidence that firms would exit the state because tax liability is driven mainly by California sales. They also discussed how California already administers both methods, how the election can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on a firm’s facts, and how federal reforms like GILTI/NCTI, CAMT, and OECD Pillar Two may affect the issue. The second panel presented sharply contrasting views. One professor and a tax policy advocate argued that water’s edge creates unfairness, encourages profit shifting, and leaves California with billions in lost revenue, while a Tax Foundation witness argued that mandatory worldwide reporting would tax the wrong income, create double taxation and litigation risk, and impose heavy compliance burdens, especially for foreign-based multinationals. A later panel from the California Budget and Policy Center supported closing the “water’s-edge loophole,” saying it would raise needed revenue for public services and level the playing field between large multinationals and smaller domestic businesses. No vote or formal action was taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, no, no, no. Okay. Senator Rouson, in questions. You're recognized, sir.
• There is no law. There's no state law.
• There is no law. There's no state law.
• All those opposed, no? No. Show the motion fails. Additional questions. ...those opposed? No? No.
• No.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, no, no, no. Okay. Senator Rouson, in questions. You are recognized, sir.
• All those opposed, no? No. The motion fails. Additional questions. Those opposed? No? No.
• No.
• No.
• No.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• No, no, no, no. Okay. Senator Rouson, in questions. You're recognized, sir.
• There is no law. There's no state law.
• There is no law. There's no state law.
• All those opposed, no? No. Show the motion fails. Additional questions. Those opposed? No? No.
• No.

Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] Everyone, please find a seat.
• know 2:45 2:45 2:45 and<01:38:23.840><c> at</c><01:38:24.119><c> 3</c><01:38:25.080><c> I'll</c><01:
• have no no opposition to supported so we have no no opposition to have<03:17:17.120><c> a</c><03:17:17.319
• </c><04:10:55.520><c> no</c><04:10:55.640><c> language</c> supervision uh there's no no language supervision
• No.

Summary: The House Children and Family Law Committee met on January 28, 2025, and first heard House Bill 322, which would give a parent paying child support the exclusive right to claim the child as a dependent on taxes. Representative Barton, the sponsor, argued that because child support is no longer tax-deductible, the paying parent should at least receive the child tax credit. Committee members and later testimony from New Hampshire Legal Assistance raised concerns that the bill would override court discretion, could disadvantage low-income custodial parents, and would not account for cases where child support payments are small or where parents share support unevenly. Several members noted that judges already allocate dependency claims in divorce orders and can modify those orders when circumstances change. After testimony, the committee moved to ITL (inexpedient to legislate) HB 322. The motion was seconded, discussion continued, and the roll call was unanimous in favor of ITL. The committee then placed the bill on consent and ended the executive session on HB 322. The committee next took up House Bill 325, which would eliminate term and reimbursement alimony in no-fault divorces. Representative Barton testified that alimony in those cases was akin to involuntary servitude and should not survive dissolution of the marriage contract. The hearing then moved into questions about whether alimony is meant to compensate a spouse for sacrifices made during the marriage, such as supporting a partner through school or staying home with children, and the sponsor maintained that post-divorce support should not continue as a marital obligation. The transcript cuts off before any vote or further action on HB 325 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
• No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Your other district is District 2.
• It's about no party also.
• No, sir.

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 12, 2026, and focused primarily on Senate Bill 407, a congressional redistricting proposal, with Senate Bill 121 also scheduled for later. The chair explained the committee would first take up SB 407, consider amendments, then hear public testimony, and would not take up SB 116 or SB 130. Two amendment sets were adopted on SB 407: one technical set adjusting dates to align with the upcoming election cycle, and another updating the map in the bill. Committee members and the bill sponsor described the proposal as a 4-2 congressional map intended to comply with the Supreme Court’s CalA ruling, preserve traditional redistricting criteria, and avoid using race as the basis for district lines. Supporters of SB 407 argued the map was compact, contiguous, kept parishes and cities together, and created two opportunity districts without racial predominance. Several senators said the map better reflected Louisiana’s political and demographic realities and could withstand legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment. Testimony in support also emphasized fairness, representation, and the idea that the state should not move to a 5-1 map. Some speakers, including former legislators and community advocates, said the state should maintain or preserve two districts where Black voters and Democratic voters could elect candidates of choice. Opponents of the broader redistricting effort criticized the process as rushed and confusing, especially because early voting had already begun and the Secretary of State was not present to answer questions. Some speakers said the legislature had not been properly involved in the election suspension process and raised concerns about whether votes already cast would count if maps changed. Others argued the proposed changes were an attempt to dilute political power and disenfranchise voters, particularly Black, poor, and queer communities. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I see no other request to speak.
• Seeing none, no one's coming forward.
• Strickland: No. Arreguín: Aye. Gallagher: Aye. Grayson: No. Menjivar: Aye. Richardson: Aye.
• Seyarto: No. Valadares: No. Wiener: Aye. 6-4, and we'll leave that open. Mr.
• Seyarto: No. Valadares: No. Wiener: Aye. Six to four. We'll leave the roll open.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard a long agenda of transportation-related measures, with testimony focused on housing, safety, environmental access, and fuel affordability. Several bills dealt with Caltrans surplus or former freeway properties in the Los Angeles area: AB 1338 would let the City of Linwood transfer a public-purpose covenant to another parcel to enable 55 units of affordable housing; AB 1594 would remove a net-equity repayment requirement for Ronald McDonald House’s purchase of former SR 710 properties in Pasadena; and AB 2329 would create a more transparent process for tenants and cities to facilitate sales of former SR 710 homes, with support from South Pasadena and Pasadena officials and tenants. AB 2679 addressed safety and access around Lake Tahoe’s Emerald Bay corridor by allowing Caltrans and local Tahoe agencies to manage parking and improve pedestrian, transit, and public access infrastructure. The committee also heard several public safety bills aimed at impaired driving. AB 1685 would increase DMV points for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated from two to three, and AB 1687 would extend the license revocation period for a third DUI conviction from three years to eight years, with an interlock option after four years. Both measures drew strong support from law enforcement, MADD, and victims’ families, including emotional testimony about repeat offenders and drunk-driving fatalities. AB 1613 would require an off-highway vehicle safety and stewardship course before access to off-highway lands beginning in 2029, with supporters describing it as an education-first response to rising OHV injuries and fatalities. Other bills focused on transportation efficiency and affordability. AB 2046 would allow EPA-approved E85 conversion kits in California, which supporters said would give drivers a cheaper, lower-carbon fuel option and improve fuel resiliency. AB 2168 would revise the Active Transportation Program to better prioritize transit-connected biking and walking projects and add stronger accountability for grantees that do not spend funds on time. AB 2263 would authorize the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to reserve some affordable housing units for its employees, and supporters said it would help workers live closer to their jobs and reduce long commutes. The committee reported no opposition on most measures, and after quorum was established it approved the bills, sending them onward mostly to the Committee on Appropriations, with AB 2679 sent to Natural Resources and Water. Several votes were unanimous, while AB 1613 and AB 2168 drew some no votes but still advanced.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's about $2 billion.
• No, no, no, the economy went.
• No, it's just 2%.
• We have to go to no oil and gas production, no fossil fuels.
• risk and no human intervention.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also has a repeat offense provision and takes that from a 2-year felony to a 10-year felony.
• There are no amendments at the desk. The clerk will give the bill its third reading.
• you should have is the confidence that if you are getting a knock on the door for whatever reason at 2:
• And the answer is no because it's serious and lives are in danger, and it's important, and we have the
• And the answer is no because it's serious and lives are in danger, and it's important, and we have the