Bills: SB903 , SB2101 , SB2550 , SB2983 , HB2433 , SCR8 , SCR20 , SCR28 , SCR32 , SCR40 , SCR48 , SCR55 , SCR57 , SCR69 , SCR74 , SCR83 , SCR87 , SCR94 , SCR99 , SCR114 , SCR139 , SCR160 , SCR165 , SCR177 , SCR178 , SCR179 , SCR41 , SCR78 , SCR90 , SCR130 , SCR159 , SCR162 , SCR173 , SB2024 , SB2075 , SB2730 , HB2581 , SB2050 , SB2471 , SB2466 , HB1163 , HB1514 , SB3082 , SB2135 , SB2727 , SB3097 , HB1696 , HB2021 , SR20 , SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903 , SB2101 , SB2550 , SB2983 , HB2433 , SCR8 , SCR20 , SCR28 , SCR32 , SCR40 , SCR48 , SCR55 , SCR57 , SCR69 , SCR74 , SCR83 , SCR87 , SCR94 , SCR99 , SCR114 , SCR139 , SCR160 , SCR165 , SCR177 , SCR178 , SCR179 , SCR41 , SCR78 , SCR90 , SCR130 , SCR159 , SCR162 , SCR173 , SB2024 , SB2075 , SB2730 , HB2581 , SB2050 , SB2471 , SB2466 , HB1163 , HB1514 , SB3082 , SB2135 , SB2727 , SB3097 , HB1696 , HB2021 , SR20 , SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903 , SB2101 , SB2550 , SB2983 , HB2433 , SCR8 , SCR20 , SCR28 , SCR32 , SCR40 , SCR48 , SCR55 , SCR57 , SCR69 , SCR74 , SCR83 , SCR87 , SCR94 , SCR99 , SCR114 , SCR139 , SCR160 , SCR165 , SCR177 , SCR178 , SCR179 , SCR41 , SCR78 , SCR90 , SCR130 , SCR159 , SCR162 , SCR173 , SB2024 , SB2075 , SB2730 , HB2581 , SB2050 , SB2471 , SB2466 , HB1163 , HB1514 , SB3082 , SB2135 , SB2727 , SB3097 , HB1696 , HB2021 , SR20 , SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903 , SB2101 , SB2550 , SB2983 , HB2433 , SCR8 , SCR20 , SCR28 , SCR32 , SCR40 , SCR48 , SCR55 , SCR57 , SCR69 , SCR74 , SCR83 , SCR87 , SCR94 , SCR99 , SCR114 , SCR139 , SCR160 , SCR165 , SCR177 , SCR178 , SCR179 , SCR41 , SCR78 , SCR90 , SCR130 , SCR159 , SCR162 , SCR173 , SB2024 , SB2075 , SB2730 , HB2581 , SB2050 , SB2471 , SB2466 , HB1163 , HB1514 , SB3082 , SB2135 , SB2727 , SB3097 , HB1696 , HB2021 , SR20 , SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Transcript Highlights:

• state law prohibits this.
• State law, this is not—this is already allowed by federal law, but state law prohibits this.
• I'm a professor of constitutional law at UC Law San Francisco.
• state law.
• State law would apply.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• state law prohibits this.
• State law, this is not—this is already allowed by federal law, but state law prohibits this.
• I'm a professor of constitutional law at UC Law, San Francisco.
• state law. ...of existing federal law, Section 1983, under state law, and so that if a federal, state
• State law would apply. So, what would happen ... State law would apply.

Summary: The committee heard and acted on several bills. SB 479 by Senator Arreguín would allow Berkeley, Long Beach, and Pasadena, as local health jurisdictions, to use multidisciplinary homeless response teams and share specified information across departments; supporters said it would improve coordination and services for unsheltered residents, and the bill passed 9-0 to Appropriations. SB 46 by Senator Umberg would direct the Secretary of State to keep constitutionally ineligible presidential candidates off the California ballot, including anyone who has already served two terms; supporters argued it was a constitutional enforcement measure, while Senator Niello questioned whether it was needed, and it passed 6-1 to Appropriations. SB 99 by Senator Blakespear would improve coordination between military and civilian systems by requiring courts and law enforcement to account for military protective orders and notify military authorities of possible violations; the Department of Defense supported it, while the ACLU raised due process concerns, and it passed 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 719 by Senator Cabaldon would extend the sunset on state reporting about high-risk automated decision systems from 2029 to 2032, and it passed 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 300 by Senator Padilla would strengthen California’s new AI chatbot law by requiring operators to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material; supporters said the existing law was insufficient, while industry groups warned against expanding a brand-new regime before it had been tested, and it passed 9-0 to Appropriations. SB 381 by Senator Wahab would allow adult adoptees, and descendants of adoptees, to obtain original birth certificates and create a nonbinding contact preference form for birth parents; supporters described health, identity, and dignity concerns, while some members raised privacy concerns, and it passed 13-0 to the Senate Health Committee. SB 33 by Senator Cortese would eliminate the sunset on the public works contractor claim-resolution process, with supporters saying it reduces litigation and speeds payment, and it passed 10-0 to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• federal immigration laws.
• local law enforcement. the law enforcement field by providing funding the local law enforcement agencies
• That is federal law.
• I mean, I think the law was great. It should stay the law.
• law enforcement training.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee met to hear SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. The sponsor described the bill as a response to federal immigration priorities and said it replaces a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, expands local-federal cooperation, increases penalties for crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants, requires detention in certain cases, broadens information sharing, funds detention-bed expansion and law-enforcement training, and ends in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. The bill also includes provisions related to sanctuary policies, voter fraud, transport of unauthorized aliens, and driver’s license-related offenses. The sponsor said the bill appropriates roughly $300 million overall, including $250 million for grants and $48 million for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for interdiction and border-related enforcement work. Committee members questioned the bill’s scope, costs, and implementation. Senators focused heavily on the tuition-waiver repeal, asking how many students would be affected and whether the bill would harm students who have long lived in Florida. They also pressed on whether the bill should include stronger E-Verify provisions, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, whether local officials could be penalized for policy choices, and how immigration status would be verified in court and jail settings. The sponsor and Senator Fine said the tuition waiver would be removed for undocumented students, that the bill does not address E-Verify, and that the measure is intended to make immigration status a factor in detention and sentencing. Questions also addressed detention-bed capacity, reimbursement rates, and whether corrections staff would receive bonuses or salary increases; sponsors said bonuses are included for participating law enforcement, while broader salary issues would be handled in the regular budget process. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters and information-only witnesses, including Sheriff Bob Gualtieri and former officials, said the bill would help Florida coordinate with federal authorities, expand bed space, and close loopholes in existing immigration enforcement. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Policy Institute, labor groups, and immigrant advocates argued the bill is unconstitutional, likely to trigger litigation, and harmful to families, schools, and the economy. They warned that the pretrial detention provisions could lead to wrongful detentions and that the tuition changes would reduce access to higher education and cost the state tuition revenue. No final vote is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee continued through public comment and extended the meeting to complete the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• federal immigration laws.
• local law enforcement...
• That is federal law.
• I mean, I think the law was great. It should stay the law.
• law enforcement training.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee took up SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. Gruters described the measure as a broad crackdown on illegal immigration that would replace a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, create a $250 million grant program for local law enforcement, fund additional Department of Agriculture interdiction staff and facilities, expand pretrial detention for certain unauthorized immigrants, increase criminal penalties, require more cooperation with ICE, and eliminate in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students. He and supporters framed the bill as a way to support law enforcement, deter illegal immigration, and align Florida with federal enforcement efforts. Committee questioning focused heavily on the bill’s education, detention, and enforcement provisions. Senators pressed Gruters and Fine on why the bill did not address employer sanctions or E-Verify, whether the tuition changes would affect students who had grown up in Florida, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, and whether the bill would create practical burdens for prosecutors, jails, and local officials. Gruters said he was open to working on E-Verify in regular session but not to amending this bill, and Fine argued the tuition repeal would apply to undocumented students who had qualified under existing law. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified in support, saying ICE bed capacity was still insufficient and that county jails needed more resources to honor detainers. Mark Schlachman of FSU Law offered historical context, noting prior state-federal cooperation efforts and warning of unintended consequences, while several public witnesses opposed the bill as unconstitutional, costly, and harmful to immigrant families and the economy. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida Policy Institute, AFL-CIO, and immigrant advocacy groups argued the bill would invite litigation, encourage racial profiling, harm the workforce and higher education, and punish law-abiding immigrants and their families. They emphasized that immigration is a federal matter, that K-12 education must be provided regardless of status, and that removing in-state tuition would reduce access to college and hurt Florida’s economy. Some speakers urged the committee to grandfather current students if the tuition waiver is repealed. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote reflected in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it is an outdated law.
• And so the law.
• Is that under state law, federal law? Both?
• Well, our voter ID law is a state law, so this is, this is how the state law was put together, and it's
• Previous case law.

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• So we know Flock captures everything, not just violations of the law.
• By no means is my testimony here against law enforcement.
• So how is that defined in the law? And do you have objection to that? Mr.
• This is a classic case of the law trying to catch up with technology.
• As to the electric vehicle, my son-in-law, who just came the electric vehicle, my son-in-law, who just

Summary: The committee first took up SB 1114, which would appropriate $1 million to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to investigate patient brokering in behavioral health and substance abuse treatment. Sponsor Sen. Werner described patient brokering as a continuing abuse tied to the state’s Medicaid fraud crisis, especially affecting Native Americans, and said the county attorney had the capacity to handle statewide oversight. The bill was moved and received a do pass recommendation on a 9-0-1 vote. The committee then considered SB 1111, as amended by a strike-everything amendment, to create statewide rules for automated license plate readers. Supporters from law enforcement said ALPRs are important for investigations, missing persons, stolen vehicles, and violent crimes, and argued the bill adds needed guardrails and training requirements. Opponents, including the ACLU, Institute for Justice, and private citizens, warned the systems enable mass surveillance, can be inaccurate, and raise Fourth Amendment and privacy concerns; they also objected to broad terms like “legitimate” law enforcement purposes and the lack of a clear retention limit. The committee adopted the amendment and then gave SB 1111, as amended, a do pass recommendation by a 7-2-1 vote. Next, SB 1116, as amended, was heard to require behavioral health claim denials and appeals at AHCCCS to be reviewed by someone with relevant clinical experience. Sen. Werner said the bill responds to improper denials and appeals handled by staff without behavioral health expertise; AHCCCS was neutral but said the bill could create compliance and staffing issues because “relevant clinical experience” is not well defined. The committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill 10-0. SB 1122, also as amended, would bar AHCCCS from requiring prior authorization or 100% prepayment review for certain behavioral health services under the American Indian Health Plan unless a provider is on a corrective action plan; Werner said it was aimed at ensuring providers are paid and reducing patient brokering. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1122 10-0. Finally, the committee heard SB 1072, which would appropriate ongoing state and Medicaid funds to DES for rate increases for home- and community-based services and room-and-board services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, with reporting on workforce outcomes. Supporters from APAD and providers said the direct care workforce is in crisis, with large numbers of vacancies, overtime costs, and unassigned authorizations, and argued the funding is needed to retain staff and maintain care. Members discussed wage disparities, whether funds would reach caregivers, and the limits of legislative control over private provider pay, but no vote on SB 1072 was reached before the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no law. There's no state law.
• There is no law. There's no state law.
• He's asking us to ignore the law. Are you kidding me? He's asking us to ignore the law.
• But breaking news, the Voting Rights Act is still the law, senators. It's still the law.
• Senators, it's still the law.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no law. There's no state law.
• There is no law. There's no state law.
• He's asking us to ignore the law. Are you kidding me? He's asking us to ignore the law.
• But breaking news, the Voting Rights Act is still the law, senators. It's still the law.
• It's about whether we uphold the rule of law. It's about whether we uphold the rule of law.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no law. There's no state law.
• There is no law. There's no state law.
• He's asking us to ignore the law. Are you kidding me? He's asking us to ignore the law.
• But breaking news, the Voting Rights Act is still the law, senators. It's still the law.
• Senators, it's still the law.

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:

• judges. law judges. law judges.
• That's why we have law after law after That's why we have law after law after That's why we have law
• after law after law to protect our law to protect our law to protect our children.
• What does the law the law the law say? So we have to define these say?
• There's nothing in in this in the law, current law or in the amendment law, current law or in the amendment

Keywords: 920, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no law. There's no state law. There's no state law. There is no law. There's no state law.
• But breaking news, the Voting Rights Act is still the law, senators. It's still the law.
• It's about whether we uphold the rule of law. It's about whether we uphold the rule of law.
• That's the law of this state, passed by Florida voters with more than That's the law of the state, passed
• And those amendments are still the law today.

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:

• Respect for law and a commitment to that which is right.
• Senator Gates replied that there is no law—no state law and no federal law—that prohibits mid-district
• Senator Gates said there is no law—no state law and no federal law—that prohibits mid-district, mid-census
• But breaking news, the Voting Rights Act is still the law, senators. It's still the law.
• It's about whether we uphold the rule of law.

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:

• Basically, um law with murder.
• </c> fairness for all parties under the law. fairness for all parties under the law.
• All this law does say is if you don't do what the law says, you lose your good faith protection.
• This measure requires the law.
• </c> First Law Center on Zoom. First Law Center on Zoom.

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several housing, landlord-tenant, and condominium-related measures. Senate Bill 62, relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority, would allow HPHA-owned parcels and related areas such as parking lots to be closed to the public with posted signage; HPHA strongly supported the bill, saying it would help reduce loitering, drinking, and other problems, and no further testimony was offered. Senate Bill 822, relating to the landlord tenant code, would create a three-year working group in the Department of the Attorney General to study and improve the residential landlord-tenant code. The Judiciary supported the measure but said the scope should be narrowed; the Attorney General opposed leading the group and suggested another agency should do so; Hawaii Realtors and the Hawaii Worker Center supported the concept and suggested moving the chairmanship to the Judiciary and including Legal Aid participation. The Judiciary said it could chair the group if the bill were narrowed to matters within the court’s purview. Senate Bill 38, relating to housing, would limit counties from imposing stricter conditions, AMI requirements, or fee-waiver reductions on certain affordable housing proposals if those changes would increase project costs. HHFDC supported the bill, saying county changes after state approval create uncertainty for developers, while the Hawaii State Association of Counties opposed it as an intrusion on local authority and a restriction on county safety and infrastructure conditions. Members asked about whether existing county review periods were sufficient, and the county association said the main concern was the bill’s language limiting counties from making cost-increasing conditions. Senate Bill 146, relating to condominiums, would revise alternative dispute resolution procedures for condo disputes, including evaluative mediation and binding arbitration. The Hawaii Real Estate Commission said it took no position overall but supported a $150 mediation fee and asked for a similar arbitration fee; Community Associations Institute supported the bill with suggested amendments; however, most testimony was strongly opposed by condominium owners and advocates, who said the bill had been changed to the detriment of owners and would increase costs and reduce protections. The committee noted 44 testimonies on the bill, with 2 in support, 37 in opposition, and 2 with comments. Senate Bill 253, relating to condominium reserves, would require a detailed budget summary to stand on its own, remove a good-faith defense for certain noncompliant budgets, and clarify standing and the association’s burden regarding substantial compliance. Hawaii Realtors and Community Associations Institute supported the measure as improving transparency and giving owners and buyers a clearer picture of association finances. Greg Msakian also supported it, arguing it would help owners and describing problems he experienced with budget committee exclusion and budget noncompliance in his own association. The discussion ended while testimony on the bill was still underway, with additional witnesses expected.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an evolving area of the law.
• It's the superior law. The U.S. Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land.
• But the law is the law of the law.
• So if the law is the law and the law is consistent, and if it came before the Supreme Court, you would
• And if you're making changes in Southeast Florida to comply with state law and the changes in state law

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an evolving area of the law.
• It's the superior law. The U.S. Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land.
• So again, on the racial issues, the law... ...the law is continuing to move. Yeah.
• But the law is the law of the law.
• So if the law is the law and the law is consistent, and if it came before the Supreme Court, you would

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum and heard a Governor’s Office presentation on a proposed congressional reapportionment map. The governor’s counsel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be considered at all in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection law and should be treated as non-severable. The presentation also discussed the pending U.S. Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais and the Florida Supreme Court’s Black Voters Matter decision as part of the legal rationale for the map. Jason Parada, who said he drew the map alone, described the map as based on 2020 census block data, with county-level population estimates used only as a guide to identify faster-growing areas. He said the plan keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores similar to the current benchmark map, and uses traditional geographic and political boundaries such as roads, railways, county lines, and municipal lines. He walked through regional changes, emphasizing a race-neutral redesign that significantly altered South Florida, including changes to districts in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and the Everglades, while leaving several northern districts largely unchanged. Members questioned the witnesses extensively about the legal theory, the use of partisan data, the role of race, population growth, and the timing and review of the map. The witnesses said partisan data was considered along with other traditional redistricting criteria, but race was not used. They also said they could not speak to who else reviewed the map beyond EOG staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns about the map’s compactness, county and city splits, the apparent partisan effects, and the fact that the map was released shortly before the special session. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and read the law that MOSERS has.
• But as my current reading and understanding of the law, the federal law, and federal requirements as
• s Law, is how this all started.
• It's called Mason's Law.
• s Law, the Purple Alert.

Keywords: 959, house, all