Transcript Highlights:

• out House Bill 879 as pending business. 879 is Representative Frank's bill, which would define the process
• have to go through that pain when something can be done to bring clarity. to the decision-making process
• Licensed vocational nurses, but I want to thank you all for actively participating in the political process
• know there have been different opinions on whether or not any update to the language would make the process
• The state compels pregnant children to go through the very dangerous process of pregnancy, labor, and

Bills: HB44, HB2200, HB1612, HB2747, HB2038, HB3717, HB1431, HB3800, HB3801, HB3560, HB3246, HB44

Keywords: HB 44, Life of the Mother Act, abortion exceptions, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, fetal survival, Texas abortion law, abortion ban, physician liability, health care provider, disciplinary action, aiding and abetting, emergency abortion, obstetric care

Transcript Highlights:

• But again, when it comes to paying all the many, many people involved in the judicial process, we must
• process.
• allegations of judicial misconduct against judges as well as judicial disability.
• of judicial misconduct against judges as well as judicial disability.
• of judicial misconduct against judges, as well as judicial disability.

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the disciplinary process is administered by the Judicial Conduct Committee, which not only includes
• So the disciplinary process is administered by the Judicial Conduct Committee, which not only includes
• So the disciplinary process is administered by the Judicial Conduct Committee, which not only includes
• So the disciplinary process is administered by the Judicial Conduct Committee, which not only includes
• So the disciplinary process is administered by the Judicial Conduct Committee, which not only includes

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AOT is operating in Bernalillo, the third judicial, and the first judicial has just launched its first
• Process this year.
• Thank you for all the work you do for this judicial district. for this judicial district.
• then the 10th Judicial District.
• process.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's important to note that Judicial Council did a study that found that the workload cost of processing
• So while those numbers may reflect what has happened in the beginning of the process, the process has
• , and the process is quite lengthy.
• things moving forward with their different judicial process, where those that are on probation in the
• We recommend that the Legislature have the judicial branch share its processes for how it goes about

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• As the senior member of the Judicial Retention Committee, I know the retention process well, but for
• The judicial retention process is an element of Vermont's constitutional checks and balances among the
• nominating and appointment process, the support available to new judges, the timeline for the judicial
• and appointment judicial nominating and appointment process,<00:42:09.640> the<00:42:09.760><
• Judicial Retention. Judicial Retention.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have two one-county districts: the Second Judicial District in Ramsey and the Fourth Judicial District
• body for the judicial branch.
• District in Ramsey and the Judicial District in Ramsey and the Fourth<00:02:52.400> Judicial<
• court judges are elected by Judicial court judges are elected by Judicial District<00:03:19.879>
• and processes those million cases.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee heard a presentation from State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba on the Minnesota judicial branch’s 2026-27 budget request. He outlined the courts’ structure and workload, noting 322 judges, about 2,800 staff, roughly 1 million district court cases annually, and a current budget of about $479 million. Shorba emphasized the courts’ constitutional role, the fact that court fines and fees are deposited into the general fund rather than retained by the branch, and recent legislative investments that helped reduce pandemic-era backlogs, improve technology, sustain treatment courts, and raise interpreter and examiner pay. The budget request focused on several areas: a 6% judicial salary increase to address recruitment and retention problems, including a 15% rise in turnover and a 27% drop in applicants since 2020; funding for health care and office lease cost increases; digital accessibility compliance work required by new federal ADA rules; a modernized justice partner access system for court records; higher pay for forensic psychological examiners, whose workload has risen sharply; increased juror compensation from $20 to $100 per day and mileage adjustments; and ongoing funding for interpreters, jury services, and cybersecurity. Shorba said the total request would be a 12% increase over the FY 2026-27 base budget. Members asked follow-up questions about funding for newly launched treatment courts and how those courts are financed after federal grants expire. Shorba said he would provide more detail later and noted the branch generally starts treatment courts with federal funding before seeking state support. Representative Ric also asked about labor negotiations, and Shorba explained that the judicial branch negotiates its own contracts rather than using the executive branch, with three unions involved and many unrepresented employees. No votes or formal actions were taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's important to note that Judicial Council did a study that found that the workload cost of processing
• judicial officer funded.
• It's an entire time through the process, and the process is quite lengthy. Thank you very much.
• things moving forward with their different judicial process, where those that are on probation in the
• So first, focusing on 24-25, we recommend that the legislature have the judicial branch share its processes

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• directory to begin to digitize their notification process.
• I had a question about the judicial transparency information section.
• And so we participate in the political process.
• That's, that's where we are in the process.
• And so judicial pay plays into the democratic process and the true.

Transcript Highlights:

• picnic on the Capitol lawn earlier today and are now here to see firsthand how Oklahoma's legislative process

Bills: HB1675, HB3242, HB1739, HB3320, HB3047, HB4434, HJR1089, HB4432, HB3718, HB3705, SR43, HB1933, HB4248, SB1847, SB1778, HJR1086, HB3001, HB3002, HB3003, HB3004, HB3005, HB3007, HB3008, HB1590, HB1242, HB3818, HB4305, HB1979, HB1225, HB3931, HB4454, HB3849, HB1746, HB3720, HB4275, HB4300, HB3586, HB2268, HB3755, HB4117, HB4294, HB3650, HB4298, HB3270, HB3145, HB3056

Keywords: emergency management, severe weather, youth camp, summer camp, overnight camp, day camp, outdoor education, adventure camp, wilderness program, campground safety, tornado preparedness, flooding, flash flood, high winds, hail, lightning, extreme heat, extreme cold, wildfire smoke, evacuation plan

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:24:34.799> that there aren't um rules, processes that there aren't um rules, processes
• happening while the process continues. happening while the process continues.
• Minnesota Judicial Branch. I'm pleased Minnesota Judicial Branch.
• independence of the judicial branch. independence of the judicial branch.
• Just what would be the processes for find it. The judicial official has to find it.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, High Head, the New Mexico Judiciary, the judicial branch is different from the judicial system.
• Those are within the judicial system, not part of the judicial branch. Why is that different?
• The linear process I discussed is part of a more iterative process.
• process.
• Processing.

Transcript Highlights:

• and our lease costs at the judicial and our lease costs at the judicial center<00:02:17.200>
• There are five judicial officers.
• In both cases, an expanded judicial security unit and intake process with a coordinated response would
• In both cases, an expanded judicial security unit and intake process with a coordinated response would
• in the judicial branch. So thank you. in the judicial branch. So thank you.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3874 and laid it over for possible inclusion in a finance bill. The Minnesota Judicial Branch, represented by State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba and Chief Judge Michael Fritz, presented a supplemental funding request focused on two main areas: judicial safety and security, and the employer share of Minnesota Paid Leave costs. Shorba said the branch was grateful for prior budget support but noted it did not receive salary increases for staff or judges and did not get funding for juror per diem. He explained that the branch is seeking funding for personal data protection, home security, two additional judicial security positions, security for the chief justice at public events, and a revived courthouse security grant program. Much of the testimony centered on rising threats against judges and court staff. Shorba and Fritz described increases in incidents, threats, and disturbances, and Fritz gave several examples of threatening behavior involving judges’ homes, personal information, and online doxxing. They argued that the branch needs better threat assessment, coordination with local law enforcement, and security measures at homes, courthouses, and online. Members expressed support for the concerns and asked questions about how threats are currently handled and whether state patrol officers assigned to security duties would need additional training. The second major topic was the judicial branch’s request for funding to cover its employer contribution to Minnesota Paid Leave, which took effect in January 2026. Shorba said the branch followed MMB’s calculations and expected the cost to be addressed through broader state government funding, but the branch did not receive an operational adjustment. He said the branch is now having to hold positions open to absorb the cost. Members questioned why the request was not included in the earlier budget process, and Shorba responded that the branch believed the issue would be handled centrally and later learned it had not been funded for the judiciary. No vote on the funding requests was taken in the discussion shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• She and her wife had to go through the process of the home visits, the long adoption court process.
• Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 808, which would create an expedited judicial review process
• We've streamlined permitting processes. We've decreased density. We've created by-right processes.
• SB 808 creates a faster, more efficient judicial process to resolve these disputes.
• review process.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on civil rights, family law, privacy, housing, and artificial intelligence. SB 477 would clarify FEHA procedures for the Civil Rights Department, including tolling deadlines by agreement and updating complaint definitions; it drew some concern about venue and convenience but was moved forward. SB 450 would confirm California jurisdiction over adoption proceedings for children born in the state even if families have moved away, and would require all legal parents to be listed on adoption orders; it received strong support, especially from LGBTQ family advocates, and passed to Appropriations. SB 683 would clarify that people whose name, image, or likeness is misused may seek TROs or injunctions under existing publicity-rights law; opposition from media and First Amendment groups focused on the 48-hour compliance default and speech concerns, but the bill advanced as amended to Privacy and Consumer Protection. The committee also considered SB 11, the AI Abuse Protection Act, which would regulate voice, image, and video cloning technology, require warnings, and direct the Judicial Council to develop evidence standards for AI; it passed to Public Safety. SCR 66, a resolution designating May 1 as Law Day and emphasizing the rule of law, was adopted unanimously after supportive comments from members. SB 808 would create expedited judicial review for housing permit denials that violate state law; supporters said it would reduce costly delay and help housing production, while the Judicial Council opposed it as imposing unreasonable timelines and staffing burdens. The bill passed to Appropriations despite concerns about court resources and broader housing-law issues. The committee then took up two privacy bills from Senator Wiener. SB 59 would automatically keep confidential court records for adult and retroactive gender/name change petitions, expanding protections previously enacted for minors; supporters described real-world doxxing and harassment, while opponents raised First Amendment and public-records objections, and the bill passed to Appropriations. SB 497 would require warrants for out-of-state law enforcement access to California prescription monitoring data, expand transgender shield protections for gender-affirming care records, and bar certain disclosures without legal process; the author framed it as a response to out-of-state anti-trans enforcement, and the bill was presented with support from trans advocacy groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have filed House Bill 2699, which is a House bill regarding tampering with judicial officers and judicial
• Public trust in courts depends on believing that judicial processes are protected from interference,
• My concern... ...judicial officers, prosecutors, all of that.
• Again, I agree with what you said about it goes to the core of the judicial process.
• judge or a judicial employee under our current law.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• compensation as well as judicial transparency, accountability, judicial compensation as well as judicial
• First off, you all have judicial conduct that you can't fight back.
• As an organization, 100% fully behind increase in judicial pay.
• On the bill, just so I can be consistent as a judicial officer.
• I can be consistent as a judicial officer.

Bills: HB40

Keywords: law enforcement, sheriffs, constables, contracts, county authority

Summary: The Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence met to hear House Bill 1761, a broad judicial package focused on increasing judicial compensation and adding accountability and efficiency measures. The chair explained that HB 1707 and HB 2100 were withdrawn from the agenda, and that HB 1761 would be taken up first because many judges and stakeholders were present. The committee substitute for HB 1761 proposed a 30% increase in base judicial pay to $182,000, changes to judicial retirement linkage, stronger judicial conduct provisions, and efficiency measures such as targeted reporting for judges not meeting benchmarks, appellate in-person meeting encouragement, and time limits on certain motions. The chair and several supporters said judicial pay had reached “emergency status,” citing Texas’s low national ranking and difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified judges. Witnesses in support included presiding and district judges, the State Bar’s judicial section, business and trial lawyer groups, and prosecutors. They emphasized that many judges work long hours off the bench, handle warrants at night and on weekends, manage heavy dockets, and face recruitment problems in both urban and rural counties. Supporters also said higher pay would help attract experienced lawyers, retain judges, and improve court efficiency. Several witnesses and members discussed judicial accountability, including public reporting of court performance and the role of the Texas Supreme Court and presiding judges in setting benchmarks. Some members raised concerns that raw statistics can be misleading because judges also do substantial off-the-bench work and often help cover other courts’ dockets. There was also testimony and discussion about the bill’s conduct and discipline provisions. A representative of the Texas Civil Rights Project opposed parts of the bill that would tie pay raises to changes affecting judicial independence, warning about subjective bail-related discipline standards and possible chilling effects. The executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct cautioned against civil penalties for complainants, saying it could discourage good-faith complaints and create litigation risks. Other witnesses supported accountability reforms but urged caution about unintended consequences, especially for family and emergency cases and for judges handling warrants and other time-sensitive matters. After testimony, the committee withdrew the committee substitute and left HB 1761 pending, then recessed the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Could you help walk me through the process of this? So I understand...
• Judicial system.
• process, calling them inefficient or corrupt?
• ...in the manufacturing process, because that greatly concerns me.
• process, and then a license is granted.

Bills: SB31, SB33, SB20, SB217, SB264, SB269, SB650, SB681, SB528, SB502, SB740, SB916, SB995, SB10, SB2581, SB2570, SB3031, SB24, SB379, SB1171, SB1121, SB1120, SB1061, SB1036, SB1019, SB890, SB11, SB868, SB1188, SB1254, SB2778, SB2543, SB2443, SB1333, SB1259, SB1401, SB1404, SB2139, SB2165, SB2237, SB2268, SB1202, SB1198, SB1212, SB1451, SB1470, SB1498, SB965, SB1547, SB1667, SB1818, SB1902, SB2129, SB2078, SB2069, SB1737, SB1589, SB1318, SB387, SB1150, SB1574, SB2127, SB3034, SB860, SB1278, SCR5, SCR32, SB4, SB23, SB1762, SB34, SB60, SB706, SB1814, SB1220, SB523, SB565, SB1253, SB840, SB764, SB2383, SB2155, SB1535, SB1423, SB1566, SB1804, SB1728, SB1816, SB1952, SB75, SB2068, SB1455, SB213, SB627, SB2037, SB670, SB896, SB917, SB1184, SB971, SB1255, SB1261, SB1283, SB991, SB1733, SB21, SB231, SB739, SB1252, SB1371, SB646, SB3, SCR27, SB552, SB1405, SB1948, SB243, SJR1, SB31, SB33, SB20, SB217, SB264, SB269, SB650, SB681, SB528, SB502, SB740, SB916, SB995, SB10, SB2581, SB2570, SB3031, SB24, SB379, SB1171, SB1121, SB1120, SB1061, SB1036, SB1019, SB890, SB11, SB868, SB1188, SB1254, SB2778, SB2543, SB2443, SB1333, SB1259, SB1401, SB1404, SB2139, SB2165, SB2237, SB2268, SB1202, SB1198, SB1212, SB1451, SB1470, SB1498, SB965, SB1547, SB1667, SB1818, SB1902, SB2129, SB2078, SB2069, SB1737, SB1589, SB1318, SB387, SB1150, SB1574, SB2127, SB3034, SB860, SB1278, SCR5, SCR32, SB546, SB647, SB648, SB1493, SB1709, SB2001, HB5669, HB3115, HB5655, HB5675, HB5689, HB5690, HB5653, HB3228, HB2802, HB45, HB1318, HB5560, HB2894, HB4344, HB2775, HB33, HB 12, HB148

Keywords: SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, unborn child, abortion exception, abortion ban, physician liability, health care liability claim, aiding and abetting, Texas Medical Board, State Bar of Texas, continuing medical education

Transcript Highlights:

• So, just a little bit of an overview: the judicial branch's mission The judicial branch's mission is
• We have two one-county districts: the Second Judicial District in Ramsey and the Fourth Judicial District
• body for the judicial branch.
• body for the judicial branch.
• District in Ramsey and the Judicial District in Ramsey and the Fourth<00:03:34.920> Judicial<

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee met to approve the January 16 minutes and then heard a budget presentation from State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba on behalf of the Minnesota judicial branch. Shorba described the courts’ structure, mission, and workload, noting 322 judges, about 2,800 staff, roughly 1 million district court filings annually, and a current budget of about $479 million. He emphasized the branch’s constitutional obligation to provide fair and timely access to justice and said the courts are funded almost entirely through legislative appropriations. He also highlighted recent accomplishments made possible by prior legislative funding, including eliminating the pandemic felony and gross misdemeanor backlog, expanding remote and hybrid hearings, improving courtroom technology, sustaining treatment courts, and increasing pay for interpreters and psychological examiners. Shorba outlined the judicial branch’s 2026–27 budget request, which he said totals a 12% increase over the starting biennial base. Major requests included $77.3 million in 2026–27 and $104 million in 2028–29 for a 6% judicial salary increase and related compensation costs; $5.1 million in 2026–27 and $1.76 million in 2028–29 for digital accessibility compliance with new federal ADA rules; $4 million in 2026–27 and $800,000 in 2028–29 to modernize justice partner access to court records; $7.2 million in 2026–27 to raise pay for contract psychological examiners; and $18 million in 2026–27 to increase juror pay from $20 to $100 per day and align mileage rates with federal rates. He also discussed ongoing funding needs for interpreter services, jury costs, cybersecurity, and other statutorily required court services, saying temporary funding provided in the prior session will expire and that permanent support is needed. Members asked questions about treatment courts, employee bargaining, and mental health competency issues. Representative Eric requested more detail on funding for newly launched and existing treatment courts, and Shorba said many treatment courts begin with federal grants before transitioning to state support after about three years. He confirmed the judicial branch negotiates its own employee contracts rather than the executive branch doing so, and said the branch has three unions plus many unrepresented employees. On mental health and competency, Shorba said the branch is focused on obtaining timely psychological evaluations and is not responsible for treatment services themselves, but acknowledged a shortage of examiners and treatment beds and said a related competency board would be testifying the following week. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond adoption of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So yes, there is judicial supervision.
• judicial administration.
• In 2021, the judicial branch began studying improper litigation and its impact The judicial branch began
• branch, and these emanate sometimes from court action itself, the judicial certification For the judicial
• Next is the judicial certification opinion.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met with a quorum present and heard several Office of the State Courts Administrator presentations. Judge Mark Mahan discussed the impact of 2023’s HB 837 litigation reforms on court operations, explaining that the law’s changes to comparative negligence, filing deadlines, collateral source evidence, premises liability, bad faith claims, attorney’s fees, and offer-of-judgment rules triggered a major March 2023 civil filing surge. He described how filings tripled statewide, with especially large increases in auto negligence and premises liability cases, and outlined how circuits responded through active case management, added resources, and workflow changes. Members asked whether the bill’s immediate effective date contributed to the surge and whether clearance rates would normalize over time; Judge Mahan said the court system viewed its response as a success and expected rates to settle as the backlog is worked through. The committee then received a presentation on problem-solving courts from Jennifer Grandal and Judge Nina Richardson. Grandal reviewed Florida’s drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts, dependency and early childhood courts, noting statewide best-practice standards, annual reporting requirements, funding sources, and data collection systems. Judge Richardson gave a local perspective on treatment courts, emphasizing that they address underlying mental health and substance use issues, rely on judicial supervision and sanctions as well as incentives, and help participants achieve recovery and avoid reoffending. She said the programs are accountable, transparent, and effective, and thanked the Legislature for continued support. Finally, Judge Rachel Nordby and Eric McClure outlined the judicial branch’s legislative agenda. Nordby summarized the Supreme Court workgroup’s recommendations to expand Florida’s vexatious litigant law, including broader coverage, fewer qualifying adverse cases, a longer lookback period, and a public records exemption for stricken defamatory or sham material. McClure then highlighted additional agenda items: modernizing the duty-judge statute, expanding senior management retirement eligibility, authorizing additional judgeships based on workload studies, removing the statutory cap on court-ordered nonbinding arbitration compensation, protecting appellate clerks’ personal information, allowing alternative authentication for certain judicial notarizations, and creating a hearsay exception for guardian ad litem reports and testimony. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after member introductions and staff introductions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Turning to page six, Item 6, judicial salaries... Item 6, judicial salaries.
• Moving on to item two, judicial salaries: as we've discussed, the Judicial Compensation Commission has
• for changes in judicial tenure.
• of judicial misconduct against judges, as well as judicial disability.
• Because people are more upset about the judicial rulings than they are any true allegation of judicial

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee convened for its first hearing of the 89th regular session, confirmed a quorum, adopted committee rules by a 15-0 vote, and began review of Senate Bill 1, the state budget for fiscal years 2026-27. Chair Huffman outlined the committee’s organization, introduced staff, and described the budget as conservative and focused on one-time investments. She highlighted major SB 1 priorities including property tax relief, full funding for public education formulas, teacher pay, school safety, border security, Medicaid growth, dementia research, energy and water infrastructure, transportation, wildfire suppression, and other capital and public safety needs. Comptroller Glenn Hager presented the biennial revenue estimate, saying the state has $194.6 billion available for general-purpose spending in 2026-27, with a projected $23.8 billion ending balance from the current biennium. He cautioned that revenue growth is returning to more normal levels and that lawmakers should avoid committing short-term surpluses to ongoing expenses. He also explained that the Economic Stabilization Fund is projected to hit its constitutional cap, meaning an estimated $5.6 billion in severance tax and related revenue would remain in general revenue in the upcoming biennium rather than flow into the fund. Senators discussed whether to raise or rename the fund and the implications of keeping more severance-tax revenue in general revenue. The Legislative Budget Board then gave an overview of SB 1 and the budget’s major funding changes. LBB staff explained that the bill is essentially flat at $332.9 billion in all funds, but includes large method-of-finance shifts and major property tax relief. They detailed how prior property tax relief enacted in the 88th Legislature grew from an estimated $18 billion to $22.7 billion because of higher property values and hold-harmless provisions, and said SB 1 continues that relief with a total of $51 billion in ongoing and new property tax support. Members asked extensive questions about the automatic growth in school tax compression, the constitutional homestead exemption, COVID-era federal funding, Medicaid assumptions, and the sunset of the non-homestead circuit breaker. No additional votes or final budget actions were taken beyond adoption of the committee rules.