Transcript Highlights:

• I refer to this bill as my Secretary of State bill.
• So I refer to this bill as my Secretary of State bill.
• What's different about the law, this bill that's being proposed, that would require you to spend 50%
• Because that's about 50% of what gets collected, what would we spend because of this bill that we're
• So do you see anything in this proposed bill that would cause us to spend more money?

Committees: House Elections , House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The committee first met in executive session on House Bill 1871. Members adopted a committee substitute with technical cleanup language, then approved two amendments: one restoring the current 25-foot distance from an election site entrance instead of the bill’s 50-foot change, and another removing the presidential preference primary from the substitute. Members discussed the presidential primary at length, with supporters arguing it should remain in the bill and opponents saying it should be handled separately. The committee then rolled the amendments into a new substitute and voted 13-1, with two present, to do pass House Bill 1871 with the House Committee Substitute. The committee then heard House Bill 2125, sponsored by Representative Banderman, which would codify and expand several Secretary of State election-related authorities. The bill would require the Department of Revenue to share citizenship-related information with the Secretary of State for voter registration verification, make a technical wording change, remove a sunset on the Secretary of State’s subpoena authority for election investigations, and extend the Secretary of State’s technology trust fund fee. Testimony from the Secretary of State’s office supported the bill, emphasizing existing data-sharing practices, cybersecurity needs, and the importance of the technology fee. Some members raised concerns about the scope of subpoena power, the meaning of “frivolous” complaints, single-subject issues, and the fiscal note, while opponents criticized the fee and the expansion of state power. No vote was taken on HB 2125 in the portion provided. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1812, which would require monthly transmission of death records from the Department of Health and Senior Services to the Secretary of State for voter roll maintenance. The sponsor said the bill simply codifies a process already being done annually and would help keep voter rolls current. Witnesses in support called it a common-sense election integrity measure, while members asked about privacy, matching records accurately, and whether monthly updates would create administrative burdens. The Secretary of State’s office supported the bill, and there was no opposition testimony. The hearing on House Bill 1812 concluded, and the Elections Committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• ' or 'We are for this bill.'
• capital spending needs arise.
• Even if they have budget capacity to spend, but they don't have the cash to pay for their spending?
• was the last known date of spending for Sierra Vista.
• We have done a freezing of all non-essential spending.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Audit Committee

Summary: The committee first heard a follow-up on the Arizona State Board of Chiropractic Examiners special audit. The Auditor General’s contractor reported that the board has made progress on most of the 28 recommendations from the 2024 audit, with 25 in process and three not yet implemented. Remaining concerns included complaint investigations not being resolved within 180 days, continued open meeting law compliance problems, and failure to consult the Attorney General’s open meeting law experts. The follow-up also identified new issues with posting disciplinary/non-disciplinary actions and maintaining a complete public records request log. Board staff said they had adopted new complaint timelines, subpoena limits, conflict-of-interest procedures, public meeting guidance, training, and a new licensing platform, and they described efforts to professionalize investigations and improve transparency. Members pressed the board on open meeting violations, complaint backlogs, lobbying activity, and the resignation of the board chair, while the executive director said the audit findings were being treated as a roadmap for reform. The committee then received the January 2026 Arizona school district financial risk analysis. The Auditor General’s office said the number of highest-risk districts rose from two to nine, and districts approaching highest risk increased from seven to nine. The report highlighted common risk factors such as declining student counts, budget reserve problems, use of capital funds for operations, and weakening general fund positions. Tucson Unified was used as an example of a highest-risk district, with declining enrollment, reserve declines, and capital funds redirected to operations; Scottsdale Unified was cited as approaching highest risk. The office explained its web-based dashboard, district action plans, and ongoing outreach to affected districts. Sierra Vista Unified School District superintendent Terry Romo then presented the district’s response to its financial risk designation. She said she inherited the problems, quickly developed an action plan, and is working to stabilize enrollment, reduce staffing through attrition, close an elementary school, freeze nonessential spending, tighten purchase controls, and renegotiate or cancel high-cost contracts. She also said the district is redirecting DAA funds, considering sale or lease of property, and improving communication with families through letters, videos, and enrollment outreach. Committee members questioned the district about declining enrollment, school safety, academic performance, and the pace of corrective action, while Romo emphasized that the district is trying to protect both students and finances and avoid returning to the high-risk list.

Transcript Highlights:

• Arambula has a bill as well to clamp down on step therapy.
• So that also helps drive up sort of spending in Medi-Cal.
• And then for providers, we have put out the spending plan.
• And then for providers, we have put out the spending plan.
• Department of Finance, we're committing to out-year spending at a time when spending has been problematic

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> look in the bill look in the bill uh<00:45:58.000><c> in</c><00:45:58.119><c> the</c><00:45:58.480
• bill you're on.
• Going on to the next bill, HB 675.
• Going on to the next bill, HB 675.
• So this bill would limit the growth of that spending and therefore limit the growth of property taxes

Summary: The committee met in executive session on HB 563, which revises the adequacy education grant formula, including differentiated aid for free and reduced-price meals, English language learners, and special education, and also restores fiscal capacity disparity aid. Members explained that for FY 26 the formula largely stays the same with the usual 2% increases, while FY 27 would raise the base cost and several aid categories, including a substantial increase in special education differentiated aid. Supporters said the bill recognizes higher special education costs and separates fiscal capacity disparity from the extraordinary needs grant, which they argued better targets property-poor communities. A major point of discussion was the fiscal capacity disparity aid component. Some members asked for more detail on how the formula affected individual towns and how much money was being allocated. The sponsors said the spreadsheet showed the impacts and estimated the fiscal capacity disparity portion at about $13.3 million, benefiting roughly 40 communities, with Manchester the only municipality expected to receive less under the new approach. They also said the change partially rebalances money that had shifted heavily toward larger cities under the extraordinary needs grant and that the special education increase is new money, not taken from the hold harmless or extraordinary needs funds. Several members supported the amendment as a good-faith step and a bipartisan compromise, while others expressed frustration that they did not have enough time or information to review the spreadsheets in detail before voting. After extended debate, the committee recessed for lunch to allow the spreadsheet to be distributed and reviewed, with the understanding that the bill would continue later in the day and then move on to the other bills on the docket.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is opposed by nearly 190 bill.
• </c> simple this bill is. It's my bill. simple this bill is. It's my bill.
• I have been very open in my belief that this bill should be better, that we should cut more spending,
• This bill is a big, deadly bill.
• This bill is a big, deadly bill.

Bills: HR492 , HR499 , HB2056 , SB331

Keywords: immigration, sanctuary jurisdiction, federal compliance, District of Columbia, law enforcement, fentanyl, controlled substances, drug trafficking, public health, research regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• It also doesn't mean you can't spend more money on something you're not spending on now.
• It's not that there aren't resources to spend.
• for us to continue to spend it here.
• 26-27, or not a lot of spending being proposed. wasn't spending being proposed in 26, 27, or not a lot
• of spending being proposed.

Transcript Highlights:

• But instead, we have a spending bill in front. Of us.
• House File Number 3, a high priority spending bill, $600,000.
• And here comes a spending bill before we have budget targets to spend money to hire people to do what
• I'm happy to spend the paltry amount of money that is in this bill in order to prevent the outrageous
• There is also bipartisan opposition to this bill. We passed a great bill two years ago.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill before you is House Bill 2224, an act relating to fire protection districts.
• The bill before you, Substitute House Bill 2325, has four primary components.
• The bill before you, Substitute House Bill 2325, has four primary components.
• Let's hear about your bill.
• I think it's a good bill.

Summary: House Finance heard testimony on several tax and local government bills. HB 2278 would remove the July 1, 2027 expiration on the additional $3-per-room-night tourism promotion area lodging charge; supporters from destination marketing organizations said the revenue has produced strong returns for tourism and events, while questions were raised about how the local ordinances would continue. HB 2583 would lower the population threshold for cities to impose a higher lodging tax and expand authority for public facilities districts; the sponsor and Vancouver supporters said it would help fund a proposed performing arts center and other tourism investments, while hospitality, short-term rental, and some local advocates raised concerns about stakeholder input, equity, and whether the bill was too broad. HB 2224 would change how a city forming a single-city fire protection district handles levy reductions and would exempt part of one levy from the local tax limit; city and firefighter groups supported it as a needed tool for fire and EMS funding, while hospital districts and tax opponents warned about prorationing, governance, and higher taxes. HB 2325 would create a statewide tourism self-supported assessment program funded by participating tourism businesses; supporters from tourism, hospitality, wine, and brewing groups said it would provide a competitive, industry-driven statewide marketing program, while members questioned impacts on specific communities and the need for broader local benefits. HB 2431 would expand from 15 to 50 days the amount of fundraising activity allowed in nonprofit public assembly halls and meeting places, and the Grange supported it as a practical way to keep community halls open. After public testimony, the committee moved into executive session and advanced three bills. HB 2584, a sales and use tax exemption for qualifying farm equipment sold to eligible farmers, passed 14-0 with one excused. HB 2610, which modifies the property tax exemption for nonprofit homeownership development, also passed 14-0 with one excused. HB 2615, which codifies the voluntary disclosure tax program and authorizes temporary tax amnesty, likewise passed 14-0 with one excused. The chair also announced a deadline for amendments on items to be acted on the following day.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if you wanted to take a bill.
• </c> spending so much. spending so much.
• So, I get it and my constituents get it. that money for spending. that money for spending.
• We have legislative need a bill.
• </c> &gt;&gt; So this is spending authority. &gt;&gt; So this is spending authority.

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Presenting a bill on one committee, serving on another committee, eventually presenting a bill on another
• Because if you spend all of your money on home hardening, then the lands we're going to spend the first
• Covered in those attics before I'm going to spend the next dollar on the other.
• So maybe we spend on education. Maybe we spend on some kind of incentive programs for communities.
• But would a little more spending there for how to...

Transcript Highlights:

• The policy committee has four bills to work on, or to look at.
• the money or complete the project before the spending period ends.
• And every year we can spend up to 20% of the award.
• So on this slide, we're really looking at the appropriation bill.
• And finally, the bill draft does. Implement the goals of this program.

Summary: The Rural Health Transformation Committee met to receive an extensive briefing from the Department of Health and Human Services on North Dakota’s federal Rural Health Transformation award. HHS leaders Pat Traynor, Donna Auckland, Jonathan Ollum, and Krista Freming described the $198.9 million award, the tight federal timelines for obligating and liquidating funds, and the need for rapid procurement, CMS approval, and technical assistance. They outlined broad funding priorities including connect tech/data, care closer to home, workforce recruitment and retention, and a “Make North Dakota Healthy Again” prevention initiative focused on chronic disease, movement, nutrition, behavioral health, and community connection. They also emphasized that the program cannot fund new buildings or supplant existing funding, and that sustainability will be a key requirement for all projects. The department previewed likely first-round grant opportunities, including recruitment and retention incentives, technical assistance and equipment grants for rural providers, financial analysis support for rural hospitals, and exploration of a unified electronic health record option. Freming also reviewed four policy bills tied to the award: a presidential fitness test, nutrition continuing medical education, the Physician Assistant Compact, and pharmacist scope-of-practice changes, explaining that these policy actions affect future scoring and funding. HHS said it will work with tribes, local public health, hospitals, medical and pharmacy associations, and other partners, and will use a website, listserv, listening sessions, and committee updates to communicate opportunities. Committee members raised concerns about how the money will reach rural residents, whether newspapers and existing local communication networks will be used, how “rural” and “frontier” will be defined, how faith communities might participate in behavioral health efforts, and how HHS will avoid CMS delays and supplanting issues. HHS responded that the focus will be on where the patient lives and on rural community need, that local public health units and existing structures will be part of outreach, and that technical assistance and template applications will help speed approvals. The committee approved the December 4, 2025 minutes, then recessed into divisions for further work on the appropriations bill and the four policy bills, with the full committee set to reconvene the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then you spend your revenues. And then you end up with your bottom line.
• That just speaks to what feels like a treadmill you're spending into the future.
• You have to keep spending into the future if you want to maintain your current levels of spending because
• Do some combination of that with spending cuts to get to that $2.7 billion target.
• pot of money to allow spending to continue to grow in the midterm.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to spend the money we already had in the bank.
• So I'm looking at the trailer bill language.
• would be reduced by that amount they were unable to spend.
• My other question is in several places in the trailer bill.
• This trailer bill is really a starting place to engage.

Summary: The subcommittee heard several May Revision proposals related to the state’s housing and homelessness reorganization. On the first item, administration and Finance staff described technical adjustments to move administrative positions and resources between the California Housing and Homelessness Agency, HCD, and Cal ICH, plus authority for a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. The LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy position. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would reduce Cal ICH’s capacity and whether adding communications support and a new executive position was appropriate absent new housing funding; the item was held open. The second item proposed a new $100 million CalHFA Disaster Rebuilding Fund, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to help disaster-impacted homeowners access construction financing through tools such as a loan loss guarantee and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help close the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives analysis, the broad delegation in the trailer bill, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on the estimated number of homeowners served, lender and homeowner eligibility, equity safeguards, and the role of the Legislature in program design; the item was held open. The third item was trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including accountability metrics, pro-housing designation requirements for certain large cities and counties, local match requirements, and a mechanism to recapture unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would streamline reporting by using one consistent set of system performance measures and would phase in the new requirements. The LAO questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation, the size and source of the local match, and whether the proposal conflicted with the Legislature’s prior goal of getting funds out quickly. Several senators criticized the added requirements and the lack of new funding, while others said the proposal could improve accountability and reduce administrative burden by reusing existing plans. The item was also held open. The fourth item began a proposal to reduce local development impact fees on state-funded affordable housing projects, framed as a condition on competitive multifamily funding rather than a statewide mandate. The presentation started but the transcript cuts off before questions or action on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• of money that the board would spend across its 10 or so programs.
• Where we'll end up if the spending is utilized?
• I think we'll be well-suited to spend those funds.
• This is a nice, easy topic here: trailer bill language and climate bond amendments.
• From a public standpoint, sticking the public with the bill, that's exploitation.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bills listed on today's bills.
• , it's a bill the title of the bill, it's a bill relating<00:57:25.119><c> to</c><00:57:25.280><c> public
• Members, this bill spends $95 million per biennium. political beliefs or ideology, that the political
• </c> Members, this bill spends $95 million per biennium. And I know some members are...
• Members, this bill spends $95 million per biennium.

Transcript Highlights:

• Strom in House Research on bill drafting, bill summaries, any kind of research you need in education
• </c> administrator so if you'd like a bill administrator so if you'd like a bill heard<00:12:30.480><
• K-12 spending at $25.4 million and all other general fund spending of $41.6 billion for total spending
• of $ 41.6 billion for total spending of $ 41.6 billion for total spending<00:21:34.400><c> of</c> spending
• for spending next biennium.

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, but I would say I spend a lot of time at the horse park myself. >> spend a lot of time bragging about
• it, too. >> I do spend a lot of time.
• I figure if I'm going to spend time and money, I might as well spend the effort of cheerleading it. >
• I figure if I'm going to spend time and money, I might as well spend the effort of cheerleading it. >
• </c> &gt;&gt; Motion on the bill. &gt;&gt; Motion on the bill. &gt;&gt; Second. &gt;&gt; Second.

Committee: Senate State & Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• . bill. bill.
• This bill simply says don't that bill.
• </c> uh the bill HF 3415. uh the bill HF 3415.
• This bill does not this bill does.
• </c> support of this bill. support of this bill.

Bills: HF3415

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Keywords: child care, day care, licensed child care center, license-exempt child care, immigration enforcement, ICE, Customs and Border Protection, CBP, USCIS, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, judicial warrant, facility access, sensitive locations, immigrant families, Minnesota Statutes chapter 142B

Transcript Highlights:

• We put HB 1 in our other um bill.
• There's 34 House bills and one Senate bill that we put into House Bill 2.
• There's 34 House bills and one Senate bill that we put into House Bill 2.
• But what's in the House Bill 2 is to spend this same amount for the next 10 years, right?
• But what's in House Bill 2 is to spend this same amount for the next 10 years, right?

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• bill.
• This bill simply clarifies that political spending is not among the powers that Hawaii grants to the
• . bill. bill.
• </c> the point of this bill. the point of this bill.
• . bill. bill.

Bills: SB1166 , SB888 , SB2387 , SB2471

Committee: House Consumer Protection & Commerce

Summary: The committee heard SB 1166 SD2, a bill on insurance and climate-related damages that would authorize the Hawaii Property Insurance Association and, in amended versions discussed during testimony, other public and private entities to pursue civil actions to recover losses tied to climate disasters and extreme weather. DCCA’s Insurance Division and the Department of the Attorney General raised legal concerns, saying the bill’s scope may not fit the insurance code section being amended, that it could create subject-matter and title issues, and that some subrogation language may be duplicative of existing rate-filing practice. Lawyers for Justice opposed the measure, arguing it conflicts with existing subrogation law and recent Hawaii Supreme Court rulings that treat the judicial lien process as the exclusive remedy. The American Petroleum Institute also opposed, warning the bill would add liability and litigation risk for companies operating under existing permits and could undermine energy reliability and investment. Supporters said the bill would help shift climate-related insurance costs away from residents and onto fossil fuel companies and other responsible parties. Testimony in support came from the Polluters Pay Hawaii Coalition, Center for Climate Integrity, Hawaii Island Council, Our Hawaii, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, who described recent flooding, storm damage, rising premiums, non-renewals, and underinsurance as evidence of a worsening climate-driven insurance crisis. Several supporters urged amendments to give the Attorney General explicit authority to recover insurance-related losses for the Hurricane Relief Fund, HPIA, and private insurers, and to ensure recovered amounts benefit policyholders. Committee members questioned whether HPIA is a private entity, whether the Attorney General could represent it, whether the bill could create double recovery or affect pending climate litigation, and whether insurers would have standing or damages if they are only paying contractual claims. The committee then took up SB 888 SD2, a consumer protection bill that would restrict smart household security device operators from sharing user data with law enforcement without consent or a judicial order, and would bar conditioning device use on such consent. The Office of Consumer Protection testified in support and said an Illinois law could serve as a useful template for exceptions to the warrant requirement. An individual supporter said the measure would protect immigrant communities, judges, and others from surveillance and misuse of private data. No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting provided, and the chair noted additional written testimony submitted in support of SB 1166.