Transcript Highlights:

• We need to fix that during the next legislative session.
• The claim does not seek damages for a judicial decision.
• The scope of absolute judicial immunity is limited.
• Absolute judicial immunity applies only to acts that are judicial in nature and acts taken within the
• Failure to enforce a remand order is not a judicial act.

Summary: The committee first reviewed litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing involving wage claims brought under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Members questioned the department’s authority, jurisdiction, use of attorney fees and costs, and whether defendants had to be licensed. The department explained it has long enforced wage and overtime laws, that the claims were small-dollar cases handled by investigators and counsel, and that one case had been paid and dismissed while others were unresolved or had service issues. The committee voted to review or batch-file the labor cases after discussion. The University of Arkansas System then reported three pending lawsuits: an age- and race-discrimination claim by a tenured professor that was resolved early; an ADA/FMLA retaliation claim by a former employee that survived in part on a motion to dismiss and was moving into discovery; and a Section 1983 claim against a UAMS sergeant arising from a parking-ticket dispute, with the university explaining that only punitive damages could create personal exposure for the officer. The committee reviewed each report and voted to accept them. The Department of Finance and Administration presented a proposed tax settlement reducing a sales-and-use tax assessment from about $48,000 to $20,000 and waiving interest and penalties, which the committee approved for review. The Claims Commission then presented several claims: an unpaid salary differential for a Department of Health employee, reissued warrants, unpaid DHS bills, and multiple negotiated settlements involving ATRS, UAMS, Arkansas State Police, and ARDOT. Members approved or affirmed most of these items, including a $65,000 settlement in the Tetronics/ATRS matter, a $150,000 medical-negligence settlement, and several vehicle-accident settlements. The most extended debate involved a tax-delinquent property sale claim by Sharon Greer and relatives. The claimant argued they were not properly notified and sought the $4,200 excess from the 2009 sale. Land Commissioner counsel explained the excess had escheated to the county after the statutory claim period expired, while members debated sovereign immunity, standing, heirs, and whether the committee could or should award money anyway. The committee ultimately chose to hold the matter over for further review in a future joint session rather than decide it immediately. The committee also heard appeals from dismissed claims, including a UAMS medical-negligence claim, a land-sale notice claim, a pothole claim against ARDOT, and a judicial-immunity claim against the Court of Appeals; most dismissals were affirmed, and the Simpson matter was held over for additional review after the claimant testified.

Transcript Highlights:

• They take care of our warrants and quasi-judicial administration violation hearings.
• The judicial branch legislative budget request is approved by the Supreme Court.
• They can ensure that the case is ripe and ready for judicial effort in time.
• And finally, there is an issue for the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
• They are in the Judicial Branch Budget.

Summary: The committee met to hear fiscal year 2026-2027 legislative budget requests from several justice-related agencies. The Florida Commission on Offender Review requested funding for investigator and revocation staff salary increases to address turnover, plus nonrecurring funds for Wi-Fi, seven vehicles, technology support, and commissioner salary adjustments. The State Courts Administrator presented a broad judicial branch request focused on trial court case-management technology, additional case managers, trust fund authority for child support hearing officers, courthouse furnishings, district court flexibility in staffing, a future courthouse for the Sixth District Court of Appeal, Supreme Court elevator replacement, POM accounting implementation support, judicial security liaison positions tied to the Florida Fusion Center, expanded senior management service authority, and judicial salary adjustments. The Office of the Attorney General outlined pay and operating requests for consumer protection, citizen services, ethics, crime compensation, victim services, vehicle replacement, IT and cybersecurity, lease and operating costs, and PALM-related expenses, while several senators questioned the office about outside counsel contracts, contingency-fee arrangements, transparency, and the use of private law firms. The Department of Corrections made the largest presentation, describing severe staffing shortages, high turnover, rising inmate populations, increased assaults, and heavy overtime use. Secretary Ricky Dixon said the agency’s request was driven by constitutional and public safety needs and included funding for operations, security equipment, inflationary costs, vehicle replacement, offender information system modernization, technology restoration, inmate health services, drug and food cost increases, staffing pilots, maintenance, security infrastructure, Florida PALM, recruitment and retention, and $56 million for new correctional housing units. Members asked about inmate labor, prison safety, overtime, vehicle breakdowns, and whether more National Guard support was needed; Dixon said the agency needed more staffing and pay competitiveness rather than a long-term military presence. A correctional officers’ union representative also urged support for pay raises, citing low pay and staffing concerns. No votes were taken on the budget requests. The chair allowed extended questioning, especially for the Department of Corrections, but noted time constraints and asked agencies to return in a later committee meeting, including FDLE, which was deferred because of a House site visit.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fiola for legislation to authorize municipalities to opt in to a temporary pilot to extend the hours
• Fiola for legislation to authorize municipalities to opt in to a temporary pilot to extend the hours
• We have not asked the Supreme Judicial Court its opinion. That is unfortunate.
• Once again, we filed questions to the Supreme Judicial Court.
• The right thing to do is to ask the Supreme Judicial Court to send the document the Supreme Judicial

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate first took up several local bills and resolutions. It amended and passed to be engrossed Senate No. 1831, providing line-of-duty death benefits for the surviving spouse of Detective John DeSongy of Rutland, and passed to be engrossed House bills concerning police officer age requirements in Haverhill, Newton, and Stoneham, including exemptions for named individuals and a local age-waiver measure. The chamber also adopted congratulatory resolutions for the Florence Community Band’s 25th anniversary and for the Italian Consulate in Boston on Italian National Day. The Senate then considered House No. 5501, the fiscal year 2027 state budget, after the House nonconcurred in the Senate’s amendment and appointed conferees. On motion, the Senate insisted on its amendment and appointed a committee of conference. The chamber also referred a House petition on a temporary liquor-license/public-consumption pilot to the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technology after suspending Joint Rule 12. A major floor debate centered on Senate No. 3104, a resolution responding to the Supreme Judicial Court’s May 7, 2026 order regarding the State Auditor’s request for Senate financial records. Supporters said the resolution would provide records in the clarified scope while preserving constitutional objections to broader requests; opponents argued the Senate should comply more fully and seek the court’s guidance earlier. After a roll call, the resolution was adopted 33-6. The Senate then adopted a motion to adjourn in memory of William F. “Bill” Howard of Beverly and adjourned until the following Monday at 11:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Related to judicial sales and procedures. Senator Garcia, good afternoon.
• Today's Senate Bill 48 is a measure to ensure fairness and transparency in our judicial sales process
• It establishes clear, standardized procedures ...integrity in Florida's judicial sales process.
• Supreme Court to ensure there's a well-funded judicial branch.
• The Florida Bar assists the court in ensuring an efficient and effective judicial system.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met with a quorum present and Senator Thompson excused. The committee first considered Senate Bill 48 by Senator Garcia on judicial sales and procedures. Garcia explained a delete-all amendment that would create clearer statewide procedures for alternative judicial sales, increase transparency, remove bidding credits, extend sale timelines, and add oversight for auctioneers and escrow agents to prevent fraud and collusion. After no questions or opposition, the amendment was adopted, Senator Pasadoma said the rewrite addressed many of his concerns, and the committee then voted CS for SB 48 favorably with unanimous yes votes from members present. The committee then received a presentation from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office on the effectiveness of Florida’s recent anti-squatting law, House Bill 621/SB 888. Presenters described several cases in which deputies used the new process to remove unlawful occupants, including a false landlord report, a long-term fake lease situation, and a more recent unlawful occupancy case. They said the law has helped protect property owners and potential victims, but suggested technical changes: clearer authorization for deputies to enter and use force if needed, and a fix to the affidavit penalty provision because false statements are currently being charged as false reports rather than perjury under the existing wording. The Florida Bar also presented on its role in regulating lawyers, lawyer advertising, and the unlicensed practice of law. Bar leaders explained that the Bar operates under the Florida Supreme Court’s authority, is funded by member fees, and handles complaints through a multi-step process involving intake, branch offices, grievance committees, referees, and final Supreme Court review. They described advertising review procedures, discipline statistics, consumer assistance, the Clients’ Security Fund, and enforcement against unlicensed practice. Senators asked about the Legislature’s authority over lawyer advertising, the prevalence of legal ads, the role of public members on grievance committees, and how those members are selected and used.

Transcript Highlights:

• January 1st is the CMO for the first judicial district.
• Chair, legislator. I apologize, representative.
• Chair, legislator. I apologize, representative.
• Thank you for the question, Madam Legislator.
• The legislative body as a whole did years ago.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, the Texas Judicial Commission on Mental Health, chaired by Justice Jane Bland, of which Speaker
• If they are detained, there is judicial oversight.
• I have you here on behalf of Texas for judicial accountability registered for the bill.
• I'm the general counsel for the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. We're here mainly.
• I serve as the executive director of the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Bills: SB 53

Keywords: voter registration, election procedures, provisional ballot, change of address, residence requirements

Transcript Highlights:

• We um in 2000 this legislative body enacted the judicial systems automation account and fee and so that
• judicial branch, but all of the judicial judicial branch, but all of the judicial branch<00:04:23.680
• So we have 3 days to 180 days. legislation. This is a class. This is a legislation.
• 34:59.120> legislator legislator perhaps individual legislator legislator perhaps individual legislator
• We have legislators.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to fix that during the next legislative session.
• The claim does not seek damages for a judicial decision.
• Absolute judicial immunity applies only to acts that are judicial in nature and acts taken within the
• Failure to enforce a remand order is not a judicial act.
• There—the only other judicial—yeah, it sounds like the court is…” “…judicial court is Judge Hickey’s

Summary: The committee first reviewed several wage-claim and labor-related litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing. Members questioned the department’s authority and jurisdiction, whether it was acting like a court, and why it sought attorney’s fees and costs. Department staff explained that the claims arose under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and related labor statutes, that the department investigates small wage claims and can file suit when informal resolution fails, and that filing fees are waived by statute though service costs may be incurred. The committee reviewed individual cases, including one where the employer had not proven cash payments, another that had already been paid and dismissed, and a third where service could not yet be completed. The committee then voted to review or batch-file the labor items. The University of Arkansas System then reported on three pending lawsuits under the litigation-notification statute. One case involving a tenured professor alleging age and race discrimination had already been resolved and dismissed after the university re-engaged in discussions about a position. A second case involving a former employee alleging ADA and FMLA retaliation was moving forward after partial dismissal and an answer denying liability. A third case involved a former vendor employee alleging retaliation tied to a parking ticket; members asked about individual-capacity exposure for a university police sergeant, and counsel explained that punitive damages could potentially create personal exposure. The committee reviewed each report. The Department of Finance and Administration presented a proposed tax settlement reducing a sales-and-use tax assessment from about $48,000 to $20,000, with interest and penalties waived, and the committee approved it. The Claims Commission then presented several claims and settlements, including an unpaid salary differential for the Department of Health, reissued warrants, unpaid bills for DHS, and multiple negotiated settlements involving UAMS, Arkansas State Police, and ARDOT; these were generally approved or batched for approval. The most extensive discussion involved a settlement between the Teacher Retirement System and Tetronics International Limited in liquidation, arising from losses tied to the failed Blue Oak project; members questioned the company’s liquidation status, the prior investment loss, and why the matter was settling for $65,000, and the committee ultimately affirmed the settlement. The committee also heard a disputed tax-sale claim involving the Commissioner of State Lands, where a claimant argued that excess proceeds from a 2009 tax sale should have gone to her family rather than escheating to the county. After testimony from the claimant and counsel, members debated sovereign immunity, heirship, and whether the committee could or should award the $4,200 overage. The motion was amended and then replaced with a motion to hold the matter over for further review in a future joint session, which passed. Finally, the committee considered an appeal by Andrew Simpson challenging dismissal of his claim against the Arkansas Court of Appeals; after Simpson and court staff explained the underlying dispute, the committee reviewed the dismissal and the matter was held over for further consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• And Florida uses judicial nominating commissions as a way to vet candidates for judicial office and to
• of the 6 district courts of appeal and one in each judicial circuit.
• The judicial nominating commissions were convened for 9 of those judgeships.
• And when the judicial nominating commission was convened, it was directed to focus on 2 of the 4.
• The judicial nominating commissions have convene for 15 of those judgeships.

Transcript Highlights:

• Judges, 2026 legislative priorities seek to<00:34:15.720> increase<00:34:16.200> judicial<
• Those are the legislative items that were provided in our judicial safety survey. attempted or actual
• and additional legislator protection. and additional legislator protection.
• The events of June 14th required us to temporarily stand up additional executive, judicial, and legislative
• legislator security is.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Safety and Security Conference Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a quorum present and no immediate vote taken. Chairs explained the committee was working ahead of a possible target so it could act quickly later if needed, then proceeded with member introductions and a reminder about committee decorum. Staff noted a microphone delay and said the meeting would include a side-by-side walk-through of the House and Senate policy language and a review of the fiscal spreadsheet. Fiscal staff summarized major differences in court, public safety, and legislative security funding. The House and Senate proposals differed on safety and security funding for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and District Courts, as well as on courthouse grants, capital security enhancements, and a new legislative/protective services unit. Staff also reviewed Senate-only and House-only items, including a Senate proposal to require removal of insignia from public safety vehicles sold to the public, and House provisions for a security services task force and member security costs. Total general fund impacts were reviewed, with the House total corrected to include an open appropriation that had been omitted from the spreadsheet totals. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the policy differences. The Senate language focused on a Protective Services Unit and security for principal state officials, while the House language focused on a Legislative Services Unit and security for legislators. Both bills included provisions on Capitol Complex Security, reporting requirements, and reimbursement arrangements with local law enforcement, but differed on details such as whether elected officials must provide contact information to DPS and how requests for personal protective services are handled. The House-only amendment A8 was presented for discussion; it would revise emergency contact provisions, replace the House’s personal protective services request language with a more detailed threat assessment and mitigation framework, direct implementation of the new unit, and make related reimbursement and technical changes. Judge Richard Kyle, president of the Minnesota District Judges Association, testified in support of stronger judicial and court safety measures. He described rising threats against judges, citing survey results showing high rates of judges limiting personal information, receiving inappropriate communications, changing personal behavior, and experiencing threats to themselves and family members. He said the association supports legislative authorization and funding for home security and personal data protections for judicial officers, and emphasized that safety concerns for judges and court staff have become more serious in recent years.

Transcript Highlights:

• Comments from the Legislative Analyst's Office.
• Comments from Legislative Analysis Office.
• Judicial branch. All right, we're going to move on to our next issue: Judicial Branch.
• They've taken money away from a very starving part of our judicial system, and that would be the judicial
• Caitlin O'Neill with the Legislative Analyst's Office.

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision presentations for the Office of Emergency Services, Judicial Branch, CDCR, and the Department of Justice, with the LAO offering comments and recommendations throughout. For Cal OES, the administration outlined funding for relocating the Red Mountain communications site, increased FEMA reimbursement authority, cybersecurity grants, next-generation 911 support, and a reduction to the Flexible Cash Assistance for Survivors of Crime program. Members raised concerns about VOCA backfill and disaster reimbursement, while the LAO recommended approving the 911 request with reporting, adding contingency planning for cybersecurity grants, clarifying the FEMA reimbursement language, and increasing reporting on emergency spending. For the Judicial Branch, the May Revision included funding for implementation of the Trial Nations Access to Justice Act, reductions tied to court facilities and employee benefits, and General Fund solutions such as a reduction to the pretrial release program, a reversion from the Trial Court Trust Fund, and elimination of the jury duty pilot program. The LAO cautioned that the pretrial reduction could affect detention and release decisions and recommended tighter legislative oversight over the trust fund transfer and reallocation language. Members questioned the impact of the pretrial cut, the lack of Prop. 36 court funding, and the rationale for the jury pilot elimination; the Judicial Branch said it was generally supportive of the budget as proposed. CDCR presented requests for roof repairs, fire alarm replacements, CalAIM-related costs, and trailer bill changes on incarcerated college students, mental health hiring, and tuberculosis testing, along with a planned prison closure by October 2026. The department also proposed reducing or delaying several items, including radio replacement, ADA improvements, COVID mitigation, and some facility upgrades, while adding a $125 million placeholder for consultant-driven operational savings. The LAO recommended rejecting or reducing several San Quentin-related proposals, questioned the staffing and contract medical requests, and urged more transparency on the consultant savings plan; members expressed concern about the realism of the savings targets and the potential legal or operational risks from delaying ADA and radio projects. For DOJ, the May Revision proposed ongoing funding and 44 positions to defend against federal actions, IT and accounting system upgrades, implementation funding for AB 1877, and a special fund loan. The LAO supported the KLETS connection but asked for a contingency plan if the new DMV link is delayed, noted that AB 1877 would not be fully implemented without additional funding, and recommended limiting and reporting on the federal accountability workload. Members questioned the size and permanence of the DOJ request, the use of the earlier $25 million special session appropriation, and the pace of federal litigation; DOJ said the new request would support ongoing litigation, expert assistance, and coordination across multiple cases and states.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's the judicial branch, there's the legislative branch, and there's the executive branch.
• So You have the letter in front of you from the judicial advisory council.
• The JAC, the Judicial Advisory Council, has reviewed Senate Bill 663 filed in the 89th legislative session
• To protect judicial immunity.
• So how does someone get on the judicial advisory council?

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to fix that during the next legislative session.
• , or the exercise of judicial discretion.
• The scope of absolute judicial immunity applies only to acts that are judicial in nature and acts taken
• Failure to enforce a remand order is not a judicial act.
• The enforcement of a remand order is not a judicial act.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and filed a bill for legislator protections, that's where I went was to the judicial protections because
• way the judicial way the judicial protection<00:08:54.520> works.
• family members in the judicial family members in the judicial protection<00:08:59.080> law
• being put on through judicial fiat. being put on through judicial fiat.
• legislation today. legislation today.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• as it came to us from judicial budget as as it came to us from the<00:04:27.360> judicial<00:
• I I want to say the judicial branch.
• <00:14:25.839> employees quite sure that the judicial employees quite sure that the judicial
• increased staffing of the judicial increased staffing of the judicial security<00:36:06.160>
• > judicial<00:37:05.040> security employees for the judicial security employees for the

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3874, the Judiciary budget bill, and first moved it to the Ways and Means Committee. The bill was described as funding the judicial branch’s budget request, including courthouse and judge security measures, home safety for judges and staff, a $1 million courthouse safety grant program, and funding related to paid family and medical leave costs that the courts must absorb. A court administrator explained that some base adjustments were budget-neutral internal shifts within the court system, moving money from district courts to other courts to better meet overall needs. Members then debated several amendments. The A7 amendment, which reduced some of the requested security funding for administrators and aligned it more closely with legislative security levels while retaining flexible Supreme Court security personnel, was adopted. The A1 amendment, which would have deleted the additional operating adjustment for paid family and medical leave, failed on a 7-7 tie after debate over whether the courts should bear the employer share of that cost and whether the program itself was an unfunded mandate. The A2 amendment, also related to paid family and medical leave funding, likewise failed on a 7-7 tie after similar discussion about the judiciary’s ongoing employment costs and the branch’s inability to raise its own revenue. The committee then adopted the A4 amendment, which increased the courthouse safety grant program from $1 million to $4 million. Supporters said there was unmet demand for courthouse security grants and that the money would help with hardware such as screening equipment, while the court administrator said the branch would not spend more than it could use and that the grants would be reviewed by a committee including law enforcement and county representatives. The administrator noted the funding would be one-time money and would not cover staffing costs. The committee also discussed the judiciary’s ongoing need for funding, with members arguing both that the courts should be treated like other employers and that the judicial branch, as an independent branch of government, must be funded by the legislature. The final A5 amendment was then introduced, with staff noting it would delete a section already covered by the adopted A7 amendment and reduce an appropriation on page four, line 14.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Crittenden County Judicial Center. The Crittenden County Judicial Center.
• Greenup County Judicial Center.
• County Judicial Center.
• Greenup County Judicial Center. Greenup County Judicial Center.
• <00:41:12.920> The Knox County Judicial Center. The Knox County Judicial Center.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Justice and Judiciary received an update from the Administrative Office of the Courts on implementation of House Bill 504, the judicial branch budget, and court facility projects. AOC leaders said they do not anticipate problems balancing the outgoing biennium or fiscal year 2026, and explained that the budget changes were driven by the need to reduce costs while preserving required constitutional, court-rule, and statutory services. They also said the new filing fee increases authorized by HB 504 took effect that day and are expected to generate up to $5 million, while the reorganization is projected to save about $3 million in general fund dollars. The bulk of the presentation focused on a major reorganization of the Office of Statewide Programs, which includes specialty courts, family and juvenile services, and pretrial services. AOC said the plan eliminates 170 positions and creates 109 new ones, mainly by reducing middle-management layers, expanding regional service delivery, and cross-training staff. Officials said 110 employees had already been offered or accepted placements, 24 had chosen voluntary separation, and the final number of employees leaving remains fluid until the process concludes around August 1. They emphasized that specialty court programs were not eliminated, but state-funded treatment court contracts and behavioral health liaison positions were removed, with treatment costs shifted to Medicaid or participants where appropriate. Members asked about the process, staffing impacts, specialty court participation, juvenile services, and how AOC will monitor the changes. AOC said the reorganization was developed by leadership, HR, and legal staff under direction of the Chief Justice and approved by the Supreme Court, and that it is intended to improve efficiency and frontline support rather than reduce services. They said specialty court participant levels are being watched closely, that CDW services will continue to use outside providers for programming, and that the agency will keep judges and stakeholders informed as the new structure goes into effect. No votes were taken, and the committee did not approve minutes because a quorum was not present.

Transcript Highlights:

• will be useful for further legislation will be useful for further legislation as<00:26:28.520>
• <01:37:35.560> budget to have um the legislative budget to have um the legislative budget
• Yeah, so then you go on to the Judicial Council section, right?
• Yeah, so then you go on to the Judicial Council section, right?
• Yeah, so then you go on to the Judicial Council section, right?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 313 and, on motion by Representative Perez, voted to retain the bill because members felt it needed further work and was not ready for final action. The motion passed 18-0, and no further action was taken on the bill. House Bill 391, an anti-SLAPP measure, was then discussed; supporters said it addressed a real problem and should move forward, while opponents raised concerns that it was too broad, could affect criminal cases, and might create procedural complications. The committee voted 18-0 to retain HB 391 as well, and it was placed on consent. The committee next considered House Bill 462, establishing a cause of action for unwarranted video imaging of residential properties. Representative McFarland moved OTP, saying the bill raised First Amendment and property-rights concerns. The motion passed 18-0, and the bill was also placed on consent. The committee then turned to House Bill 509, which would require reporting on forfeitures. Supporters argued the information was useful for future legislation, while opponents said the reporting would be costly, duplicative, and potentially split data across fiscal years. The committee voted 11-7 to recommend OTP, with a minority of members opposed. House Bill 520, authorizing Department of Education hearing officers to issue subpoenas, drew the most extended debate. Supporters argued DOE needed the same tools other agencies have, while opponents said DOE already had access to needed information, the Attorney General could handle subpoenas, and the bill would create an unbalanced process and raise due process and student-record concerns. Representative Tur offered Amendment 0842H to shift subpoena power from DOE hearing officers to the Attorney General; after debate, the amendment failed 10-8. The transcript cuts off as the committee begins the roll call on the underlying bill after rejecting the amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• were reports in 2020 a legislative were reports in 2020 a legislative auditor<00:07:00.960> I
• judicial judicial branch.<00:32:16.240> The<00:32:16.559> independent<00:32:17.200>
• The independent judicial branch branch.
• The judicial funded appropriately.
• Um, right now, with the judicial system.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I move to excuse those members on this legislative day who were excused on the previous legislative day
• Members, thank you again for considering this legislation.
• So with that, I urge you to support this piece of legislation.
• HB 5663 was enabling legislation for the HDR.
• Without the HDR, we don't need the enabling legislation.

Bills: HB2293, HB2694, HB2999, HB3694, HB3254, HB4662, HB5629, HB5632, HB5675, HB5664, HB5671, HB5680, HB5682, HB5693, HB4158, HB5695, HB4669, HB5696, HB5698, HB5677, HB5699, HB5694, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR89, HCR111, HCR142, HR868, SB682, SB1351, SB1895, SB1931, SB2141, SB3044, SCR1, SCR6, SCR37, SB458, SB482, SB927, SB984, SB651, SB1620, SB2124, SB2448, SB841, SB843, SB402, SB2662, SB2053, SB2332, SB2112, SB745, SB1247, SB1789, HB75, HB5354, HB4683, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB265, HB1845, HB 108, HB1960, HB1955, HB2512, HB2581, HB2803, HB1738, HB636, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB3679, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2658, HB2757, HB2080, HB3063, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3520, HB3178, HB158, HB2060, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2234, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB4630, HB4924, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5520, SB1177, SB1559, SB746, SB434, SB1383, SB1214, SB1079, SB3031, SB2141, SB2185, SB1895, SB1241, SB901, SB1883, SB552, HB 1249, HJR218, HB5623, SB687, SB1332, SB458, SB482, SB927, SB984, SB651, SB1620, SB2124, SB2448, SB841, SB843, SB402, SB2662, SB2053, SB2332, SB2112, SB745, SB1247, SB1789, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135, HCR141, HCR46, HCR109, HCR10, SB3037

Keywords: Sweeny Hospital District, board of directors, local governance, elections, healthcare administration, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, vacancies, resignation, hydrogen vehicles, weight limitations, transportation, environmental impact, clean energy, deep fake, intimate depictions, consent, digital media, criminal penalties, State Board of Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Judge Gabart 14th Judicial Circuit.
• reduce recidivism through judicial reduce recidivism through judicial oversight<00:03:07.120>
• Your last judicial budget gave us that.
• But having judicial oversight over it.
• We looked into the judicial communities.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee received an overview of Kentucky’s specialty courts from Audrey Collins of the Department of Specialty Courts and the Administrative Office of the Courts, along with testimony from Christian County District Judge Foster Cutoff. Collins described the mission and structure of drug, mental health, and veterans treatment courts, emphasizing therapeutic jurisprudence, individualized treatment, judicial oversight, and multidisciplinary teams. She said Kentucky currently has about 2,991 active participants across the three court types, with drug courts in all 120 counties, mental health courts in 17 counties, and veterans treatment courts in eight counties. She also highlighted reported outcomes such as 7,658 entrants and 4,384 successful completions from 2020 to 2024, a five-year average completion rate of 57%, and lower recidivism among graduates than the statewide average. Collins also reviewed funding and costs, saying the department’s fiscal year 2025 budget was $18.6 million, with most of it from general funds, plus restricted and federal funds. She noted spending on personnel, treatment services, and drug testing, and said specialty courts allow participants to remain employed and meet obligations such as child support and restitution. She said participants paid more than $5.4 million in child support, restitution, and other court-related obligations over five years, and that a statewide evaluation by Morehead State University is underway. In response to questions, she said a dip in 2024 collections may have been affected by a case management system overhaul, and that court costs can be waived in some indigent cases while restitution is still required. Judge Cutoff described veterans treatment court and mental health court in Christian County, saying the programs are especially important because of the nearby Fort Campbell military community and because they help veterans with PTSD, traumatic brain injury, substance use, and related issues. He said the courts rely heavily on staff, treatment providers, and the VA, which helps connect participants to benefits and therapy. He also said mental health court participants receive housing, benefits, and medication support, and that the programs can keep people out of jail and help them stabilize. Committee members asked about the legal basis and history of the courts, and Collins explained that Kentucky’s specialty courts began as pilot programs in the mid-1990s, shifted from federal support to state funding around 2008-2009, and are now largely state funded. No votes or formal actions were taken during the discussion.