Transcript Highlights:

• Judicial branch. All right, we're going to move on to our next issue: Judicial Branch.
• I'm going to—this is Lotko Theodorovich from the Judicial Council.
• That's the brief overview of the May Revision to the Judicial Branch's budget.
• So, in the word 'we,' there is no funding for Prop 36 in the judicial branch budget.
• They've taken money away from a very starving part of our judicial system, and that would be the judicial

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:

• <00:30:20.840> enforcement discretion to seek judicial enforcement discretion to seek judicial
• <00:32:23.279> review H that when an appeal or judicial review H that when an appeal or judicial
• judicial judicial review<00:37:00.680> and<00:37:00.920> and<00:37:01.200> that's
• judicial judicial review<00:37:14.440> and<00:37:14.640> unless<00:37:15.040> you
• It was a motion to enforce by the complainant. ...and that's why you have judicial review.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered Senate Bills 470, 828, 730, and 1383. SB 470 would create a deferred retirement option program for police officers. The Employees Retirement System warned it could worsen the system’s $14.1 billion unfunded liability by stopping employer and employee contributions during the DROP period, and the Attorney General raised possible tax-qualified status, Internal Revenue Code, and age-discrimination concerns. Police and other supporters testified in favor, but the committees ultimately recommended deferring the bill indefinitely. SB 828 would expand workers’ compensation medical benefits for firefighters to cover an additional respiratory condition. The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations and the Hawaii Firefighters Association supported the measure, citing occupational exposure and health risks. The committees recommended passage with amendments, and the motion was adopted by both committees. SB 730, which concerns allowance on service retirements, drew support from the Department of Human Resources Development and the Department of Law Enforcement, but also comments from the Attorney General and ERS. DHRD said the bill could help recruitment and retention but requested more time to work on language with ERS, Budget and Finance, and the AG’s office. The committees postponed decision-making until Friday, February 7, at 3:15 p.m. in Conference Room 225. SB 1383, relating to fire protection, received broad support from the Governor’s office, Department of Defense, DLNR, Hawaiian Electric, and others. The committees agreed to pass it with amendments, including language suggested by the Hawaii Insurance Council on wildfire-related insurance issues and a committee report link to the Lina fire forward-looking report, phase three. The amended recommendation was adopted by both committees. Later in the meeting, the committees also heard SB 1360 and SB 1361 on ERS administrative and reporting matters, SB 340 on HLRB enforcement authority, and SB 997 on energy; SB 1360 and SB 1361 were presented as housekeeping measures, SB 340 drew disagreement between the Attorney General and HLRB over enforcement authority, and SB 997 was amended to incorporate prevailing-wage renewable energy rate language from SB 743 and then passed with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Henry Jacobs, and I'm the LLC analyst for the Judicial Standards Commission.
• The Judicial Standards Commission is the sole judicial ethics commission.
• And when a matter of judicial misconduct or failure of inability to perform judicial duties comes before
• In that respect, the commission does have a kind of quasi-judicial authority.
• Also, like the Judicial Standards, the Ethics Commission is a constitutional agency.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Bucky from Judicial Council here. Oh, the Judicial Council, yes. Welcome.
• your judicial your judicial Council<00:44:06.400> the<00:44:06.800> fewer<00:44:07.800
• judicial judicial Council<00:47:12.280> cover<00:47:13.280> on<00:47:13.559> average
• Franklin Pierce that the judicial Franklin Pierce that the judicial Council<00:50:03.760> had
• <00:55:57.480> Council anybody but in the judicial Council anybody but in the judicial Council

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard from the Department of Labor on several House Bill 2 sections. Members discussed raising the annual elevator certificate fee, which had been $50 since at least fiscal year 2014; the commissioner said the Inspection Division generates more revenue than its costs, and members agreed to amend the fee to $75 and later voted unanimously to accept Section 137. The department also explained a proposed change to civil penalty/warning language in Section 139 to align enforcement across labor laws; that section was accepted unanimously. The commissioner then gave a detailed overview of the second injury fund, describing how it is financed by assessments on insurance carriers, how claims are reviewed for reimbursement, and how the fund is intended to reimburse certain workers’ compensation costs. Members questioned whether the program still serves its original purpose, whether it is revenue-neutral, and whether it should be sunset; the department said the fund is a mixed bag for the state and industry, but no sunset language was adopted. Sections 140 and 141 were then accepted unanimously. The committee next heard from the Judicial Council on Sections 125 through 127. The witness said the changes would streamline payment for indigent defense services other than counsel, reduce the number of bills requiring judge review, and expand the council’s ability to contract with providers for services such as translation and evaluations. He also explained a proposed fail-safe allowing the executive director to decline to process questionable invoices and send them to a judge instead. Members generally supported the streamlining, and Sections 125 through 127 were accepted unanimously. Toward the end of the discussion, members asked about the cost impact of changing the misdemeanor/felony threshold from $1,000 to a higher amount. The Judicial Council said felony cases are significantly more expensive than misdemeanors because they involve more hearings, more discovery, and more attorney time, with assigned felony cases costing several times more on average. No action was taken on that question in the excerpt.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial judicial oversight<00:08:12.199> we<00:08:12.400> realize<00:08:13.000> that
• I'm a family court judge in the 28th Judicial Circuit.
• I'm a family court judge in the 28th Judicial Circuit.
• uh have an interplay with the judicial uh have an interplay with the judicial branch<00:54:47.000
• <00:55:13.119> branch critical role within the judicial branch critical role within the judicial

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss the guardian ad litem system, including appointment qualifications, training, payment, and whether any changes are needed. Roll was called, the February 25, 2025 minutes were approved, and the chair emphasized that the meeting was informational only and no vote would be taken. Representatives from the Court of Justice, including Chief Justice Deborah Henry Lambert and several family and district judges, testified about how the system has evolved since concerns raised in 2019 about overappointment and fees. Court witnesses said the judiciary responded to earlier concerns by requiring open appointment lists of trained and qualified attorneys, improving training, and increasing oversight of fee orders. They reported that statewide GAL fees have fallen from a little over $14 million in 2019 to about $12 million, even as caseloads have grown, and said the average payment works out to about $650 per case, with the statutory cap for trial-level GAL fees still set at $500 since 1986. They argued that the current local appointment model works well, especially in rural areas, and warned that moving to a DPA-style regional model would create serious scheduling and conflict problems because of overlapping dockets and related criminal cases. Judges from rural districts described shortages of available attorneys, high burnout, travel burdens, and the difficulty of finding enough counsel in smaller counties. They also said the Court of Justice cannot seek certain federal Title IV-E reimbursements, but urged the legislature to encourage the Finance and Administration Cabinet and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to pursue that funding through an MOU. One judge noted that some appointed attorneys are effectively underpaid relative to private rates and that better compensation would help attract and retain lawyers. The discussion also covered training standards adopted after the 2019 audit. Witnesses said Rule 37 now requires initial training and four hours of multidisciplinary continuing training every two years, with topics including child development, trauma-informed care, substance use, child welfare, forensics, ethics, and communication with clients. They said the Court of Justice has offered in-person regional trainings and remote options, and that the goal is to keep qualified attorneys on the appointment lists while improving representation for children and parents in dependency, neglect, abuse, and termination-of-parental-rights cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• body so and I'll be available judicial body so and I'll be available to<00:22:01.600> answer<
• Under the statute, the party adversely affected by one of our orders has the right to judicial review
• Judiciary instead of having one judicial Judiciary instead of having one judicial review<00:24:49.159
• review and the circuit through judicial review and the circuit court<00:25:08.880> has<00:25:
• jurisdiction when it goes for judicial jurisdiction when it goes for judicial review<00:28:11.600

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• by jeopardizing judicial branch by jeopardizing well-established<01:25:20.640> funding<01:25:
• <01:25:34.000> branch the veto message, the judicial branch the veto message, the judicial
• for the judicial branch. for the judicial branch.
• branch and therefore I respect judicial branch and therefore I respect uh, uh, uh, with<01:26:23.160
• will of the Senate that the the Judicial will of the Senate that the the Judicial Conduct<01:34:

Keywords: In an effort to stave off issues that may occur with long format live streams, we have split this stream into two parts., 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This was judicially created in self-defense.
• Nowhere does it say that the judicial branch can insert language into existing statutes.
• This was judicially created in self-defense.
• Nowhere does it say that the judicial branch can insert language into existing statutes.
• <00:02:06.399> and judicial and judicial and executive<00:02:08.679> the<00:02:08.840><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:39.840> branch the day, the Wyoming judicial branch the day, the Wyoming judicial branch
• Um, so system in the judicial branch.
• <00:04:17.359> branch Wyoming, all of the judicial branch Wyoming, all of the judicial branch
• judicial branch, but all of the judicial judicial branch, but all of the judicial branch<00:04:23.680
• Meaning that um, in judicial branch.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This weaponization of our U.S. judicial system and even bureaucracy in some cases, of our U.S. judicial
• The U.S. judicial system.
• use before being required to file a judicial challenge, and when judicial remedies are required, allowing
• Is that from what I saw, it does mirror language in the federal rules for judicial notice.
• Does using the standard for judicial notice provide some protection?

Bills: SB801, SB1200, SB1410, SB1717, SB1862, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB506, SB2626, SJR63

Keywords: SB 801, birth certificate, birth record, certified copy, homeless, homelessness, unhoused, vital records, state registrar, local registrar, county clerk, fee waiver, identity documents, ID access, housing insecurity, shelter, transitional housing, Health and Safety Code, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission

Summary: The Senate Committee on State Affairs heard testimony on several bills, with most measures left pending after public testimony closed. SB 801, by Sen. Menéndez, would require DSHS and local clerks to issue birth certificates at no cost to people experiencing homelessness. The author and Maria Benavides of SA Youth said the fee and mailing requirements are major barriers to obtaining ID, housing, and work, and Benavides described clients who were able to secure housing and employment after getting birth records and IDs through her program. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard a set of bills related to the Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America naming issue: SB 1410 would require state agencies to use “Gulf of Mexico” in official documents, SB 1717 would conform state law to the federal renaming to “Gulf of America,” and SJR 63 would amend the Texas Constitution to match that change. Support testimony for the latter two emphasized alignment with federal action and the use of different geographic names by different countries. All three measures were left pending. Members then heard SB 1200, which would require plaintiffs suing defense contractors to disclose in discovery whether they are receiving litigation funding from adversarial nations such as China, Russia, or Cuba. The author and Texans for Lawsuit Reform said the bill targets third-party litigation funding and foreign influence on lawsuits, especially those affecting defense contractors; the committee substitute narrowed the definition of defense contractor and expanded applicability to actions involving defense contractors’ activities. SB 2626, which requires continuing medical education on pregnancy-related emergencies for OB-GYN physicians and nurses, drew support from witnesses who said it would reduce confusion about Texas abortion law and improve care in emergencies. SB 506, SB 2681, SB 1862, SB 1863, and SB 2216 all focused on elections, including ballot language standards, voter registration challenges, interstate voter-roll cleanup, procedural audits, and election equipment security; testimony split between supporters who said the bills improve transparency and integrity and opponents who warned of vague standards, added costs, and possible voter disenfranchisement. Each of those bills was left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Judicial discretion carries enormous authority, and with it enormous responsibility.
• In fact, I served on the Judicial Council for four years.
• And we're creating a judicial removal through, we're creating judicial removal from a third branch, when
• We talk a lot about the Judicial Commission and how it functions.
• It only calls into question judicial discretion.

Summary: The House and Governmental Affairs Committee met on Senate Bill 123, a proposed constitutional amendment to create a legislative process for removing judges for cause. Senator Morris said the bill was needed because of uncertainty in the current Constitution about whether impeachment applies to judges, given the Judiciary Commission’s role in judicial discipline. He argued the measure would provide a clearer, higher-threshold accountability mechanism, and the committee adopted a technical amendment renumbering provisions and later clarified that the bill uses a majority vote in the House and two-thirds in the Senate, consistent with impeachment-style thresholds. Much of the hearing centered on testimony from Anna Carter and her family, who supported the bill after the murder of Jacob Carter in New Orleans. They described his death and other cases they said showed judges releasing dangerous offenders despite repeated violations, missed electronic-monitoring check-ins, and other warning signs. They argued the bill would create a last-resort accountability tool when judicial decisions or supervision failures lead to preventable harm. Several committee members expressed sympathy and said the testimony highlighted serious problems in the justice system, though some also suggested the bill should address district attorneys, electronic-monitoring oversight, or broader systemic issues. Opposition came from members who warned the proposal was overly broad, could become a political tool, and might conflict with existing constitutional provisions governing impeachment and judicial discipline. They argued the Judiciary Commission and Supreme Court already provide a disciplinary framework and that the bill could chill judicial independence or create due-process concerns. The ACLU’s Sarah Whittington also opposed the bill, noting technical inconsistencies in the draft, questioning why impeachment had not been tried first, and arguing the measure singled out judicial discretion while leaving other elected officials’ discretion untouched. The committee took no final vote on the bill during the hearing, but did adopt the technical amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial judicial branch.<00:32:16.240> The<00:32:16.559> independent<00:32:17.200>
• judicial<00:32:17.679> branch branch.
• The independent judicial branch branch.
• The judicial funded appropriately.
• Um, right now, with the judicial system.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• readiness and credit repair, home improvement financing, construction management services, and foreclosure
• 46.480> and and construction management services and and construction management services and foreclosure

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Judicial retention elections can add more than a dozen additional contests to the ballot.
• This bill would address a real challenge that we see in judicial retention elections.
• But without dedicated funding for meaningful judicial evaluation, our efforts can only go so far.
• The League has a long history of advocating for judicial independence and accountability.
• The League has a long history of advocating for judicial independence and accountability.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on July 16, 2025, and heard five measures focused on election administration, voter participation, judicial retention elections, charitable solicitation by officials, and local transportation tax initiatives. The chair noted the committee’s rules for limited witness testimony and accepted written testimony through the legislative portal. Several authors presented their bills in person or through a committee member due to scheduling conflicts. SB 3 by Senator Cervantes would tighten and clarify the ballot signature-cure process, including requiring standardized forms from election officials and adding a reminder on vote-by-mail envelopes about signature matching. Supporters said the bill would reduce rejected ballots and make the process more reliable; there was no opposition. The committee voted do pass as amended and re-refer to Appropriations. SB 316 by Senator Reyes, presented by Assembly Member Pellerin, would expand high school voter registration and pre-registration outreach to students, with testimony from students, education groups, disability advocates, and civic organizations in support. One member opposed on the grounds that it could be an unfunded mandate for schools. The bill passed 4-1. ACA 8 by Assembly Member Pellerin would change appellate and Supreme Court judicial retention elections so justices would appear on the ballot only if voters file a petition requesting it. Supporters, including the Secretary of State, the League of Women Voters, and the California Judges Association, said it would reduce ballot length, voter fatigue, and costs while preserving accountability. One member raised concern about the future petition threshold and the possibility it could be set too high, and voted no. The measure passed 4-2. SB 760 by Senator Allen would narrow behested payment reporting requirements for public appeals to charities, especially in disaster response, while preserving disclosure where officials, family members, or staff have conflicts of interest. Good-government groups supported the bill as a balance between transparency and encouraging charitable appeals; it passed unanimously on the recorded vote. SB 512 by Senator Perez would clarify that voters in transportation districts may use citizen initiatives to propose transportation sales taxes where the district already has taxing authority. Supporters argued it aligns Elections Code with Proposition 218 and recent case law, while opponents from business and real estate groups objected to the measure’s implications for tax approval rules. The committee approved the bill 5-2. After calling absent members, the committee cleared the calendar and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:33.840> vacancies position, but for judicial vacancies position, but for judicial vacancies
• across all of our judicial circuits. across all of our judicial circuits. >> Yeah.
• You have to go to the judicial selection committee.
• <00:32:15.840> You<00:32:16.000> have judicial selection committee.
• You have judicial selection committee.

Bills: SB2055, SB2152

Keywords: civil rights, helpline, investigator, data analysis, Aloha United Way, reporting, confidentiality, community support, mandatory retirement, Hawaii Constitution, judiciary, justices, judges, 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard SB 2055, which would create a Civil Rights Commission helpline for reports of harms from federal deployments in Hawaii and require annual reporting and a public hearing. The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission supported the concept but said the bill should be broadened to cover civil rights and human rights violations more generally, and recommended using existing 211/Aloha United Way infrastructure. Testimony was largely in support, with a few opponents. Members focused on whether the proposed line was really a 24-hour legal hotline or a reporting/referral mechanism, what jurisdiction the commission would have over federal employees, and the estimated costs. The committee chair indicated the bill would move forward with amendments, including adopting HCRC recommendations and adding appropriations for Aloha United Way, database/website development, and staffing. The committee then heard SB 2152, a proposed constitutional amendment to raise the mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices from 70 to 75. Judge Robert D.S. Kim, the Office of the Public Defender, Earthjustice, Community Alliance on Prisons, the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, United Public Workers, the League of Women Voters, ILWU Local 142, CARES, and others testified in support, arguing that experienced judges improve stability, reduce vacancies, and preserve institutional knowledge. Opponents or skeptical comments were limited, but one member questioned whether the measure was just a temporary fix rather than a broader solution to judicial succession and mentoring. Members also asked about existing retention and fitness safeguards, including Judicial Selection Commission retention hearings and the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s ability to investigate complaints about a judge’s physical or mental ability to serve. The discussion noted that the measure would still leave those processes in place. No final vote on SB 2152 was taken in the portion provided, but the committee appeared to be moving toward decision-making after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we talk about the indiscriminate arrests, we do not intend to stop a judicial of what?
• intend to stop a judicial warrant to be executed by an ICE agent or anyone else.
• I just had a question for Judicial Council.
• County, so that way this wouldn't be an impact for Judicial Council? Well, L.A.
• The Judicial Council decides which counties have the feasibility to do that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial centers and courthouse renovations throughout the state of Kentucky.
• generally set at 20 years for judicial generally set at 20 years for judicial center<00:38:05.760
• <00:40:00.880> center requesting for judicial center requesting for judicial center authorization
• judicial center.
• The Hall of Justice, judicial center, and old jail that we operate out of also.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:11 Approval of Minutes 00:02:00 Information Items 00:02:25 CPE Special Report 00:03:26 Review of Executive Branch Agency Plans 00:31:48 A. Attorney General 00:32:10 B. Court of Justice 00:36:41 C. Cabinet for Economic Development 00:50:44 D. Kentucky Public Pensions Authority 00:56:06 E. Board Discussion of Planning Issues 01:05:12, 958, all

Summary: The Capital Planning Advisory Board opened its fourth meeting, confirmed a quorum, approved the prior meeting’s minutes by unanimous voice vote, and then heard information items and agency presentations. The main substantive presentation came from the Council on Postsecondary Education, which outlined its capital planning recommendations for the 2026–28 biennium. CPE staff described the role of Kentucky’s research and education network (Kron), including connectivity to cloud services, Internet2, identity services, and new local AI/inferencing capacity, and argued that the network is now essential to higher education, health care, and extension services. They said the network’s recent upgrades were driven by privacy, security, redundancy, and the need to support modern research and AI workloads at lower cost than commercial providers. CPE also presented its broader higher-education capital request: $700 million for asset preservation and $1.73 billion for new construction, for a total recommendation of about $2.4 billion. Staff said they do not plan to recommend IT projects or equipment in this cycle, despite reviewing 48 IT submissions totaling nearly $1.4 billion and equipment requests totaling $322.6 million. For asset preservation, they said the recommended allocation method would remain based on each institution’s share of Category 1 and 2 square footage, and they noted that the state’s prior facility assessment is now 12 years old, with deferred maintenance still estimated in the $7–9 billion range. For new construction, they said the requests are heavily focused on STEM and health-related facilities that are difficult to retrofit into older buildings. Board members asked about how asset-preservation amounts were determined, including why Northern Kentucky University’s request was much larger than its prior allocation. CPE staff responded that campus size, building age, and institutional prioritization affect the requests, and that schools are asked to submit more projects than are likely to be funded. The board then moved on to an Attorney General capital plan overview, where senior counsel Will Schroeder began describing the office’s technology needs and the office’s prior reliance on a 2020 appropriation to replace legacy systems and improve security.

Transcript Highlights:

• I like it better in the judicial I like it better in the judicial protection<00:08:42.400> and
• 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.
• properties transferred through judicial properties transferred through judicial sales.<00:47:24.520

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to increase judicial and court safety. to increase judicial and court safety.
• safety resources for the judicial safety resources for the judicial branch. branch. branch.
• Jennifer Super, who's our judicial Jennifer Super, who's our judicial branch's<00:37:44.120>
• contain critical investments in judicial contain critical investments in judicial safety<00:40:03.480
• <00:40:28.280> officers reimbursements to both judicial officers reimbursements to both judicial

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.