Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:36:29.560> possible total dollar amount of possible total dollar amount of possible judgments
• 30.720> the<00:36:30.800> state<00:36:31.080> that<00:36:31.200> have judgments
• against the state that have judgments against the state that have not<00:36:31.560> yet<00:36
• On this one, I'm just going to defer it until Thursday at 9:30 in this room, 016, on February 5.
• The Attorney General objected to the required information about the total value of possible judgments

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard several Senate bills. SB 2149 would exempt paternity proceedings involving allegations of domestic abuse from mediation and clarify the domestic abuse mediation exemption in divorce cases. The Department of the Attorney General and the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence supported the measure but recommended technical and conforming changes, including updating references from HRS Chapter 584 to 584A and aligning the language more closely with the Uniform Mediation Act. Members discussed whether the bill’s wording could limit who may bring a support person to mediation, and the chair suggested the intent was to preserve survivor choice while avoiding ambiguity. No vote was taken in the portion heard. SB 2203 would create an offense for law enforcement officers using masks or personal disguises. The Office of the Public Defender, ACLU of Hawaii, Legal Clinic, and many other supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and public trust, while still allowing safety exceptions. Law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Law Enforcement, Honolulu Police Department, and the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office, raised concerns about operational needs, undercover and auxiliary units, body cameras, and possible supremacy clause issues if the bill is aimed at federal officers. The chair noted the bill appeared likely to move forward and asked agencies and advocates to work on possible amendments; testimony count was reported as 114 in support, 3 opposed, and 2 comments. SB 2251 would appropriate funds for the victim witness assistance program in the City and County of Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. The prosecutor’s office supported the bill, saying it would replace shortfalls from declining federal funding and help maintain victim services and rights information. A former program director also testified in support. When asked, the office said it would not object to a simple reporting requirement. The committee then moved on to SB 2311, which would address claims against the state and add reporting and timing requirements; the Department of the Attorney General testified with concerns and recommendations, and members began questioning current practices for handling claims and settlements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, I would defer to Mr. Mumm on the revenue estimate. Mr.
• Revenue is not something that this committee makes any judgment about at all.
• Revenue is not something that this committee makes any judgment about at all.
• Revenue is not something that this committee makes any judgment about at all.
• Revenue is not something that this committee makes any judgment about at all.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• answer technical will defer to dees to answer technical questions.
• I would defer that question to the Department of Revenue Administration.
• I would defer that question to the Department of Revenue Administration.
• I would defer that question to the Department of Revenue Administration.
• I would defer that question to the Department of Revenue Administration.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We all have our good and bad days, but we don't cast judgment.
• 21.400> cast our good and bad days, but we don't cast our good and bad days, but we don't cast judgment
• 22.720> We<00:41:22.840> respect<00:41:23.360> one<00:41:23.520> another, judgment
• We respect one another, judgment.
• At this point, I will speak: I put all the properties in deferment at this time, and the banks are looking

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, I defer to the chair about questions. Yes, all questions go through the chair.
• Obviously, I defer to shy about that.
• So that was their judgment that this was not in the best interest of the people of New Hampshire.
• We do not have the authority or the structure or the expertise to make those judgments.
• <04:10:46.640> So judgments. Um the regulator is fir. So judgments.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Interestingly enough, when it came to a lawsuit and a judgment of three-quarters of a billion dollars
• I just wanted to ask around deferred maintenance. Everybody's favorite topic, right?
• Do we have a comprehensive assessment or a list of the deferred maintenance for state-owned facilities
• So a lot of those deferred maintenance projects are in here.
• So yes, it'll defer them back, but somewhere they're in a queue.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They convened four professional judgment panels. So that's what's next. >> Great.
• They convened four professional<00:04:24.080> judgment<00:04:24.479> panels.
• So that's professional judgment panels. So that's what's<00:04:26.000> next.
• <00:18:59.200> panels four more professional judgment panels four more professional judgment
• Chairman, I would defer to Mr. >> Mr. Chairman, I would defer to Mr.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, it's just that we do realize that many times we'll get something and I don't even make a judgment
• Uh, it's just that we do realize that many times we'll get something and I don't even make a judgment
• Uh, it's just that we do realize that many times we'll get something and I don't even make a judgment
• Uh, it's just that we do realize that many times we'll get something and I don't even make a judgment
• Uh, it's just that we do realize that many times we'll get something and I don't even make a judgment

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 2026, as well as the board staff's motion for summary judgment was filed on April 29, 2026.
• Simmons' motion for summary judgment. You're welcome to proceed. Thank you, Your Honor.
• The board should deny the summary judgment motion.
• Arguably, we could have brought our own motion for summary judgment, but we did not.
• Summary judgment. Essentially what that means is that Ms.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• In deference to Mr. Isaacson, restaurants can still say no. It's called trespassing.
• There's a judgment call, which is what judges are for, and so this just tries to outline that process
• There's a judgment call, which is what judges are for, and so this just tries to outline that process

Bills: SB1004, SB1012, SB1100, SB1110, SB1170, SB1213, SB1317, SB1402, SB1413, SB1416, SB1476, SB1511, SB1573, SB1655, SB1656, SB1709, SB1720, SB1723, SB1725, SCR1040

Keywords: sex offender registration, sex offender registry, A.R.S. 13-3821, sexual offenses, public safety, GPS monitoring, electronic monitoring, transient offender, homeless registrant, online identifiers, internet identifiers, sheriff notification, Department of Public Safety, DPS, DNA collection, juvenile adjudication, kidnapping of a minor, unlawful imprisonment of a minor, lifetime registration, community notification

Transcript Highlights:

• These procedures address rules on venue, settlement, payment of judgments, levying taxes for paying final
• judgments.
• In deference to the time and everything else. Okay. You filed suit against the state of Texas.

Bills: HB4, HB20

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, fraudulent solicitation, disaster relief, nonprofit organizations, criminal penalties, consumer protection, fraud prevention, charitable donations

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2853, which would allow the UT System Board of Regents to adjust the University of Texas at El Paso student union fee above the current statutory cap, subject to student approval, to help fund a new student union building. Senator Blanco explained the bill and the committee substitute, there were no questions or witnesses, public testimony was closed, and the committee adopted the substitute and left the bill pending subject to the call of the chair. The committee then heard House Bill 610, which would limit severance payments for terminated independent school district superintendents to six months’ salary and benefits. Senator Paxton described large severance payouts and said the bill had passed the House overwhelmingly. There were no witnesses, public testimony was closed, and the bill was left pending. A lengthy hearing followed on House Bill 4623, which would waive school district immunity in certain cases involving negligent hiring, supervision, or employment of professional school employees who commit abuse or related misconduct against students. Senator Paxton and several witnesses, including survivors and parents, argued the bill was needed to address cover-ups, delayed reporting, and repeated failures to remove dangerous employees; some members raised concerns about liability caps, litigation, and how the bill would interact with the Tort Claims Act. The committee also heard from TEA staff and employee-group witnesses who discussed possible injunctions and stronger no-hire protections. Public testimony was then closed and the bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 4, an accountability and assessment bill that would restore A-F ratings, change the state testing system, and replace STAAR with shorter, more instructionally useful assessments. Senator Bettencourt explained the committee substitute, including annual ratings, limits on taxpayer-funded lawsuits, and a phased-in testing redesign with beginning, middle, and end-of-year assessments. Testimony was generally supportive from education and business groups, though some witnesses favored norm-referenced testing while others emphasized criterion-referenced, TEKS-aligned assessments; one witness noted social studies assessments were restored in the bill. The hearing concluded with additional invited testimony and no final vote reported in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Introduction and reference of bills will be deferred.
• learn something from this process. out and wait to see what the Supreme Court in its considered judgment
• Mental health professionals who understand the black experience, who look like us, who listen without judgment

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we really do defer to them in a very broad sense with all of these reviews for people wanting to
• that doesn’t happen, it happens—that is, our courts are set up to dispose of those cases in summary judgment
• That is, our courts are set up to dispense of those cases in summary judgment.

Summary: The committee heard several privacy and consumer protection bills, with most of the discussion focused on AI and social media. AB 1405 would create a state registry for AI auditors and set basic transparency, ethics, and qualification standards for those auditors; supporters said it would build trust and provide a foundation for future AI oversight, while some members questioned whether government should define auditor qualifications instead of industry groups. The bill was moved out on a 5-1 vote to Appropriations, with the roll left open. AB 2, by Assemblymember Lowenthal, would impose enhanced financial penalties on large social media companies when their negligence causes harm to children and teens. Supporters, including a grieving parent and Common Sense Media, argued the bill would create accountability for harmful algorithms and design choices, while opponents from TechNet, EFF, CCIA, and CalChamber warned it was vague, could chill speech, invite censorship, and raise Section 230 and First Amendment concerns. Committee members debated private right of action versus public enforcement, possible shakedown lawsuits, and whether the bill should be narrowed; the bill passed 6-0 to Judiciary with the roll left open. AB 410 would expand California’s bot disclosure law so bots must identify themselves up front and truthfully if asked, rather than only prohibiting deceptive bots in limited commercial or election contexts. Supporters said the measure would help users, especially youth and vulnerable people, know when they are interacting with AI and reduce deception online; one privacy group withdrew opposition after amendments, and other industry groups said they were no longer opposed or had no formal position. The bill passed 9-1 to Appropriations with the roll left open. The committee also approved AB 1327, which lets consumers cancel home improvement contracts by email instead of only by mail and requires phone assistance for cancellations; the Contractor State License Board withdrew opposition after amendments, and the bill passed 11-0 to Judiciary with the roll left open.

Transcript Highlights:

• is if we lose that suit in defense . . . of a statute, we stand the chance of getting hit with a judgment
• at like TDLR has a bill pattern, a writer in their bill pattern that says if they get hit with a judgment
• I'm just here for any questions that might come up about the board's operations I defer to Mr.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• McKinley as attorney filed a motion for summary judgment. I will allow Mr.
• Simmons' motion for summary judgment. You're welcome to proceed. Thank you, Your Honor.
• The board should deny the summary judgment motion.
• Arguably, we could have brought our own motion for summary judgment, but we did not.
• Summary judgment. Essentially what that means is that Ms.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would defer to the Department of Revenue if they have a better answer, and I can always do some more
• <00:59:40.240> I<00:59:40.480> would<00:59:40.720> defer<00:59:41.200> to
• I would defer to head, I do not know.
• I would defer to the<00:59:42.000> um<00:59:42.319> Department<00:59:42.799> of<
• Um, in terms of either way, um, I would defer to the Department of Revenue on a question like that.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I would defer to the law enforcement folks. I practiced in the DCYF land, in the civil land.
• to the the law negligence I would defer to the the law enforcement<01:49:19.599> folks<01:49:
• <01:49:40.080> to together so I would absolutely defer to together so I would absolutely defer
• But I would defer to them as to what they felt the mens rea needs to be from the cases.
• How are—could you give me your judgment as to the effectiveness of those as a deterrent?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And it still allows pharmacists to use their professional judgment.
• And it still allows pharmacists to use their professional judgment.
• And it still allows pharmacists to use their professional judgment.
• And I would defer to the director, of course, on their interpretation of that.

Bills: HB0143, HB0129

Keywords: health care providers, free speech, discrimination, governmental agencies, civil remedies, physician access, internationally trained physicians, medical licensing, provisional license, healthcare workforce, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• agencies that have been through the stakeholder process with me, and organizations that I would like to defer
• So you want us to replace the judgment of the P&T committee? Madam Chair, Representative Gress.
• haven't gotten your way at P&T and you're coming to the legislature to get us to substitute our judgment
• Madam Chair, Representative Gress, well, in my opinion, I would trust the doctor's judgment to decide

Bills: HB2176, HB2333, HB2435, HB2447, HB2617, HB2683, HB2686, HB2725, HB2726, HB2906, HB2953, HB2958

Keywords: health care, licensure, complaints, investigation, safety, patient care, regulatory compliance, prosthetics, orthotics, health insurance, Medicare, medical necessity, disability rights, coverage, reimbursement, internationally trained physicians, medical board, clinical training, provisional license, healthcare workforce

Transcript Highlights:

• Guerra moves to defer the reading of referral bills to the end of today's business.
• First, Senate Bill 29 codifies the business judgment rule.
• relates to the exceptions to otherwise prohibited abortions based on a physician's reasonable medical judgment
• relates to the exceptions to otherwise prohibited abortions based on a physician's reasonable medical judgment

Bills: HB1520, HB1545, HJR110, HJR203, HB245, HB1465, HB1482, HB294, HB793, HB809, HB3928, HB334, HB2037, HB1973, HB285, HB4341, HB4264, HB 1043, HB837, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1194, HB1646, HB1729, HB2498, HB1314, HB2295, HB1353, HB1531, HB1988, HB5398, HB3960, HB3923, HB1407, HB1764, HB2221, HB2214, HB2517, HB2518, HB2213, HB5008, HB5092, HB3421, HB3663, HB3748, HB3800, HB3756, HB2613, HB3782, HB5246, HB4344, HB4044, HB4066, HB2702, HB2807, HB2869, HB2898, HB3181, HB3250, HB4153, HB2091, HB2115, HB2542, HB2768, HB3349, HB3352, HB4406, HB1593, HB1899, HB3133, HB4432, HB4960, HB3214, HB3915, HB3508, HB2145, SB304, SB608, SB2312, SB494, SB530, HB45, HB2520, HB35, HB47, HB318, HB349, HB554, HB1359, HB1373, HB2254, HB2259, HB2853, HB3073, HB3088, HB353, HB355, HB786, HB762, HB705, HB932, HB849, HB 1119, HB3041, HB713, HB3104, HB3970, HB4042, HB4490, HB1731, HB2607, HB3689, HB1788, HB1612, HB138, HB15, HB1971, HB1338, HB2989, HB267, HB 1201, HB2954, HB5265, HB1804, HB5061, HB1520, HB1545, HJR110, HJR203, HB1887, HB1914, HB2402, HB2306, HB1809, HB2350, HB3000, HB3237, HB3326, HB3211, HB 1056, HB2081, HB2187, HB3092, HB3308, HB3526, HB3750, HB3527, HB4219, HB4230, HB4290, HB5238, HB4804, HB4749, HB245, HB1465, HB1482, HB294, HB793, HB809, HB3928, HB334, HB2037, HB1973, HB285, HB4341, HB4264, HB 1043, HB837, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1194, HB1646, HB1729, HB2498, HB1314, HB2295, HB1353, HB1531, HB1988, HB5398, HB3960, HB3923, HB1407, HB1764, HB2221, HB2214, HB2517, HB2518, HB2213, HB5008, HB5092, HB3421, HB3663, HB3748, HB3800, HB3756, HB2613, HB3782, HB5246, HB4344, HB4044, HB4066, HB2702, HB2807, HB2869, HB2898, HB3181, HB3250, HB4153, HB2091, HB2115, HB2542, HB2768, HB3349, HB3352, HB4406, HB1593, HB1899, HB3133, HB4432, HB4960, HB3214, HB3915, HB3508, HB2145, HCR6, HCR12, HCR34, HCR50, HCR55, HCR58, HCR70, HCR71, HCR72, HCR74, HCR75, HCR78, HCR80, HCR93, HCR100, HCR107, HCR116, HCR117, HCR90

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director