Transcript Highlights:

• And the judicial system will be accountable to the rule of law.
• That process, you know, it's sort of the Schoolhouse Rock, like how a bill becomes a law.
• But one of the most important jobs we do in the Senate side is this process of the judiciary.
• Thank you very much, and thank you for your patience with this process. And you're very...
• It is, I mean, oftentimes the state's attorney kind of helps facilitate the process.

Summary: The Senate Executive Committee met in hybrid format and first considered two gubernatorial judicial appointments. Morgan T. Zurn, nominated to the Delaware Supreme Court, described her background in public service, the Court of Chancery, DOJ, and federal clerkship, and answered extensive questions about judicial philosophy, precedent, statutory interpretation, access to justice, AI and deepfakes, corporate law stability, civility, social media, and public confidence in the courts. Christy N. Vitola, nominated to be Commissioner of Family Court, discussed her Delaware upbringing, legal career in family law and child support, and experience with pro se litigants and high-volume dockets; she was questioned about handling family court cases efficiently, the best interests of the child, and correcting calculation errors. No votes on the nominations were taken during the portion shown. The committee then moved to legislation. House Bill 443, concerning background checks for volunteers and mentors in the Department of Education’s mentoring program, was presented as a technical update to allow DOE to continue receiving wrap-back reports and to ensure mentors undergo state and federal criminal background checks. There was no public comment or committee debate on the bill. House Bill 431 with House Amendment 1, sponsored by Representative Bush and Senator Hoffner, would allow composting of yard waste, food residue, and other organic materials to divert waste from landfills, extend landfill life, reduce disposal costs, support farmers by returning nutrients to the soil, and reduce methane emissions; it also preserves county/local control over siting and inspection. Senator Townsend asked whether composting was currently allowed, and Senator Hoffner explained that the bill would authorize it under the stated controls. No public comment was offered on either bill. At the close of the meeting, the chair noted that the bills and nominee backers had been circulated for signatures. Senator Hocker moved to adjourn, Senator Townsend seconded, and the committee adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, in December, uh, judicial branch.
• stability of our judicial branch. stability of our judicial branch.
• judicial branch that keeps them running. judicial branch that keeps them running.
• responsibility of managing the judicial responsibility of managing the judicial budget<00:32:41.279
• Thank you. process over 800,000 cases. process over 800,000 cases.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Roll Call: 00:00:09 State of the Judiciary: 00:02:33 The Corrections - KCTCS Reentry Program: 00:49:44 Update on 2022 RS SB 90: 01:27:49, 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Committee on the Judiciary met on November 6, 2025, approved the minutes, and welcomed guests including Kentucky Specialty Courts manager Elizabeth Nichols and Boyle/Mercer Family Court Judge Bruce Petri. The committee then heard the Chief Justice of Kentucky, Deborah Lambert, deliver her state of the judiciary address, focused largely on judicial branch funding, facilities, technology, and specialty court programs. Chief Justice Lambert said the branch is facing a projected $14.3 million shortfall for fiscal year 2026 and asked lawmakers for supplemental support, access to reserve funds, and higher base appropriations to cover inflation and nondiscretionary costs. She also requested a 15% across-the-board pay increase for judicial branch employees, citing salary gaps with other state workers and declining judicial compensation relative to national averages. She emphasized that the branch has received a clean FY 2025 audit and said the requests were intended to sustain current operations rather than expand them. A major portion of her remarks covered court technology and facilities. She described the move to Chamberlain during Capitol renovations, the purchase of that building as a cost-saving measure, and the need to fund courtroom audio/video systems and a new statewide case management system. She also discussed courthouse maintenance, flood damage, mold issues, security system upgrades, and the $47 million asset preservation fund created last session, while asking for additional local facilities funding and one-time disaster-related support. Lambert highlighted specialty court and statewide program results, including foster care review boards, family recovery courts, court designated worker programs, drug and mental health courts, and the Judicial Commission on Mental Health. She thanked legislators for prior bills and support, including House Bill 1, Senate Bill 26, and the CES law, and said 2026 recommendations will focus on civil commitment reforms under KRS 202C. During questions, Senator Wheeler asked whether some courthouses are being overbuilt; Lambert said most facilities are inadequate, though some may be larger than needed, and that future needs and population changes must be considered. She also noted that virtual hearings and technology have improved efficiency. No votes or formal committee actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'd like to know how that competency process works.
• And right now I'm a deputy district attorney at the 3rd Judicial District.
• A lot of times we know the kid before we begin the charging process.
• I understand the judicial system.
• And so that example is what I turn to show that the process doesn't work.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:47.120> officer warrant signed by a judicial officer warrant signed by a judicial officer
• judicial warrant from doing their job. judicial warrant from doing their job.
• It would give child care due process.
• Thank you. law that a valid judicial warrant is law that a valid judicial warrant is required<00:35:04.640
• <00:53:12.720> warrant without even showing a judicial warrant without even showing a judicial

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3415, a bill aimed at limiting immigration enforcement activity at child care centers. House Research explained the DE1 amendment, which defined key terms and barred child care employees from consenting to civil immigration enforcement entry without a judicial warrant, while requiring officials to identify themselves and state their purpose; the amendment also clarified that it would not block officials administering child care programs. After brief debate, members adopted the DE1 amendment. The bill author, Representative Sensor Mura, said the measure was intended to address fear and disruption in child care settings caused by recent immigration enforcement activity and to keep those spaces safe for children and families. Supporters, including a pastor, a Children’s Defense Fund representative, parents, child care workers, and an ACLU policy counsel, testified that immigration enforcement near daycares has caused fear, staff absences, lockdowns, and emotional harm to children. They argued the bill would not stop lawful enforcement but would require warrants and basic identification before entry, protecting children from witnessing raids or arrests and giving providers clear rules. Several witnesses described specific incidents involving ICE activity near Spanish immersion daycares in Minneapolis and St. Paul, including staff members being detained, parents organizing safety watches, and children showing distress. Testimony emphasized that many affected children are U.S. citizens in immigrant families and that visible enforcement can create toxic stress and separation anxiety. No final action on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided beyond adoption of the DE1 amendment and continuation of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:18:13.600> Um this process. Um this process.
• That violates judicial discretion. That violates judicial discretion.
• process, but not just the judicial process.
• process, but not just the judicial process.
• process, but not just the judicial process.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee continued its hearing on enforcement and compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, first taking additional public testimony from Melissa Zimmerman and Matt Senot of the East Side Corridor residents in Owatonna. They described submitting roughly two dozen data requests across several government entities related to a proposed highway project, saying some agencies responded but others did not, and that even after they substantially prevailed in a data practices complaint and the court imposed a maximum civil penalty, they still did not receive meaningful access to the records. Zimmerman said the lack of access harmed their ability to comment on the project’s environmental review, and both witnesses argued that the law needs stronger enforcement, realistic timelines, better communication, and more accessible remedies for requesters who cannot afford repeated litigation. They also raised practical barriers such as inaccessible file formats, missing software on a county-provided laptop, and the need for electronic delivery options. The committee then heard from Eric Johnson of Anoka County, who testified about Chapter 13 issues involving third-party polygraph data used in probation monitoring. He argued that when the state relies on third-party-generated summaries, the responsible authority’s obligations for access, retention, and correction are unclear, and there is no effective remedy when the third party does not respond. Johnson said the county directed him to seek raw data from the third party, which had not responded, and he warned that short retention periods can make data subject rights unenforceable if the records are destroyed before a request is resolved. Members asked about statutory citations and retention schedules, and several commented that the issue may warrant review of data-retention rules. During member discussion, legislators broadly agreed that the Data Practices Act’s enforcement mechanisms are not working well enough and that many requesters cannot afford to pursue administrative or court remedies. Co-Chair Scott suggested staff compile the testimony into a report to identify possible legislative fixes, while Senator Lucero said there may be some “low-hanging fruit” that could be addressed quickly in the short session. The chair also floated the idea of involving the Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution in a mediation role to improve communication and reduce gridlock, though members noted that any process would still need to produce results consistent with the law. The committee then moved on to its next agenda item, a discussion of the BCA Fusion Center and its annual reporting requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Put simply, judicial deference is a judicial doctrine which ties the hands of judges and forces them
• Judicial deference fits framework.
• > is<00:16:46.120> a Put simply, judicial deference is a Put simply, judicial deference
• Thank you. judicial branch's role judicial branch's role um<00:29:53.640> and<00:29:54.160>
• So, the due process has court process.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• evaluate how this process is working. evaluate how this process is working.
• Accountable within a process that has been designed to try to educate and improve the quality of judicial
• Just noting that it would greatly change the current process in the judicial branch, which would incur
• involved in the civil forfeite process. involved in the civil forfeite process.
• Just our judicial branch is one. Just our judicial branch is one.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 324 provides relative to judicial salaries.
• This bill basically strengthens the appeal process.
• This bill basically strengthens the appeal process.
• The bonding-out process does have to go to Bond Commission.
• They went to the Judicial Council.

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met with eight members present and deferred HB 127. It then considered a series of bills, most of which were reported favorably without opposition. HB 22 revised COLA rules for the clerks of court retirement system, allowing more frequent COLAs when the system is better funded; HB 324 made judicial stipends permanent and added future COLAs subject to available funding; HB 233 increased jury mileage reimbursement; HB 47 reorganized assessor retirement COLA statutes; HB 533 allowed St. Tammany Parish to transfer unused witness-fee account balances to the 22nd Judicial District Court; HB 980 adjusted eligibility for the Firemen’s Supplemental Pay Board; HCR 45 urged Congress to clarify ARPA deadlines for water projects; HB 559 increased court costs in the 4th Judicial District; HB 290 recreated the Department of Treasury and related entities in statute; and HB 382 addressed Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget review authority over Group Benefits plans. The committee also reported HB 1157 favorably, creating a financing bank mechanism for infrastructure projects, and HB 575 favorably, giving youth aging out of foster care preferred access to surplus state vehicles through the Louisiana Property Assistance Agency. Several measures drew more discussion. HB 1236, dealing with pharmacy benefit managers and professional dispensing fees, prompted extensive testimony from the sponsor, the Legislative Fiscal Office, the Department of Insurance, independent pharmacies, and PBM representatives. Supporters said it clarifies and strengthens enforcement of existing PBM law and protects independent pharmacies; opponents argued the bill’s requirement that PBMs bear dispensing-fee costs would be difficult to implement and could raise premiums. The sponsor said he would work on amendments, including clarifying language and a delayed effective date, and the bill was nevertheless moved favorably. SB 25, on registrar of voters compensation, was amended to a revised pay structure and then reported favorably. HB 47 and HB 533 were also presented as funding and administrative cleanups for retirement and court-related accounts, with local support noted. The committee also heard HB 233 on jury duty mileage reimbursement, which the sponsor said updates a 1961 rate and would be funded locally at an estimated average increase of about $4,000 per judicial district. HB 324 on judicial salaries was described as self-funded by the judiciary and subject to available funding, with no budget impact. HB 575 on foster youth transportation was presented as a non-appropriation measure aimed at helping youth aging out of foster care by giving them preferred access to surplus vehicles. HB 382, which concerns the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget’s role in approving Group Benefits plans, was reported favorably with little discussion. The meeting ended after a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:49.680> districts three members from judicial districts three members from judicial
• go to a formal complaint process.
• go to a formal complaint process.
• go to a formal complaint process.
• go to a formal complaint process.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the January 21 minutes and then reviewed committee rules, emphasizing deadlines for handouts, testimony notices, and substantive amendments, along with a warning that disruptive signs, noise, or demonstrations could lead to removal from the hearing room. The chair said the rules would be shared with the full House and noted the committee would operate with quorum and not tolerate chaos. The committee then heard a presentation from Tammy Baker Olson, the state program administrator for the Guardian ad Litem Board, on the program’s structure and budget request. She explained that guardians ad litem are independent voices for children’s best interests in child protection and family court cases, not attorneys or direct service providers. She said the program operates statewide, with 243 employees, and in 2024 advocated for more than 12,000 children, attended over 30,000 court proceedings, and filed reports in over 16,000 hearings. She also described specialized Family Court and Indian Child Welfare divisions, efforts to address racial disparities, and training requirements for guardians. Members asked about mileage and travel demands, the distinction between a child’s attorney and a guardian ad litem, caseloads, re-entry outcomes, the move from contractor/volunteer models to employee-based staffing, and the role of volunteers. Olson said most guardians use personal vehicles and mileage reimbursement, average caseloads are about 24, and the program has not seen a statewide increase in cases but does face staffing vacancies and turnover in some areas. She said the board believes the employee model improved advocacy and supervision, while the program is rebuilding a modest volunteer pool. She also said the program supports Indian Family Preservation Act-related work and has a formal process for handling conflicts of interest, which should be raised immediately to a supervisor rather than waiting for a complaint process.

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, we're taking away judicial discretion.
• There is a process.
• Judicial immunity serves an important but narrow intention to protect those involved in the judicial
• Continuances are a weighing process.
• Continuances are a weighing process.

Bills: SB1285, SB1289, SB1326, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1392, SB1402, SB1425, SCR1013, SCR1014

Keywords: sentencing, correctional facilities, multiple sentences, death penalty, aggravating circumstances, juvenile offenses, class 2 felony, foreign donations, election administration, certification, Arizona Revised Statutes, transparency, public disclosure, victims' rights, attorney fees, government accountability, right to counsel, legal representation, parents' rights, family law

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then took up several election, family court, and criminal justice bills. SB 1425, the “big bill,” would move Arizona’s 2026 primary election date earlier and adjust related election administration timelines; the chair’s amendment moved the primary to July 21 and removed the shortened curing/ID deadlines. County officials testified in support, explaining the timing changes and the need to align dates, and the committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. SB 1289, dealing with certifications for entities providing money or resources for election administration and foreign funding disclosures, also received a do-pass recommendation after testimony from supporters arguing it would block foreign influence in election administration and ballot issue spending. The committee later heard SCR 1013, a related resolution that would more directly prohibit foreign-source money for election administration and ballot measures; the sponsor and supporters said it was similar to SB 1289 but broader, and testimony focused on foreign money flowing through nonprofit networks. The committee then considered SB 1326, which would allow courts to award attorney fees and costs to victims when a party violates or worsens a victim’s rights. A victim’s attorney testified that the bill would provide needed accountability and guidance, while opponents argued the term “exacerbates” was vague and that existing remedies already exist. The committee approved SB 1326 on a 4-3 vote. SB 1402, requiring courts to impose a fee on certain probationers to cover electronic monitoring costs, drew support from the sponsor and advocates who said offenders should pay for monitoring, and opposition from defense attorneys who warned it could burden indigent probationers and divert money from treatment; it also received a 4-3 do-pass recommendation. The most extensive debate was on SB 1330, which would allow a parent in certain custody cases to request a jury trial on parenting time or legal decision-making. Supporters, including several parents, described costly and traumatic family court experiences and argued a jury would provide a neutral check on judges and court-appointed professionals. County and court representatives opposed the bill, saying family cases require specialized judicial expertise, jury trials would delay urgent matters, increase costs, and risk confidentiality. Despite those concerns, the committee adopted the bill on a 4-3 vote. The committee also approved SB 1328, which declares state policy favoring parental rights and a child’s equal access to both co-parents, after adopting an amendment adding legislative intent language. Finally, SB 1329, which would let parents sue court-appointed professionals who deviate from professional ethics or standards in custody matters, passed 4-3 after testimony from parents and advocates who said court appointees lack accountability, while opponents said existing malpractice and licensing remedies already address misconduct.

Transcript Highlights:

• We completely overhauled the pardon process, which is now significantly more efficient and fully processed
• So, we're saving that money by bringing that process back in-house.
• I bring greetings to you from the judicial branch of government.
• It is the request of the Board on Judicial Compensation.
• But many states now have a marshal or some form of judicial service that oversees statewide judicial

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And what that is is kind of an oral networking processing.
• nominating commission process and the gubernatorial appointment process when there's a vacancy in a
• And by way, of example, those 110 judicial in judicial system vacancies include a number of the new judgeships
• The court reporters, due due process positions.
• But that process is completely up to the courts.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Andres M-D-R-E-S, last name Moses, M-O-S-E, on behalf of the 8th Judicial District Court in
• So we had to leave in the process of getting a court order, because that may be the fastest.
• Rogan is happy to answer any questions you guys have about the process.
• First, it changes the appointment process.
• First, it changes the appointment process.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• unit 610, fund 424, judicial systems. unit 610, fund 424, judicial systems.
• Agency 127, Judicial District 5A, Worland. Agency 128, Judicial District 5B, Cody.
• 126, Judicial District 4A, Sheridan. 126, Judicial District 4A, Sheridan.
• 132, Judicial District 9A, Lander. 132, Judicial District 9A, Lander.
• 143, Judicial District 1D, Cheyenne. 143, Judicial District 1D, Cheyenne.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's been some confusion in the last 24 to 48 hours about judicial pay.
• First of all, though a legislator's, I mean, a judicial current salary is $140,000.
• Thank you, Chairman Leach, for your hard work on judicial compensation.
• and specific process with appeal to the commissioner.
• and specific process with appeal to the commissioner.

Summary: The House met in a late-session floor session that began with prayer, pledges, quorum, and a series of excused absences and Senate messages reporting action on numerous bills, conference committee appointments, and conference reports. Members also adopted a memorial resolution honoring Mark James Hanna, a Capitol lobbyist and advocate for nurses, and a congratulatory resolution for Rishi Tarumalasetti, an eighth-grade civics bee winner from Katy. The chamber also received and recorded a parliamentary colloquy about an unusual Senate request on SB 293, with the Chair stating the House could not recede from only part of its amendments and could not suspend the rules because the bill had not been returned from the Senate. The bulk of the session was devoted to taking up conference committee reports and related procedural resolutions, especially the state budget. The House adopted a resolution allowing the SB 1 conferees to go outside the normal bounds, then adopted the SB 1 conference report on a 107-21 vote. Debate on the budget centered on public education funding, tax relief, health care, corrections pay, and judicial compensation, with supporters calling it a responsible compromise and opponents arguing it was overly expansive and insufficient on property tax relief. The House also adopted a technical correction resolution tying judicial pay increases in SB 1 to the House version of SB 293, and members discussed at length the relationship between judicial salaries and legislative pensions. The chamber then adopted a long series of conference reports on measures covering topics such as school library review and book challenges (SB 13), SNAP restrictions on sweetened drinks and candy (SB 379), hospital price transparency (SB 331), nursing home accountability (SB 457), school district personnel compensation conflicts (HB 3372), property notice rules (HB 2011), research and development tax credits (SB 2018), and several other bills affecting elections, permits, education, and criminal justice. Most reports passed by wide margins, though some drew significant opposition, especially SB 13 and SB 379. The House also granted several Senate requests for conference committees and introduced additional resolutions to suspend conferee limits on various bills as the session moved toward adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Such as due process or equal protection.
• Is there a process? To conduct audits? Is there a process for doing that?
• They do not approve a process or safeguard.
• So the audit standards require you to do a planning process.
• The peer review process, who are the peers? Who are the peers?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this mimics that process.
• I think that's the judicial review process.
• That's why I prefer the judicial review process as opposed to using DOA and going the administrative
• So how is that due process?
• In a normal judicial process, you would be able to see these things happen in court.

Summary: The committee first considered CS/SB 536, which updates Florida’s criminal gang statutes to reflect modern gang recruitment and communication methods, including social media and encrypted messaging. Senator Martin said the bill does not criminalize gang membership, but clarifies definitions used for gang-related enhancements and law enforcement investigations. Members raised concerns about the meaning of “observed in the company” of gang members and possible impacts on businesses and bikers; Martin said the language was not intended to reach ordinary business customers and that the bill still requires other criteria. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably after debate, with some members supporting it and others warning it was still too broad. The committee also approved CS/SB 762, allowing cross-jurisdictional assignment of conflict capital cases with cost and reporting requirements, after an amendment emphasizing judicial economy and geographic proximity; the bill was described as a cost-saving measure and was reported favorably. CS/SB 1742, creating a new offense for indecent exposure or sexual acts directed at minors under 16, was amended to align with the House version and to cover observing a child for sexual gratification, then reported favorably. CS/SB 1750, increasing penalties and mandatory minimums for serious sex crimes and child sexual abuse material offenses, was amended to restore some current-law provisions and limit reclassification to offenders who were 18 or older at the time of the offense, then reported favorably. The committee also approved CS/SB 1582 on statewide data sharing for secondhand dealer and pawnbroker transactions, along with its companion public-records bill SB 1792, both described as theft-prevention and law-enforcement tools with confidentiality protections and stakeholder support. CS/SB 500, providing FDLE protective security for major-party nominees for statewide constitutional offices, was also reported favorably after a technical amendment. The longest and most contentious discussion was on CS/SB 1632, which would create a process for Florida to designate foreign and domestic terrorist organizations, restrict courts from enforcing foreign or religious law when it conflicts with state or federal law, and bar public funds from supporting designated organizations. Senator Graal said the bill targets conduct, not belief, and creates due-process protections through written findings, public notice, cabinet action, and judicial review. Senator Smith and Senator Polsky repeatedly questioned whether the bill’s use of terms like “promotion” could chill protected speech, academic debate, protest activity, or legal representation, and whether the designation process could be used politically or against religious and advocacy groups. Graal said promotion was meant to cover support for illegal acts, not mere disagreement or academic speech, and said she was open to clarifying language. Numerous speakers opposed the bill, arguing it was vague, unconstitutional, and likely to be used against Muslim communities, students, nonprofits, and dissenting political speech; a few supporters argued it was needed for public safety and to prevent state support for terrorism. The committee did not take a final vote on CS/SB 1632 in the portion provided, and the transcript ends during public testimony on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• So more of a process change on DRRA.
• about 7.8 million on the judicial about 7.8 million on the judicial branch.<01:03:58.559> These
• But there is um on in the process.
• 39.600> council judicial council uh contract council judicial council uh contract council received
• . uh judicial branch space assignment. uh judicial branch amended<01:21:01.679> RSA<01:21:02.800

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Assistant staff presented an overview of the Senate changes to the House-passed budget, focusing on revenue estimates, appropriations, and ending balances across the general fund and education trust fund. The presentation emphasized that the Senate’s budget reflected higher revenue assumptions than the House, driven in part by updated April revenue figures, changes to business, tobacco, and real estate transfer tax splits, and different assumptions about video lottery terminal revenue. The Senate also adjusted lapse estimates upward, especially for HHS, after receiving updated information that lapses could be much larger than originally assumed. The presenter walked through the major differences in the surplus statements for fiscal years 2025 through 2027. Compared with the House, the Senate budget generally showed higher revenues, lower or different appropriations in some areas, and larger balances carried forward, including a larger education trust fund balance and a different rainy day fund transfer. The Senate’s approach also changed several policy assumptions, such as maintaining liquor revenue dedication, removing the House’s meals-and-rooms distribution cap, changing the treatment of unique revenue, and altering the process for meeting a targeted revenue amount by giving the governor more flexibility. On the appropriations side, the Senate removed or modified several House reductions and added funding or adjustments in areas including the judicial branch, corrections, HHS, the Human Rights Commission, and certain settlement costs. The presenter also highlighted Senate changes in House Bill 2 and related budget provisions, including a new arts tax credit, a nursing home bed fee, changes to Medicaid premium assumptions, and differences in how motor vehicle inspection repeal and BLT-related revenue are handled. No votes were taken in the portion shown; the discussion was informational and comparative, aimed at explaining the Senate budget changes before conference committee negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes
• Immigration enforcement from entering unless they have a valid judicial warrant or a court order.
• In the process of developing this bill, I want to give credit to the Attorney General, who provided a
• by providers in help. judicial precedent and practice that's already being implemented by providers
• This process is further complicated for the nearly 723,000 seniors and individuals with disabilities

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several Senate bills focused on health care access, privacy, and public health data. SB 81 (Arreguín) would require health care facilities to create nonpublic areas and bar immigration enforcement from entering without a judicial warrant or court order, while also protecting disclosure of immigration-related information in medical records. The bill drew strong support from labor, immigrant-rights, health care, and patient advocacy groups, with committee members emphasizing patient safety and privacy; one member raised implementation concerns about how the restrictions would work in practice. The committee voted the bill out on a due pass motion to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, with one no vote recorded. SB 250 (Ochoa Bogh) would add skilled nursing facilities to DHCS’s managed care provider directory so Medi-Cal beneficiaries can more easily identify covered facilities. Supporters said the change would help seniors and people with disabilities avoid confusion and rushed placement decisions, especially during hospital discharge, and would make existing information easier to use. The committee passed the bill to Appropriations on a unanimous vote. SB 717 (Richardson) would formally recognize California’s three regional cancer registries in state law to help preserve federal funding and support cancer surveillance data collection. The author and supporters said the measure would protect more than $15 million in annual federal support and strengthen cancer research and tracking; the committee approved it unanimously to Appropriations. SB 504 (Laird) would allow health care providers to disclose personally identifying information about previously reported HIV infections to state or local health officials when needed for disease control or care coordination. The author described the bill as a modernization of reporting and coordination practices, and supporters from the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood backed it. The committee sent the bill out as amended to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on a unanimous vote. The meeting also included routine consent-calendar action and multiple add-on votes, with the committee repeatedly holding the roll open to record additional members’ votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• as the next budget process as the next budget process just<00:14:48.800> starts<00:14:49.199
• may occur too soon in the process. may occur too soon in the process.
• appearance they attend where the process appearance they attend where the process is<00:30:38.559
• We have an issue with staffing in a lot of areas, but judicial staffing.
• We have an issue with staffing in a lot of areas, but judicial staffing.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met without a quorum and discussed how to proceed with its family court review work. The chair said preliminary, unofficial reports could be circulated and voted on by email, and noted that next year the work might continue as a full committee rather than a subcommittee. Members also discussed carrying unresolved issues into next year, including the long-standing “one judge, one case” concept. Later, the committee received additional materials from a member who could not attend, including a packet on state-funded transcript requests and background information on how different states structure family court systems. A major presentation focused on improving New Hampshire family court pre-trial and mediation practices. The presenters said current rules give judges broad discretion, which can lead to inconsistent discovery, evidence, and timelines, especially for self-represented parties. They raised concerns about uneven mediator training and oversight, lack of uniform domestic violence screening, and unclear information for families about their rights and how to exit mediation. They recommended standardized pre-trial case management orders, clearer plain-language deadlines, mandatory domestic violence screening, stronger mediator certification and continuing education, a mentorship program, an independent oversight board, and a pilot program in a few counties before any statewide rollout. Members and presenters also discussed existing court forms and practices, including mediation agreements, mediator preparation forms, first appearances, and the use of Zoom for mediation. One participant argued that mediation can work better when parties are better prepared and when cases are not sent too early, and suggested that neutral case evaluation is another useful alternative dispute resolution tool. The discussion also touched on the need for better educational materials for pro se litigants, with one member describing efforts to create a more accessible guide for people going to court. No votes were taken, and the session ended with plans to continue reviewing materials and refine recommendations.