Transcript Highlights:

• So the benefit for Sussex County is I actually get an additional judicial resource to assign in Sussex
• County because you... ...get an additional judicial resource to assign in Sussex County because even
• the second thing is I really do think that this benefits Kent County because it gets an additional judicial
• And I know, I mean, my request over the last ten years for judicial resource has been for Kent County
• And I know, I mean, my request over the last ten years for judicial resource has been for Kent County

Bills: HB372 , HB414

Committee: House Judiciary

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met and heard three bills. HB 372 would reorganize Justice of the Peace Court resources by shifting the number of judges and court locations among counties, consolidating overnight operations into a single 24-hour court in Kent County, and adjusting staffing to address workload and efficiency concerns. Chief Judge Alan Davis said the change responds to increased civil filings, automated enforcement, and staffing shortages, and that a Sussex County pilot closing a 24-hour facility had worked without major issues. Some members raised concerns about impacts on Sussex and Kent County, bail processing, and local response times, while public comment included one supporter. The committee voted to release HB 372. The committee then considered SB 324, which amends Delaware’s permit-to-purchase law to allow constable agencies, including those serving institutions like Delaware Tech, to purchase handguns for newly hired constables without duplicative background checks. Sponsor Representative Cook said the bill aligns constable procurement with existing law-enforcement exemptions while preserving gun-safety requirements. Public testimony included support from Delaware Tech and comments urging broader fixes to the permit-to-purchase law, including exemptions for retired officers with federal 218 credentials and clarification on firearms returned from manufacturers, gunsmiths, or police departments. The committee voted to release SB 324. Finally, the committee heard HB 414, which clarifies that the Superior Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over certain destructive-weapon offenses applies only to adults, while juvenile cases would still begin in Family Court. Sponsor Representative Romer said the bill preserves the Family Court’s role in handling youth cases and allows referral to Superior Court when appropriate. The Department of Justice said it still believes Superior Court is the proper venue for these serious charges, while the Office of Defense Services supported keeping youth cases in Family Court first, arguing that rehabilitation and juvenile-specific dispositions are more appropriate. After public comment, the committee voted to release HB 414, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator the 29th... ...relating to trust fund interest for purposes approved by the Supreme Court.
• I trust Bob. I know many of you in this chamber know Sheriff Gultieri, and I think he represents...
• generational operators, will put stuff in trust or into an LLC or whatever it might be.
• It is a foundation of trust. And that true leadership means... ...is not a weakness.
• It is a foundation of trust.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a series of introductions and moments of silence recognizing recent tragedies and public figures, including students affected by the FSU shooting, John Thrasher, Coach Amir Abdur-Rahim, and conservation and youth groups visiting the chamber. The body also adopted Senate Resolution 1878 honoring Coach Abdur-Rahim and Senate Resolution 1892 recognizing Florida Wildlife Corridor Week. The chamber then moved through a long special-order calendar, passing several bills with little or no opposition. Measures approved included child care and early learning provider regulation updates (SB 738, 37-0), false reporting/swatting penalties and cost recovery (SB 726, 38-0), health care billing and collection protections/medical debt (SB 656, 38-0), hazardous walking conditions for schoolchildren (SB 650, 38-0), young adult housing support for foster and homeless students (SB 584, 38-0), the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program disclosure bill (SB 508, 37-1), trust fund interest for court-approved purposes after a debated amendment (SB 498, 28-10), transportation and traffic-safety changes including school bus camera hearings and micromobility rules (SB 462, 37-0), public records exemptions for AHCA investigators and JQC/appellate court clerks (SB 342, 34-4; SB 302, 35-3; SB 300, 35-3), municipal water and sewer utility rate fairness for Miami Gardens/North Miami Beach (SB 202/HB 11, 36-2), motor vehicle offenses involving obscured plates and impersonation (SB 44/HB 253, 36-0), trespass at large-scale ticketed events and law-enforcement-controlled sites (SB 1828/HB 1447, 35-1), patient refund of overpayments (SB 1808, 37-0), stem cell therapy standards (SB 1768, 37-0), insulin administration by direct support professionals and relatives (SB 1736/HB 1567, 38-0), and pre-arranged transportation services/rideshare impersonation (SB 1696/HB 1525, 37-0). Several bills were temporarily postponed, including cardiac emergencies, chemicals and consumer products, motor vehicle manufacturers and franchise dealers, and education. Debate centered most heavily on the trust fund interest bill, with supporters arguing it would stabilize funding and better reflect market rates, and opponents warning it would sharply reduce legal aid funding and hurt access to justice. The transportation bill also drew extensive questions and amendments, including removal of a speed-limit increase, changes to school bus infraction hearing procedures, micromobility regulation, and flood-wake enforcement. The municipal water bill prompted constitutional and fairness concerns, while the public records bills were defended as necessary to protect investigators and court personnel from doxing and harassment. Most measures ultimately passed with strong bipartisan support, though the scholarship disclosure bill and trust fund interest bill drew the most visible dissent.

Transcript Highlights:

• State agencies seeking approval include the Judicial Department for the Family Treatment Court Program
• consent grants from the Public Safety Subcommittee and open up a work session on Item 1 from the Judicial
• the account and includes $300,000 for enhanced digital privacy protection for judges and high-risk judicial
• Subcommittee recommends the Emergency Board increase other funds expenditure limitation for the Judicial
• It's used for education, and I trust education that occurs across the state.

Summary: The Emergency Board approved a series of consent federal grant applications from the Natural Resources and Public Safety subcommittees, along with several budget and position requests. The board approved grant applications for parks, transportation, judicial, emergency management, higher education, school nutrition, and other programs, including retroactive approvals where deadlines had passed. One member objected to the Natural Resources consent grants over concerns about future funding needs, but the motion still passed. The board also approved a one-time increase for Judicial Department court security, including digital privacy protections, circuit court security, and a statewide facilities assessment. A major discussion centered on Southern Oregon University’s financial stability. The Higher Education Coordinating Commission reported on SOU’s structural deficits, declining enrollment, and projected cash shortfall. The subcommittee recommended, and the board approved, allocating $7.5 million from the special appropriation for short-term stability, with a required update at the September 2026 Emergency Board meeting and a future request for the remaining funds. Members debated the broader crisis in higher education, with several saying SOU’s situation reflects systemwide enrollment and funding pressures and that long-term restructuring will be needed. The board also approved an AmeriCorps volunteer generation grant, an apprenticeship expansion grant, and a Department of Education nutrition equipment grant. In public safety, it approved funding for Oregon Military Department readiness facilities, a statewide evacuation planning tool, and a juvenile justice information system modernization report, while requiring a follow-up viability report. The Department of Justice received approval for additional antitrust positions and expenditure limitation, though several members raised concerns about the funding structure and incentives tied to settlement revenues; the motion passed despite objections. In natural resources, the board approved funding for the Water Resources Department’s well abandonment, repair and replacement grants, an assistant water master position in Washington County, groundwater data collection in the Lower Umatilla Basin, a wetlands remote sensing pilot, and parks-related grant applications for operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. Members generally supported the requests but raised concerns about geographic equity, long-term sustainability, and whether some county responsibilities were being shifted to the state. The meeting also included discussion of a Department of Emergency Management evacuation tool as an urgent wildfire preparedness measure, with members emphasizing its potential to save lives.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:58:38.079><c> proceedings</c><00:58:38.640><c> involving</c> judicial proceedings involving judicial
• First up, we have judicial proceedings.
• </c> the window for filing a judicial the window for filing a judicial challenge<00:59:29.839><c> to<
• Thank you our trusted public officials.
• </c><01:59:47.760><c> with</c> companions deceptively build trust with companions deceptively build trust

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 1531, HD1, which would require the governor or county mayors to provide American Sign Language interpreters during official emergency announcements broadcast on television or the internet, ensure the interpreter is visible, and provide a primary pool feed with picture-in-picture so rebroadcasters would not need to add the feature themselves. Testimony from the Disability and Communication Access Board and the State Council on Developmental Disabilities strongly supported the bill, emphasizing effective communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing residents and noting that interpreter placement and size can make broadcasts inaccessible. The council requested an effective date of July 1, 2027 to allow implementation time. Members raised concerns about interpreter availability and emergency logistics on Hawaiʻi Island, but the chair moved to pass the bill with amendments reflecting the picture-in-picture recommendation and the later effective date. The committee adopted the motion, with several members voting aye and others voting with reservations. The committee then heard House Bill 1880, HD2, which would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2027, the use or application of pesticides containing 1,3-dichloropropene, such as Telone. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity explained that pesticides are already regulated at both the federal and state levels, with EPA risk assessments and state enforcement of label restrictions, reporting, and school-buffer requirements. The Hawaii Public Health Institute supported the bill, citing cancer and respiratory risks and arguing that safer alternatives exist. In opposition, Dole Food and the Hawaii Farm Bureau said Telone is important for controlling nematodes in pineapple production, that it is applied underground under EPA conditions, and that no comparable registered alternative exists for pineapple; they also said the bill’s 2027 start date is too short for growers to adjust. A representative from the Y Alliance for Progressive Action and Support supported the measure, citing statewide usage data and concerns about drift and chronic health impacts. Committee members questioned both sides about drift monitoring, groundwater impacts, alternative methods, and whether a transition period or research into resistant varieties could reduce reliance on the chemical.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a result, safeguards may depend on prosecutorial discretion rather than judicial oversight.
• Judicial oversight ensures that accountability does not Evidence is handled.
• Judicial oversight ensures that accountability does not come at the cost of dignity.
• It gives us judicial discretion. Less serious incidents remain misdemeanors.
• And so this bill clearly makes it judicial discretion that it's something that's minimal.

Summary: The committee met first as a subcommittee because a quorum was not initially present, and it heard several bill presentations. SB 1056 by Senator Grayson would require courts to issue protective orders for sexually explicit material involving adult victims in criminal cases, limiting copying and dissemination while preserving discovery and trial rights. Supporters, including Aaron and Denise Heskins-Quinn and the California District Attorneys Association, said the bill would prevent retraumatization and close a privacy gap; opponents, including public defenders and criminal defense groups, argued it was overbroad, vague, and could interfere with defense preparation. The committee adopted amendments narrowing the bill’s scope and sent it to Appropriations on a due pass as amended vote, with the bill held on call. SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez would restrict law enforcement use of flashbang devices for crowd control and ban their use in immigration enforcement. Supporters described injuries and fear caused by flashbangs and explosive breaching charges, including incidents involving protests and a home entry in Huntington Park; opponents from sheriffs’ and police groups argued the bill’s definitions were vague, could limit tactical discretion, and might conflict with existing law and task force operations. Members expressed both support and concern about definitions and exigent circumstances, and the bill was moved due pass to Appropriations on a vote, with the final roll held on call. SB 1070 by Senator Grove would make intentional disruptions of worship services a wobbler offense, allowing felony charges in more serious cases. Faith leaders and supporters said the bill was needed to deter coordinated disruptions and protect religious exercise, while opponents including the Friends Committee on Legislation, ACLU California Action, and public defenders argued it would criminalize speech, rely on a content-based statute, and impose disproportionate felony penalties. Several committee members raised constitutional and restorative-justice concerns, and the bill failed on the roll call, though reconsideration was granted. SB 1130 by Senator Reyes would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses, limiting surreptitious recording in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy and restricting technologies that disable recording indicators. Supporters said the bill responds to emerging surveillance risks; opponents from TechNet and industry groups warned it could create liability for manufacturers and businesses beyond the actual wrongdoers. The committee accepted amendments reducing penalties, removing manufacturer provisions from the bill’s core criminal section, and creating civil penalties in the Business and Professions Code; the bill was moved due pass as amended to Rules, with the vote held on call. The committee also heard SCA 2 by Senator Troy, which would bar governors from pardoning themselves or immediate family members; there was no public opposition, but some members questioned the need for a constitutional amendment given the lack of evidence of abuse, and discussion was ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and it... ...of the bill to provide families with a mechanism to reflect the judicial outcomes in a
• these roles, increasing the risk of perceived actual conflicts of interest and undermining public trust
• If the judicial system has recognized an individual's rehabilitation, our licensing board should do the
• As a former wills, trusts, and estate planning attorney, I worked with clients who care deeply about
• With transparency comes trust and better health outcomes for all Californians.

Committee: Senate Health

Summary: The committee heard SB 1422, which would restore Medi-Cal access for income-eligible undocumented adults beginning January 1, 2027. Senator Durazo and county, labor, health, immigrant-rights, and provider supporters argued the current enrollment freeze shifts costs to counties and hospitals, worsens preventive care, and increases expensive emergency treatment. No opposition testified. Several senators voiced support but also raised concerns about funding and the need for new revenue sources; the chair said she supported the concept and would continue working on financing, but the bill was not voted on because quorum was lost. The committee also heard SB 1023 on PrEP access, SB 1071 on amending death certificates after a homicide finding, SB 1057 on conviction-history review for CNA and home health aide certification, and SB 1088 on advance care planning and POLST/DNR updates. SB 1023’s author and supporters said requiring pharmacy-benefit coverage for injectable PrEP would reduce administrative barriers and improve access, while health plans opposed it as an improper benefit-design mandate; members sought clarification about how the billing pathway would work. SB 1071 drew strong support from victims’ families, law enforcement, and prosecutors who said death certificates should reflect later legal homicide findings, while coroners opposed it as blurring medical and legal determinations and risking data integrity. SB 1057 was presented as a fair-chance workforce measure to expand caregiving jobs for rehabilitated people with records, with no opposition heard. SB 1088 would modernize POLST/DNR rules, including electronic signatures, out-of-state recognition, and clearer signer authority; supporters backed the changes, while clinical nurse specialists opposed the bill for not including them as authorized signers. After quorum was established, the committee took up SB 869, which would require large chain restaurants to display an added-sugar icon next to beverages exceeding half the daily recommended sugar limit. Senator Weber Pierson and supporters from the American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association framed the bill as a transparency measure to help consumers make informed choices and reduce chronic disease risk. The senator responded to opposition concerns by saying existing nutrition information is often hard to find and that the icon would not unduly crowd menus. The hearing continued with testimony on the bill after quorum was reached, but no final vote is reflected in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We appreciate the intent of the bill to provide families with a mechanism to reflect the judicial outcomes
• these roles, increasing the risk of perceived actual conflicts of interest and undermining public trust
• If the judicial system has recognized an individual's rehabilitation, our licensing board should do the
• As a former wills, trusts, and estate planning attorney, I worked with clients who care deeply about
• With transparency comes trust and better health outcomes for all Californians.

Committee: Senate Health

Transcript Highlights:

• So this way they're going to be under the judicial branch with this advisory committee.
• branch with this advisory the judicial branch with this advisory committee.<00:23:01.200><c> They're
• fund so that the drinking water trust fund so that the<00:34:36.079><c> kind</c><00:34:36.240><c> of
• </c> its former pulled risk management trust. its former pulled risk management trust.
• Judicial branch is done. That brings you to the second page, and this one's still on hold.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Judicial counsel. I move item 1 C. All right. 1 C. And we have a second. Mr.
• :22:53.520><c> have</c><00:22:53.600><c> enough</c><00:22:53.840><c> ARPA</c> judicial council, they
• have enough ARPA judicial council, they have enough ARPA funds<00:22:54.559><c> left</c><00:22:54.799
• Education trust fund versus general fund dollars and shifting the splits.
• Education trust fund versus right place.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Hill, an act relating to courts, creating an additional judgeship in the second judicial district, making
• submit an accountability and evaluation plan for programs and projects that receive funding from the trust
• House Bill 182, introduced by Representative Roybal-Caballero (member_12219), an act relating to judicial
• retirement, providing for appropriations and income derived from investments to be credited to the Judicial
• credit required for certain judges, and increasing certain service credit multipliers provided in the Judicial

Transcript Highlights:

• So the Constitution is a trust agreement, and we are the trustees.
• The Constitution functions as a trust: the grantors are the people of New Hampshire, the trust instrument
• So for decades, the legislature has failed to defend this trust.
• We have failed to defend this trust.
• We have failed to defend this trust.

Committee: House Executive Departments and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Wisconsin today trying to buy a judicial Wisconsin today trying to buy a judicial race.<01:10:24.159
• </c> we're seeing in fact is judicial we're seeing in fact is judicial tyranny.<01:18:35.840><c> The<
• Speaker, the judicial actions. Mr.
• </c> restore the integrity of our judicial restore the integrity of our judicial system.<01:19:00.560
• circuits, US judicial separate judicial circuits, US judicial circuits<02:32:13.359><c> are</c><02:32

Bills: HR283 , HB1491 , HR282 , HR164

Keywords: committee election, House of Representatives, government structure, representation, foreign affairs, disaster relief, tax deadlines, Internal Revenue Code, collection notices, government response, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Overdraft Lending, Digital Consumer Payment Applications, financial institutions, voting registration, citizenship proof, remote voting, proxy voting, parental rights, legislative process

Transcript Highlights:

• And I will public trust in government.
• Um, and we support efforts to increase judicial discretion.
• Um, and we support efforts to increase judicial discretion.
• The bill would also improve judicial efficiency, as the Judiciary's testimony makes clear.
• </c><01:48:56.560><c> grows</c> participation grows, public trust grows participation grows, public trust

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2246, which would expand public financial disclosure requirements. The State Ethics Commission strongly supported the bill, saying broader disclosure could help restore public trust and potentially deter corruption, and it offered a clarifying amendment to make clear the requirement applies to board and commission members rather than all employees of listed agencies. Several organizations and individuals also testified in support. A committee member asked about the amendment, and the commission explained it was intended as a clarification rather than a substantive change. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2250, which would add homeless facilities to the locations covered by the drug-free-zone offense for promoting controlled substances. The Public Defender opposed the measure, arguing that many homeless facilities are unmarked and not easily identifiable, creating notice, fairness, and due process concerns and risking arbitrary enforcement. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office and Honolulu Police Department supported the bill, saying it targets distributors rather than users, that notice can be proven through evidence, and that the law is aimed at protecting vulnerable people in shelters and similar facilities. In questioning, senators asked how homeless facilities would be identified and whether the bill would cover all shelter models; the prosecutor said the definition is cross-referenced in statute and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii and other groups testified in opposition, while several service and advocacy groups testified in support. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2325, which would allow courts to review and potentially reduce sentences for certain juvenile offenders after 15 years if the person is not a danger to the community. Judiciary staff said the court supports the bill’s intent but noted Hawaii’s indeterminate sentencing structure leaves no alternative sentence for a court to reduce to, suggesting the measure may need structural sentencing changes or could instead be directed to the Hawaii Paroling Authority. Public defender representatives and youth-justice advocates supported the bill, emphasizing rehabilitation, adolescent brain development, trauma, and the need for a meaningful opportunity for release. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each judicial circuit is voluntary if they wish to and acts this new specialty court is not mandated
• upon every judicial circuit, but that funding will come from that fund that essential part of funding
• Rosa County, meaning that that homeowner could not sale, could not refinance, could not put into a trust
• They do that when governance has failed trust is broken down or eroded and homeowners feel they have
• But it provides a lawful pass for judicial review.

Transcript Highlights:

• We offer this prayer, trusting that you walk along in the hard and hopeful work of governing.
• Trusting that you walk along in the hard and hopeful work of governing. Amen.
• Appropriations, transportation, technology, and judicial. SB 1197: MAA is groundwater portability.
• SB 1150: family court judicial training. SB 1151: homeowners associations open meetings.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then established attendance, approved the prior journal, and welcomed several guests, including the Doctor of the Day, a student shadowing a senator, representatives from Republic Services, and visitors from Copper Valley Energy. Senators also announced administrative deadlines, including extensions for opening Senate folders and for Senate bill introduction preparation, with the bill introduction deadline set for February 2. The main floor business was the reading and reference of a large number of Senate bills and resolutions across many subject areas, including education, government, appropriations, natural resources, health and human services, finance, judiciary and elections, and military affairs and border security. The calendar also included second-reading placement for another large group of bills covering topics such as firearms, behavioral health, family courts, insurance, water, taxation, public safety, and elections. No substantive debate or votes on the merits of the measures occurred during this portion beyond the procedural reading and referral of the bills. Standing committee reports were accepted without being read, and committee announcements were made for upcoming meetings of Government, Health and Human Services, Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency, Education, Judiciary and Elections, and Public Safety. The Senate then adjourned on motion until Wednesday, January 21, 2026, at 1:15 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• District, North Central Judicial District, Northeast Judicial District, Northeast Central, as well as
• East Central Judicial District.
• Number five is fines, fees, and forfeitures that go to the Common Schools Trust Fund.
• That would also go to the state tuition fund or the Common Schools Trust Fund.
• So that’s a judicial decision.

Committee: Joint Judiciary Committee

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to continue its study of charitable gaming, especially the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations and the relationship between charities, site owners, and gaming manufacturers/distributors. Legislative Council reviewed the background memo and Attorney General’s Gaming Division explained the legal framework, including site authorizations, rent limits, allowable expenses, and restrictions on distributors and manufacturers. Members focused heavily on electronic pull tabs, asking about the large gap between gross proceeds and adjusted proceeds, how much is paid out in winnings, how much is retained for expenses, and whether the 60% allowable-expense cap is being used as intended. The AG’s office said e-tabs account for most gaming volume, that winnings make up much of the difference, and that some organizations do not use the full 60% while others may exceed it, though only the capped amount counts as gaming expense. The committee also discussed the number of gaming organizations that appear to own or be affiliated with bars, the ways those ownership structures are formed, and whether some arrangements may create conflicts or site-selection pressure. The League of Cities and the Association of Counties described the local site-authorization process and recent model policies adopted after the 2025 session. Cities said they can require signed agreements, limit games and machines, set qualifications, and charge up to $100 for site authorization, but cannot require charities to donate net proceeds or force a specific charity or site. They said the new policies are meant to add transparency and local control, though the more controversial parts involve requiring a local nexus or community connection. County representatives said the issue is mostly a city matter and that counties generally take a lighter-touch approach. Committee members raised concerns about whether local rules could unfairly exclude larger regional charities or create inconsistent standards across cities. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance said it supports the study and provided information on charities that own or are affiliated with bars, emphasizing that most gaming organizations do not own alcoholic beverage establishments. Its representative said some charities may pursue bar ownership for site stability and diversification, while others decide against it because operating a bar is difficult. He also said a ban on charity-owned bars could raise federal tax-law issues depending on how it is written, and agreed to provide more detail. The committee asked Legislative Council and the Gaming Alliance for additional information on ownership structures and federal-law questions before the next meeting. Later, the Racing Commission gave a separate update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, and related charitable partnerships, and the State Hospital superintendent reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, staffing, and wait lists; no votes were taken on these presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> and the parents that are at work trust and the parents that are at work trust her<00:41:35.120><
• They are the adults our children trust, and they are the people that we trust.
• </c> says a judicial warrant says a judicial warrant or<01:04:38.960><c> an</c><01:04:39.120><c> order
• </c> they have a warrant, a signed judicial they have a warrant, a signed judicial warrant,<01:12:00.720
• </c> They would not be needing a judicial They would not be needing a judicial warrant.<01:26:03.160>

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that to only a judicial warrant.
• </c> law and you look for those judicial law and you look for those judicial warrants<01:20:31.440><c
• </c><01:34:55.920><c> and</c> ICE activities including judicial and ICE activities including judicial
• Vice Chair Coulter: If that officer has a signed judicial warrant? No.
• Um, I also have a concern that now we're requiring a judicial warrant.

Bills: HF3432 , HF3411

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• to removal of judicial to removal of judicial discretion well I'm always going to be discretion well
• discretion we do it over and judicial discretion we do it over and judicial discretion we do it over
• for judicial for judicial discretion discretion discretion um I'm not sure like where that comes um
• vesting discretion from the judicial vesting discretion from the judicial branch is it the judicial
• branch what branch is it the judicial branch what branch is it the judicial branch what what are the

Transcript Highlights:

• Andy Shealy, District Attorney, 16th Judicial District Present in support, not wishing to speak.
• Claire Howington with the 16th Judicial District Attorney's Office, Andy Shealy with the 16th Judicial
• Why wouldn't that be conducted immediately when there is no judicial discretion? Right.
• This legislation is measured reasonable, those gaps in the trust.
• Claire Howington with the 16 Judicial District Attorney, Andy Shealy, District Attorney, 16 Judicial

Committee: House Administration of Criminal Justice

Summary: The committee met on March 18, 2026, with a quorum present and heard several criminal justice bills. HB 36 by Rep. Butler, as amended, removed Evangeline Parish from the Acadiana Regional Juvenile Justice District and was reported favorably. HB 160 by Rep. Knox increased penalties for domestic violence offenses involving strangulation; the committee adopted an amendment requiring at least one year without probation or suspension, heard strong support from survivors and prosecutors, and reported the bill favorably as amended. HB 552 by Rep. Bryant, handled by Vice Chair LaFleur, clarified DWI law to include impairment beyond alcohol; a technical amendment was adopted and the bill was reported favorably as amended. HB 119 by Rep. Fontenot created and strengthened penalties for AI-generated sexual images, especially involving minors; after amendments, including a new possession offense and a name change to “Act Ivy Daniels,” the bill was reported favorably as amended. HB 171 by Rep. Spell corrected a citation in the personal surety provisions and was reported favorably without opposition. HB 140 by Rep. Cox drew the most debate. The bill lengthened juvenile delinquency filing and adjudication timelines and changed procedures for extensions and dismissals. Prosecutors and law enforcement supported the bill as a practical update to account for modern evidence gathering and case complexity, while public defenders, juvenile advocates, and other opponents argued it would prolong detention, undermine speedy-trial protections, increase costs, and harm children. After extensive testimony and discussion, the committee adopted amendments and reported HB 140 favorably as amended by a roll call vote of 8-3, with Representatives Knox, LaFleur, and Moore voting no. The committee also heard HB 68 by Rep. Schlegel, combined with concepts from Rep. Glorioso’s similar bill, to update disturbing-the-peace law to protect houses of worship from intentional disruption. An amendment clarified definitions of worship spaces and interruptions and increased the mandatory minimum jail time from 15 to 30 days, while enhancing penalties to a felony for more serious conduct such as battery, property damage, or carrying a dangerous weapon during the offense. Supporters framed it as a deterrent and protection for religious liberty, while opponents, including the ACLU, raised First Amendment concerns and asked for tighter language. The transcript cuts off during opposition testimony, and no final vote on HB 68 is shown in the excerpt.