Transcript Highlights:

• Is that left up to the judge, the court system?
• Well, I mean, some judges might consider that. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
• We declined the offer and let the judge hear the evidence and decide, The judge awarded us a total of
• We declined the offer and let the judge hear the evidence and decide what we should be awarded.
• The judge awarded us a total of $113,700.

Committee: House Children and Families

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 1135, “Bentley and Mason’s Law,” which would require a person convicted of driving drunk or otherwise impaired and causing the death of a parent or parents to pay child support-like maintenance to the victim’s children until age 18, or 21 if in college. The sponsor explained that the amount would be determined through a clerk and court process similar to child support, based on the offender’s finances and the children’s prior standard of living. The bill also includes a provision intended to avoid “double dipping” by barring the maintenance claim if the family has already pursued a civil case against the insurance company, and it allows a one-year grace period after release from prison before payments begin. Committee members asked about the amount, whether health care or FAFSA would be affected, and whether penalties would apply for nonpayment; the sponsor said those issues were not fully specified and could be strengthened later. Members also raised concerns about enforceability and bankruptcy, while others supported the bill but suggested possible amendments. Public testimony was strongly in favor. Brooke Stewart described how her husband was killed by a drunk driver in Tennessee and said Bentley’s Law has provided her children with restitution that will help support them through adulthood, including college. She said the offender had prior DUI-related arrests and that the law gave her family relief and accountability. Heather Elder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving testified for the bill and said Missouri should pass it without amendment, noting that similar laws exist in other states and territories. She said the bill was created in response to Cecilia Williams’ family tragedy and that Bentley and Mason, the children named in the bill, have been attending hearings and understand what the legislation means. Witnesses also referenced related impaired-driving and social-host bills as broader prevention efforts. No one testified in opposition, and the committee took no vote, ending the hearing after the public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Parents shouldn't face uncertainty about how their courthouse or their judge in Louisiana will measure
• and everything became a battle, something that could spare parents the expense of having to go to a judge
• And then it would be up to the judge, kind of, if it were litigated. Is that correct?
• could disagree, with the judge sort of being the person who plays, make sure that everybody's within
• Fact finder would be either a judge if a case was tried to the court or a jury. Okay, yeah.

Bills: HB78 , HB112 , HB190 , HB292 , HB410 , HB427 , HB437

Committee: House Civil Law and Procedure

Keywords: jurisdiction, city court, Bogalusa, civil law, court limit, Louisiana, child relocation, custody, mileage measurement, co-parenting, Louisiana law, software, computer programs, standard of care, liability, design, development, manufacture, sale, security deposit

Transcript Highlights:

• A judge cannot allow a moveout schedule that you have in mind. A judge cannot order a payment plan.
• And the judge can make that agreement the order, but the judge cannot order.
• And the judge can make that agreement the order, but the judge cannot order.
• And the judge can make that agreement the order, but the judge cannot order.
• The judge can make that agreement the order, but the judge cannot order.

Bills: HF3806 , HF2687 , HF497

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Keywords: housing, infrastructure bonds, funding, appropriation, Minnesota Statutes, HF2687, single-family homes, corporate landlords, corporate ownership, real estate investment trust, REIT, landlord registry, landlord database, tenant transparency, housing affordability, homeownership, deed tax, transfer tax, property tax, affordable housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Staff was instructed to gather information regarding the current caseload of assignments to circuit judges
• The county judge appoints the five members of the library board, which then appoints the county librarian
• The librarian reports directly to the board, but works under the authority of the county judge, who has
• The librarian reports directly to the board, but works under the authority of the county judge, who has
• And so whether or not the federal judge was monitoring as closely as maybe we would or not is obviously

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING

Summary: The Legislative Joint Audit Committee met on February 13, 2026, and first adopted the January 9, 2026 minutes. It then received and adopted reports from the Executive Committee, the Standing Committee on Counties and Municipalities, the Standing Committee on Education Institutions, the Standing Committee on State Agencies, and the Medicaid Subcommittee. Those reports covered audit follow-up items, delinquent private water and sewer audits, municipal accounting compliance issues, education audit findings, state agency audit findings, and a Medicaid oversight presentation. Several reports were filed after discussion, and in multiple cases agencies or local officials were present to answer questions about repeat findings or compliance concerns. Among the notable audit matters, the committee reviewed a Cleburne County library audit that found more than $80,000 in unauthorized or questionable disbursements, including purchases that appeared personal in nature and improper fuel expenses. The library director had been placed on leave, later charged with felony theft of property and abuse of office, and the matter was referred to the prosecuting attorney and Attorney General. The committee also heard a special report on the Charles W. Donaldson Scholars Academy at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, which found scholarship ineligibility issues and numerous disbursement-processing exceptions, while noting that the program had ended in 2024 and remaining funds were returned to the school districts. During the state agency report, Legislative Audit described findings at DHS, Parks, Heritage, and Tourism, Corrections, and Veterans Affairs, including improper benefit payments, a cashed warrant by someone other than the intended payee, missing receipts, unauthorized fuel card purchases, and payroll and overtime issues. The committee filed that report after agency representatives responded to questions. The meeting ended with the filing of the Cleburne County and Donaldson Scholars Academy reports, and the next committee meeting was announced for March 12-13, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• Briefly, when a judge dismisses a felony criminal charge for having no probable cause at a preliminary
• If a judge determines, after listening to the evidence, that there is not probable cause to support a
• Under current law, when a judge removes a charge at the preliminary hearing due to a lack of evidence
• , Under current law, when a judge removes a charge at the preliminary hearing due to a lack of evidence
• Under AB 1917, after a magistrate judge dismisses a charge for lack of evidence, prosecutors will use

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on April 15, 2026, for a regular order hearing on 38 bills. The chair announced that AB 2457 was pulled to a later hearing, reviewed public testimony rules, established a quorum, and approved the consent calendar in two motions. Bills on the consent calendar were moved either to the Assembly floor consent calendar or to the floor non-consent calendar, and the suspense calendar was deemed approved as read. The committee then heard AB 1917 by Assemblymember Schultz, which would require prosecutors to file an 871.5 motion to reinstate felony charges dismissed at a preliminary hearing for lack of probable cause, rather than simply adding the charges back. The author and supporters, including the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, Californians for Safety and Justice, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and several advocacy groups, argued the bill would improve due process, transparency, and court efficiency by reducing unnecessary litigation and costs. No opposition testimony was presented. After questions and a motion, the committee took a roll call vote on AB 1917. Members voting were recorded as aye, and the bill passed out of committee. The hearing then concluded and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Briefly, when a judge dismisses a felony criminal charge for having no probable cause at a preliminary
• If a judge determines, after listening to the evidence, that there is not probable cause to support a
• Under current law, when a judge removes a charge at the preliminary hearing due to a lack of evidence
• , Under current law, when a judge removes a charge at the preliminary hearing due to a lack of evidence
• Under AB 1917, after a magistrate judge dismisses a charge for lack of evidence, prosecutors will use

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Now we go in front of a judge, but they still wouldn't have noticed even in front of the judge.
• Now we go in front of a judge, but they still wouldn't have noticed even in front of the judge.
• Now we go in front of a judge, but they still wouldn't have noticed even in front of the judge.
• Now we go in front of a judge, but they still wouldn't have noticed even in front of the judge.
• Now we go in front of a judge, but they still wouldn't have noticed even in front of the judge.

Bills: HF4075 , HF3826 , HF3825 , HF3827 , HF3459 , HF3711 , HF4200 , HF3908 , HF3712

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Keywords: firearm restrictions, domestic violence, public safety, court orders, criminal convictions, identity theft, subpoena authority, fraud, statute of limitations, financial crime, victim notification, expungement, criminal justice, plea agreements, minor victims, identification protection, stalking, crime data, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, law enforcement grants

Transcript Highlights:

• Judge Hill, what you just said bothers me. I spent 20 years putting people in prison.
• When a judge orders someone into a program, I will assure you we expect that individual to go through
• </c> When<00:29:42.399><c> a</c><00:29:42.640><c> judge</c><00:29:43.039><c> orders</c><00:29:43.440>
• ,</c><00:30:39.679><c> don't</c> to come to you and say, "Judge, don't to come to you and say, "Judge
• And again, if I misstated what Judge Hill was saying, that's not what my intention was to do that.

Transcript Highlights:

• Gonzalez and then the judge to wrap this. And then Mr.
• To get a court order, I got to track a judge down to get that judge on the phone, to get it reviewed,
• Thank you, Judge. And is it Jan or Yon? It's Jan. Okay, so you... Thank you, Judge.
• judge, and then back as the presiding probate court judge.
• That is most often used by judges.

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Judges don't have time for that either, do they? It's taking up valuable docket time. Thank you.
• </c><01:49:15.760><c> are</c> some point some of these judges are some point some of these judges are
• </c> the ruling that was issued by Judge the ruling that was issued by Judge Aycock,<02:13:03.000><c>
• <02:13:08.720><c> Aycock's</c><02:13:09.200><c> ruling</c> Judge Aycock's ruling Judge Aycock's ruling
• </c> circuit and chancery judges. circuit and chancery judges.

Transcript Highlights:

• along with them because the federal judges in Texas are Texans.
• So this bill includes federal judges in the protections we give to state judges and federal judges. .
• Other states are on their own, but federal judges in Texas.
• Judge Peoples pointed out it could be done with firearms.
• Judge Peoples' opinion deals with this in extraordinary detail.

Bills: SB10 , SB16 , SB6 , SB 6 , SB 10 , SB 16

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Keywords: trafficking, prostitution, affirmative defense, victims, criminal justice reform, victim rights, criminal justice, judicial reform, court procedures, mental health services, criminal penalties, court security, SB 6, Woman and Child Protection Act, abortion, abortion-inducing drugs, medication abortion, mifepristone, misoprostol, pro-life

Transcript Highlights:

• If there's a legitimate detainer, that is a court document issued by a judge.
• The courts are aware of that, and the judges can consider that when they’re determining bail.
• , and let the judge make the decision.
• And I think that judges, either immigration judges or judges that are hearing the issue on a habeas,
• And I think that judges either immigration judges or judges that are hearing the issue on a habeas would

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Summary: The hearing covered several public safety bills and related testimony. On S. 2681, “Colby’s Law,” which would establish safety standards for BMX/motocross tracks, the committee heard emotional testimony from the family of a teen killed at a track and from advocates who said minimum standards are needed for barriers, medical staff, emergency planning, insurance, and oversight. A track owner and rider also testified that safety is important but argued the bill was incomplete and should better distinguish between BMX and motocross and include more specific equipment and weather-related rules. On S. 2680, a bill to expand emergency planning around aging nuclear plants and high-level nuclear waste sites, supporters from Cape Cod, medical groups, and anti-nuclear organizations urged a 50-mile emergency planning radius and stronger state preparedness, citing risks from long-term waste storage and inadequate federal oversight. The committee also heard testimony on a Barnstable home rule petition to allow certain emergency response vehicles to use red lights, with the town supporting the change to improve response times on the water. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on H. 5158, the Protect Act, which would limit state and local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. County sheriffs testified about how ICE notifications and detainers work in practice, distinguishing between criminal warrants and civil immigration requests to notify, and describing their discretion when people are released on bail or at the end of a sentence. Sheriffs said they generally notify ICE when requested, especially in cases involving serious charges, but emphasized the need to balance public safety, victim notification, and due process. Committee members pressed them on the impact of ICE pickups at courthouses and jails, and several lawmakers and witnesses argued that pretrial detainees taken by ICE can disrupt prosecutions and deny victims their day in court. Supporters of the Protect Act included labor, education, health care, and immigrant advocacy groups. They said immigrants and mixed-status families are living in fear of routine interactions with police, schools, courts, and hospitals, and urged the committee to ban 287(g) agreements, prohibit law enforcement from asking about immigration status or providing operational assistance to ICE, and add stronger protections for sensitive locations such as schools and health care facilities. Medical witnesses described patients and families avoiding care because of ICE presence, and educators said students are missing school out of fear. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and indicated it would continue receiving written testimony before taking action later.

Transcript Highlights:

• or senior judge, and that is the bill.
• ...judge or senior judge, and that is the bill. Are the questions on the bill?
• And so while, sure, the judge did not remand, she was not aware.
• While sure, the judge did not remand, she was not aware of what the state attorney's office knew.
• So we're winding up with a situation where around the state, numerous judges, numerous courts because

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The committee first confirmed six appointees in a single vote, then took up a series of bills, most of them reported favorably. The early debate centered on SB 208, a land-use bill by Sen. McLean that would require development fees to reflect review costs and create more objective compatibility standards for residential development denials. An amendment adding housing-related provisions, including an OPAGA study of urban development boundaries, drew extended discussion over the Everglades and local control; it was adopted, while a late-filed amendment on rural boundaries was withdrawn. The bill was then reported favorably after supporters and opponents, including Miami-Dade and housing groups, weighed in. The committee also favorably reported SB 686 on agricultural enclaves after amendments adding conservation, wildlife corridor, and Everglades-related protections, with one amendment specifically preserving stronger protections in counties covered by the Northern Everglades/Indian River Lagoon plan. Several criminal justice and public records measures also advanced. SB 436 would add resisting an officer with violence as a qualifying prior offense for battery enhancement and include certain felony battery offenses in prison release reoffender status. SB 830 would extend public-records protections to county and city administrators and related family information. SB 990 would authorize protected cell captive insurers in Florida. SB 600, on bail bonds, drew the most debate: an amendment by Sen. Rouson preserved the current treatment of charitable bail organizations’ deposits, with supporters arguing nonprofits help low-income defendants and critics saying the bill should distinguish commercial and nonprofit bonding; the amendment was adopted and the bill reported favorably. SB 914 on dry needling and SB 1434 on infill redevelopment also passed, the latter with an amendment removing a 10% markup requirement for buyback provisions. The committee then moved through a large education and health agenda. SB 1504 would let high school students who complete an insurance/personal finance elective qualify later for a customer service representative license. SB 1718 would expand educator preparation and temporary certification options. SB 7038 was a broad education package covering tuition waivers for Florida State Guard members, residency rules, consumer protections, dual enrollment, grading, and college funding; amendments clarified workforce licensure and exempted certain dental training from new licensure rules. SB 1092 on podiatric medicine added definitions and restrictions for cellular/tissue-based products. SB 1138 on qualified contractors created a pre-application review program for certain local governments, with historic-preservation carveouts. SB 186 on student health and safety required seizure-training and action plans in schools, and SB 560 on child welfare streamlined psychotropic-medication procedures for children in state care while adding youth advisory meetings and insurance-data review. SB 902, a broad Department of Health bill, addressed medical marijuana facility setbacks, practitioner discipline, autism microcredentials, marriage and family therapy licensure, a neurofibromatosis grant program, and family home health aide delegation; it passed after two amendments. Finally, SB 218 on land-use regulations limited hurricane-recovery restrictions to affected counties, SB 1002 expanded child-neglect definitions tied to parental drug abuse, SB 1474 tightened biosolids land-application rules, SB 1708 eased out-of-state veterinary licensure by endorsement, and SB 314 established a Florida regulatory framework for payment stablecoins aligned with federal law. Most measures were reported favorably by committee vote after brief testimony or no debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the judges who filed a complaint against me, his name is Roy Chuck Whitehead.
• So why is a judge? A judge can't buy a car or a house and say, 'Hey, by the way, I'm a judge.
• And I'm not bringing this stuff to slander a judge or to defame him or anything like that.
• They're not judges. They are basically an extension of the court because of delegation.
• The presiding disciplinary judge, proof of a lawyer's conviction of a felony.

Bills: SB1003 , SB1006 , SB1029 , SB1037 , SB1038 , SB1039 , SB1040 , SB1053 , SB1057 , SB1060 , SB1061 , SB1068 , SB1069

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Elections

Keywords: election, canvass, certification, ballot tabulation, write-in candidates, registration, voting procedures, campaign finance, contribution limits, reporting requirements, political action committees, elections, campaign contributions, candidate committees, posthumous provisions, termination process, Arizona Revised Statutes, voting systems, vote tabulation, election security

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 3062 amends Title 20 and relates to municipal judges and retired municipal judges.
• The current statute allows active district judges, retired district judges, and municipal judges to carry
• throughout the state, but it does not allow retired municipal judges.
• to carry in their district only unless given approval by a chief judge.
• Yield for questions. ...in their district only unless given approval by a chief judge.

Bills: HB4420 , HB3974 , HB3016 , HB3062 , HB3021 , HB3145 , HB4128 , HB3131 , HB3015 , HB3472 , HB3453 , HB1638 , HB4126 , HB2696 , HB2710 , HB3552 , HB3031 , HB3544 , HB3521 , HB4490 , HB4488 , HB1746 , HJR1069 , HB4428 , HB4429 , HB1170 , HB3538 , HB4124 , HB3904 , HB4106 , HB2999 , HB3982 , HJR1077 , HB3464 , HB2588 , HB3462 , HB4440 , HB3674 , HB3345 , HJR1067 , HB4326 , HB4331 , HB4337 , HB4338 , HB4359 , HB4392 , HB3557 , HJR1076 , HB4003 , HB3495 , HB3497 , HB3501 , HB3505 , HB3749 , HB3011 , HB4336 , HB4346 , HJR1087 , HB3240 , HB3647 , HB3796 , HB3969 , HB3972 , HB3983 , HB3984 , HB3989 , HB3383 , HB3130 , HB4358 , HB3327 , HJR1055 , HB3386 , HJR1089 , HB3087 , HB2970 , HB3314 , HB4129 , HB4199

Summary: The House convened, completed roll call, heard the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, and recognized the Doctor and Nurse of the Day. The main floor focus was House Bill 4420, the Strong Readers Act, which Speaker Hilbert described as a major literacy overhaul. The bill’s amendment was adopted without objection and would clean up and standardize the statute, create a new SRA funding formula, expand summer teacher credentialing academies with $3,000 stipends, add statewide benchmarking, notify parents within 30 days when students are below basic, and reinstate third-grade retention beginning with the 2027–2028 school year. Hilbert argued the bill is intended to address Oklahoma’s low reading outcomes, reward improvement rather than penalize schools, and align with science-of-reading practices. The House passed HB 4420 86-0, and the emergency clause also passed 86-6. Members then suspended the rules to hear untimely amendments on HB 3974, which was amended and passed 86-6 with its emergency clause approved. The bill concerns the Government Tort Claims Act and allows governmental entities that share incarceration costs to form an entity with liability protections; Hilbert said the late amendment responded to a recent court ruling that could have exposed cities and counties to unlimited liability in certain jail-sharing arrangements. The House also passed HB 3016, creating a two-year pilot screening project for early childhood reading issues through the Departments of Education and Health, by a vote of 82-7, and HB 3062, allowing retired municipal judges to carry statewide under specified conditions, by a vote of 83-3. Additional bills passed with little or no debate: HB 3021, a graduation requirements cleanup measure consolidating conflicting statutes, passed 82-8 and its emergency clause also passed; HB 3145, a language cleanup bill for commercial hunt areas, passed 92-0 after a question clarified it does not affect private landowners hunting feral pigs. HB 4128, another Game and Fish bill, was laid over until the afternoon. The House then recessed until 1 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• the Courts to develop educational materials for certain law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges
• the bill summary, I don't see what the legal education is driving toward for the prosecutors, the judges
• Judges, law enforcement—what is the legal education designed to educate about?
• right-of-way, concerns for cyclists, for pedestrians, and wanting to ensure that prosecutors and judges
• I think we have good judges. They're able to determine who should pay attorney fees.

Summary: The House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on HB 2095, which would create training requirements for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges on negligent driving involving vulnerable users of public ways, and would establish a rebuttable presumption of negligence in certain civil claims when a vulnerable user is injured or killed in a protected area such as a sidewalk, crosswalk, bike lane, or similar designated space. Staff explained that the bill also allows recovery of actual damages, statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and, in limited circumstances, punitive damages if the defendant has previously injured or killed three or more vulnerable road users. Members questioned the unusual nature of punitive damages, the burden-shifting presumption, the three-incident threshold, and whether the education component was tied to the bill’s purpose. The prime sponsor said the training is meant to improve reporting and understanding of existing vulnerable-road-user laws, and said the bill was intended to narrow liability to protected areas and could be amended further, including on the punitive-damages threshold. Supporters, including a widow whose husband was killed while bicycling, Washington Bikes, trial attorneys, a bicycle commuter advocate, and a physician, argued the bill would better protect pedestrians and cyclists, improve police reporting, and reduce the burden on injured people and families who currently must prove negligence after serious crashes. They said the presumption would encourage safer driving and align Washington with similar frameworks used elsewhere. Opponents, including defense lawyers, the Association of Washington Cities, the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the Washington Trucking Associations, and the Washington Liability Reform Coalition, said the bill would expand litigation, create uninsurable risks through fee shifting and punitive damages, and could draw cities, businesses, and taxpayers into lawsuits. Some opponents also urged narrowing the bill to individuals and clarifying the protected areas and training requirements. No vote was taken; the chair closed the hearing and encouraged follow-up and amendment requests before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what that means is, can the judge right now hold somebody?
• We have a seat that I hold that's for a judge of a court of record in this state.
• Nobody’s telling the judge what the sentence has to be.
• Nobody's telling the judge what the sentence has to be.
• You're subject to the whim of a bureaucrat, not a judge, not an accountable sheriff.

Committee: Joint Judiciary Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• judge, 'You are the monster parents fear most.
• Inmates would still be eligible for a three-judge panel.
• I had the honor of serving as a Superior Court judge for 25 years.
• He said the judge, whose name he would not mention, was one of the most prominent and effective judges
• The judge requires the judge to have discretion and take into consideration the seriousness of the conviction

Committee: Senate Public Safety

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing several bills, with members repeatedly noting that votes would be taken later once a quorum was established. Early in the meeting, the committee heard SB 1446 on parole en banc review and SB 1278 on elderly parole eligibility for certain sex offenses. SB 1446’s author said the bill would give commissioners more discretion in en banc review, make votes public, and allow referral for sexually violent predator evaluation in certain cases; supporters included the California District Attorneys Association, while opponents from Uncommon Law, the Ella Baker Center, and public defender groups argued it would add confusion, create constitutional and litigation concerns, and duplicate existing safeguards. SB 1278 would exclude certain rape, child sexual abuse, and habitual/serial sex offense convictions from elderly parole eligibility; district attorneys and police chiefs supported it as a victim-safety measure, while civil rights and defense organizations opposed it as unnecessary, costly, and inconsistent with evidence on aging and recidivism. Both bills were discussed but not voted on due to the lack of quorum. The committee then heard SB 1354, which would bar out-of-state military or law enforcement personnel from entering California to perform such functions without the Governor’s permission. The author and supporters framed it as protecting state sovereignty and limiting unauthorized armed incursions; the committee accepted an amendment removing a criminal penalty and leaving enforcement to the Attorney General. No opposition testimony was offered, and members expressed support, but no vote was taken because quorum was still lacking. The committee also heard SB 926, a bill to fund implementation of Proposition 36. Supporters, including sheriffs, district attorneys, probation officials, and the League of California Cities, said local agencies need funding for treatment, supervision, and administration; opponents argued the proposal was fiscally reckless, lacked accountability, and overemphasized incarceration. Amendments removed a specific appropriation and shifted funding decisions to the budget process, but the bill was also held pending quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 874, which would require background checks for unlicensed providers of Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, create a stakeholder workgroup, and direct DHCS to issue guidance and report on program integrity. Support came from local health plans and behavior analysis providers, who said the bill would improve safety and consistency; there was no opposition testimony. The committee then heard SB 1210, which would extend CalGang oversight and due process protections to local gang databases as well as shared ones. Supporters described privacy abuses, racial disparities, and personal harm from inaccurate gang labels; law enforcement opposition argued the bill would impose CalGang standards on informal investigative files and would significantly change the gang definition. The author said the bill closes a loophole and preserves prior reforms, but no vote was taken. The committee also began hearing SB 1019 on creating a California Cargo Thief Task Force, with strong support from BNSF, trucking, shipping, port, and supply-chain representatives who described organized, multi-jurisdictional cargo theft and rail sabotage; no opposition was heard, and members indicated support, but action was deferred pending quorum. The meeting then moved to SB 1217 on a non-consensual intimate image clearinghouse, with the chair and author describing privacy-related amendments and the bill’s focus on helping survivors remove exploitative images; the transcript cuts off as that presentation began.

Transcript Highlights:

• If one judge says, I really don't like in the biotech world. “Told.
• This will help to alleviate knowing where judges live.
• We protect almost 2,000 judges across the state of California.
• We protect judges throughout the country and federal judges.
• You mentioned the judges. I support the bill wholeheartedly.

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• It can vary between whatever the judge is, or if it's by jury, whatever the jury decides.
• I mean, if, you know, if it comes back to a judge and, you know, we may make a judge order it back.
• So the judge, out of an abundance of caution, you know, he didn't...
• The judge knew that, but he issued it anyway. So she's unaware because it's ex parte.
• We asked judges. We asked state reps. We asked different people.

Committee: House Crime and Public Safety

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first went into executive session, where House Bills 3012, 2997, and 3058 were combined into a House committee substitute and then voted do pass by a 17-0 roll call. House Bill 2868 was set aside for further work on a substitute. The committee then moved into public hearings, beginning with House Bill 1740, “Melanie’s Law,” which would increase penalties for intoxicated driving cases involving injury or death and expand ignition interlock requirements, including for high-BAC offenders. The sponsor and family members of victims described the bill as a response to fatal crashes involving loved ones, while law enforcement, MoDOT, prosecutors, and MADD supported the measure as a prevention tool and cited data on recidivism and fatal crashes. Members asked about BAC thresholds, whether the bill would cover drug impairment, fiscal impacts, and the relationship to existing sentencing and parole rules. No vote was taken on HB 1740 during the hearing. The committee also heard House Bills 3049 and 368, described by the sponsors as technical cleanup bills to resolve conflicts in Missouri’s sex offender registry statutes after court rulings and to reorganize and clarify the law. A prosecutor testified in support, and members discussed registry tiers, age-of-consent issues, and how the changes might affect people whose offenses were tied to older laws or unusual fact patterns. The bills were presented as consistency and cleanup measures, and no opposition testimony was offered. Next, House Bill 2311 was heard, proposing to raise the age of consent to 18 and reduce the close-in-age exception from four years to three. The sponsor said the change was intended to align the law with recent marriage-age changes and avoid mixed signals. Members raised concerns about criminalizing high-school relationships and about consistency with existing law, but there was no testimony in opposition or a vote. Finally, House Bill 3105, a revised Second Amendment Preservation Act-style bill, was heard. The sponsor said it would remove unconstitutional language from the prior law, bar state and local officials from knowingly violating law-abiding citizens’ firearm rights, and preserve cooperation with federal law enforcement. Supporters, including sheriffs, argued it protects constitutional rights while allowing officers to act against dangerous criminals and people in crisis. Opponents, including gun-rights advocates, argued the bill still lacked a meaningful deterrent to federal overreach and raised concerns about vague language such as “danger to self or others,” which they said could function like a red-flag law and be misused. The hearing ended without a vote on HB 3105.