Keywords: HI House YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw9jX8xealU, 2026-07-02T01:22:34+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, 910, house, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Keywords: HI House YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLcS60IVmuI, 2026-07-02T01:22:34+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, 910, house, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Keywords: HI House YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIH6CJ5KnNU, 2026-07-02T01:22:30+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, 910, house, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Keywords: HI Senate YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAaVJGHQY7c, 2026-07-02T01:22:44+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, 912, senate, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Keywords: HI Senate YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJnPRFfwlww, 2026-07-02T01:22:44+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, 912, senate, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Keywords: HI Senate YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPPIK0Cdjq8, 2026-07-02T01:22:43+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, 912, senate, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Transcript Highlights:

• First, that the current congressional map, based on then-current census data, was approved in 2010. .
• And today, they unanimously seek to replace it with a map based on now five-year-old census data.
• map.
• Chairman, you said yourself today The data that needed to be used to draw the maps was only decennial
• No one presented an analysis of data to demonstrate that this map violates any law.

Bills: SB 2, SB 5, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB4, HB1, HB3, HB20, HB22, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, HB4, SB2, SB5

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments

Transcript Highlights:

• for 2025, we do don't have the uh data for 2025, we do know<00:08:49.440> that<00:08:49.640><
• And some of the data that we're hearing about the amount of scams happening through crypto kiosks, if
• And<00:14:08.520> some<00:14:08.640> of<00:14:08.720> the<00:14:08.760> data<
• <00:20:00.440> informed a much more mature mature data informed a much more mature mature
• data informed dialogue<00:20:02.040> than<00:20:02.920> the<00:20:03.040> one<00

Bills: HB1511, HB1535, HB1642, HB1753, HB1810, HB2282, HB2614

Keywords: consumer protection, unsolicited mail, unsolicited email, junk mail, spam email, deceptive marketing, misleading solicitation, high-pressure sales, vehicle warranty, auto warranty, service contract, home warranty, license renewal, registration renewal, government impersonation, affiliation disclosure, direct mail, email marketing, consumer fraud, refund

Summary: The committee heard several consumer-protection and insurance measures. HB 1511 HD2 would prohibit unsolicited mail or email using high-pressure tactics or falsely implying affiliation with another entity; it drew support from the Office of Consumer Protection, the DCCA Insurance Division, and the Service Contract Industry Council, with some written support and at least one opposition. HB 1535 HD2, concerning automated external defibrillators and a tax-related provision for devices installed in certain public accommodations, received comments from DOTAX and the Tax Foundation, with additional support from the Department of Health and other groups. HB 1642 HD1 would ban ownership or operation of digital financial asset transaction kiosks that accept U.S. currency; it was strongly supported by OCP, the Attorney General, and AARP, while kiosk operators and industry representatives opposed the ban and urged a regulatory approach instead, including licensing, transaction limits, refunds, and other safeguards. Members questioned whether federal action could preempt the bill and whether a licensure regime could be funded through a surcharge, but no action was taken during the discussion. The committee also took up HB 1753 on social media account deletion and permanent erasure of personal information, with OCP standing on its initial comments and TechNet and Will Caron in support. HB 1810 HD2 would impose prompt payment and financial reporting requirements on professional solicitors selling donated tangible property on behalf of charities; Goodwill Hawaii testified in strong support, emphasizing donor trust and transparency, and several nonprofit and business groups submitted supportive testimony. HB 2282 HD1, which would require explanations for premium increases and clarify insurance licensing and cancellation/non-renewal procedures, was supported by the Insurance Division and OCP; a vice chair asked for complaint data related to condo associations, and a member noted that the same agencies had previously opposed similar Senate bills. Finally, HB 2614 HD1 would require cosmetics merchants to accept returns of new or unopened goods within specified time frames and improve signage requirements; OCP said the bill addressed longstanding complaints about high-pressure sales tactics and no-return policies, citing over 180 complaints and survey results showing most complainants did not understand the policy and felt misled.

Transcript Highlights:

• data we will be using.
• census data.
• The census data and census geography are in the map drawing application.
• The census data and census geography are in the map drawing application.
• But all of the data that we received from the Census Bureau that is used by staff to draw maps is in

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting held its first meeting, established a quorum, and opened with remarks from the chair outlining the committee’s purpose and scope. The chair said the committee will focus only on congressional redistricting, will not take public comment at this introductory meeting, and may consider whether to propose a new congressional map ahead of the 2026 session. He emphasized that the work would rely on the 2020 census data, the current congressional map, and the House’s map-drawing software, and he stressed transparency, record retention, and compliance with constitutional prohibitions on drawing districts to favor or disfavor a party or incumbent. House outside counsel Andy Bartos then gave an educational presentation on redistricting basics and legal standards. He distinguished reapportionment from redistricting, explained that Florida was apportioned 28 congressional seats after the 2020 census, and reviewed the one-person, one-vote rule, noting that congressional districts must be drawn with near-exact population equality. He also described census geography and how counties, tracts, block groups, and blocks are used to build districts, and explained that congressional redistricting follows the ordinary legislative process rather than the special process used for state legislative districts. Bartos also covered contiguity, explaining that districts must be one connected piece and that mere point-touching is not enough, while bodies of water within a district do not necessarily break contiguity. No questions were asked after the presentation, no votes were taken, and no public testimony was heard. The meeting ended after the chair thanked attendees and said the committee would meet again the following week.

Transcript Highlights:

• data.
• So we have in the redistricting map-drawing application the same data that we had in 2022, and that includes
• Also, just wanted to ask if we're using 2020 voter activity data for the congressional maps, would there
• If you're asking the data that's available to the map drawing tool is the same data that was available
• I'm asking the data that's available through the map drawing tool is the same data that was available

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting met for an informational presentation from outside counsel Andy Bartos on the legal standards governing congressional redistricting. He reviewed federal Equal Protection principles, Florida’s non-diminishment provision, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how race can be considered in redistricting but generally cannot be the predominant factor. He also discussed the Florida Constitution’s tiered standards, including the prohibition on intentional political favoritism, compactness, and the requirement to use existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible. Bartos focused on two recent or pending cases: the Florida Supreme Court’s Black Voters Matter decision, which upheld the legislature’s 2022 congressional map and held that the non-diminishment clause does not justify making race predominant absent specific identifiable discrimination, and Louisiana v. Callais, pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which may further clarify whether race may be used predominantly to comply with the Voting Rights Act or whether Section 2 remains constitutional as applied. He also explained how courts assess compactness and intent, and how data such as the 2020 census, voter registration, turnout, and election results are used for voting-rights analysis. Members asked about what triggers redistricting, whether the legislature must redraw maps now, what data is available in the mapping tool, how intent is measured, and whether public input opportunities will be provided. Bartos said redistricting timing is largely a legislative judgment unless a court requires changes, that the committee can consider whether BVM or the eventual Callais decision warrants revisions, and that the Callais ruling will bind Louisiana directly but serve as precedent for other courts. No votes or legislative actions were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The CPUC is required to adopt maps, but it is also required to include data from the very faulty maps
• The CPUC is required to adopt maps, but it is also required to include data from the very faulty maps
• The bill requires the CPUC to include the data from the BEAD maps and from the federal wireless maps.
• wireless maps, that data, be included in the map that is produced by the CPUC.
• And the data on the maps... Thank you. They would be true to form.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee heard AB 470 by Assembly Member McKinnor, a bill to modernize California’s carrier-of-last-resort rules for voice telephone service and create a process for carriers to transition away from obsolete copper networks in favor of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. The author and supporters said the bill is aimed at preserving reliable voice and 911 access while encouraging private investment in fiber and other modern networks, and emphasized that it is not a broadband bill. Support came from AT&T, business groups, and a former Cal OES director, who argued the bill provides a careful, phased modernization with CPUC oversight and increased public-safety investment requirements. Opposition came from TURN, CWA District 9, digital equity organizations, labor groups, and several local governments and county representatives. Critics raised concerns about the adequacy of the mapping process, reliance on broadband and wireless coverage data, the lack of on-the-ground verification, the challenge process, possible loss of Lifeline protections, and the impact on workers and union jobs. They also argued the bill could allow carriers to reduce universal-service obligations without enough safeguards for rural and vulnerable customers. Committee members discussed those concerns at length, especially the map-making process, the challenge procedure, and whether the bill sufficiently protects workers and customers who could be left behind. The author said the bill includes a 10-year backstop if service is lost, a CPUC-led process, and a three-to-one fiber buildout requirement tied to relinquishment, and expressed willingness to continue working with labor on workforce language. The committee ultimately passed AB 470 on a 7-0 due pass vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the data used for this map is more than five years old now. And so the way it stands now.
• map does.
• Can you remind us of what data was used to redraw this map?
• Data was used to draw the map in terms of the change in the number of populations.
• map...

Bills: HB4, HB 4

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Under this map, the data shows it's Black CVAP 50.81%. It's an increase of 11.82%.
• The reality is this map is based on data, population numbers, and voter trends, and numbers don't lie
• Let litigation around the current maps conclude and draw new districts after new census data that reflect
• Bringing these maps into existence. In 2021, was racial data considered as a data point?
• Do you think that is racial data that was used to help develop these maps?

Bills: HB4

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This data, however, is not broken down to the granular level needed to draw a map.
• map.
• The map is one of the most compact districts that was in that map carried over to this map.
• Chair, and I'd like to redirect to some more of the map drawing decision-making as far as data use.
• There is no new consensus or census data and no court order requiring new maps.

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting met to consider HB 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts using the governor’s proposed map, EOG PCRP 26. Representative Persons-Mulicka briefly introduced the bill, and Jason Jazeel and Jason Pareda of the governor’s office presented the legal rationale and map details. Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is not prohibited, that the governor’s position is to draw districts without considering race, and that federal equal-protection principles should control over state race-based redistricting provisions. Pareda said he drew the map alone using 2020 census data and census blocks, while also considering population growth estimates, traditional redistricting criteria, and county/city boundaries where feasible. Pareda described the map as race-neutral and said it keeps 48 counties whole, 382 cities whole, and has a boundary-analysis score of about 85.7%. He walked through regional changes, including major revisions in South Florida, adjustments in Central Florida, and changes in the Tampa Bay area, explaining that population shifts and the need for exact congressional population equality drove many of the district configurations. Members questioned the timing of the special session, the use of 2020 census data versus newer population estimates, the role of the legislature versus the governor, the legal basis for mid-decade redistricting, and whether the map complies with the Voting Rights Act and Fair Districts amendments. Motions to place witnesses under oath and to extend the committee meeting by 30 minutes both failed. During public testimony, every speaker who was heard opposed the map. Commenters argued that the proposal was a partisan power grab, would reduce Democratic and minority representation, and violated the Florida Constitution and voting rights protections. Several speakers criticized the short notice and lack of public input, while others said the map would confuse voters or split communities. The chair repeatedly reminded attendees to maintain decorum and limited each speaker to about one minute.

Transcript Highlights:

• But that same 2020 data is what would be used to redraw any maps if we are to do so.
• maps.
• Redrawing maps without updated census data undermines the principles of equal representation guaranteed
• I oppose redistricting Texas maps based on ideologies instead of data.
• But by that I mean the same census data that we would be relying upon for any map that was considered

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting met virtually for its West Texas regional hearing, established a quorum, and explained that the hearing was part of a series of statewide information-gathering sessions before any map was filed. The chair outlined the Zoom procedures, the two-minute testimony limit, and the availability of written comments through the committee’s public portal. Senators also discussed the logistics and transparency of the process, including the expectation that any proposed map or amendment would be made public once filed and that additional hearings would follow. Senator Blanco, whose district includes West Texas and the border region, said the area’s communities of interest should be kept together and warned against repeating the loss of representation that followed the last redistricting cycle. Senators Alvarado, Hinojosa, Miles, and others debated the value of virtual hearings versus in-person hearings, the number of people who had testified, and whether the committee could subpoena witnesses after the regional hearings ended. The chair said he was awaiting legal guidance and would consider a subpoena motion at a formal meeting the next day. A lengthy exchange also occurred over the tone of public testimony and the chair’s view that some comments directed at Republicans and the president had been offensive or historically inaccurate. Invited witnesses and public commenters largely opposed mid-decade redistricting and argued that any new map should reflect population growth, especially among Latino and other minority communities, and comply with the Voting Rights Act. Nina Perales of MALDEF said the hearings were not meaningful without a draft map and testified that Texas has a long history of discriminatory redistricting; senators questioned her about litigation, DOJ’s July 7 letter, and the 2021 congressional map. Tania Chavez Camacho, Luis Figueroa, and several El Paso residents emphasized that maps should preserve communities of interest, avoid cracking and packing, and be transparent and participatory. A smaller number of witnesses supported redistricting, including one El Paso resident who said the current districting leaves the area underrepresented and another who argued that some communities want to return to a map closer to the earlier District 16 configuration. Several witnesses also criticized the DOJ letter as inconsistent with the state’s position that the 2021 maps were drawn race-blind, while others said the current process was too rushed and lacked sufficient public input.

Transcript Highlights:

• or maps.
• That same 2020 data is what would be used to redraw any maps if we are to do so.
• Redrawing maps without updated census data undermines the principles of equal representation guaranteed
• I oppose redistricting Texas maps based on ideologies instead of data.
• Be relying upon for any map that was considered in this special session is the same census data upon

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No maps or other data have been shared with the public for meaningful consideration.
• and others have that data in order to draw maps.
• Is there a way to draw a map that's not based on census data?
• We don't even have any new census data to support these maps.
• Putting aside what is normal, what data are you using for these mid-decade maps?

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I WILL TAKE A MINUTE TO GET MORE DETAILED INTO THE B MAPS.
• A STORY MAP LINK THAT WILL TAKE YOU TO THIS PAGE WHICH WILL APPLY FOR MOST ALL B MAPS B MAPS A STORY
• MAP LINK THAT WILL TAKE YOU TO THIS PAGE WHICH WILL APPLY FOR MOST ALL B MAPS PARTICULARLY WHERE WE
• THAT WOULD MEET TO B MAP STANDARDS?
• SO WE CAN HAVE IT IN ONE CENTRALIZED LOCATION ON A MAP.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, you voted for the 2023 maps, right? The congressional maps? I did.
• Anyone in the state of Texas to look at any map to make comments on any map.
• Do you have a map? I do not have a map. Who is drawing the map? I'm not drawing a map.
• A map, if I did not think it was a legal map. You thought it was a legal map, not an...
• I have never voted for any map that I did not believe was a legal map.

Bills: SR5, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35

Keywords: redistricting, Senate procedures, public input, Texas Legislature, amendments, Texas Senate, congressional districts, legislative procedures, legislative transparency, Senate rules, public hearings, committee procedures, hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes

Summary: The meeting centered around the discussion of congressional redistricting, where the committee established the procedures to ensure a fair and transparent process. Led by Senator King, the session focused on adopting a resolution that authorized a special committee dedicated to congressional redistricting and allowed for regional hearings to gather public input via videoconferencing. Concerns were raised about ensuring adequate notice for public participation, especially from marginalized communities potentially affected by proposed changes. Disagreements emerged regarding the timeline for regional hearings and how to address the implications of the redistricting process on minority districts. Overall, participants acknowledged the complex nature of redistricting and the importance of engaging constituents in the legislative process.

Transcript Highlights:

• it's our state legislative maps or our congressional maps or our judicial maps.
• Senator Price's map only splits seven parishes. Your map, your current map, splits 15 parishes.
• that is more compact, a map that is more contiguous, a map that passes the eyeball test, a map that
• This map doesn't do that. This map... ...of no party. This map doesn't do that.
• This map...

Bills: SR122, SR123, SR124, SCR12, HB940, HB221, HCR109, HCR58, HB27, HB143, HB205, HB259, HB267, HB288, HB308, HB403, HB405, HB414, HB417, HB478, HB546, HB548, HB555, HB557, HB609, HB670, HB672, HB740, HB779, HB786, HB796, HB812, HB848, HB909, HB915, HB917, HB921, HB930, HB933, HB938, HB971, HB1095, HB1096, HB1103, HB1129, HB1154, HB1166, HB1187, HB1195, HB1230, SB121, SCR22, SCR24, SB29, SB30, SB32, SB41, SB42, SB43, SB47, SB84, SB93, SB113, SB192, SB199, SB219, SB220, SB221, SB222, SB241, SB253, SB255, SB289, SB292, SB306, SB314, SB351, SB399, SB404, SB14, SB102, SB133, SB151, SB165, SB169, SB170, SB200, SB217, SB280, SB291, SB300, SB303, SB330, SB449, SB489, SB521, SB45, SB156, SB181, SB203, SB274, SB304, SB379, SB396, SB410, SB425, SB427, SB436, SB424, SCR61, SCR9, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, HCR31, HB296, HB299, HB322, HB364, HB519, HB535, HB538, HB568, HB571, HB622, HB635, HB676, HB772, HB784, HB1006, HB1018, HB1043, HB1070, HB1134, HB1239, HB62, HB193, HB203, HB210, HB220, HB228, HB246, HB420, HB475, HB486, HB574, HB584, HB750, HB813, HB815, HB826, HB870, HB949, HB953, HB1045, HB1092, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1177, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB22, HB28, HB33, HB41, HB47, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB195, HB214, HB217, HB233, HB283, HB290, HB319, HB324, HB345, HB362, HB363, HB368, HB377, HB380, HB382, HB386, HB392, HB406, HB431, HB441, HB466, HB503, HB533, HB559, HB575, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB636, HB655, HB664, HB685, HB692, HB707, HB715, HB732, HB738, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB807, HB822, HB856, HB860, HB868, HB887, HB888, HB905, HB908, HB961, HB980, HB990, HB992, HB999, HB1000, HB1010, HB1146, HB1157, HB1233, HB1236, HB1243, HB17, HB36, HB73, HB119, HB126, HB129, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB211, HB226, HB245, HB271, HB280, HB337, HB351, HB354, HB399, HB677, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB728, HB759, HB789, HB844, HB850, HB966, HB1036, SB149, SB382, SB441, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782

Keywords: SR122, Senate Resolution 122, Metairie Park Country Day School, Country Day Cajuns, Cajuns basketball, LHSAA, Louisiana High School Athletic Association, Division III Select, boys basketball, state championship, high school sports, athletic commendation, sports resolution, Lake Charles, Marsh Madness, Mike McGuire, Brennan White, Kellen Brewer, Calvary Baptist Academy, school recognition

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, heard a guest minister’s prayer and the pledge, and dispensed with reading the journal. The chamber then received Legislative Bureau reports on numerous House bills, many of which were reported favorably or without amendments and ordered to third reading or to the Legislative Bureau. The Senate also adopted a House concurrent resolution commending Special Olympics Louisiana by a 35-0 vote, and it took up several Senate resolutions, including one urging the Navy to use a transparent and competitive acquisition strategy to protect jobs at Conrad Shipyard, one commending Metairie Park Country Day School, one designating Early Ed Day, and one offering condolences for Carolyn Ann Cherry Moore. The main floor debate centered on Senate Bill 121, the congressional redistricting bill. Senator Morris presented the bill as a response to the federal court’s Calais decision, arguing the current map was unconstitutional and that the new plan should avoid race as the predominant factor while using partisan advantage, incumbency protection, compactness, contiguity, and communities of interest. Senators questioned whether the proposal effectively created a 5-1 Republican map, whether it diluted Black and Democratic voting strength, and whether it split too many parishes. Morris said the map was drawn from the 2022 plan, tweaked in committee and again on the floor, and that litigation was likely regardless of the final version. Two competing amendments drew extended debate. Senator Morris’s amendment, which further refined his map, was adopted 26-10. Senator Price then offered an alternative map based on an amicus brief and algorithmic criteria, arguing it would create two opportunity districts, split fewer parishes, avoid using race, and better reflect the state’s partisan balance; supporters said it was fairer and more compact, but it failed 10-27. After the amendments, the Senate returned to SB 121 for further questions, with members continuing to debate whether the bill’s 5-1 structure was a lawful partisan gerrymander or an impermissible racial dilution of voting strength.