Transcript Highlights:

• In 2013, Ector County voters rejected a $95 million bond proposition for the facility.
• In 2018, the Ector County Commissioner's Court rejected an $85 million proposal for the facility.
• Um, Travis County in 2016, Travis County voters rejected a $287 million bond for a new civil courthouse
• Thankfully, uh, the El Paso voters approved this proposition with a 65% approval rate.
• Most lawmakers would rightfully reject that idea and so we think um lawmakers should reject this idea

Transcript Highlights:

• We will continue to operate the program as it was outlined in Proposition 12.
• So accordingly, we would still recommend rejecting the proposal as currently drafted.
• And so I think the fundamental proposition here is the right one.
• According to that recommendation, we are recommending a rejection.
• We encourage the committee to reject the Governor's proposal.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard several May Revision proposals, primarily from the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Government Operations Agency, the Department of Technology, and the Franchise Tax Board. CDFA presented funding for the animal care program under Proposition 12, a transition away from the state hemp program to USDA oversight by January 1, 2028, ongoing support for agricultural statistics reporting after USDA reorganization, and trailer bill changes to the department’s indirect cost cap. The LAO generally supported the animal care, hemp transition, and statistics proposals, while also urging future review of the Prop 12 funding once litigation is resolved. The indirect-cost-cap language was described as technical and not increasing charges to programs, and it was held open with no objections from the LAO or Finance. The committee also discussed the new federal Workforce Pell program and related Cradle to Career funding and trailer bill language. Finance said the state is still reviewing federal rules and is focusing on basic implementation steps, with the trailer bill assigning eligibility determinations to the California Student Aid Commission, requiring data sharing through Cradle to Career, and prioritizing public institutions first. The LAO urged caution because the federal rules were just finalized and said the Legislature should better define the process and costs before appropriating the $1.3 million requested for Cradle to Career. Members raised policy concerns about limiting the program to certain institutions and about aligning the proposal with pending legislation and broader workforce policy. The Department of Technology presented a $1 million request for Poppy, the state’s digital assistant, to expand a secure GenAI platform for state employees. Members asked detailed questions about data security, model training, bias controls, and whether the system could eventually support local governments; CDT said the system uses state-controlled cloud infrastructure, does not use user data for training, and quarantines new models for review. CDT also sought provisional authority for the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative to cover possible operating shortfalls while the network is still being built; the LAO remained concerned about broad spending authority, and several members questioned the revenue assumptions and oversight. FTB then proposed retaining a smaller set of CalFile resources after the federal Direct File program was discontinued, with the LAO saying the reduced staffing level was broadly reasonable but still worth legislative scrutiny. The committee also began hearing the administration’s revenue proposals, including a permanent limitation on business tax credits and a tax on electronically delivered prewritten software, with the LAO generally supporting the goal of raising ongoing revenue but recommending changes to the software proposal’s exemptions and business-use treatment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Done in trying to save our Proposition 35 efforts in the will of the people in the state of California
• The world has changed, I think, pretty significantly from when the voters approved Proposition 35 in
• Proposition 35.
• We urge you to reject it. Thank you. Welcome. Good morning, Chairman and members, Mark Farooke...
• For these reasons, we urge you to reject this bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• originally proposed items' rejection by the voters.
• . proposed bond propositions and tax rate increases following originally proposed items rejection by
• But again, that's for a proposition that was just defeated within a year.
• So they bring it up next year, and the voters reject it, and they bring it up the next year.
• So they bring it up next year, and the voters reject it, and they bring it up the next year.

Bills: SB467, SB325, SB867, SB994, SB1052, SB1237, SB1449, SB1531, SB2063, SB2172, SB2173, SB2520, SB2529, SB2538, SB2541, SJR46, SJR84

Keywords: SB 467, Texas property tax, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, fire damage, house fire, destroyed home, temporary tax relief, appraisal district, chief appraiser, local taxing unit, tax rollback, tax refund, Tax Code Chapter 11, prorated exemption, homestead improvement, disaster relief, property tax exemption, residential property

Summary: The committee heard several local government and property tax bills, with most testimony focused on appraisal disputes, tax administration, and development rules. Senate Bill 1052 by Senator Hinojosa would address coastal county appraisal litigation by requiring property owners in certain large-value disputes to report an uncontested taxable value while appeals are pending, so taxing units can base truth-in-taxation calculations on more realistic revenue. Nueces County, Del Mar College, and Corpus Christi ISD testified in support, describing major budget shortfalls caused by refinery valuation disputes; the committee substitute narrowed and clarified the bill’s scope. No opposition was heard, public testimony closed, and SB 1052 was left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1531, which would require local tax collectors to accept common electronic property tax payments such as credit cards, debit cards, and e-checks. Witnesses supported modernizing payment options and the committee substitute removed ACH/electronic funds transfer language to avoid bank-account disclosure concerns. Public testimony closed and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 325, by Senator Perry, would restore platting and groundwater-certification requirements that were unintentionally weakened by prior legislation; supporters from county government, water groups, and builders’ representatives debated whether the real issue was groundwater protection or road standards for private roads. The bill was left pending after extensive testimony and no vote. The committee then took up Senate Bill 994 and SJR 46, which would exempt certain livestock feed inventory from property tax and provide the constitutional amendment needed for that change. Feed store and Farm Bureau witnesses supported the measure as relief for seasonal inventory taxes, and the bills were left pending. Senator Paxton presented SB 467 and SJR 84 to create a temporary property tax exemption for homes completely destroyed by fire, with refunds or corrected bills based on the date of loss; both were left pending. SB 1237 would clarify charitable property tax exemptions for senior housing and retirement communities, with testimony from Catholic and Baptist retirement organizations and a resident describing rising costs and exemption revocations; it was also left pending. The committee later voted 6-0 to report SB 2073, a pending bill on appraisal district authority to purchase or finance real property, and recommended it for the local and uncontested calendar. Finally, the committee heard SB 2172, SB 2173, and SB 2063, all related to property tax administration. SB 2172 would limit when appraisal districts can require homeowners to reapply for homestead exemptions, requiring a specific reason and written notice; SB 2173 would protect new homeowners from surprise tax liabilities caused by prior owners’ erroneous homestead exemptions, with testimony describing large back-assessment bills; both were left pending. SB 2063 would bar appraisal districts from using market-value evidence in unequal appraisal protests, and testimony sharply divided between taxpayer advocates, who said market data improperly overwhelms equity claims, and appraisal district representatives, who argued market value is inherently tied to equal-and-uniform taxation and cited a recent Texas Supreme Court decision; the bill was left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• In some bond elections, Texas voters reject bond propositions placed on a ballot by their local governments
• project within 5 years of a bond proposition's rejection.
• By the way, in that example, voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposal put forward by city council
• May I, may I interject and just say that I think what this bill is addressing is voter rejected debt.
• If we put a, a general obligation, uh, bill before the voters, they reject it.

Transcript Highlights:

• as Proposition 1.
• Under Proposition 63, there were 16 voting members; now, under Proposition 1, there are 27 voting members
• Lastly, Proposition 1...
• The second is the bond portion of the proposition. Proposition 1 authorized a $6.4 billion bond.
• Proposition 1.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . $757.3 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund to support the Learning Recovery Emergency Block
• Negotiations rejected many of the most harmful cuts in order to protect our safety programs.
• As for Proposition 36, we appreciate the Legislature for the implementation funding.
• We are so appreciative of the rejection of the cut to adult protective services and CalPACE.
• We are so appreciative of the rejection of the cut to adult protective services and CalPACE.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the final three-party agreement for the 2026-27 state budget and 19 implementing bills, including two budget bill juniors and 17 trailer bills. Committee leadership and administration officials described the budget as a balanced plan that reduces out-year structural deficits, maintains large reserves, and makes major investments in health care, education, housing, child care, public safety, and other core services while also responding to expected federal cuts and fiscal uncertainty. The Department of Finance outlined the package’s major components, including Medi-Cal adjustments, education funding increases, higher education changes, child care and human services updates, housing and homelessness funding, energy and transportation provisions, and tax and general government changes. Members asked questions about several provisions, including CSU enrollment targets and turnaround plans, the Prop. 98 settle-up mechanism, the plastics market development payment program, housing accountability measures, NextGen 9-1-1 implementation, and veteran services. Staff and administration witnesses explained that the higher education language is intended to improve campus-by-campus reporting and oversight, that Prop. 98 settle-up would be finalized later through the statutory certification process, and that NextGen 9-1-1 now includes one-time funding, quarterly reporting, an independent technical review, and a state audit. Members also discussed the HAP homelessness funding increase to $900 million and the balance between accountability and timely distribution of funds. The most extended exchange centered on comparisons between funding for veterans and Medi-Cal/immigrant health coverage. Republican members argued the budget spends far more on undocumented immigrant services than on veterans, while Democratic members and Finance staff responded that the comparison was misleading because many veterans’ services are federally funded and the state budget also includes dedicated veteran support. The chair and other members emphasized that the budget reflects difficult tradeoffs and that the package protects vulnerable populations, preserves health care access, and advances affordability. No final vote was described in the excerpt, but members indicated support for the overall package and said they would support it on the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• cost shift and bumps cuts, rejecting the APS... ...the IHSS cost shift and bumps cuts, rejecting the
• Thank you for the rejection of—I won't go through the litany of the cuts that you've rejected to IHSS
• , the committee's rejection of the PACE rate cap decrease, and the rejection of the increase in age eligibility
• Here just to briefly thank you all for rejecting the humanitarian immigrant cuts and rejecting the CBAH
• Here just to briefly thank you all for rejecting the humanitarian immigrant cuts and rejecting the CBAH

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Human Services held its final hearing on the budget, with the chair framing the Senate’s plan as a counterproposal that rejected major cuts and preserved revenues. Public comment was overwhelmingly supportive of the subcommittee’s actions, with advocates, counties, providers, and community groups thanking members for rejecting or delaying proposed cuts to Medi-Cal asset limits, immigrant coverage and premiums, IHSS, PACE, APS, behavioral health advocacy and innovation grants, mobile crisis services, and certain dental and provider payment reductions. Speakers also urged additional funding or trailer bill changes for county eligibility work, public hospitals, indigent care, CalFresh outreach and food benefits, child care slots and COLAs, legal services for immigrants, and long-term services and supports. A major theme was the Senate’s “Be Home Soon” proposal, which many disability, aging, home care, and health care organizations praised as a way to shift care from institutions to home- and community-based settings. Testimony also supported restoring or maintaining funding for behavioral health programs, including 988/mobile crisis infrastructure, community advocacy contracts, and Title IV-E workforce funding. Several county and provider groups asked the committee to consider alternative proposals related to H.R. 1 impacts, Medi-Cal coverage losses, and county indigent care costs, while others requested continued work on public hospital support, CFAP expansion, and implementation details for child care and IHSS. The subcommittee then took three votes on grouped budget items. The first consent block, covering a large set of items, passed 3-0. The second block passed 2-1, with Senator Grove voting no. The final block passed 3-0. The hearing concluded with the chair stating the subcommittee had done its part and adjourning the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• It fails to fully honor the will of the voters who demand Proposition 36 to be fully funded.
• This budget, in fact, delays and rejects the worst cuts to health care.
• It rejects the immediate Medi-Cal asset limit cuts. It delays immediate Medi-Cal dental cuts.
• This budget, in fact, delays and rejects the worst cuts to healthcare.
• It rejects the immediate Medi-Cal asset limit cuts. It delays immediate Medi-Cal dental cuts.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Funding these transfers come from available fund balances and funding made available from proposition
• I also brought you copies of the report that our office put out last week about Proposition 4.
• So Proposition 4 allows for resources within the bond to support staffing.
• Proposition 4 does not include any provisions, any specific non-supplantation language.
• Hi, Kristen Gorey here on behalf of a coalition of Proposition 4 supporters.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So a lot of it must go under the Constitution to be spent on K-14 education under Proposition 98.
• Some of it has requirements under Proposition 2.
• So, and then I hear that LAO rejected that the proposal idea, which is good to hear, correct.
• So I would say it's a work in progress to get all of that Proposition 1 or municipal use.
• So one of the reasons that our office recommended rejecting this proposal...

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the May Revision from the Department of Finance and comments from the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the state’s overall budget condition and natural resources proposals. Finance said the May Revision keeps the budget balanced in 2026-27 and 2027-28, reduces the structural deficit, and includes major natural resources items such as Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including up to $125 million for the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, $23.2 million for wildlife refuge and wetland projects, $25 million for Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, $25 million for Bay-Delta environmental flows, $1 million for coexisting-with-wildlife work, and $2.5 million for cancer-risk research. The LAO said revenues remain strong but argued the budget still relies too heavily on reserves, recommended more savings and fewer new discretionary expenditures, and urged the Legislature to prioritize only urgent health and safety needs while planning for uncertainty in greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues. Members focused heavily on the Golden Gate Fields purchase, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, the wildlife coexistence initiative, and cap-and-invest funding for transit. On Golden Gate Fields, agency officials said the property is a time-limited, once-in-a-generation opportunity, that the state’s contribution would help secure the acquisition, and that the land would ultimately transfer to East Bay Regional Park District, which would assume operations and maintenance. Officials said the site would be remediated by the current owner, the state would use deed restrictions to prevent commercial development, and the remaining purchase price would be covered by nonstate partners. On Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, Finance and the Natural Resources Agency said the $25 million would support scientific monitoring and early implementation of the Bay-Delta plan update, while the LAO questioned the timing and said the request was premature until the Water Board formally adopts the plan. The committee also discussed the coexisting-with-wildlife proposal and wolf-livestock conflict. Finance said the May Revision’s $1 million proposal would backfill existing funds to support limited-term staffing, deterrence tools, and conflict response, while members and the California Cattlemen’s Association said the need is larger and includes direct loss compensation, indirect loss compensation, and nonlethal deterrence. The Cattlemen’s Association said private insurance is limited and often inadequate for these losses. Members also raised concerns about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and transit, warning that lower auction revenues and possible CARB rule changes could leave major transit and other tier-three priorities underfunded. The LAO recommended planning for multiple revenue scenarios and reconsidering the current cap-and-invest spending framework. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Propositions in an attempt to explain away the debt disclosure requirement.
• So would it apply just to bond elections or would apply to any ballot proposition.
• Connect proposition in 2020.
• Then come back to the voters with a bond proposition to finance it. That never happened.
• I pulled up the ballot language, you know, for this proposition back in 2020.

Bills: HB19, HB30, HB851, HB1663, HB1681, HB1769, HB1937, HB1979, HB2428, HB2433, HB2825, HB3159, HB3424, HB3486, HB3487, HB3504, HB3605, HB3879, HB3994, HB4382, HB4752, HB5444, HB5446, HB5447, HB3199, HB4847, HB19

Keywords: local government debt, property tax, ad valorem tax, bond election, certificate of obligation, anticipation note, school district tax rate, voter-approval rate, debt service cap, municipal finance, county bonds, flood control district, hospital district, public works, tax transparency, property tax notice, November uniform election date, general obligation bonds, local debt reform, taxpayer notice

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2020, voters reaffirmed that commitment in another landslide vote, rejecting Proposition 16.
• Whether by repeals or by loopholes, these efforts betray the spirit of Proposition 209.
• By repeals or by loopholes, these efforts betray the spirit of Proposition 209.
• Proposition 209 establishes equal treatment under law, and ACA 7 threatens it.
• ACA 7 also contradicts Proposition 16 in 2020.

Summary: The committee hearing covered several higher education bills, with extensive testimony on student aid, affordability, and institutional debt. AB 587 would add veteran representation to the California Student Aid Commission; the author said the change would bring lived experience from the veteran community to student aid policy, and members raised a concern about keeping the commission’s membership odd-numbered, which the author said would be addressed by amendment. AB 791 would standardize cost-of-attendance housing calculations using objective data and improve notice of the adjustment process; supporters said current budgets often underestimate students’ real living costs, while UC, CSU, and independent colleges opposed or had concerns about the bill’s prescribed methodology, fiscal impact, and a 14-day turnaround for adjustments. AB 850 would create a one-term grace period for students with institutional debt to re-enroll while arranging repayment, bar reporting that debt to credit agencies, and require more transparency; proponents described students being blocked from continuing school over debts, while CSU, UC, and private-college representatives said they already use holds and payment plans and worried about added liabilities and budget pressures. AB 537 would extend the California College Promise Program to part-time community college students; supporters said most community college students attend part-time and should not be excluded from fee waivers, while the committee noted fiscal concerns but ultimately advanced the bill. AB 7 would allow universities to consider whether an applicant is a descendant of American chattel slavery in admissions as a reparative measure; supporters framed it as lineage-based reparative justice, while opponents argued it would function as a racial proxy and conflict with Proposition 209 and equal-protection principles. The committee took roll-call votes on the measures, advancing AB 587, AB 791, AB 850, and AB 537 to Appropriations, with AB 850 and AB 537 receiving fewer votes and the roll left open for additional members.

Transcript Highlights:

• The good news is that Proposition 98, which funds our community colleges, is in a much healthier position
• These two Proposition 98 funded investments are as follows.
• Proposes $168 million in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund for this proposal.
• For all these reasons, we recommend rejecting the proposed funding for the Common ERP project.
• of $1.2 million on Proposition 98 General Fund starting in the budget year.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This seems to be an extremely difficult proposition.
• then we want to know the reasons why ballots are rejected over time.
• all ballots in general elections are rejected.
• These are ballot rejection rates by imputed race and ethnicity.
• And so we can talk a little bit about ballots that are rejected.

Summary: The committee held a work session on voting rights in the United States and Washington, beginning with testimony from Marissa Wright of Campaign Legal Center and David Montes of the ACLU of Washington. They described the federal Voting Rights Act’s main protections—preclearance, vote suppression, and vote dilution—and argued that Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich have weakened those tools. They said Washington should consider stronger state-level protections, including a preclearance program and broader safeguards against discriminatory voting practices. Members asked about Washington’s history of discrimination, voter roll purges, noncitizen registration, and remedies under the Washington Voting Rights Act, including ranked-choice voting and district-based systems. The committee then heard from the Office of Equity and several commissions, which described their roles in advising state government and working with communities. They focused on the immigration sub-cabinet created under Executive Order 2509, saying it is intended to improve coordination across agencies, the legislature, the courts, and community organizations on issues such as data privacy, language access, health care, education, and accountability under the Keep Washington Working Act. Members asked about the use of NGOs, accountability for KWW violations, and the sub-cabinet’s goals, and the panel said the effort is meant to help government respond more quickly and collaboratively while centering immigrant, disability, LGBTQ, and other communities. The final panel was from the University of Washington Elections Database Project, which presented data on vote-by-mail ballot challenges, cures, and rejections from 2020 to 2024. They reported that about 1.5% of ballots are signature-challenged in most elections, roughly 60% of challenged ballots are cured, and overall rejection rates are about 1% in general elections and 1.5% in primaries. The researchers said voters of color, younger voters, and some tribal-area voters experience higher rejection rates, and that differences appear tied to signature mismatch, language access, ballot timing, and familiarity with the system. In the last panel, Maria Fernandez and Vicki Frausto of EIA described voter education and civic engagement work in Yakima County and Sunnyside, including concerns about intimidation, language barriers, signature mismatch, and at-large election systems; they said stronger Washington Voting Rights Act protections would help communities elect candidates of choice. No votes were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• To read, ‘proposition blank...’ with the...”
• If there was a reason that they couldn't do what this proposition is asking...
• I move to strike number nine as the designate this proposition as those two names.
• I don't... ...of the measure itself, the language within the proposition itself.
• "Because this is, in fact, what is in the underlying language within the proposition.

Keywords: 1182, all

Bills: HB3000, HB2622, HB2283, HB541, HB1776, HB1803, HB1669, HB2588, HB220, HB3415, HB50, HB1314, HB 107, HB220, HB50, HB107

Keywords: ambulance service, rural healthcare, grants, financial assistance, qualified counties, mental health, patient transport, female attendants, security measures, healthcare regulation, epinephrine, anaphylaxis, health care, school safety, training, emergency response, direct patient care, healthcare, physicians, medical services

Transcript Highlights:

• Accordingly, we recommend the legislature reject this proposal.
• Given the budget condition, we recommend rejecting these increases.
• On related notes CPOC has identified a 47 million dollar need to successfully implement Proposition 36
• go we really appreciate the committee's commitment to this one-time funding and also respectfully reject
• Proposition 36 passed overwhelmingly, yet this budget provides no path forward to implement it.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Have they ever rejected a contract, sir? Yes, they have rejected.
• Changes, so you're saying they never rejected?
• That is rejecting the contract.
• We urge the committee to reject HB 46 in its current form.
• And so by doing that, we are aligned with the proposition.

Bills: HB26, HB73, SB 14, HB46

Keywords: HB26, law enforcement contracts, sheriff, constable, county commissioners court, commissioners court, private security, special law enforcement district, property owners association, POA, municipal utility district, school district, junior college district, local government, contract policing, supplemental police services, large counties, population over 3.3 million, Texas Local Government Code, Harris County

Transcript Highlights:

• Some bond elections Texas voters reject bond...
• Voters have tried to use alternative financing methods to fund projects rejected by the voters.
• Within five years of a bond proposition rejection, bring it back to the voters and vote yes.
• No, I mean, if it's the exact same courthouse bond proposition, yes, it would prevent it.
• If the voters have rejected something, then we shouldn't try to cobble together COs and TANs.

Bills: SJR37, SJR57, SB7, SB8, SB16, SB108, SB125, SB207, SB318, SB371, SB379, SB396, SB406, SB503, SB533, SB565, SB578, SB599, SB686, SB689, SB707, SB763, SB854, SB857, SB875, SB878, SB920, SB924, SB961, SB965, SB985, SB988, SB1021, SB1024, SB1026, SB1038, SB1059, SB1185, SB1202, SB1207, SB1252, SB1330, SB1396, SB1484, SB1527, SB1535, SB1596, SB1619, SB1697, SB1737, SB1741, SB1841, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SJR37, SCR22, SCR12, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB379, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB961, SB1038, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SJR81, SJR50, SCR39, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB906, SB860, SB1563, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB836, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB1084, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1939, SB1589, SB397, SB1388, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719

Keywords: voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, constitutional amendment, voting rights, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, immigration enforcement, ICE agreements, sheriff grants, law enforcement, county jail, federal immigration law, voter registration, proof of citizenship, Election Code, criminal offenses