Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here to ask you to vote no on HB3225.
• Vote against this bill. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Foote.
• I urge you to vote against HB 229.
• Please vote no on HB229. Thank you for your testimony.
• I urge you to vote against HB 229.

Bills: HB186, HB201, HB229, HB796, HB1506, HB2702, HB2885, HB3225, HB3909, HB4285, HB5138

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, financial crime, card fraud, motor fuel theft, law enforcement, criminal activity, skimmers, prevention, training, biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, federal directives, state authority

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, you're not eligible to vote until you're 18.
• I'm here to ask you to vote no on HB 3225.
• Vote against this bill. Thank you. Vote against this bill. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Foote.
• I urge you to vote no.
• Vote no.

Bills: HB186, HB201, HB229, HB796, HB1506, HB2702, HB2885, HB3225, HB3909, HB4285, HB5138

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, financial crime, card fraud, motor fuel theft, law enforcement, criminal activity, skimmers, prevention, training, biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, federal directives, state authority

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 186, which would require social media platforms to verify users are 18 or older before allowing account creation. Invited witnesses in support, including Mary Elizabeth Castle and David Dunmoyer, argued the bill would protect children from harmful algorithms, addictive design, bullying, sexual exploitation, and mental health harms, and emphasized parental rights and the idea that minors should not enter binding contracts with platforms. Committee members questioned them about how algorithms work, whether parents could realistically monitor content, and whether the bill would still allow educational use; the witnesses said the bill was narrowly aimed at harmful social media use and not educational content. Public testimony on HB 186 was largely in opposition, though several student witnesses said they supported the bill’s goals but wanted the age lowered to 16 or the bill amended to allow parental consent or joint accounts. Opponents argued the bill would be ineffective because teens could bypass age checks, would cut off access to educational tools, school communications, recruiting and NIL opportunities, and would burden free speech and privacy. Some witnesses also said social media helps teens with mental health, community, and creative or professional opportunities, while others warned the bill could disproportionately harm disabled and marginalized users. After public testimony closed, HB 186 was left pending. The committee then heard House Bill 5138, which Chairman Hughes said would respond to a court ruling limiting the Attorney General’s authority to prosecute election crimes unless invited by local prosecutors by changing the statute to require AG prosecution. Public testimony on HB 5138 was brief and opposed by at least one witness who argued it would further erode local control and expand state preemption. The bill was left pending after testimony. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 3225, a library bill aimed at keeping sexually explicit books and materials out of children’s sections in municipal libraries and requiring age verification for checkout, including digital access, with parental consent and other revisions added in the House. Supporters said the bill would protect children from explicit material and keep such content in adult sections, while opponents argued it would amount to censorship, be costly and difficult to implement, and could be used to target LGBTQ+ or other marginalized content. Library workers, parents, students, and advocates testified that existing library sections already separate age-appropriate materials and that the bill could reduce access to books, burden libraries, and infringe on parental choice and free expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:57.600> And the integrity of the election. And the integrity of the election.
• is now post election voted ballots. is now post election voted ballots. equipment<00:09:15.920><
• ballots through through the voting ballots through through the voting machine?
• we ever took a vote on anything, did we? we ever took a vote on anything, did we?
• >> Well, we didn't vote on it. >> Well, we didn't vote on it.

Bills: HB0085, HB0086

Keywords: elections, audit procedures, ballot integrity, political party observation, transparency, county officials, election code, misconduct, removal, government accountability, 916, all

Bills: HB0085, HB0086

Keywords: elections, audit procedures, ballot integrity, political party observation, transparency, county officials, election code, misconduct, removal, government accountability, 916, all

Bills: HB65, HB67, HB73, HB205, HB225, HB339, HB550

Keywords: sexual harassment, public employees, training requirements, mandatory education, elected officials, public records, personal information, protected individuals, ethics, transparency, public meetings, voting, electronic voting machine, government accountability, term limits, governor, Louisiana constitution, elections, gubernatorial, law enforcement

Transcript Highlights:

• He described states as federal agents to count votes.
• Or if the DOJ demanded that New Mexico change our early voting procedures, or eliminate vote centers,
• , including early voting.
• Well, what about if one of the voting observers rightfully challenges a voter's right to vote?
• not vote for the Republican or else,' or 'You better not vote for the Democrat or else,' that could kind

Bills: SB264, SB261

Keywords: election integrity, voter coercion, public safety, emergency procedures, polling place security, health regulations, community welfare, peace promotion, legislative reforms, 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I appreciate that, and for our side of the table I would encourage a yes vote on this bill.
• So I appreciate that, and for our side of the table I would encourage a yes vote on this bill.
• So I appreciate that, and for our side of the table I would encourage a yes vote on this bill.
• So I appreciate that, and for our side of the table I would encourage a yes vote on this bill.
• Our council is also made up of 12 governor-appointed public voting members.

Bills: HF1867, HF1240

Keywords: lottery, retailer contracts, Minnesota Statutes, contract qualifications, public integrity, criminal background, legislative auditor, public funds, state government, compliance, transparency, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I work for Altria and I lead our brand integrity efforts. ...Department at the company.
• protective measures to make sure that they're not influencing our internal system, they're not having a vote

Bills: SB30, SB517, SB1313, SB1314, SB1316, SB1541, SB1698, SB1845, SB1860, SB2420, SB2429, SB 30

Keywords: gambling, criminal offenses, penalties, defense, electronic devices, tobacco advertising, youth protection, public health, criminal offense, retailer regulation, e-cigarettes, nicotine products, health, public safety, regulation, advertising restrictions, health and safety, elections, election audit, county elections

Transcript Highlights:

• to be able to vote.
• We want everybody to vote who should and have the right to vote.
• We're voting, right? We're voting. So those aren't the ones, right?
• to vote.
• vote is counted.

Bills: AB49, AB169, AB188, AB284, AB296, AB306, AB356, AB366, AB467, AB499, AB515, AB540, AB542, AB595

Keywords: educational personnel, teacher licensing, reciprocal licensure, provisional teaching, school counselors, school nurses, school social workers, state education standards, health insurance, speech-language pathology, stuttering, rehabilitative services, habilitative services, coverage requirements, health plans, retired public employees, subsidy, Medicare, health reimbursement arrangement, Public Employees' Benefits Program

Transcript Highlights:

• laws by preventing indirect funding that enables abortion services, thereby maintaining physical integrity
• And on November 20th of 2024, they voted to change the $500,000 of funding for the reproductive justice
• Until February 28th of, uh, two, less than two months ago, of this year, they voted for another $100,000

Bills: SB 31, SB 33, SB 510, SB 871, SB 1868, SB 2024, SB 2166, SB 2309, SB 2880, SJR 27, SJR 39, SJR 40

Keywords: SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, unborn child, abortion exception, abortion ban, physician liability, health care liability claim, aiding and abetting, Texas Medical Board, State Bar of Texas, continuing medical education

Bills: HB310, HB363

Keywords: campaign finance, electronic notifications, civil penalties, Fair Campaign Practices Act, Secretary of State, foreign contributions, political parties, electoral integrity, state legislation, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I vote aye.
• voting location, including vote centers.
• So they did not vote. So there were six votes lost there. So they did not vote.
• And I think voting centers would be a great idea to have people vote so everybody, every vote counts
• And I think voting centers would be a great idea to have people vote so everybody, every vote counts

Bills: HB2006, HB2085, HB2109, HB2167, HB2205, HB2410, HCR2016

Keywords: sample ballots, elections, primary election, general election, mailing deadline, ballot mailing, county election officials, board of supervisors, secretary of state, early voting list, election administration, voter information, postal service, USPS processing center, city elections, town elections, special district elections, Arizona election law, ballot proofing, party chair

Summary: The Judiciary and Elections Committee approved the minutes from February 18, February 20, and March 4, 2026, and then took up several election and traffic-related measures. House Bill 2006, which would require counties without a USPS processing and distribution center to mail printed sample ballots 14 days before an election instead of 11, was explained as a way to allow more time for mail delivery in affected counties. The Association of Counties supported the bill, and after brief discussion it passed on a 7-0 vote. House Bill 2109, dealing with hands-free driving penalties, drew extensive debate. The bill would raise penalties for repeat violations, add a penalty when a violation results in a motorcycle crash, and expand the prohibition to watching, recording, or streaming video on a device while driving. Two amendments were offered to remove the citation ban and to strike the “records” language, but members and witnesses raised concerns that the remaining video-streaming language was vague and could unintentionally affect dash cams, rear cameras, CarPlay, navigation, rideshare safety cameras, and other in-vehicle systems. After robust discussion, the committee held the bill without prejudice to allow a stakeholder meeting and possible revision. House Bill 2167, which would impose liability on the Attorney General for damages when a public nuisance or consumer fraud action is dismissed or found meritless under certain conditions, received divided testimony. Supporters argued it would curb overreach, while opponents said it would interfere with the AG’s ability to protect Arizonans. The committee approved the bill 4-3. Finally, HCR 2016, a referral measure that would eliminate county vote centers and on-site early voting and impose a precinct cap of 2,500 registered voters, drew strong opposition from voting rights groups, county officials, and rural and Navajo Nation witnesses who warned it would increase confusion, provisional ballots, costs, and access barriers. The committee did not act on the resolution and instead held it without prejudice for further stakeholder discussions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're an integral part of providing service to every agency and state government.
• So with that, I'd appreciate a yes vote, members. That concludes the introduction of Marc Wood.
• It's been voted in by the people, and we've got to deal with it.
• Vote will now occur. Clerk, will call a roll.
• Vote now, Kirk. Clerk, color roll.

Bills: HB1170

Keywords: fiduciary responsibility, proxy voting, public finance, Oklahoma statutes, pension plans, pecuniary factors, nonpecuniary factors, financial risk, Attorney General, 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> May I explain my vote, please? >> Sure. Thank you. I vote yes.
• Chair, I would like to record a yes vote as well as presence. >> Thank you. Duly noted.
• Chair, I would like to record<00:06:18.639> a<00:06:18.800> yes<00:06:19.120> vote
• record a yes vote as well as presence. record a yes vote as well as presence.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:28 HB 692 Discussion: 01:11 HB 692 Voting: 05:01, 958, all

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:13 HB 506 discussion: 01:52 HB 506 voting: 35:03, 958, all

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:28 SB 197 discussion: 02:26 SB 197 voting: 32:15, 958, all

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:04 HB 168 Discussion: 01:20 HB 168 Voting: 05:12, 958, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 168, with Representative Fleming presenting a committee substitute after additional stakeholder discussions. Fleming explained that the substitute returns the boating-related penalties to the original monetary fine structure rather than mirroring DUI penalties, while keeping the requirement that officers seek a warrant for blood testing in fatal or serious-injury cases. He also described a communications change intended to speed emergency response on the water: 911 dispatchers would notify state police, who would then contact Fish and Wildlife, addressing delays in prior incidents. Representative Fugate asked for clarification about which agency would respond to boating accidents and fatalities. Fleming confirmed that Fish and Wildlife would remain the primary responding agency and that the substitute would not require state police or local departments to investigate boating incidents on the lake. After questions concluded, the committee called the roll and adopted the committee substitute. The committee then voted on the bill as substituted, and House Bill 168 passed out of committee favorably. Members and the chair praised the sponsor for continuing to work with stakeholders and improving the bill through the committee process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, I'd like to explain my aye vote.
• Chair, I'd like to explain my eye vote. vote. vote.
• perhaps register a vote perhaps register a vote >> perhaps<00:05:10.473> [laughter]
• We're gaining momentum here. >> We all voted no.
• We're We're your vote quickly as well?

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:25 SB 129 Discussion: 01:14 SB 129 Voting: 03:35, 958, all

Summary: The Standing Committee on Economic Development, Labor, and Tourism met for its fourth meeting and considered one bill sponsored by Senator Mike Nees concerning unemployment insurance and the SCUF (Service Capacity Upgrade Fund). Senator Nees explained that the bill would lower employer rates tied to the fund, while continuing to support unemployment insurance system upgrades. He said the fund was created after problems with the unemployment computer system and that employers had borne the cost successfully. Nees also described a planned floor amendment, agreed to by the chamber and cabinet, that would cap the SCUF fund at $15 million and redirect contributions to the regular unemployment insurance fund if that fund falls below the prior year’s level. He said this would prevent overfunding technology while ensuring benefit payments remain protected. Committee members responded favorably, with remarks praising the bill and joking about government spending and the unemployment system’s handling during COVID. The committee first reported the bill favorably on a 9-0 vote, then later recorded additional votes from members and guests, bringing the tally to 11-0 in support. The chair announced the bill would be reported with favorable expression and that it would have the same recommendation on the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• May I explain my vote? >> Yes, please. >> Thank you.
• May I explain my vote, please? >> Is that right? Um, yeah.
• Thanks. >> What is your vote? >> Pass. >> Okay.
• >> Briefly explain my vote. >> Briefly explain my vote.
• >> What is your vote? >> What is your vote? >> Pass. >> Pass.

Keywords: Meeting start: 00:00 Roll call: 00:05 HB 227 discussion: 01:10 HB 227 voting: 49:38, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum to consider House Bill 227, a time-sensitive measure focused on social media use by minors. The bill sponsor, Rep. Matt Lockett, and supporters including counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, the Attorney General’s office, and the Family Foundation argued that social media is addictive and harmful to children, contributes to mental health problems and exploitation, and that the bill would give parents more control while regulating addictive features rather than banning speech. Supporters said the bill is narrowly tailored, content-neutral, and designed to withstand constitutional scrutiny; the Attorney General’s office said it would defend the bill if challenged and described ongoing multi-state litigation against major platforms. One committee member also described seeing inappropriate AI-generated content on a 16-year-old’s phone as an example of the problem the bill seeks to address. Opposition testimony came from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, NetChoice, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. They argued the bill raises First Amendment concerns because it conditions minors’ access on parental consent, regulates how private platforms communicate with users, and could function as a de facto speech ban. They also warned that the age-estimation requirement could force platforms to collect more sensitive data, creating privacy and security risks, and that the ban on “addictive features” was overly broad and could sweep in personalized feeds, notifications, autoplay, and other common tools. Opponents said the bill could especially harm vulnerable youth who rely on online access for community or safety information and urged the committee to craft a constitutional alternative. During questions, members asked how the state could enforce the law against national companies and were told enforcement would come through the Attorney General within Kentucky and potentially through multi-state litigation. Members also discussed the bill’s practical effects, including advertising revenue from youth users and the need for guardrails to protect children. The discussion continued with questions about the bill’s scope, parental consent, age estimation, and liability provisions, but no final vote or other committee action was shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Explain my vote, please. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Uh, I do appreciate the work on this.
• Chair, I'd like to explain my reluctant no vote here. you. you.
• Chair, I'd like to explain my reluctant no vote here. Certainly, sir.
• I am an I vote and uh I >> Chair Wheeler.
• So, with a vote of 9 to 2, Senate Bill 52 is amended and voted out with favorable expression that the

Keywords: Meeting start: 00:00 Roll call: 00:24 SB 52 discussion: 01:28 SB 52 voting: 25:08, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Economic Development, Tourism, and Labor met with a quorum and adopted a committee substitute for Senate Bill 52. The sponsors, Senators Rawlings and Elkins, explained that the substitute narrowed the bill to state public agencies, exempted cities and counties, extended the basic decision deadline from 30 to 60 days, added an additional extension for safety, health, and public welfare concerns, removed an earlier jury-trial provision, and exempted Kentucky State Police exams. They said the bill is intended to require clear permit criteria, timely agency decisions, and meaningful appeal rights for permits tied to constitutionally protected activity, without eliminating existing licensing or permitting requirements. Senators supporting the bill described long agency delays and uncertainty in permitting as costly for contractors, schools, landfill projects, and energy development. Senator Elkins gave a detailed example of a landfill permit process that took years, and other members said agencies should be held to timelines or at least provide reasons for delay. Senator Boswell and Senator Clemens raised concerns that the safety/health/welfare extension could remain subjective and that hard deadlines might pressure agencies and risk public safety. Senator Thomas also said he supported the goal but was voting no because he wanted a safer middle ground. Audrey Ernsburger of the Kentucky Resources Council testified in a neutral-to-cautious position, saying the group agreed that complete applications should be reviewed in a timely and predictable way, but objected to the default-approval mechanism and some burden-shifting provisions in the original language. She warned that deadlines could begin before an application is complete, that deficiencies might not toll the clock, that automatic approval could create public-health risks in some licensing contexts, and that KRS Chapter 13B already governs administrative hearings and judicial review. She said KRC would prefer a statutory process without a hard deadline. After discussion, the committee voted 9-2 to report Senate Bill 52 favorably, as amended.