Transcript Highlights:

• the United States House of Representatives from the State of Texas to the Special Committee on Congressional

Bills: HB4 , HB4 , HB4

Transcript Highlights:

• Yet congressional appropriations for funding IDEA are currently less than 10%.
• Yet, congressional appropriations for funding IDEA are currently less than 10%.
• Yet, congressional appropriations for funding IDEA are currently less than 10%.
• Yet, congressional appropriations for funding IDEA are currently less than 10%.
• Yet, congressional appropriations for Yet, congressional appropriations for funding<04:20:07.040><c>

Summary: The commission meeting focused on reviewing and correcting draft minutes and then working through a draft report on the cost of special education. Members made mostly clerical corrections, including clarifying references to Spalding, fixing acronyms such as LETRS, and cleaning up membership titles and appointee roles to match SB 57. The minutes were approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair also noted the commission’s deadline to complete findings and recommendations by July 1 and said the final report must be delivered to legislative leaders, the governor, the state librarian, and others. The main substantive discussion centered on the report’s findings about special education funding. Members agreed the report should emphasize that the commission was created to study the cost of special education and reduce reliance on local property taxes. One draft section described FY24 special education funding as coming from three primary state and federal sources totaling about $152 million, or roughly 15% of annual costs, with the remaining 85% paid by local school districts through property tax revenue, estimated at about $825 million. Members discussed adding historical or longitudinal data to show trends over time, and some suggested attaching charts or tables showing funding over the last 20 to 30 years. A second major topic was demographic data. The draft noted that statewide K-12 enrollment has declined since 2003 while the number and share of students with IEPs has increased. Members questioned whether the data compared like with like, especially given the growth of Education Freedom Accounts and charter school enrollment, and whether the figures included or excluded those students. Several members asked for clearer sourcing from the Department of Education and suggested keeping a list of unresolved questions, including the impact of the shift from ADMA to ADMR and the effect of the EFA program. The discussion ended with agreement to continue refining the report and to gather additional attachments and clarifications before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal government is also considering legislation to address these issues, and the Congressional
• to recount the details of those first few nights in the hospital because I still have little to no memory

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• amendments to the Farm Bill out of the last... ...amendments to the Farm Bill out of the last congressional
• tobacco, with 47 percent of them being able to clearly recall the text on the warning label from memory

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy

Summary: The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held a hearing on a broad set of cannabis and hemp bills, with the chairs opening by emphasizing unfinished work on equity, public health, safety, and market stability. The committee heard testimony on House Bill 146, which would create more efficient cannabis testing standards by increasing batch sizes, reducing or eliminating some environmental testing, standardizing lab reporting, and requiring annual scientific review and public data reporting. Industry witnesses, including a representative of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, cultivators, and a testing lab owner, said current testing rules are overly burdensome, costly, and inconsistent, and argued the bill would lower compliance costs while preserving consumer safety. A testing lab witness also said some operators switch labs to obtain higher THC results or pass contaminated batches, and urged greater transparency and better sampling protocols. A major portion of the hearing focused on intoxicating hemp and related bills that would bring hemp-derived intoxicating products under a stronger regulatory framework. Legislators and industry witnesses described products sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and convenience stores as often untested, not age-gated, and sometimes mislabeled or far above the federal hemp THC threshold. Testimony from attorneys and cannabis business leaders said states can regulate these products more strictly under the Farm Bill’s non-preemption language, and pointed to New Jersey and other states as possible models. Some witnesses and committee members stressed that any new rules should avoid harming non-intoxicating CBD businesses or lawful hemp farmers, while others argued that the products are effectively cannabis and should be regulated like cannabis for licensing, testing, age limits, and taxation. The committee also heard extensive public-health testimony in support of bills S. 95, S. 96, S. 97 and their House counterparts H. 191, H. 192, and H. 193. Parents, advocates, and public health professionals urged stronger warning labels, THC potency caps, and improved data collection on cannabis-related harms, citing cannabis-induced psychosis, addiction, anxiety, and youth exposure to high-potency products. Several witnesses said Massachusetts has not done enough to track health outcomes or warn consumers, and referenced other jurisdictions such as Connecticut, Vermont, Colorado, Canada, and Quebec as examples of stronger limits or warnings. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• nine-year-old girl, a federal judge, and my friend and colleague, Gabe Zimmerman, who is the first congressional
• The call to action: in Elijah's memory, I found solace.

Committee: Senate Law & Justice

Transcript Highlights:

• call but agreed that future generations deserve to experience the Devils River as it is, not as a memory
• And I do want to first say that our Texas congressional delegation, including our two U.S. senators,

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Summary: The committee met with limited attendance at first, then took up a series of water, agriculture, and rural affairs measures. HB 3898 would allow the Texas Water Development Board to provide financial assistance for brackish water desalination projects in certain border counties and related nonprofit suppliers even if the projects are not in the state water plan. Supporters said it is needed to address severe water shortages in places like Webb County and to support future planning; opponents, including the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, argued it bypasses the regional and state water planning process. The bill was left pending after testimony. The committee also heard HB 5339, which would create a higher-education grant program for regenerative agriculture research. A rancher testified that regenerative methods improved soil health, water retention, and farm viability, while a senator noted existing university research but said better coordination could help. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. Members then heard HB 1523, a temporary prohibition on TCEQ issuing Austin a Class 5 injection well permit for an aquifer storage and recovery project in Bastrop and Lee counties until December 2027. Local officials from Bastrop supported the pause, citing unanswered questions about water treatment, recovery rates, and impacts on the aquifer, while Austin Water opposed the substitute, saying the project is central to its long-term water plan and that stakeholder talks were already underway. TCEQ explained its ASR permitting process and said public participation is possible but not always used in the current authorization process. The bill was left pending. HB 5659, concerning the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District and requiring majority city-council approval before certain water sales or interbasin transfers, drew testimony from district officials who said the change could interfere with existing contracts and district authority, but the chair emphasized the need for local buy-in and said the stakeholders had reached a workable compromise; testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HB 1690, which would expand notice requirements for groundwater export permits so neighboring landowners and potentially affected aquifer areas are informed by certified mail and publication. The sponsor tied the bill to impacts from the Vista Ridge project, and no one testified against it; it was left pending. HB 3333 would prohibit TCEQ from issuing new wastewater discharge permits directly into the Devils River in Val Verde County. The sponsor and a conservation witness said the bill protects one of Texas’s most pristine rivers and reflects a local stakeholder agreement, while TCEQ said it can ensure water quality but acknowledged the river’s unique sensitivity; the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HCR 108 urging continuation of the U.S.-Mexico tomato suspension agreement, with supporters warning of major Texas job and consumer-price impacts if it ends, and HCR 76 urging federal action on imported shrimp, citing public health and industry concerns; both were left pending. Additional measures heard and left pending included HB 4158 on compensation for Texana Groundwater Conservation District directors, HB 654 creating a dismissal path for certain first-time deer hunting violations after self-reporting and hunter education, HB 4530 requiring Texas Water Development Board review of groundwater rights placed in the Texas Water Trust, HB 2128 directing a study of rural versus urban firefighting and rescue disparities, and HB 278 requiring groundwater districts and management areas to track progress toward desired future conditions over shorter intervals. On HB 278, witnesses split over whether the bill’s interim tracking would improve accountability or create new triggers that could be used against local districts, but no final vote was taken and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was on I was honored to represent the state of Florida and Washington, D.C., at a congressional meeting
• ADI delivers supportive family services and encompasses the state's 17 memory disorder clinics and the

Summary: The Health Care Budget Subcommittee met to organize the new term, take roll, and hear introductory presentations from the six agencies under its jurisdiction: the Agency for Health Care Administration, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, Department of Children and Families, Department of Elder Affairs, Department of Health, and Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The chair outlined the committee process, including assigning members to review agencies and make budget recommendations. Each agency head gave a high-level overview of their budget, staffing, major programs, and priorities, with recurring themes including Medicaid, long-term care, disability services, child welfare, mental health, aging services, public health, and veterans’ health care. Several agency leaders highlighted recent initiatives and funding priorities. AHCA emphasized Medicaid managed care, provider regulation, Hope Florida, hospital-at-home, and cancer-related efforts; APD discussed iBudget services, Hope Florida, a managed-care pilot, online applications, and forensic care costs; DCF focused on child protection, foster care, adult protective services, food/cash/medical assistance, mental health, and opioid treatment; Elder Affairs highlighted Alzheimer’s services, community-based senior care, guardianship, ombudsman services, and disaster outreach; DOH covered cancer innovation, maternal telehealth, cybersecurity, HIV/hepatitis/syphilis screening, and school nursing; and Veterans Affairs described benefits and health care access for veterans, long-term care, and federal reimbursement. Several speakers also raised concerns about rising costs, provider rates, disaster response, and access to services. The committee heard two public comments from disability advocates about Medicaid redeterminations affecting iBudget waiver recipients and provider payment delays. In response, AHCA and APD said they were coordinating on data sharing, early outreach, escalation processes, and efforts to reduce disenrollments and make recertification smoother. Members then asked questions about provider rates, opioid settlement spending, managed care quality measures, pediatric rare disease grants, group home transparency, senior outreach, ABA services moving into managed care, annual Medicaid recertification, veterans’ service utilization, waiting lists for elder services, and prevention spending. No formal votes were taken during the meeting.

Bills: HB1 , HB198 , HB11 , HB32 , HB33 , HB34 , HB56 , HB68 , HB72 , HB101 , HB102 , HB110 , HB154 , HB166 , HB168 , HB274 , SB114 , HB1 , HB198 , HB11 , HB32 , HB33 , HB34 , HB56 , HB68 , HB72 , HB101 , HB102 , HB110 , HB154 , HB166 , HB168 , HB274 , SB114

Committee: House Public Safety and Homeland Security

Keywords: DUI, driving under the influence, ignition interlock, interlock device, driver license suspension, restricted license, motor vehicle, alcohol offense, first offense, repeat offender, blood alcohol concentration, BAC, license revocation, Alabama State Law Enforcement Agency, ALEA, public safety, traffic safety, chemical dependency, substance abuse, court referral program

Transcript Highlights:

• This will be referred to the Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting.

Bills: SB15 , SB9 , SB4 , SB8 , SB60 , SB4 , SB8 , SB60 , SB4 , SB8 , SB60 , SB15 , SB9

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the school received $2 million in congressionally directed federal funding in the fiscal
• Maybe we just have to go back and I need my memory fresh, too.
• But at the last meeting, there were... ...we just have to go back and I need my memory fresh, too.
• And so if somebody might be able to refresh our memories about that, I'm not asking for percentages or

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• In front of the Committee on Congressional Redistricting: Select HB5 by Vandever, relating to the regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• It brought back memories of just driving out to UMass sometimes in an unregistered or borrowed vehicle
• funding in research and financial aid and operational intrusion from the Trump administration and congressional
• funding in research and financial aid and operational intrusion from the Trump administration and congressional

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its first hearing and heard testimony on a wide range of bills, including hunger-free campuses, FAFSA completion, early college/college-in-high-school programs, banning legacy preferences, AP credit consistency, and tuition equity for the Stockbridge School of Agriculture. Committee leaders opened by outlining the hearing process and noting the three-minute testimony limit. Legislators and advocates generally framed the bills as equity and access measures aimed at improving college affordability, student success, and workforce development. Representative Vargas testified for H. 1466 and H. 1467, arguing that hunger-free campus should be codified because many public college and community college students face food insecurity, and that FAFSA completion should be improved through individualized outreach and an opt-out or completion requirement. Senator Lovely, the Greater Boston Food Bank, and other advocates supported the hunger-free campus bill, citing data that 44% of public university and community college students experienced food insecurity in 2023 and that food insecurity harms graduation rates. Femi Stoltz and Shanti Lopez Toro backed the FAFSA bill, saying many students miss out on Pell grants and need direct support; they pointed to state examples such as Louisiana and to recent state action requiring FAFSA awareness. Committee members asked about the federal FAFSA rollout, regional equity in food access, and the need for long-term funding and data collection. A large panel supported H. 1455 on college and high school/early college, including former Chair Roy, the Massachusetts Alliance for Early College, a student graduate, MBAE, and Tripp Jones. They described early college as a proven model that helps low-income and first-generation students, improves degree attainment, and supports workforce needs; witnesses said the goal is to scale from about 9,000 students and 55 partnerships toward 22,000 to 25,000 students by 2030, with possible future growth beyond that. Members raised questions about funding, public-private partnerships, parental involvement, faculty development, and whether the bill should include data review and more standardized policies across institutions. Representative Garcia also testified for H. 1432 on AP credit, saying students should receive consistent credit for AP scores of 3, 4, or 5. Senator Edwards and James Murphy testified for the legacy preference ban, arguing it is unfair and rooted in exclusionary history; they said some states have already banned legacy preferences in public and private institutions. Finally, UMass Dean Michael Fox, alumnus Dan Mayer, and student Jake Rasmussen supported S. 920 to include Stockbridge associate degree programs in MassEducate, saying tuition equity would help enrollment and support Massachusetts agriculture and green-industry jobs.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as the United States Representative for the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts, I pledge
• lost, because of the Steward Health Care crisis, we've lost about, just in my district alone, my congressional
• Today, 10 years later, it's a privilege to advocate on their behalf and in my brother's memory.

Summary: The special legislative commission on the future of Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children held a hybrid public hearing focused on the hospital’s future, admissions, staffing, infrastructure, and whether the facility should be preserved, expanded, or reimagined. Opening remarks from legislators, commissioners, parents, and union representatives emphasized that Pappas provides a unique combination of medical, rehabilitative, educational, and residential services for children with complex needs, and several speakers argued that the hospital is effectively being depopulated through reduced admissions and ongoing discharges despite public assurances that it remains open. Multiple speakers urged the commission to extend its authorization and continue its work before any closure or major change can occur. Testimony from labor leaders, including AFSCME, SEIU Local 509, and the Massachusetts Nurses Association, described a “silent closure” in practice, with staff reporting confusion about the hospital’s status, declining census numbers, blocked admissions, and uncertainty about the workforce’s future. They called for immediate action to stop admission denials and unnecessary discharges, and some proposed short-term solutions such as temporary modular structures to address infrastructure barriers and allow admissions to resume. Parents and former patients testified that Pappas provided life-changing independence, specialized therapy, and campus-based supports that they said could not be replicated elsewhere, and they criticized alternative placements as inadequate. Commissioner Robert Goldstein of the Department of Public Health said the administration supports keeping Pappas open and funded while the commission works, but he argued that admissions must comply with hospital-level-of-care rules and that the campus’s deteriorating infrastructure limits the kinds of children who can safely be served there. He said the department is continuing admissions for appropriate patients, working to expand outreach and services, and exploring long-term options, including broader statewide models of care. Commissioners pressed him on whether discharge status or lack of a clear discharge plan had been used as a barrier to admission, and requested de-identified data on patients recommended for admission but denied. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as the United States representative for the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts, I pledge
• look, we've lost, because of the Steward Health Care crisis, about a thousand beds just in my congressional
• Today, 10 years later, it's a privilege to advocate on their behalf and in my brother's memory.

Summary: The hearing focused on the future of Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children, with commissioners, agency officials, workers, and families describing the hospital as a unique integrated setting combining medical care, rehabilitation, education, residential services, and adaptive engineering. Opening remarks from legislators emphasized continued budget funding, the legal requirement that Pappas not close before the commission reports, and a request to extend the commission’s deadline. Several commissioners and witnesses argued that admissions have effectively been curtailed while discharges continue, creating what they described as a de facto closure. Union leaders from AFSCME, SEIU, and the Massachusetts Nurses Association said staff are experiencing uncertainty, morale problems, and loss of confidence because referrals are being discouraged and the census is shrinking. They urged immediate action to stop admission denials and unnecessary discharges, and some proposed temporary modular units or other short-term investments to restore admissions while longer-term plans are developed. Parents and former patients testified that Pappas provided life-changing opportunities and supports that they could not find elsewhere, and that alternative programs or proposed Western Massachusetts options would not meet the same needs. Department of Public Health Commissioner Robert Goldstein said the administration supports keeping Pappas open and stable during the commission’s work, but argued that admissions must comply with hospital-level-of-care rules and that the campus’s deteriorating infrastructure limits who can be safely served. He said DPH is continuing admissions where appropriate, backfilling staff, and exploring ways to expand services, including outpatient therapies and adaptive engineering, while also acknowledging that Pappas is a one-of-a-kind system with no true in-state duplicate. Commissioners requested de-identified admissions and denial data and continued to press the department on whether the current operational changes amount to a silent closure.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as the United States representative for the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts, I pledge
• lost, because of the Steward Health Care crisis, we've lost about, just in my district alone, my congressional
• Today, 10 years later, it's a privilege to advocate on their behalf and in my brother's memory.

Summary: The hearing focused on the future of the Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children and the work of the special legislative commission studying whether and how the facility should continue. Senators and representatives said the Legislature has continued funding Pappas, that the hospital cannot be closed before the commission reports, and that they are seeking to extend the commission’s deadline. Multiple commissioners and witnesses described Pappas as a unique setting combining inpatient medical care, residential programming, special education, therapy, and campus-based activities for children with complex medical needs. Union leaders, staff, parents, and local officials argued that Pappas is being quietly depopulated through blocked admissions and continued discharges despite the formal pause on closure. They said the hospital’s integrated model cannot be replicated elsewhere, that families and staff are being left in limbo, and that the state should invest in repairs, modernization, and possibly temporary modular space to reopen admissions. Several witnesses emphasized the impact on children who have benefited from Pappas and on workers who fear losing a specialized workforce built over decades. Department of Public Health Commissioner Robert Goldstein said the state is committed to keeping Pappas open and stable while the commission works, but that admissions must meet hospital-level-of-care standards and the current infrastructure limits who can safely be served. He said the administration has been expanding outreach, hiring staff, and exploring ways to broaden services, including outpatient and therapy programs over time. Commissioners pressed him on why admissions remain so limited and whether the facility is being effectively depopulated, while Goldstein maintained that the restrictions reflect legal and safety requirements rather than an effort to close the hospital.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, gentlelady, the language, and I believe it is on page 7, if my memory serves, the language lines
• That have been congressionally authorized.
• I don't believe that's via congressional law.

Transcript Highlights:

• of September 2025, five states used some version of the top-two primary system for some or all congressional
• Washington was the first state to adopt the top-two primary system for congressional and state-level
• In congressional races, the real election happens in a low-turnout partisan primary.
• direct voter contact, which frankly, I would rather be sending our folks to New York's contested congressional

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• of September 2025, five states used some version of the top-two primary system for some or all congressional
• Washington was the first state to adopt the top-two primary system for congressional and state-level
• In congressional races, the real election happens in a low-turnout partisan primary.
• direct voter contact, which frankly I would rather be sending our folks to New York's contested congressional

Bills: H5001

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Transcript Highlights:

• local level, and then once we reach agreement among the parties here, we have to go through a congressional
• And we are right now working with our congressional delegation to get congressional authorization to
• Every time I get a chance to see our congressional delegation, wherever it is, here in New Mexico or

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• understanding that only impacts dependent students unless there is a change to federal law through congressional
• law</c><00:15:35.440><c> through</c> change to federal law through change to federal law through congressional
• </c> congressional action. congressional action. Senator<00:15:39.199><c> M.

Committee: Senate Higher Education