Transcript Highlights:

• The first report would be a public report, and the second would be a not public report.
• The first report would be a public report, and the second would be a not public report.
• The first report would be a public report, and the second would be a not public report.
• Total incidents, security incidents reported across the state and judicial branch in the judicial branch
• recent Axtell report. recent Axtell report.

Bills: HF4810, HF4597, HF1082, HF3230

Keywords: public safety, radio communications, infrastructure funding, county funding, interoperability, ARMER network, local jurisdictions, HF4597, Minnesota public safety, 911, emergency dispatch, emergency communications, public safety appropriation, Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, PSAP, dispatch interoperability, real-time coordination, emergency response coordination, cross-jurisdictional response, 911 center awareness platform

Transcript Highlights:

• shall be from the records and reports shall be from the records and reports fund<01:04:51.039>
• 1,410, Judicial Department. 1,410, Judicial Department.
• Judicial Education and Training, 4.0 FTE. Judicial Education and Training, 4.0 FTE.
• Commission on Judicial Discipline. Office of Judicial Discipline: 5.0 FTE.
• Commission on Judicial Discipline. Office of Judicial Discipline: 5.0 FTE.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, approved the prior journal, and heard several brief recognitions before moving to business. Members welcomed foster care advocates for Child Abuse Prevention Month, Girl Scouts visiting the Capitol, and participants in Black Maternal Health Week, with remarks emphasizing foster youth voice, leadership development, and the need for culturally competent maternal health care and doula/midwife support. The chamber then took up House Joint Resolution 1026, honoring former Governor Roy Romer and designating a portion of I-25 as the Governor Roy Romer Memorial Highway. Supporters highlighted Romer’s long public service, his work on education and infrastructure, and his role in major state projects. A proposed amendment to strike the word “memorial” was withdrawn, the House suspended the rules to allow Romer to speak from the well, and Romer offered remarks about legislative collegiality and the importance of democracy and listening to opposing views. House Joint Resolution 1026 was adopted on a 60-0 vote, with four excused and one absent. After a brief recess, the House returned to special orders and resumed reading House Bill 1410 at length, continuing through extensive appropriations language for the Department of Human Services, including child welfare, youth services, Medicaid-related transfers, SNAP and benefits administration, and other funding line items. No final action on House Bill 1410 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So judicial council has to interest.
• judicial council. judicial council.
• judicial Um, does the judicial council<00:21:49.039> have<00:21:49.280> the<00:21:49.520
• <00:36:36.800> Um of the audit report. Um of the audit report.
• audit report means when it says pending. audit report means when it says pending.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So my question would be: if they cannot dissolve without timely judicial review, why is there not a judicial
• So my question would be: if they cannot dissolve without timely judicial review, why is there not a judicial
• So if this is not a judicial process, if there's no judicial process, why are at a rally, but it's just
• So if this is not a judicial process, if there's no judicial process, why are Representative Gant: This
• is not a judicial process.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present, then moved into returning messages from the Senate. Early action focused on CS/CS/HB 1503 on computer science education and certification, which would add computer science and artificial intelligence content in high school and create a K-12 teacher certificate program; after adopting a House amendment restoring certificate language and adjusting implementation timing, the House concurred in the Senate amendment and passed the bill 105-0. The chamber then took up CS/CS/HB 1085 on local government cybersecurity, adopting a House amendment to allow local governments to buy into the cyber grant program and add a five-year sunset, then concurring in the Senate amendment shifting grant administration back to the Florida Digital Service; the bill passed 104-1. The House refused to concur in Senate amendments to CS/HB 351 on concurrent legislative jurisdiction over U.S. military installations and HB 6011 on reporting gifts or honoraria, sending both back to the Senate. It also refused to concur in the Senate amendment to CS/HB 851 on professional learning for instructional and school administrative personnel, saying the Senate version expanded the bill beyond its original autism-focused scope. After a recess, the House unveiled Speaker Daniel Perez’s portrait and heard extended remarks praising his leadership, institutional reforms, and the work of House staff and members. In the second returning-message list, the House debated CS/CS/HB 1471 on systems of law and terrorist organizations. The Senate amendment clarified the definition of “promote,” refined notice and timeline provisions for terrorist organization designations, and kept references to Sharia law as an example in the foreign religious law section. Supporters argued the bill was aimed at conduct beyond speech and was intended to protect the Constitution and public safety; opponents warned it would chill free speech, target Muslim Floridians, and give the governor and cabinet unprecedented power without adequate due process. After lengthy debate, the House concurred and passed the bill 80-25. The House then took up CS/CS/HB 1473, a public records bill tied to HB 1471, and moved to concur in a technical Senate amendment aligning the records exemption with the revised structure of HB 1471.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some report and take direction from legislative leadership.
• reporting requirements of the government auditing standards.
• We did not have independence to do that, but we did produce a report that was an informational report
• We did not have independence to do that, but we did produce a report that was an informational report
• So it was But we did produce a report that was an informational report.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um when that violation gets<00:19:17.919> reported<00:19:18.320> to<00:19:18.480> DVS
• to DVS uh they can extend gets reported to DVS uh they can extend the<00:19:21.120> length<00
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• addresses that I got off the judicial addresses that I got off the judicial branch<00:23:09.159>
• six slide seven is our judicial six slide seven is our judicial headcount<00:39:01.359> we
• , and in October released its report. ...last year, and in October released its report.
• litigant um the principle the report litigant um the principle the report that<00:57:33.920>
• It's quasi-judicial.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met for its first meeting of the new session with opening remarks, member introductions, and a discussion of committee logistics. Members described their backgrounds and priorities, including criminal justice, right-to-know and privacy issues, domestic violence, death-with-dignity legislation, abortion, firearms, landlord-tenant policy, housing, and technology/privacy concerns. The chair noted there were already 34 bills assigned to the committee and expected more, and said the committee would likely continue to have a heavy workload this session. The chair also outlined how the committee would operate: meetings would generally be on Wednesdays, with possible Mondays as needed; hearings would not require a quorum, but executive sessions would; and members were asked to provide updated phone numbers and email addresses, especially cell numbers. He explained that the committee would continue its practice of seating members in a mixed partisan arrangement to encourage communication, and that the new clerk had joined the committee. A significant portion of the meeting focused on procedures for executive sessions and meeting times. The chair said the committee would follow the traditional rule allowing executive sessions on bills heard that day if proper notice was given, but he would avoid taking up controversial matters without full attendance. Members then discussed whether meetings should start at 9, 9:30, or 10 a.m., with concerns raised about long commutes, evening obligations, and winter driving after dark. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the chair indicated he would try to accommodate the committee’s preference while balancing the workload.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bucky from Judicial Council here? Say that again. Jay Bucky from Judicial Council is here.
• Oh, Bucky from Judicial Council is here. Oh, the Judicial Council. Yes, welcome.
• over which bills would get judicial over which bills would get judicial review<00:40:55.480>
• But it is a long-term view. that money from a different judicial that money from a different judicial
• right other questions for judicial right other questions for judicial councel<00:58:25.680> no

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed a proposed increase to the annual elevator certificate fee in the Department of Labor. The commissioner said the fee had been $50 for years and generated just under $300,000 annually, while the Inspection Division’s broader revenue far exceeded its expenses. Members noted the fee only covered the certificate, not the inspection itself, which is billed separately at $100 per hour. After comparing the fee to neighboring states and discussing the department’s revenue and staffing, the committee agreed to rewrite the language to set the fee at $75 and to vote on an amendment later. The committee then took up Section 139, which would expand the list of labor-law violations that can be penalized without first issuing a warning. The Department explained the change was meant to align House Bill 157 with other chapters, including youth employment and workers’ compensation provisions, where immediate civil penalties are already allowed. The section was accepted unanimously. A longer discussion followed on the Second Injury Fund. The commissioner explained that the fund reimburses insurers for certain workers’ compensation costs tied to claims involving pre-existing conditions, is financed by assessments on insurers, and requires notice within 100 weeks of injury plus a $10,000 deductible before reimbursement. He said the fund currently holds roughly $16 million to $22 million, one full-time employee administers it, and total staff involvement is about five to six people. Members questioned whether the fund should be sunset, but the department said the current House Bill 2 language does not propose a sunset; instead, it addresses increased hearing and litigation burdens after a recent Supreme Court decision. Sections 140 and 141, dealing with hearings, were then accepted unanimously. The committee also briefly discussed fines for late insurance coverage reporting, with the department noting the current rubric allows up to $50 per day but uses $112 per day, and members suggesting a lower amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:59.039> thresholds include a range of reporting thresholds include a range of reporting
• So where funding that the judicial race.
• <00:46:30.480> elections more people in the judicial elections more people in the judicial
• actually have some ideas about judicial actually have some ideas about judicial um<00:46:47.119>
• I don't think um the judicial branch.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh Board of Judicial identical.
• years ago in the 2023 bill to uh report years ago in the 2023 bill to uh report on<00:08:36.000>
• <00:09:37.279> property um sealing or of judicial property um sealing or of judicial property
• judicial judicial provisions.<00:42:43.280> Section<00:42:43.760> one<00:42:44.079>
• The only differences are the reporting date and the frequency of the reports.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So my challenges are only being held back by the restraints of the reports.
• Chair, an Arab-based land grant to a judicial one.
• Chair, an effort to change the Las Vegas land grant from a judicially structured board or judicially
• It can't be led and directed by the 4th Judicial District. That simple.
• It's an 88-page report.

Transcript Highlights:

• Clerk, you have a report. Please report.
• Report of committees.
• Clerk, please report.
• classification report. classification report.
• Clerk, please report Rules Committee and Committee on Committees report.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Essentially, this is a new budget obligation that the judicial council has not had previously.
• Essentially, this is a new budget obligation that the judicial council has not had previously.
• paying for these, to my agency, the judicial council.
• So essentially the payment obligation went from the judicial branch to the judicial council. >> Okay.
• uh dealing with state treasures report uh dealing with state treasures report for<00:34:04.399><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee met on Friday, November 21st and first approved the October 17th minutes, with one member abstaining because she was not present. The committee then adopted the remainder of the consent calendar after removing two items for separate consideration. On tab four, members discussed item 25282 with the Commissioner of Administrative Services and Public Works staff; the project had been delayed after testing revealed design errors and flaws, and the committee was told the work would restart with test piles the following week and was projected for completion in fall 2027. The item was approved. On tab five, item 25279 concerned a Health and Human Services facility project and a federally required element added late in the process. Commissioners explained that the project had originally been funded at $21 million, later required additional financing, and that the legislature had recently lifted a restriction so non-ARPA funds could be used. They also said the sale of the existing Manchester property would not be needed to complete the build, that a broker RFP was about to be issued, and that any sale would require further approvals. The committee approved the item. The committee then approved item 25280 after a brief exchange about rainy day fund estimates and prior budget assumptions, and approved item 25278 without discussion. Item 25272 drew questions about the consumer advocate’s RFP for outside utility-rate-case assistance; the office said it eliminated proposals focused only on return on equity work after the Eversource decision, selected a Michigan firm for spreadsheet and operating-cost analysis, and noted there were no in-state firms doing this specialized work. The committee approved the item, with one member recorded in opposition. On tab nine, item 25261 concerned a new judicial council budget obligation tied to legislation and public defense staffing needs. The presenter said the request reflected a late-added obligation from the judicial branch, that more requests may still be needed, and that public defense staffing was strained by vacancies and competition from Massachusetts. The committee approved the item. Under informational items, members received an update on 529 plan distributions and on interest and dividends tax refunds, with Revenue Administration saying roughly $21 million more in refunds remained and that the repeal-related refunds were nearly finished. The committee also noted an environmental services item for which questions would be submitted separately. The next meeting was set for December 19th at 11:00 a.m., and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I reported it to the superior court.
• So again, we're taking away judicial discretion.
• But in judicial proceedings, one party prevails and one doesn't.
• Judicial immunity serves an important but narrow intention to protect those involved in the judicial
• requirements for campaign finance reports.

Bills: SB1285, SB1289, SB1326, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1392, SB1402, SB1425, SCR1013, SCR1014

Keywords: sentencing, correctional facilities, multiple sentences, death penalty, aggravating circumstances, juvenile offenses, class 2 felony, foreign donations, election administration, certification, Arizona Revised Statutes, transparency, public disclosure, victims' rights, attorney fees, government accountability, right to counsel, legal representation, parents' rights, family law

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then took up several election, family court, and criminal justice bills. SB 1425, the “big bill,” would move Arizona’s 2026 primary election date earlier and adjust related election administration timelines; the chair’s amendment moved the primary to July 21 and removed the shortened curing/ID deadlines. County officials testified in support, explaining the timing changes and the need to align dates, and the committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. SB 1289, dealing with certifications for entities providing money or resources for election administration and foreign funding disclosures, also received a do-pass recommendation after testimony from supporters arguing it would block foreign influence in election administration and ballot issue spending. The committee later heard SCR 1013, a related resolution that would more directly prohibit foreign-source money for election administration and ballot measures; the sponsor and supporters said it was similar to SB 1289 but broader, and testimony focused on foreign money flowing through nonprofit networks. The committee then considered SB 1326, which would allow courts to award attorney fees and costs to victims when a party violates or worsens a victim’s rights. A victim’s attorney testified that the bill would provide needed accountability and guidance, while opponents argued the term “exacerbates” was vague and that existing remedies already exist. The committee approved SB 1326 on a 4-3 vote. SB 1402, requiring courts to impose a fee on certain probationers to cover electronic monitoring costs, drew support from the sponsor and advocates who said offenders should pay for monitoring, and opposition from defense attorneys who warned it could burden indigent probationers and divert money from treatment; it also received a 4-3 do-pass recommendation. The most extensive debate was on SB 1330, which would allow a parent in certain custody cases to request a jury trial on parenting time or legal decision-making. Supporters, including several parents, described costly and traumatic family court experiences and argued a jury would provide a neutral check on judges and court-appointed professionals. County and court representatives opposed the bill, saying family cases require specialized judicial expertise, jury trials would delay urgent matters, increase costs, and risk confidentiality. Despite those concerns, the committee adopted the bill on a 4-3 vote. The committee also approved SB 1328, which declares state policy favoring parental rights and a child’s equal access to both co-parents, after adopting an amendment adding legislative intent language. Finally, SB 1329, which would let parents sue court-appointed professionals who deviate from professional ethics or standards in custody matters, passed 4-3 after testimony from parents and advocates who said court appointees lack accountability, while opponents said existing malpractice and licensing remedies already address misconduct.

Transcript Highlights:

• Question now is on the amended report.
• amendment and the favorable report. amendment and the favorable report.
• report if that works. report if that works. >> That's<00:09:25.519> fine.
• amended report? Any further discussion? amended report? Any further discussion?
• Uh, judicial<00:25:52.080> proceedings. judicial proceedings. judicial proceedings.

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Thursday, February 5, 2026, 960, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, heard an invocation from Reverend Carissa Serber, and journalized her remarks. Members then welcomed several guests and groups in the gallery, including Maryland Community Action Partnership advocates, Cecil College students and Dr. Mary Bolt, Cecil County Executive Adam Strait, the Maryland Association of Justice, Faith Baptist School students, and several interns and staff members. The chamber also introduced Senate Bill 585 and a bond initiative for the Active Achievers Youth Center, both of which were referred to the appropriate committees or subcommittees. The main floor debate centered on Senate Bill 255, the Voting Rights Act of 2026 for counties and municipal corporations. Senators questioned the bill’s scope, especially whether it would affect county commissioner election methods, who could bring suit, what “vote dilution” means, and whether the measure was tied to district maps or candidate filings. The sponsor explained that the bill creates a state framework for the federal Voting Rights Act, provides standing rather than a remedy, and applies when a protected class believes its vote has been diluted; political party was said not to be a protected class. The committee amendment was adopted without objection, and the amended bill was ordered printed for third reading. On third reading, Senate Bill 5 and Senate Bill 29 passed with constitutional majorities. Senate Bill 93 also passed. Senate Bill 141, dealing with election misinformation, disinformation, and deep fakes, was moved back to second reader for a technical amendment and then special ordered to Tuesday. The Senate also held a lighthearted recorded vote on Seahawks versus Patriots, with the Seahawks winning 28 to 8, and then received committee scheduling announcements for upcoming hearings and voting sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Zlatko Theodorovich from the Judicial Council.
• Reporting language would be due on January 10, 2028, requiring the judicial branch to provide options
• And then in regard to the language access reporting, I would like to note that existing reporting requirements
• in 2024, and again, those are just reported cases.
• monthly and quarterly reporting structures.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review May Revision proposals for several departments and emphasized that no votes would be taken that day. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget is balanced only through one-time resources and still has structural deficits, recommending that the Legislature avoid new ongoing spending and instead preserve reserves and other solutions. The Judicial Council then presented proposals for language access and interpreter services, appellate court security, a backfill to the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation-room mandate; Finance supported the language access item with reporting language and supported keeping the court facilities backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial pay freezes, judge vacancies, and uneven judge allocations across counties, and also asked about the cost and completion of courthouse lactation rooms and remote-hearing infrastructure. The Board of State and Community Corrections items focused on $10 million one-time grants for missing and murdered Indigenous people and for a human trafficking vertical prosecution program. The LAO suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support the MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said the need was clear based on reported cases and California’s share of hotline reports. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and discussed whether ongoing funding would be needed beyond the one-time proposal, while also debating whether BSEC or OES should administer the prosecution grants. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal fraud and elder abuse staffing, organized retail criminal enterprise case completion, and a continuous appropriation for the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO raised concerns about the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s solvency and recommended rejecting that portion unless DOJ could show the fund could support it without General Fund repayment, and it opposed the continuous appropriation in favor of more legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent under current projections and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. Members also clarified that the Medi-Cal fraud unit targets providers, not beneficiaries, and asked about delays in restitution payments. A lengthy portion of the hearing covered CDCR’s May Revision package and the Boston Consulting Group cost-savings effort. CDCR described revised savings from workforce optimization, workers’ compensation, and procurement, but members repeatedly expressed frustration that the promised savings had fallen far short of earlier estimates. The LAO recommended deeper cuts to some parole positions, more detail on proposed eliminations and contract changes, and caution about counting unallocated future savings. CDCR also presented population projections showing continued declines and the LAO again urged the administration to close a prison to reduce ongoing costs. The committee also heard proposals on workers’ compensation, Corcoran honor housing, incarcerated firefighter pay, agricultural food purchasing requirements, menopause care, mental health receiver staffing, resource teams, crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing, and AI note-taking in electronic health records, with the LAO generally recommending limited-term approvals and reporting requirements while Finance defended ongoing funding and said it was open to additional reporting language.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, the proposed budget prioritizes court operations with $6.7 million allocated for court reporting
• I was very fortunate to have a full autopsy report. Not so many people get that.
• On alternative judicial procedures by Senator Garcia, you're recognized to explain the bill.
• The judge had the alternative of opting for what they call the alternative judicial sales proceeding.
• By your vote, CS for CS SB 48 is reported favorably. Turn the gavel back over to the chair. Okay.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice met to review its proposed fiscal year 2025-2026 budget, totaling about $7.6 billion. The chair highlighted funding for the Department of Corrections, including health services, food inflation, and prison population growth; the Department of Juvenile Justice for residential beds and higher food/medical costs; FDLE for a law enforcement apprenticeship program and officer wellness services; justice administration for court-appointed attorney rates and VOCA shortfalls; major IT projects; and court operations, including funding for 29 new judges. Members asked about where the new judgeships would go and whether staffing would accompany them, and staff said the judge positions would be listed later in a conforming bill and that associated court staff were included, but not additional state attorney or public defender staffing. Several members also asked whether the budget addressed pay and staffing shortages in state attorneys’ and public defenders’ offices, and staff said those decisions had not yet been finalized. The committee then heard public testimony from several speakers who urged more funding for prison safety, medical care, and oversight. Speakers described personal experiences involving deaths or serious harm in correctional facilities and jails, alleging inadequate medical treatment, excessive force, isolation, and failures to investigate. One speaker said her son died after being beaten and denied timely medical care in a correctional facility; another said her son was not receiving adequate health care at Charlotte Correctional; and another described her brother’s death in the Marion County Jail after repeated tasing and pepper spraying. The committee adopted a motion allowing staff to make technical adjustments and then approved the committee’s budget proposal as a recommendation to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee also took up CS for CS SB 48 on alternative judicial procedures and foreclosure sales. Senator Garcia offered an amendment to standardize judicial sales, increase transparency, limit preferences in bidding, preserve public notice requirements, restrict plaintiff credit bids to the amount of the judgment unless a deposit is posted, and prevent deviations from statutory timelines and procedures from being hidden in court orders. Garcia said the bill was intended to close loopholes and protect homeowners, especially condominium owners, from unfair foreclosure practices. A representative for Auction.com said similar laws have been used in other states and offered to provide data. After debate, the amendment was adopted, and the bill passed the committee favorably on a roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the legislative and judicial branch budgets, I'm going to speak relative to the House budget.
• Next up, we will take up House Bill 504, which is the judicial branch budget.
• which is the judicial branch budget. which is the judicial branch budget.
• branch um over the course of judicial branch um over the course of the<00:03:25.800> biennium.
• classification report. classification report.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:23 HB 503 Discussion 00:01:00 HB 503 Vote 00:02:17 HB 504 Discussion 00:02:53 HB 504 Vote 00:04:48 HB 500 Discussion 00:05:19 HB 500 Vote 00:29:18 HB 900 Discussion 00:32:02 HB 900 Vote 00:33:00, 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Senate Appropriations and Revenue Committee met with a quorum and first took up House Bill 503, the legislative branch budget, adopting a committee substitute and reporting it favorably. The chair said the Senate version fully funds defined calculations, provides 2% raises in each fiscal year for legislative employees, removes a paragraph on operating expense reductions, and includes $1 million in the first year for a judicial branch salary study. House Bill 504, the judicial branch budget, was then amended and reported favorably; changes included 2% annual raises for judicial employees, revised operating expense language, $1 million each year for county current services, retention of Boyle County fit-up language, reporting requirements for smaller capital projects, full funding for nine judges added in 2022, and removal of furlough prohibitions and certain budget implementation language. Both bills passed the committee unanimously with favorable expressions to the floor. The committee then considered House Bill 500, the executive branch budget, adopting a committee substitute before hearing a lengthy summary of major spending and policy changes. The chair described statewide 2% annual employee raises, agency base reductions with many exemptions, increased school safety and 911 funding, veterans and military funding, local government and severance-related changes, attorney general and auditor funding, pension and retirement system support, education funding changes including SEEK, postsecondary and scholarship provisions, public safety and corrections funding, and multiple capital projects. The chair also highlighted Medicaid-related provisions, including added waiver slots, increased state-directed payments, a 2.5% reduction in managed care vendor payments for plan years 2027 and 2028 with savings redirected to fee-for-service rates, and additional funding for behavioral health and public health programs. The bill was reported favorably after members explained their votes, with several noting they had only recently received the full 228-page bill and wanted more time for detailed review. Finally, the committee adopted a committee substitute for House Bill 900, an appropriation measure for government agencies, and reported it favorably. The chair said the bill remains a work in progress and that one-time funding requests from across the Commonwealth and across party lines would continue to be addressed as the process moves forward. All measures considered during the meeting passed the committee with unanimous or near-unanimous favorable votes, and the meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:47.120> officer warrant signed by a judicial officer warrant signed by a judicial officer
• judicial warrant from doing their job. judicial warrant from doing their job.
• Thank you. law that a valid judicial warrant is law that a valid judicial warrant is required<00:35:04.640
• in<00:42:08.079> tantrums Parents report an uptick in tantrums Parents report an uptick
• <00:53:12.720> warrant without even showing a judicial warrant without even showing a judicial

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3415, a bill aimed at limiting immigration enforcement activity at child care centers. House Research explained the DE1 amendment, which defined key terms and barred child care employees from consenting to civil immigration enforcement entry without a judicial warrant, while requiring officials to identify themselves and state their purpose; the amendment also clarified that it would not block officials administering child care programs. After brief debate, members adopted the DE1 amendment. The bill author, Representative Sensor Mura, said the measure was intended to address fear and disruption in child care settings caused by recent immigration enforcement activity and to keep those spaces safe for children and families. Supporters, including a pastor, a Children’s Defense Fund representative, parents, child care workers, and an ACLU policy counsel, testified that immigration enforcement near daycares has caused fear, staff absences, lockdowns, and emotional harm to children. They argued the bill would not stop lawful enforcement but would require warrants and basic identification before entry, protecting children from witnessing raids or arrests and giving providers clear rules. Several witnesses described specific incidents involving ICE activity near Spanish immersion daycares in Minneapolis and St. Paul, including staff members being detained, parents organizing safety watches, and children showing distress. Testimony emphasized that many affected children are U.S. citizens in immigrant families and that visible enforcement can create toxic stress and separation anxiety. No final action on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided beyond adoption of the DE1 amendment and continuation of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the reports that I found to be very, very helpful is the January 15th, 1995 report co-chaired
• <00:26:37.440> that um a couple of other reports that um a couple of other reports that there's
• Um so in all three parts of the judicial Um so in all three parts of the judicial branch.<00:33:
• Two, the retired judicial service.
• arbitration with a uh a judicial arbitration with a uh a judicial officer.<01:06:25.200> We

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to continue its review of recommendations for New Hampshire’s family court, with the chair emphasizing a collaborative approach and noting that the group would focus on the origins of the family division, recurring problems identified in earlier reports, and comparisons with other states. Members discussed organizing testimony into three broad topics: the court hearing process and pro se litigant preparation, mediation/arbitration/counseling, and the interaction of domestic violence issues with family court and related criminal proceedings. The chair also noted that the subcommittee would not meet again for two weeks and encouraged members to review materials from Judge Michael Mace and NCSL research on other states’ family court systems. Attorney Heather Culp, senior administrator for the judicial branch’s circuit court, testified about New Hampshire’s ADR programs. She explained that the Office of Mediation and Arbitration, created by statute in 2007, oversees more than 12 statewide ADR programs across the Supreme, Superior, and Circuit Courts, including family division programs such as divorce-parenting mediation, neutral case evaluation, guardianship, termination of parental rights, and voluntary adoption mediation. She said the divorce-parenting mediation program is the largest family division ADR program, with about 3,400 mediation sessions in 2023 out of roughly 6,700 cases, and that most cases involving minor children are referred to mediation soon after the first appearance session. Culp described the family division process as beginning with a first appearance session led by a case manager, who provides information, helps with paperwork, and schedules mediation, usually within 30 to 45 days. She said mediation is strongly encouraged in parenting and divorce cases, but there is no requirement to reach agreement, and parties may settle some issues while leaving others for court. She also explained that mediation is prohibited or limited in certain domestic violence cases: cases with active civil protection orders may proceed only with both parties’ consent and possible safeguards, while cases involving criminal protective orders are not sent to mediation. Mediators in court-referred family cases are contracted with the court and must be certified by the executive branch’s mediator certification board; mediators do not communicate with judges, except through a brief ADR report noting whether the case settled or what the next procedural step is. Members asked about referrals, timing, and the meaning of “neutrals,” and Culp said the court uses in-house contracted neutrals for family division ADR and does not refer divorce-parenting cases to outside providers.