Transcript Highlights:

• Do you have a standard process that you go through when...
• It's not a fast process.
• Can you talk to that idea of vision over process?
• You have your own version of that legislation.
• So, we process those. The contracts are with us.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair Soles, Chair Small, members of the Legislative Education Study Committee, the Legislative Finance
• Process. And with that, Mr.
• Our hope is to go through the LESC Legislative endorsement process to really make sure that we're engaging
• Process. Is there a plan to do that? Because I know we're like six years late in that process.
• process and how government works.

Transcript Highlights:

• It’s an ongoing process.
• that has been moving throughout the legislative process.
• We will also talk about cannabis-adjacent legislation that moved forward during the 2026 legislative
• , and legislative staff.
• We sent an updated version negotiated throughout the legislative process to Governor Spanberger, who

Keywords: Cannabis Retail Market, Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . process. process.
• It does, but it's already challenging for a lot of people to be involved in the legislative process.
• process? process?
• <01:21:56.960> And<01:21:57.199> not<01:21:57.440> only legislative process.
• And not only legislative process.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A process had gone through. A process is now being... That's why I have filed this amendment.
• A process had gone through.
• That is what you told me when I asked you if you intended to file legislation to do this in this legislative
• So my question, ...you intended to file legislation to do this in this legislative session.
• process.

Summary: The Senate convened with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several member introductions of guests and staff. The chamber then took up returning messages from the House and acted on several bills, including transportation facility designations (SB 628), affordable housing/Live Local Act changes (HB 1389), utility services (HB 1451), education (HB 1279 substituted for SB 7038), data centers (SB 484), and land use/development regulations (SB 208/HB 399). Several other measures were temporarily postponed, including education, emergency services, and environmental rule ratification bills. On SB 628, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-4. On the affordable housing bill, senators discussed the fourth iteration of the Live Local Act, including a new provision allowing certain affordable housing on religious institution property, removal of accessory dwelling unit language, and changes to tax exemption and expiration provisions; the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 35-0. On the utility services bill, the House amendment shortened the surcharge phase-out timeline and advanced reporting dates; the Senate concurred and passed the bill 30-6. The education package was substituted with the House companion, amended to include agreed-upon provisions on student health and safety, early learning, math, virtual instruction, career and technical education, school choice, accountability, tuition protections, and financial aid, and passed 36-1. The data centers bill drew extensive debate over transparency and ratepayer protections. Senators questioned the removal of the Senate’s nondisclosure agreement prohibition, the 12-month confidentiality period, and whether costs could be shifted to residential and commercial customers. Supporters said the amendment strengthened ratepayer protections and maintained local land-use authority, while critics objected to the loss of transparency and the possibility of local NDAs. After debate, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-6. The land use and development bill generated the most contentious discussion. Amendments addressed a Fontainebleau/Miami Beach resort water park issue, a sunset provision, and a major rural boundary/property rights proposal affecting counties such as Orange and Seminole. Senators debated whether the rural boundary language protected property rights or undermined local planning and environmental safeguards, with concerns raised about takings, county liability, and the use of an Attorney General opinion. The transcript cuts off during extended debate on that amendment, so no final vote on the land use bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just say as a legislator, I'm not sure that you...
• The investigation process is like the inspection process that Ashley described earlier.
• The legislative auditor makes two recommendations related to data reporting.
• to evaluate how well its process works for clients and improve timeliness.
• I'll now share feedback about DDA's processes, which leads to the first legislative auditor recommendation

Summary: At the May 14, 2025 JLARC meeting, members approved the January 9 minutes and adopted the 2025–27 biennial work plan with a minor typo correction. Staff reviewed the new work plan studies, including a drug take-back program fee/expenditure review due in December 2025 and a state energy performance standard compliance review due in June 2027, and noted JLARC’s recent session activity, including several bills passed related to JLARC work and recommendations. The committee then heard a preliminary cannabis market study showing Washington businesses likely produced two to three times more cannabis than retailers sold in 2023. Staff and RAND said LCB’s data systems are incomplete and unreliable, limiting regulation, tax verification, and diversion tracking; they recommended that LCB submit a plan by year-end for collecting accurate data by the end of 2026. Members and LCB discussed the long timeline for a new traceability system, the causes of missing sales and weight data, overproduction, diversion, and the social equity program’s effect on producer licenses. JLARC also presented a preliminary hospital oversight report concluding that the Department of Health is late on many hospital inspections, does not verify third-party inspection standards, does not review adverse health event correction plans, and could make hospital data more accessible. The committee discussed fee funding, language access, and inspection timing, and DOH said it would work on a strategic plan and continue coordinating with JLARC. Members also heard a preliminary report on the public records survivor exemption, which found agencies are using it but need more guidance; JLARC recommended keeping the exemption and having the Attorney General provide additional training. Finally, the committee approved the DDA processes and staffing final report for distribution, which recommended performance metrics, stronger data quality controls, and workforce planning; DDA concurred. JLARC also introduced proposed study questions for a future DCYF juvenile rehabilitation review focused on safety, security, programs, staffing, education, and contraband, and the meeting adjourned after members asked about scope and facility conditions.

Transcript Highlights:

• What would the process be?
• It is a very long process.
• Yes, um, so the adoption process is a tough process, and then as Representative Chaston laid out, so
• That is the IDR process.
• dispute resolution process.

Bills: HB 2510, HB 3589, HB 4611, HB 4655, HB 4665, HB 4666, HB 4670, HB 4700, HB 4730, HB 4798, HB 4838, HB 5136, HB 5243, HB 5302, HB 5539

Keywords: assisted living, healthcare, licensing, criminal offense, personal assistance, group home, regulation, health and safety, inspections, resident care, criminal background checks, adoption, parental rights, registry, vital statistics, disclosure, counseling, foster care, independent living, financial literacy

Transcript Highlights:

• For us to be able to look at legislatively.
• We don't need legislation to do it again.
• So under that process, we implemented a very robust A stakeholdering process that started back in January
• I have legislation AB 315 that's moving forward through the legislative process to look at whether...
• This process is still under development, and we will be mirroring current processes that are allowed

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But you also said that there's uncertainty in the legislate in the legislative process related to this
• Um, how is there uncertainty in legislative process, number one.
• So from that window, what we want to do is not, is not get ahead of the legislative process coming out
• Ahead of the legislative process, uh, last year, or maybe it was in 23, I can't remember.
• Um, so they didn't want to get ahead of the legislative process, wanted to see how this next session,

Transcript Highlights:

• most enacted legislation.
• had enacted legislation.
• As you saw with introduced legislation, there's a lot more introduced legislation than enacted legislation
• legislation.
• introduced legislation.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, establishing its purpose as a study and policy-development body rather than one aimed at producing many bills. Majority Leader Hogue urged members to move quickly, focus on federal and other states’ AI laws, consider possible federal preemption, child protections, and the siting and economic impacts of data centers. Committee leadership echoed that the goal is practical, balanced governance that protects North Dakota while allowing innovation to continue. Legislative Council staff provided a background memo and NCSL presented a detailed overview of AI concepts and the current state legislative landscape. The presentations distinguished narrow AI, generative AI, agentic AI, and theoretical AGI/ASI, and summarized major state policy themes: comprehensive AI laws in states such as Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois; targeted laws on deepfakes, chatbots, health, education, notifications, and digital likeness; and growing use of appropriations and agency inventories. Members asked about Colorado’s repeal and reenactment, Texas’s sandbox and training provisions, oversight structures, and whether AI regulation is bipartisan; presenters said most issues cut across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfakes but more division on broader regulatory approaches. The federal update focused on executive orders, preemption, and congressional activity. NCSL described a White House framework favoring a single federal standard, a DOJ litigation task force, Commerce Department review of state laws, and possible funding conditions tied to state AI policy, though no formal state-law challenge had yet occurred. The presentation also covered a recent executive order creating a voluntary federal vetting process for advanced frontier models after safety concerns, and congressional proposals including a failed 10-year state moratorium, Senator Blackburn’s child-safety bills, the Kids Online Safety Act, a House-passed children’s digital safety package, a Senate data center moratorium proposal, and a House ratepayer/data-center bill. The committee took no formal action beyond receiving testimony and asking questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• will of a legislative will of a legislative action<00:26:30.720> without<00:26:31.080>
• examine the language of any legislation examine the language of any legislation it it it proposes
• <00:54:03.319> has<00:54:03.559> the the process has the the process has the necessary
• think it's a Corruption of our process think it's a Corruption of our process so<01:30:07.840>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Elections Committee met on February 6, 2025, and first considered the reappointment of Steven Swanson to the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Swanson described his background in legal aid, lobbying, judging, and international rule-of-law work, and said he wanted to continue serving the public. Committee members praised his experience and discussed the importance of campaign finance oversight, including preventing corporate participation in Minnesota elections. Senator Wosinski moved to recommend Swanson’s confirmation, and the motion was adopted. The committee then heard Senate File 529, a proposed constitutional amendment to state that elections shall be free, fair, and equal, and that no civil or military power may interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote. Senator Dibble presented the bill as a way to strengthen voting rights and provide a constitutional basis to challenge voter suppression, gerrymandering, and unfair campaign practices. Testimony in support came from David Fischer of Clean Elections Minnesota and Jean Massie of Fair Vote Minnesota, both of whom argued the amendment would protect access to voting, increase confidence in elections, and align Minnesota with other states that have similar language. Members discussed whether the amendment’s broad language could invite judicial interpretation or affect future election laws. Senator Koran questioned how the proposal would improve Minnesota’s already high turnout, while Senator Grant raised concerns that the terms “free, fair, and equal” were undefined and could shift power to the courts. Senator Lucero proposed an oral amendment to add “ensuring one eligible citizen, one vote” after the word “equal,” saying it would address concerns about future voter ID laws. The amendment was restated by counsel and discussed, with Senator Dibble saying it did not significantly harm the bill but suggesting it might imply a requirement he did not intend. The transcript ends during discussion of that oral amendment, and no final vote on the bill itself is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Have their processes in place for doing that. Does Forward have that process in place? We do, yeah.
• offices, the parties do run a process.
• But you vote for your various legislators.
• Agenda has been set to curb how much of regular people get into the legislative process.
• It would be really wonderful to make this part of the robust legislative process.

Keywords: 995, all

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:

• IT IS NOT A CLEAR PROCESS.
• MY INTENT IN THIS LEGISLATION IS TO MOVE FORWARD TO THIS PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT PROVIDES US A STRONGER
• Ingoglia: IS THAT PROCESS GOING TO A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE? >> Sen.
• Grall: I BELIEVE THAT IS A CIRCUIT COURT PROCESS, NOT A DOA PROCESS. >> Sen.
• BUT THERE IS A PROCESS, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND IF IT IS MORE THAN A CIVIL VIOLATION AND IS A

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective
• bills in the current legislative session.
• Nicole Young, Placer County Chapter Chair, Moms4Liberty, as well as the Legislative Chair of the Legislative
• There's a definition of ultra-processed.
• They could not define ultra-processed.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process more open and more efficient.
• that leads to what happens here in the floor process.
• process.
• process. ...as it can be and to increase the efficiency of the legislative process, both in this chamber
• process, Accessibility and accountability of our legislative process and of us as individual representatives

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate first adopted three congratulatory resolutions recognizing the retirements of Dolores Hayes, Lisa Audet, and Kate Fitzpatrick. It then handled several procedural matters, including suspending Joint Rule 12 to refer a sick leave bank bill for a Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office employee to the Committee on Public Service and referring House petitions to their respective committees. The chamber also adopted a conference report on the joint rules for the 2025-2026 session after remarks from Senators Creem, Tarr, Lovely, and Fattman emphasizing transparency, public access, recorded votes, longer notice for hearings and conference reports, remote participation, and periodic review of the rules. The report was accepted by a 40-0 roll call. The Senate then took up the bill strengthening health care protections in the Commonwealth, Senate No. 2538, commonly described as Shield Act 2.0. Senator Friedman and others argued the bill was needed to protect reproductive and gender-affirming care from out-of-state and federal interference, to limit disclosure of sensitive information, to create a state-level EMTALA-style protection for emergency care and active labor, and to strengthen privacy and licensing protections for providers and institutions. Senators Cyr, Lovely, and Fattman also spoke in support, framing the bill as a response to recent federal and state threats and as an extension of Massachusetts’ prior shield-law work. The chamber considered numerous amendments. Several were rejected, including amendments by Senators Finegold and Keenan and multiple Tarr amendments on topics such as medical records, consistency with existing law, and public health data collection. Some amendments were adopted, including a Montigny amendment on health-connected data disclosure, a Brownsberger amendment further protecting privacy for reproductive and gender-affirming care, a Rauch amendment clarifying protections for patients in active labor, a Tarr amendment removing an exemption for data from personal tracking devices, and a Rodrigues corrective amendment. After the amendments, the Ways and Means substitute was adopted, the bill was ordered to a third reading, and it then passed to be engrossed by a 37-3 roll call. At the end of the session, the Senate adopted a memorial adjournment in honor of former Senate Majority Leader Louis P. Bertinazi. The Governor also filed a message submitting a bill to build resilience for Massachusetts communities, authorizing future capital spending for energy and environmental affairs, which was referred to the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. The Senate then adopted an order to meet again the following Monday at 1 p.m. and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would that process be any different, uh, that you're proposing?
• This is when you're on it, is when you have to process.
• You always want to have a process where it's like the, you know, bingo.
• I was just curious at what the thought process of that is for this bill.
• Has anyone wished to testify on legislation that has not yet signed up?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on election security bills, focusing first on S. 517 and H. 876, which would strengthen Massachusetts’ post-election audit process. Testimony from the Brennan Center, Common Cause Massachusetts, Verified Voting, and the League of Women Voters supported expanding audits to include all ballot types, increasing audit frequency from every four years to every two years, requiring statewide audit reports to be posted within 30 days and kept online for six years, and allowing municipalities to conduct audits under state standards. Witnesses also praised the bill’s creation of a work group to study risk-limiting audits and other improvements, emphasizing public confidence, transparency, and the ability of audits to detect errors or deter fraud. Committee members asked detailed questions about how Massachusetts compares with other states, how risk-limiting audits differ from current tabulation audits, how audits are selected and expanded if discrepancies appear, and what the costs and mechanics of different audit methods would be. Witnesses explained that current audits are typically random, hand-count-based checks of selected contests and batches of ballots, that risk-limiting audits use statistical sampling and can escalate to a full recount if needed, and that Massachusetts’ local-control structure makes a collaborative work group useful. They also noted that audits generally confirm results but can uncover errors that do not change outcomes, and occasionally more serious problems. The committee then heard testimony on H. 832, which would authorize the Secretary of the Commonwealth to take emergency actions affecting elections during declared emergencies. Supporters said the bill would create a clear statutory process for rescheduling or adjusting elections during severe weather or other crises, including allowing emergency absentee ballot accommodations for civilian responders, and would reduce the need for court intervention. No votes were taken on the bills during the hearing, and the meeting ended with adjournment after no additional testimony was offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• you know, this process. you know, this process.
• I'm talking about a process.
• I'm talking about a process.
• I'm talking about a process. I'm talking about a process.
• language, but what is the process? language, but what is the process?

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3683, which would require the state budget forecast to estimate the budgetary impacts of fraud committed against state programs. Chair Nash argued that fraud has real fiscal effects on the state, that those costs should be quantified in the forecast much like inflation was previously incorporated, and that doing so would help lawmakers understand the true cost of money lost to fraud. He also said the bill was intended to give MMB direction to develop a way to forecast fraud’s impact and that the issue should be treated as part of the state’s fiscal outlook. Deputy Commissioner Anna Mingy of Minnesota Management and Budget testified in opposition to the bill’s approach, saying fraud is unacceptable and MMB is committed to combating it, but that the twice-a-year forecast is not the right tool for this analysis. She said forecasts are forward-looking budget tools based on projected revenues and spending, while fraud analysis is retrospective and involves legal definitions and processes. She also warned that requiring MMB to consult with legislative chairs on fraud estimates before public release could politicize the forecast and would be a departure from current practice. Members raised concerns about how fraud would be defined and quantified, whether the bill would cover known or potential fraud, and whether it would duplicate existing budget adjustments. Chair Nash responded that the bill was modeled on prior inflation-forecast language and said fraud’s fiscal impact should be estimated even if the exact number is debated. Other members questioned whether the proposal would add value or create subjective numbers, while supporters said audits and program integrity data provide a basis for estimating a range. Deputy Commissioner Mingy also answered questions about bond ratings, saying Minnesota maintained its AAA rating and that rating agencies focus on governance and long-term obligations, not specific fraud estimates. She later said the administration’s anti-fraud package includes permanent bans on state contracts and grants for individuals convicted of fraud. The discussion ended without a recorded vote or final action in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:14.879> her legislative assistant senator Fong her legislative assistant senator Fong her
• appropriation for the Legislative appropriation for the Legislative Coordinating<00:12:06.240>
• footing going into this process.
• and the process is what it is.
• process and the process is what it is. process and the process is what it is.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's either clear in the language or it's clear in the legislative intent, and it's written in the legislative
• , or Utah state election process.
• because we felt that their processes... ...examination because we felt that their processes weren't
• Finally, we observed in both counties their reconciliation process and their post-election audit process
• These are real heavy hitters when it comes to... ...process and their post-election audit process.

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We appreciate your interest and participation in the legislative process.
• process.
• <00:07:25.759> So<00:07:26.080> this<00:07:26.319> is through legislative process
• So this is through legislative process.
• we're going through the legislative we're going through the legislative process,<00:58:47.119>

Bills: HF3379

Keywords: housing stabilization, disability services, predatory funding, provider requirements, housing accessibility, 1183, house