Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, you pay your taxes.
• Uh and aren't going to pay your taxes.
• fully intending to pay your taxes on<00:26:31.120><c> that.
• </c> Yeah, you pay your taxes. Absolutely.
• </c> that that damage is covered would pay that that damage is covered would pay those<00:53:02.880><

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate committees heard HB 108 HD2, which would allow direct shipment of beer and distilled spirits by certain licensees and require liquor commissions to adopt rules. Most testimony came from craft brewers and distillers in support, who said the bill would help small and fragile producers reach customers, move limited or specialty products that wholesalers do not carry, and maintain relationships with visitors after they leave Hawaii. Supporters also argued that direct-to-consumer shipping would not meaningfully increase underage access because common carriers age-gate deliveries and require adult signatures, and that the measure would supplement rather than replace the three-tier system. Opposition came from the Hawaii Food Industry Association and the Hawaii Liquor Wholesalers Association, which said the bill could create problems with minor access and tax revenue and would allow out-of-state manufacturers to ship directly to Hawaii households. Supporters responded that similar concerns were raised when wine direct shipping was adopted and said the existing shipping and reporting systems can track and tax these sales. Several witnesses, including Maui Brewing, Ola Brew, Koloa Rum, Hana Rum, Koulana Rumworks, Koval Distillery, and the Brewers Association, described their small-batch operations, limited distribution options, and the potential for direct shipping to expand sales and jobs. Committee members questioned witnesses about underage access, tax collection, and the impact on the three-tier system. One witness discussed efforts to protect and potentially scale the Hawaiian spirit Okolehao through geographic and sourcing rules. The transcript does not show a final vote or disposition on HB 108 HD2 in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And my concern is, why in the world would I pay medical debt? Why would I pay it? Zero interest.
• Why would I pay it?
• and what makes someone not pay.
• And actually, there's no research what makes someone pay and what makes someone not pay.
• Everybody else that does pay their bills has to pay more.

Bills: SB5720, SB5833, SB5936, SB5993, SB5735

Keywords: consumer debt, judgment, uniformity, legal standards, debt collection, pets, motor vehicles, animal welfare, public safety, legislation, human trafficking, prevention, remedies, victims, law enforcement, support services, medical debt, interest charges, consumer protection, healthcare

Transcript Highlights:

• Texans already pay these taxes on their own electric bill, and they have to pay that tax again when their
• The amount we pay is enough to pay for an employee's salary, for example, or it's enough to replace a
• All of the customers that are actually paying the tax are paying double taxation because the tax...
• You actually pay the 2% not only on the amount that you pay the retail electric provider, but you also
• I'm willing to pay this?"

Bills: HB511, HB972, HB 1035, HB2481, HB2723, HB2742, HB2894, HB2962, HB3077, HB3093, HB3307, HB3684, HJR67, HJR72

Keywords: ad valorem taxation, caregiver exemption, Medicaid, long-term services, tax relief, assisted living, housing support, property tax exemption, caregiver support, residence homestead, tax exemption, unpaid caregiver, state tax code, property tax, caregiver, waiting list, intellectual disability, developmental disability, ad valorem tax, family support

Transcript Highlights:

• So you pay the employee, you pay the state. Yes, you do make them whole.
• This has now been shown in study after study: that people who pay with cards, if you pay with a debit
• If you pay with a credit card, you pay with more than you've got in your bank account.
• Who pays for that? Who pays the... That is the... Who pays for that? Who pays the...
• Why would the state pay that?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you pay the employee, you pay the state. Yes, you do make them whole.
• This has now been shown in study after study: people who pay with cards, if you pay with a debit card
• If you pay with a credit card, you pay with more than you've got in your bank account.
• And there’s a new standard of pay codes, QR pay codes, that was in And there’s a new standard of pay
• Why would the state pay that?

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing chaired by Senator Paul Feeney and Representative Jamie Murphy. The commission reviewed its charge to gather input on payment trends, cashless transactions, credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now/pay later, and related issues affecting small businesses. Representative Sean Garballey testified in support of maintaining the current card system, emphasizing tourism’s importance to Massachusetts and arguing that universal card acceptance and interchange stability are especially important with major upcoming events and visitors. A large portion of the hearing focused on independent restaurants and small businesses arguing that credit card processing fees are burdensome and unfair when applied to sales tax and gratuities that are not business revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others described razor-thin margins and said restaurants pay fees on money passed through to the state or employees. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses first, and making fees proportional. In response, credit union and banking representatives, including Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Deb Peters, and Keely McEwen, argued that interchange funds fraud protection, card infrastructure, and consumer protections, and warned that state-specific changes could create compliance burdens, higher costs, or reduced access to services. Several witnesses addressed legal and policy questions. Dan Swanson and David Montero said states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system, but Montero warned that state-specific rules could create uncertainty and conflict with federal banking law. Julian Morris and other industry witnesses argued that card payments benefit consumers and merchants by reducing cash-handling costs and increasing spending, while critics of reform said changes could shift costs into bank fees or reduced rewards. Commission members questioned whether sales tax could be separated from card transactions, whether surcharging should be considered, and whether vendor compensation or other state-level relief might be more workable. The chairs said they were exploring a narrower, targeted approach rather than a broad overhaul, and announced plans for one additional public hearing to allow further testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Number one, who pays for the drug there. Number one, who pays for the drug screens?
• Who pays for the drug screens?
• </c> total amount we would pay out in a year. total amount we would pay out in a year.
• </c> paying in the future? paying in the future?
• </c><02:09:16.239><c> him</c> Do we come back next year and pay him Do we come back next year and pay

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the May 12 minutes, then deferred item 285 on the routine personal service contract green list for Western Kentucky University to the July 2026 meeting. It also noted that several deferred university contracts had been withdrawn by the institutions, and then approved the remaining agenda items without objection, including personal service contracts, amendments, memoranda of agreement, Kentucky Entertainment incentive agreements, deferred items, and corrections, except for items pulled for further review. The main pulled item was a Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts contract supporting Fayette District Court’s juvenile treatment court through Fayette County Public Schools. Court officials explained that the program, created under Supreme Court rules in 2022, serves court-connected juveniles with mental health and related needs, operates at the courthouse, and uses a school-employed program manager funded through a pass-through arrangement with Fayette County Public Schools and the Urban County Government. They said the program has had over 100 referrals, accepted about half, and had at least 25 successful graduates, with 11 high school graduates among participants. Members asked about who pays for drug screens, family involvement, and what counts as successful completion; the officials said the Urban County Government’s Division of Youth Services pays for drug screens and services, and that parents must participate in classes and support services. The committee then approved the contract review, with some members explaining their votes in support and one member emphasizing the committee’s role in reviewing contracts in the public interest. The committee also reviewed two Auditor of Public Accounts contracts. The auditor’s representative said contract 11, with Vantage Point Solutions, will examine the Kentucky Communications Network Authority/Kentucky Wired network for $700,000, well below the $1.5 million appropriated, and that a report is expected before the 2027 regular session. Contract 12 funds a special examination of investment managers used by Kentucky’s retirement systems, prompted by a Legislative Oversight and Investigations request to assess whether investments tied to ESG factors are consistent with fiduciary duties; the representative said the retirement systems have been cooperative and that findings are expected on a similar timeline, with some flexibility built into the deadline. After questions about the Texas litigation referenced in the explanation, the committee approved both auditor contracts without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Who pays the cost? Who's going to pay the cost of having this background check done?
• So, in this situation, and with most school districts I talk to, uh, the employees pay the cost.
• But in this situation, the person running for office will have to pay the cost because the problem you
• run into if we start letting someone else pay, you're dealing with campaign finance laws and rules.
• The dermatological association came to me over the summer with this request, and so it was prompted by

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call: 0:02 Bills for Consideration: 26RS HB 383: 1:03 26RS HB 469: 6:32 26RS HB 586: 14:46 26RS HB 621: 19:58 Adjournment: 28:32, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• time you get to November, I think they're going to be really tired and how many are really going to pay
• That is what prompted our community to go to the polling place. 2022, we had long lines in traffic, no
• That is what prompted lines and waiting.
• That is what prompted our<01:41:06.960><c> community</c><01:41:07.360><c> to</c><01:41:07.600><c> go<
• for those services. um it was would pay for those services. um it was would be<04:18:03.120><c> a</c

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They pay into GRT on multiple levels.
• In poverty, they just can't pay their bills.
• for uninsured motorists—we pay it on.
• If you don't pay, you're not covered.
• As I said, you don't own insurance until you pay for it, and as soon as you stop paying for it, you no

Transcript Highlights:

• If you didn't use the health insurance plan, what would Medicare pay?
• That does include insurance who are paying because ultimately...
• But those who pay these damages, we do owe them some certainty as well.
• They lose their ability to pay.
• They lose their ability to pay.

Bills: SB2030, SB1926, SB2170, SB2151, SB2166, SB1213, SB1381, SB1824, SB1876, SB1728, SB1582, SB1286, SB1386, SB1708, SB1618

Keywords: expungement, record sealing, criminal records, clean slate, automatic expungement, expedited expungement, criminal history, OSBI, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, deferred judgment, delayed sentence, pardon, pardon and parole board, law enforcement records, sealed records, arrest records, conviction records, reclassification of felony to misdemeanor, reentry, second chance

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard and advanced a series of bills covering criminal justice, family law, elections, insurance, and property issues. Among the measures approved were SB 2030, a clean-slate/automatic expungement bill; SB 1926, allowing victims seeking protective orders to file in another county; SB 2170, requiring supervised visits when sexual abuse allegations are substantiated by DHS; SB 2151, giving prosecutors discretion to seek a 65% sentence instead of an 85% sentence in some cases; SB 2166, setting evidentiary rules for calculating future medical damages; SB 1213, allowing certain inmates to start at a higher earned-credit level; SB 1381, creating a statewide pretrial hearing process with a pilot program approach; SB 1824, updating corporation and LLC statutes; SB 1876, modernizing service of process on foreign insurers; SB 1728, adding a domestic violence definition for coercive control; SB 1582, defining bona fide resident and lawful permanent resident for alien land ownership rules; SB 1286, requiring more political subdivisions to provide polling places at no cost; SB 1386, creating a courtroom transparency pilot program using audio-video recording; and SB 1708, creating a rebuttable presumption of joint custody and equal parenting time. Several bills were amended before passage, including title-striking motions on multiple measures and committee-substitute language changes. Debate centered on the policy tradeoffs in several of the more controversial bills. Senators raised concerns about forum shopping and judicial bias in the protective-order bill, the fairness and practical effects of the future-damages bill on injured plaintiffs and insurers, the impact of the custody presumption bill on domestic violence cases and guardian ad litem practice, and the risks of foreign land ownership. Supporters generally framed the bills as responses to constituent concerns, efforts to improve fairness or transparency, or ways to modernize outdated statutes and procedures. Opponents or skeptics focused on unintended consequences, possible burdens on victims, and whether existing law already addressed the problems being raised. The committee also heard that SB 1381 would likely return as a pilot program in one county because of fiscal concerns, and SB 1386 was discussed as a limited courtroom-recording pilot rather than a full statewide rollout. SB 1582 passed after discussion of the meaning of “bona fide resident” and whether certain noncitizens could buy land. SB 1708 drew especially detailed debate over whether the law should begin with a presumption of equal parenting time or leave custody decisions entirely to the judge’s best-interest analysis. Most measures advanced on bipartisan roll-call votes, with some dissent on SB 1926, SB 2166, SB 1386, and SB 1708.

Transcript Highlights:

• Exempting them from paying for the roads they drive on undermines the user pays principle for transportation
• that much. 408 miles per year to pay that much.
• The out-of-state, if I'm understanding right, only pays at the pump, while in-state would pay both.
• Out-of-state drivers would pay at the pump.
• truck would pay more.

Transcript Highlights:

• How are you paying for that?
• Are you paying your providers more to attract them over?
• Are you paying your providers more to attract them over? Recognized.
• that paying a good wage for these providers is critically important, right?
• , and pay in a way and pay in an amount... ...us to a place where we pay in a way and pay in an amount

Summary: The Health and Human Services Committee received an overview of Florida’s intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) managed care pilot, created by legislation in 2023 to test whether a managed care model could integrate Medicaid medical services with iBudget waiver home- and community-based services for adults in pre-enrollment categories. AHCA explained the existing system, the pilot’s scope in Regions D and I, and the rollout timeline, including federal approval, contract execution with Florida Community Care, and the October 2024 go-live. Officials reported that, as of early February, 370 individuals had been sent for onboarding and 168 more were in queue, with about $35.8 million of the appropriation remaining. APD also clarified the difference between the pre-enrollment categories and the waiver waitlist, and noted that crisis cases can be enrolled more quickly depending on eligibility and funding. Florida Community Care described the pilot as a comprehensive managed care model offering medical, long-term care, and iBudget services, plus enhanced benefits such as bed-hold days, caregiver transportation, and help with legal guardianship costs. The plan said it uses one care coordinator, a 1:18 coordinator ratio, a face-to-face assessment within five days of enrollment, and 180 days of continuity of care for existing providers. The company emphasized that it is recruiting providers by offering higher rates than some iBudget rates, lower administrative burden, and network adequacy incentives, while APD said it continues to monitor provider supply and demand and recruit across service types and regions. Members repeatedly questioned whether the pilot’s costs, provider rates, and service levels were truly comparable to the iBudget system, and AHCA and APD said it was too early to draw firm conclusions because claims data are still lagging. Committee members also raised concerns about communication, enrollment delays, provider shortages, and whether the pilot could scale statewide. APD said it has used letters, phone calls, texts, emails, and community meetings to reach eligible individuals, and that some delays stem from required assessments, Medicaid eligibility checks, and level-of-care determinations. Several members asked for more detailed comparisons of costs and provider reimbursement between the pilot and iBudget, and APD said it would provide additional data. Public testimony at the end was strongly critical of managed care, with a participant and his mother describing poor service, transportation failures, and loss of control under prior managed care arrangements, and urging the committee not to expand such a model without safeguards. No votes or formal committee action were taken before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• This idea should be funded from the taxes that we already are paying.
• We do pay a little bit of a retaliatory tax in Oregon.
• Carriers must pay interest on claims for which they fail to meet these deadlines.
• Under current law, carriers must pay 95% of clean claims within three days.
• Under current law, carriers must pay 95% of clean claims within three days.

Summary: The Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 6159 would create a public hospital infrastructure account funded by a new annual coverage assessment on insurers and other businesses subject to the premium tax, and would allow public hospital districts and other public health entities to collaborate more freely and access capital financing for major construction or modernization projects. Senator Dhingra said the bill is intended to help public hospitals compete and modernize, especially amid federal Medicaid and ACA subsidy cuts. Supporters included UW Medicine, while hospital districts supported the general concept but said Section 2 could unintentionally narrow existing cooperative agreements with nonpublic entities. Health plans and insurers opposed the bill, arguing it would raise premiums, increase consolidation, and improperly sweep in property and casualty insurers and mutual companies; testimony also raised concerns about pass-through costs and retaliatory tax effects. The hearing on SB 6159 closed with 5 pro, 74 con, and 2 other sign-ins. The committee then heard SB 5845, which would modernize timely payment rules by requiring carriers and public employee plans to pay or deny all clean claims within 30 days, require prompt notice and a single request for additional information on incomplete claims, and impose interest or penalties for missed deadlines. Senator Slaughter said the bill would reduce uncertainty for providers and stabilize payments without increasing patient costs. Hospitals, physicians, and health systems strongly supported the measure, citing large volumes of late clean claims and examples of prolonged delays, including a Harborview claim that remained unpaid more than a year after billing. Health plans opposed the bill, saying the current 95% standard is workable, that they already meet high compliance rates, and that the bill could limit fraud, waste, and abuse review on high-dollar claims; they also sought more flexibility and additional time for responses. The hearing closed with 69 pro, 4 con, and 2 other sign-ins. The committee also heard SB 5916, which would prohibit health plans from disadvantaging non-opioid pain treatments relative to opioids in formularies and utilization management, and would require a Department of Health educational pamphlet on non-opioid alternatives. Senator Harris described the bill as a response to opioid deaths and a way to encourage safer pain treatment options. Patients, recovery advocates, and rare disease advocates testified in support, saying insurance barriers and step therapy often make non-opioid care harder to access and can push patients toward opioids. The Health Care Authority and an association of health plans opposed the bill, arguing it could reduce formulary flexibility, increase costs, and limit tools such as prior authorization and step therapy. The hearing closed with 8 pro, 1 con, and 2 other sign-ins. Finally, the committee heard SB 6102 and SB 6103, both sponsored by Senator Muzzall, and SB 6071. SB 6102 would align the ambulance transport quality assurance fee with federal rules after H.R. 1 barred new provider taxes, preserving the existing fee rate and adjusting the Medicaid add-on rate annually; the Washington Ambulance Association supported it, saying the program had improved wages and benefits for EMS workers. SB 6103 would make Medicaid payments for services provided by a rural emergency hospital subject to appropriation, creating a framework for East Adams Rural Health Care to convert to the new federal rural emergency hospital model; East Adams and the Washington State Hospital Association supported it as a way to preserve rural access. SB 6071 would shorten overpayment recovery timelines for all services to six months, or nine months for coordination-of-benefits cases, matching the shorter timelines already enacted for behavioral health services; providers and specialty associations supported the bill as a way to reduce destabilizing clawbacks, while the remaining testimony was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• That water lingered for over two weeks in my precinct, so it obviously prompted us to issue that first
• the difference, or can you just kind of explain to me the correlation between the taxes we already pay
• the difference, or can you just kind of explain to me the correlation between the taxes we already pay

Summary: The House Committee on Natural Resources met to focus on flooding issues across Texas, with particular attention to South Texas and the recent catastrophic flooding in Central Texas. Chair Harris and Vice Chair Martinez emphasized that flooding is a statewide problem requiring continued legislative attention. The committee heard invited testimony from Hidalgo County Commissioner David Fuentes and Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 General Manager Raul Sassine, who described the March flood event in Hidalgo County, including more than 20 inches of rain, six deaths, over $100 million in local damage, widespread road flooding, and repeated shutdowns of Interstate 2 and its frontage roads. They argued that existing drainage systems are under capacity, that TxDOT projects must account for downstream drainage impacts, and that local governments have already invested heavily in mitigation through bonds and partnerships. Fuentes and Sassine also described the county’s long-term flood mitigation and water-reuse efforts, including the Delta region water management project, which would capture stormwater, runoff, and treated effluent, reduce flooding, and create potable water supply. They said the drainage district manages about 780 miles of channels and 1,100 acres of detention facilities, has used prior Flood Infrastructure Fund and GLO grants, and has ongoing applications for additional state and federal assistance. Members discussed the need for TxDOT coordination, emergency access on frontage roads, local “skin in the game,” and the possibility of combining flood control with aquifer recharge and water supply projects. Texas Water Development Board Executive Administrator Brian McMath then presented an overview of the state’s flood planning and funding framework, including the post-Harvey legislative changes that created the Flood Infrastructure Fund, the Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund, and the regional/state flood planning process. He summarized the first state flood plan adopted in 2024, noting that about one in six Texans live or work in known flood hazard areas and that regional plans identified 4,609 flood risk reduction solutions with an estimated cost of $54.5 billion. He also reviewed TWDB programs for flood grants, community assistance, flood insurance compliance, stream gauges, TexMesonet, flood mapping, and the TexasFlood.org viewer. Members asked about drainage fees, technical assistance, gauge placement, the relationship between flood maps and FEMA FIRMs, and whether flood mitigation funds could support aquifer storage and recovery or recharge projects; TWDB staff said such projects can be eligible if they include flood mitigation components, but direct technical assistance cannot be paid from Flood Infrastructure Fund dollars. The committee concluded by expressing interest in further study of combining flood mitigation with aquifer recharge, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I’m asking you, Director, when will you pay R.H.?
• What are the dates Access will pay out each?
• It appears that Access is paying more for legal counsel and employees to not pay providers than if they
• It appears that access is paying more for legal It appears that access is paying more for legal counsel
• Those are the only rates that Access pays directly to providers.

Summary: The committee continued its fourth hearing on fraud, waste, and abuse involving Arizona’s Medicaid and behavioral health systems, with a major focus on Access/ALTCS eligibility, behavioral health licensing, and payment delays. Senator Shamp presented findings alleging large gaps in ABD Medicaid asset verification, including that only a portion of enrollees were checked and that many with substantial liquid assets remained on the program. She argued the state’s waiver and lack of asset limits created a compliance and fiscal risk, and urged referrals to law enforcement, tighter verification, and broader reforms. Heather Dukes, representing behavioral health and sober living operators, testified that ADHS and Access have become overly punitive toward licensed providers, often sending technical paperwork violations straight to enforcement instead of allowing correction plans, and that zoning and licensing delays are harming legitimate businesses. Reva Stewart testified that patient brokering and fraudulent recruitment of vulnerable people into behavioral health and sober living settings remain ongoing, especially through social media, and called for stronger accountability and enforcement against bad actors. ADHS Deputy Assistant Director Tiffany Slater said the department has received more than a thousand complaints about unlicensed sober living operations, which has diverted staff from routine oversight of licensed facilities. She said ADHS has expanded enforcement tools for sober living homes, is using a new licensing system to flag repeat bad actors, and is trying to make the application process easier, while acknowledging that inspections can tip off unlicensed operators. Access Director Virginia Roundtree described steps the agency has taken since the prior hearing, including daily staff huddles, live dashboards, added project management support, an external claims vendor, and an independent review of the Division of Fee-for-Service Management. She said Access is trying to balance fraud prevention with support for legitimate providers, and committed to follow up on a specific provider payment dispute by early the next week. Committee members repeatedly pressed Access and ADHS on delayed claims processing, prepayment review, and whether the current system is driving providers out of business. Roundtable testimony from Access staff described the new Provider Resolution Roundtables, which are intended to work with a small number of providers facing the most claims and authorization problems. Members questioned why claims are being denied or held for long periods, why some providers are still waiting on payments from 2023 and 2024, and whether the agency’s actions are sustainable. Access also explained the Targeted Investment Program, saying it is a federally approved Medicaid initiative with large dollar amounts still being paid out on a delayed schedule, and agreed to provide more information on provider participation and payment timing. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the portion provided, but the chair indicated the committee would continue reviewing the issue and requested additional reports and follow-up information from Access and ADHS.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this might be the first step indicating there's something not quite right here, and then that prompts

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:

• His resignation prompted action from your side to try to get Senator Mitchell.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We never asked our counties to pay for this.
• We have never asked them to pay for onboarding to the TEAM system, and we didn't do it this time as well
• We have never asked them to pay for onboarding to the TEAM system, and we didn't do it this time as well
• And I know you're not in charge of funding, but it hardly seems fair that some counties have had to pay
• So those were the things that happened that prompted us to pursue access to it.

Summary: The House Committee on Elections met for an interim hearing focused on Charge 3, voter registration, with no legislative action taken. The Secretary of State’s office, represented by Christina Atkins, gave a detailed overview of the new statewide TEAM voter registration and election management system, its July 2025 rollout, and the disruption caused when a third-party vendor serving 24 counties collapsed. She said 11 counties had to be rapidly onboarded into TEAM at a state cost of about $660,000 to keep elections running, and that the office also had to pause development to handle mid-decade congressional redistricting affecting 73 counties. Atkins said the office is now working on reporting improvements, data alignment with offline counties, ballot-by-mail and jury modules, military and overseas ballot delivery, intelligent mail barcoding, and GIS-based redistricting tools. Members pressed Atkins on TEAM’s performance, data discrepancies, and the state’s use of the federal SAVE database to screen voter rolls for possible non-citizens. She said SAVE identified a little over 2,700 potential non-citizen records out of more than 18 million, that counties review and send notices before any cancellation, and that some discrepancies were later checked against DPS records. Several members raised concerns about possible disenfranchisement, the accuracy of the data, and whether counties should be required to report more detail about notices and cancellations. Atkins said the Secretary of State can request more information from counties but does not have authority to act directly on voter registration records. The committee also heard from Jennifer Doynoff of the Texas Association of County Election Officials, who said counties support modernization but continue to face persistent TEAM problems, including delays in processing registrations and difficulty generating required reports. Her group recommended a detailed public timeline for TEAM fixes before the November 2026 election, a freeze on non-critical updates before voting begins, and a technical support dashboard to track tickets and releases. Members also discussed communication gaps between counties, the Secretary of State, and the vendor, with county officials saying clearer timelines and better coordination are needed to reduce confusion and improve confidence in the system.

Transcript Highlights:

• The State of New Mexico pays, for instance, the risk management; they pay their attorneys an hourly rate
• We do not have the resources to pay.
• But I was astounded at how little they pay, and it has gone up.
• Bauer, you mentioned the plan for transitioning over time to hourly pay.
• for them to be there. pay for them to be there.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will keep time on your opening and prompt you as you get close to the time. Welcome, Mr.
• But the sort of paying the piper comes if it's not reported correctly on the form 700, and then it goes

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first took up several governor’s appointments not required to appear, including Rick Simpson to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and Trinidad Solis, M.D., and Gerald Talbert, M.D., to the Medical Board of California. The committee also approved reference of bills to committees and floor acknowledgments, with roll calls on each item showing unanimous support from members present and the items left open for additional votes before final tallying. The main public business was the confirmation hearing for George Cardona, J.D., for a second term as Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California. Cardona described reforms made since taking office, including new conflict-of-interest and gift rules, stronger investigative requirements, efforts to reduce backlog and improve efficiency, and monitoring of discipline disparities identified in prior studies. Senators questioned him about safeguards after the Girardi matter, the John Eastman discipline case, racial and ethnic disparities in attorney discipline, unauthorized practice of law by notarios, staffing shortages, and the use of AI in filings. Public witnesses from the State Bar, SEIU Local 1000, and others spoke in support. The committee voted 3-0 to advance Cardona’s appointment to the full Senate. The committee then heard Laura Enderton Speed, J.D., for Executive Director of the State Bar. She said her priorities would be restoring public trust, improving the discipline system, addressing the February 2025 bar exam problems, and strengthening fiscal stability and internal controls. Members asked about the State Bar’s structural budget deficit, the remote administration failures in the February exam, safeguards against undisclosed gifts and conflicts, and the status of audits and investigations. Supporters from the State Bar, the civil defense bar, SEIU Local 1000, and a longtime colleague testified in favor. The committee approved her appointment 5-0 to move to the full Senate. At the end of the meeting, members also approved the remaining governor’s appointments and procedural items, and the chair thanked Senator Jones for his service on the committee before adjourning the public portion.