Transcript Highlights:

• To protect the evidentiary use of those ballots, existing state law is clear that these ballots should
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballot Forever.
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballot In April,
• he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballot from the June primary
• , where he is on the ballot himself.

Summary: The Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety heard one item, Senate Bill 73 by Senator Cervantes, and took up committee and Elections Committee amendments. The bill was described as strengthening protections against interference in elections by extending restrictions to military personnel at polling places, protecting the chain of custody of voted ballots, and limiting law enforcement access to voting machines and voter rosters without a court order. The chair explained that the committee amendments would remove certain criminal penalties for peace officers, restore a uniform requirement for some polling-place personnel, and clarify the effect of objections by the Secretary of State or Attorney General. The author and supporters, including API Force and CHIRLA, argued the bill was needed to respond to threats of intimidation and election interference, citing concerns about armed personnel at polling places and the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of ballots. Supporters said the measure would protect voters, especially immigrant communities and in-person voters, and preserve confidence in election administration. Opposition from the California State Sheriffs’ Association and CALA argued the bill was vague, could hinder lawful criminal investigations, and improperly restrict law enforcement and federal election oversight. After closing remarks, the committee voted to pass SB 73 as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The vote was 6-1, with one member not voting. The chair and another member recommended an aye, while one member voted no.

Transcript Highlights:

• You obviously can't do that with a ballot, but you can return certain individuals' ballots who have filled
• ballots, and noting that getting something on the ballot is not winning the issue.
• The process, as it exists, with its checks and balances, works to keep ballot initiatives off the ballot
• The process, as it exists, with its checks and balances, works to keep ballot initiatives off the ballot
• I don't agree with every ballot initiative proposal.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections heard SPB 7016, a bill revising Florida’s citizen initiative petition process to address fraud, voter information, and ballot integrity. The bill and its amendments would add sponsor bonds and deposit requirements, require more identifying information from signers and circulators, bar certain felons and non-citizens from circulating petitions, require circulator training, shorten the time to submit signed petitions, require notices to voters whose signatures are verified, and change how financial impact statements are handled. Several amendments were adopted, including a $1 million bond framework, 10-point font and page limits for petition forms, a ban on incentive-based pay tied to petition counts or speed, removal of a requirement that fraud be proven by criminal conviction before administrative fines, county deposit and payment procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, training requirements within 30 days, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. Committee discussion focused heavily on implementation and fairness. Supporters, including the sponsor and the Florida Chamber of Commerce, argued the bill was needed to deter fraud, protect voter information, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear the costs of the initiative process. Supervisors of elections testified that county taxpayers should not subsidize petition verification, but also warned that some provisions would be difficult to implement quickly because of software and operational constraints. Senators raised questions about the bond cost, the 10-day submission deadline, notice to voters whose petitions are invalidated, the effect on returning citizens, and whether the bill could disenfranchise voters who sign petitions in good faith. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed. Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, NAACP Florida, Florida Rising, Equality Florida, All Voting Is Local, and other advocates said the bill would suppress grassroots participation, criminalize volunteers, create costly barriers, and favor wealthy or corporate interests. They objected especially to the bond, the new signer identification requirements, the shorter submission window, and the lack of notice when a petition is invalidated. A few supporters, including the Florida Chamber, backed the measure as a safeguard against fraud and outside influence. After debate, the committee did not reach a final vote on the bill in the portion provided, but the bill remained before the committee as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• You obviously can't do that with a ballot, but you can return certain individuals' ballots who have filled
• ballots, and noting that getting something on the ballot is not, And noting that getting something on
• the ballot is not winning the issue.
• The process, as it exists, with its checks and balances, works to keep ballot initiatives off the ballot
• I don't agree with every ballot initiative proposal.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met to consider SPB 7016, a major bill revising Florida’s constitutional initiative petition process. Senator Grall presented it as a fraud-prevention and ballot-integrity measure that would add sponsor training, stricter circulator rules, more voter identification information, faster submission deadlines, notice to voters whose signatures are verified, and additional civil and criminal penalties. The committee also considered several amendments, including a $1 million bond requirement, font and page limits for petition forms, restrictions on incentive-based circulator pay, removal of a criminal-conviction prerequisite for certain fines, deposit and reimbursement procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, mandatory circulator training, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. All of the amendments were adopted, with some roll-call votes recorded and most passing on party-line or near party-line splits. The bill drew extensive questioning from senators, especially about the practical effects of the new requirements. Senator Polsky and Senator Rouson raised concerns about disenfranchising voters, burdening grassroots volunteers, the cost of bonds and deposits, the 10-day return deadline, and whether voters would be notified if a petition they signed was later invalidated. Grall said the measures were intended to protect the constitutionally significant initiative process, reduce fraud, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear administrative costs. Dave Ramba, speaking for supervisors of elections, supported the deposit and reimbursement concepts but warned that the bill’s implementation would be operationally difficult and that software vendors might not be ready for the changes by the effective date. He also said the process should avoid subsidizing petition drives with county taxpayer money. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with speakers from Common Cause Florida, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP Florida State Conference, Florida Rising, Equal Ground, Voices of Florida, and other civic groups arguing the bill would suppress direct democracy, criminalize volunteer activity, impose excessive costs, and create confusion and litigation risk. One speaker from the Florida Chamber of Commerce supported the bill, saying the initiative process should be protected from fraud and outside interests. During debate, Senator Polsky argued the Legislature has steadily made the initiative process harder after recent citizen-led amendments succeeded, while supporters framed the bill as a necessary integrity measure. The committee had not yet taken final action on the bill itself by the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:18.560> initiative that does not allow a ballot initiative that does not allow a ballot
• ,<00:10:42.720> it put an alternative on the ballot, it put an alternative on the ballot,
• and it's an actual ballot after they show their voter ID or after they show their ballot ID.
• <00:14:31.360> after ballot and it's an actual ballot after ballot and it's an actual ballot
• ID uh they will cast show their ballot ID uh they will cast their<00:14:36.160> ballot<00:14:

Keywords: Elections - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 1:00 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee took up several election- and ethics-related measures. First, it considered SB 2589, which would require campaign finance reports to be filed online through the Secretary of State’s filing system, with the system voluntary until February 1, 2028. The bill was explained as a continuation of prior campaign finance reform efforts, and after brief discussion it received a title-sufficient do-pass motion and was reported out. The committee then discussed a constitutional amendment vehicle for ballot initiatives, described as allowing citizens to place measures on the ballot through petitions equal to 10% of active registered voters, with limits on signatures from any one congressional district, a prohibition on initiatives depriving any human being of the right to life, and a 60% vote requirement for initiatives dealing substantially with state revenue or expenses. Members raised concerns about severability, the legislature’s ability to later amend initiative statutes, and whether an alternative measure on the ballot was too confusing. The committee adopted the committee substitute and reported the measure out, then also advanced SB 2919, a shell bill bringing forward the code sections needed to implement ballot initiative changes if the main measure passes. Finally, the committee considered a bill to revise in-person absentee voting procedures by eliminating absentee ballot envelopes and having voters cast ballots directly into an OMR machine after showing ID, with the machine rejecting errors and preserving ballot secrecy. The sponsor said the proposal was intended to make the process smoother and more secure for circuit clerks, and noted possible additional excuses for in-person absentee voting, including work obligations and parenting responsibilities. Members asked about affidavits, penalties for false excuses, timing, and whether mail voting would still be available for those unable to vote in the 22-day in-person absentee window; the sponsor said mail voting would remain unchanged. The committee adopted the committee substitute, passed the bill out, and then rose and reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• are submitted and then when ballots are going out, not when ballots can be returned?
• are submitted and then when ballots are going out, not when ballots can be returned?
• the ballots wouldn't be sent?
• the ballots wouldn't be sent?
• the ballots wouldn't be sent?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• If you pick the top ballot, top race on the ballot, it's easiest, but it could be anyone.
• Spoiled ballots would be as well.
• , another thing for the next 25 ballots, another thing for the next 500 ballots.
• how those ballots were being handled. how those ballots were being handled.
• that the ballots be reviewed. that the ballots be reviewed.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:27:32.719> we<01:27:32.920> use ballot we use ballot we use the<01:27:35.360> uh
• I don't want to say that there's a lesser one for obtaining a ballot, but if they're getting a ballot
• I don't want to say that there's a lesser one for obtaining a ballot, but if they're getting a ballot
• both ballots equivalently?
• ballot for that person.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ballot if they've run out of the official ballots, or any absentee ballots received to be processed
• official ballots.
• ballot if they've run out of the official ballots, or any absentee ballots received to be processed
• official ballots.
• ballot election official with an or ballot election official with an absentee<02:02:45.159> ballot

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To protect the evidentiary use of those ballots, existing law is clear that these ballots should not
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballots from the
• June primary, where he is on the ballot.
• Or that ballots have... ...ineligible voters prior to the midterm elections, or that ballots have already
• The ballot— The ballot should never leave the custody of the elections official.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and heard one bill, SB 73. The author described the measure as a response to perceived threats to California elections, including restrictions on armed or non-uniformed personnel at polling places, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on law enforcement access to election materials without a court order. The chair reviewed a set of agreed amendments, including removing a section conflicting with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties, clarifying the role of the Attorney General and Secretary of State, and refining language on signature challenges, law enforcement support, and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force, CHIRLA, the League of Women Voters of California, and Common Cause, argued the bill would protect voters from intimidation and preserve election integrity. Opponents from CALA argued the bill was unnecessary, would hinder legitimate investigations, and reflected distrust of law enforcement and federal oversight. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill was responding to real-world threats and on the ballot seizure in Riverside County. Members questioned how the measure would affect signature challenges, chain of custody, and investigations into possible fraud. The author and supporters said ballots should remain in election officials’ custody and that federal or local agents should not be able to interfere with election materials or intimidate voters. The chair and other members also discussed the urgency clause and the need to move the bill quickly despite the proximity of the June election. The committee voted to do pass and re-refer SB 73 to the Committee on Public Safety. The roll call initially showed the bill passing 5-1, then after the absent member arrived, the final vote was 6-2, and the bill was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• of ballots from the tally of ballots received on that day.
• responsibility for Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed
• and the difference there is a use of the word all ballots versus ballots.
• responsibility for Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed
• For Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed them instead

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• receives the absentee ballot and voter receives the absentee ballot and they<00:28:22.200> they
• validate absentee ballot validate absentee ballot voters<00:33:08.080> the<00:33:08.200><
• who uh request an absentee ballot who uh request an absentee ballot request<00:39:24.400> in<
• <00:42:10.359> application receive an absentee ballot application receive an absentee ballot
• um uh and and got that absentee ballot um uh and and got that absentee ballot filled<00:55:13.720

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but
• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but
• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but
• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but
• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but

Keywords: Consideration of HB 27 00:04:20 Presentation by Secretary of State 00:10:44 Presentation by Karen Sellers and Jason Denny 00:35:56 Consideration of HB 45 00:55:36, 958, all

Summary: The committee first handled House Bill 27, which would remove the prohibition on political yard signs in planned communities statewide while still allowing communities to regulate size, placement, and duration. The sponsor said the 2023 Planned Communities Act created an unintended consequence by treating similar homeowners differently based on grandfathering dates, and a legal explanation was offered that the bill would clarify the law and avoid constitutional problems. After discussion, the committee voted 15-0 to pass the bill with favorable expression. The next item was an update from the Secretary of State on the 2024 election and implementation of House Bill 53, which created prompt post-election audits. He said the audits were carried out smoothly, most found no discrepancies, and no election winners changed, though he recommended adding a specific timeline to the law. He also discussed voter-roll maintenance, saying Kentucky has removed more than 440,000 ineligible voters since 2020, and argued that federal law and limited access to federal databases remain the main obstacles to faster cleanup. Members asked about the possibility of improper removals, double voting across states, and how provisional voting works. The Secretary said anyone improperly removed can reregister, that any double-voting abuse is likely marginal but still unacceptable, and that provisional ballots are available when eligibility is in doubt and can be reviewed by the county board of elections. He also urged Congress to modernize the 1993 federal voter-registration law, improve access to death and citizenship data, and create a central interstate information-sharing system for election officials.

Transcript Highlights:

• To protect the evidentiary use of those ballots, existing law is clear that these ballots should not
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballots from the
• June primary, where he is on the ballot.
• Or that ballots have... ...ineligible voters prior to the midterm elections, or that ballots have already
• The ballot— The ballot should never leave the custody of the elections official.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and took up one measure, SB 73 by Senator Svantez. The author described the bill as an urgency measure intended to strengthen protections around California elections, including restrictions on law enforcement or military presence at voting locations, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on access to election materials. The chair also outlined a set of agreed-upon amendments, including removing a section to avoid conflict with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties in one section, clarifying language on vote-by-mail signature challenges, and refining provisions related to law enforcement support and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force and CHIRLA, argued the bill was needed to protect voters from intimidation and to safeguard election administration from interference, citing concerns about immigration enforcement at polling places and the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of ballots. Additional supporters from the League of Women Voters and Common Cause registered their support. Opposition testimony from CALA argued the bill would impede legitimate investigations and federal oversight of elections, and questioned the need for the measure. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill addressed a real threat, the chain of custody for ballots, and the scope of the signature-challenge provisions. After closing remarks from the author and the chair, the committee voted to pass SB 73 and re-refer it to the Committee on Public Safety. The initial roll call was 5-1 with one member absent, and after the absent member’s vote was added, the final vote was 6-2-1. The bill advanced from committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballots.
• at all or submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted.
• in time to vote or did not receive a ballot at all.
• This includes one voter who sent their ballot back via mail on May 20. ...window.
• receive it until June 12th, having to reject the ballot.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here today to present HB 1627, a single primary ballot, a single-ballot primary bill.
• or a red ballot.
• or a red ballot.
• . ballot. ballot.
• voting ballots.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• BALLOTS AND NOTING GETTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT IS NOT WINNING THE ISSUE.
• MAIL BALLOTS AND NOTING GETTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT IS NOT WINNING THE ISSUE.
• THAT IS JUST GETTING ON THE BALLOT.
• PROCESS AS IT EXISTS WORKS TO KEEP BALLOT INITIATIVES OFF THE BALLOT AND IN THE END THE PEOPLE HAVE THE
• I DON'T AGREE WITH EVERY BALLOT INITIATIVE PROPOSAL.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In the Massachusetts 2024 statewide election, 5,106 provisional ballots were cast, 3,309 ballots were
• You might think it's your ballot.
• Ballot access is foundational to this.
• request a ballot from their hometown.
• As you've heard, the number of ballots—3,000 in each... ...as you've heard, the number of ballots, 3,000

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on a wide range of voting-access and election-administration bills. The largest portion of testimony focused on same-day voter registration (H. 834/S. 505), with support from Rep. Gentile, Boston and Chelsea officials, civic groups, and election administrators from Maine and Vermont. Supporters argued that same-day registration would help eligible voters who move frequently, miss deadlines, or face administrative errors, and would reduce rejected provisional ballots. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Vermont elections director Sean Sheehan testified that same-day registration has worked in their states without major administrative problems and has helped increase turnout. A Boston-based panel also described high rejection rates for provisional ballots and the burden of registration cutoffs on renters, students, immigrants, and low-income voters. A second major topic was restoration of voting rights for incarcerated people, including S. 524 and related House bills. The committee heard extensive virtual testimony from incarcerated individuals at MCI Norfolk and MCI Shirley, who said voting should be restored as part of rehabilitation, civic engagement, and reintegration. They described disenfranchisement as dehumanizing and argued that voting would help maintain family and community ties, reduce recidivism, and give incarcerated people a voice on laws affecting prisons and reentry. Rep. Erica Uyterhoeven also testified in support, saying the bill would restore municipal voting rights for incarcerated residents and align with broader efforts to expand political participation. The committee also heard testimony on bills affecting election administration and access, including a proposal to reduce or eliminate mandated early in-person voting in primaries and shorten the general-election early voting period, with supporters from the town clerks’ community arguing that low usage, staffing burdens, and costs justify the change. Opponents warned that reducing in-person early voting could hurt voters who do not use mail ballots and could disproportionately affect communities of color. Other bills discussed included decoupling the municipal census from voter registration, requiring periodic accessibility inspections of polling places, and a Somerville home-rule petition on non-citizen municipal voting and another on lowering the voting age in municipal elections. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballots.
• at all or submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted.
• in time to vote or did not receive a ballot at all.
• This includes one voter who sent their ballot back via mail on May 20. ...window.
• receive it until June 12th, having to reject the ballot.

Summary: The Assembly Military and Veterans Affairs Committee met and considered several measures, with most of the discussion focused on veterans’ access to food assistance, overseas voting, and veteran mental health research. SB 1201, the “No Hungry Heroes Act,” would seek federal waivers to protect certain veterans from CalFresh time limits and require referrals to county veteran service officers; supporters said federal SNAP cuts are leaving vulnerable veterans at risk of hunger, while no opposition testified. Members spoke strongly in favor, emphasizing the need to support service members and their families. SB 970 addressed ballot access for military and overseas voters after the federal DOD fax service was discontinued. The bill would direct the Secretary of State to develop regulations for a secure ballot return method. County election officials and veterans groups supported the measure, while the Secretary of State’s office and Verified Voting raised concerns about cybersecurity and urged a more deliberate process, including a possible task force. After discussion, the committee voted to pass SB 970 and send it to Appropriations. SB 1224 proposed a California Emerging Therapies Research Partnership to help the state compete for federal research funding for alternative therapies, including treatments relevant to PTSD, depression, and substance use among veterans. Veterans advocates described the bill as a way to expand options for those not helped by traditional treatment, and the author noted amendments to address conflicts of interest and administrative issues. The committee approved the bill and referred it to Appropriations. The committee also approved the consent calendar, including HR 120, SB 892, SB 1188, SJR 14, and SJR 17, and later voted SB 1201 and SB 970 out of committee as well. Overall, the meeting reflected broad bipartisan support for veteran-focused measures, with the main policy debate centered on how to balance access and security in overseas voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• absentee ballot absentee ballot information<00:24:20.120> this<00:24:20.320> database<
• Every ballot style to be used on a tabulator, whether for counting absentee ballots or at the polling
• Every ballot style to be used on a tabulator, whether for counting absentee ballots or at the polling
• directly into a ballot tabulator.
• Day and all absentee ballots.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Minnesota House Elections Finance and Government Operations Committee met to begin its session with member and staff introductions, then heard an overview from Secretary of State Steve Simon and elections director Paul Linnell on the state’s elections administration and budget needs. Simon said the office’s committee-jurisdiction budget request was for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) election security grant match: Minnesota received about $1 million in federal funds in 2024 and needs a $200,000 state match to unlock the money for election security navigator work. He also previewed the office’s broader presentation on the 2024 election, outreach efforts, and election security. Simon described the 2024 election cycle as successful, saying his administrative goals were high turnout and low drama. He reported that Minnesota had very high turnout in the November election, with more than 3.27 million ballots cast and about 76.4% turnout, and noted that more than 1.3 million voters cast ballots before Election Day. He also highlighted outreach and accessibility efforts, including the Students Voting Program, Youth Day at the Capitol, National Voter Registration Day activities, expanded online voter tools in additional languages, and work to inform eligible Minnesotans about the Restore the Vote law for people leaving prison. He emphasized that elections are a team effort carried out largely by counties, cities, townships, and election judges. Linnell then explained the state’s election administration structure and responsibilities, including the Statewide Voter Registration System, candidate filing and election reporting systems, voting equipment certification, and post-election performance reviews. He said counties are central to voter registration updates and ballot preparation, and noted that in 2024 there were a handful of counties with ballot errors that required court action, with a vendor process change identified as a contributing factor. Committee members asked for more detail on the number and identity of the affected counties. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• to have ballots tabulated at every voting location?
• If I didn’t turn my ballot in in time, for whatever reason, and to get my ballot there, I have to go
• We have voters who have received ballots at their home that... ...voters who have received ballots at
• So you would be given a ballot or a provisional ballot depending on whether the address matches or not
• then be removed from the early ballot list.

Bills: HB2109, HB2168, HB2198, HB2226, HB2415, HB2440, HB2665, HB2805, HB2811, HB2825, HB2857, HB2874, HB2966, HB4067, HB4117, HCR2001, HCR2016, HCR2051

Keywords: distracted driving, portable wireless communication devices, motorcycles, traffic safety, civil penalties, public nuisance, nuisance abatement, abatement action, injunction, superior court, attorney general, county attorney, city attorney, board of supervisors, obscenity, obscene materials, adult materials, pornography, schools, parks

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and announced several bills would be held at the sponsors’ request, including HB 4117, HCR 2016, HCR 2051, and HB 2415. It then took up HB 2811, which would expand obstructing governmental operations to include knowingly interfering with a lawful arrest and make that conduct a felony. Supporters, including a county attorney representative, argued the bill closes a loophole and protects officers from third-party interference during arrests, while opponents from criminal justice and civil liberties groups said existing laws already cover the conduct and warned the bill could chill First Amendment activity such as filming police or protesting. The committee debated whether the bill duplicated resisting arrest and hindering prosecution statutes, then passed HB 2811 on a 3-2 vote with one member not voting. The committee next heard HB 2665, which would create a manslaughter offense for an adult who intentionally gives advice or encouragement through a directed communication to a minor to die by suicide, including via social media or text. Representative Carter and family members of suicide victims described the bill as a response to online encouragement and a way to hold people accountable when minors are clearly urged toward suicide. The committee then passed HB 2665 unanimously, 6-0 with one not voting. It also approved HB 2857, allowing the Department of Corrections to store inmate medical records electronically and dispose of paper copies, by a 5-1 vote. The committee then passed HB 2226, which requires courts to ask about veteran status at initial appearance, notify prosecutors, and connect veterans to services and possible treatment court referrals; an amendment shifted the service-notice duty from prosecutors to the court. Supporters said the bill helps identify veterans with PTSD or other needs and can reduce recidivism, and it passed 6-0. HB 2168, which would require county board approval before the Attorney General could bring a public nuisance action in superior court, drew sharp disagreement over the AG’s use of nuisance litigation against businesses such as dairies, industrial plants, and rail projects; supporters framed it as local control and opposition to overreach, while opponents said it would weaken accountability and protect corporate interests. The committee passed HB 2168 on a 3-2 vote with two not voting. Finally, the committee heard HB 2966, which would bar early termination of lifetime probation for dangerous crimes against children and apply that restriction retroactively. Supporters argued it would keep serious child offenders on supervision and protect victims, while opponents, including survivors and defense advocates, said DCAC is a sentencing enhancement rather than a standalone offense, that the bill removes judicial discretion, may raise ex post facto concerns, and could sweep in lower-level online conduct. The bill passed 4-2 with one not voting. The committee then began hearing HCR 2001, a voter referral to end early voting the Friday before Election Day, require government-issued ID for voting, and restrict mail ballot procedures; the sponsor said it would improve election integrity and speed results, while opponents argued it would burden voters and reduce access. The transcript cuts off during testimony and debate on that measure.