Transcript Highlights:

• That is not an ethical violation.
• Chris Stanley didn't violate the law when he did so. He didn't violate the Budget Act.
• Is that an ethical violation?
• Is that an ethical violation?
• RCW 42.52.070. ...officially violates RCW 42.52.070.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not an ethical violation.
• Chris Stanley didn't violate the law when he did so. He didn't violate the Budget Act.
• Is that an ethical violation?
• The first way Representative Simmons violated this statute...
• First, through the... ...violation of this statute in several ways.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of them had 36 violations, one of them had 95 violations, and some were more serious than others.
• <00:49:41.400> are license violations are license violations are happening<00:49:44.160>
• , whether these are repeat violations, or the nature of what type of violation it is as well.
• <01:42:34.840> the kind of the specific violations the kind of the specific violations the
• that kind of leads to severe violation that kind of leads to severe violation or<01:43:12.760>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Courts have found such violations as well.
• constitutional violations for 152 years. constitutional violations for 152 years.
• While you can get a court order for rights violations that are ongoing, if a violation has already occurred
• While you can get a court order for rights violations that are ongoing, if a violation has already occurred
• <00:13:54.959> my actors who are who are violating my actors who are who are violating my

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 3477, Representative Long’s “Universal Constitutional Remedies Act,” which would create a civil damages remedy for constitutional violations by government actors, including federal officials. Long and supporting testifiers argued the bill fills a gap in current law, noting that people can sue state and local officials under Section 1983 but generally lack a meaningful damages remedy against federal actors. Supporters said the bill would improve accountability, make harmed individuals whole, and is consistent with the Supremacy Clause and federal law. Public testimony included Dr. Roger Day, who said the bill was important to people harmed by “color of law” abuses and urged broad, inclusive language. Members then considered amendments. The A1 amendment, offered by Representative Duran, removed subdivision 2, which had required federal law enforcement partners entering agreements with Minnesota to agree to abide by the state and federal constitutions; the amendment was adopted. The A2 amendment, which would have added a six-year lookback and limited the bill to future causes of action, was debated at length and rejected. The A3 amendment, which would have required state agencies to absorb litigation costs, was also debated; House fiscal staff said a fiscal note was not complete and costs were uncertain, and the amendment was not adopted. In discussion after amendments, opponents argued the bill would conflict with federal supremacy, duplicate or interfere with existing federal remedies, and could create fiscal and operational burdens. Supporters responded that the bill is modeled on existing remedies for state and local officials and that federal accountability is currently inadequate. The bill, as amended by A1, was then moved toward the general register, with a roll call requested on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Paul alleging Tenth Amendment violations by the Fridley Public School District for violations of the
• We have violations of or threats to violate six of those amendments in the last 3 months.
• violated in their entire existence. violated in their entire existence.
• to be violated.
• to be violated.

Bills: HF3477, HF3414, HF103, HF3661, HF3146

Keywords: civil rights, law enforcement, federal collaboration, accountability, state law, constitutional rights, color of law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, section 1983, civil action, damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, law enforcement task force, federal-state cooperation, intergovernmental agreement, federal agency partnership, Minnesota Constitution, U.S. Constitution, police accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• actors who regularly cause violations actors who regularly cause violations without<00:03:04.480
• two for every previous violation two for every previous violation committed<00:04:32.320> by<
• that would it have to if that violation that would it have to if that violation was<00:04:42.639
• in violation and that violation<00:12:06.360> sticks<00:12:06.760> and<00:12:06.880>
• an enhanced fine for a subsequent violation to be a violation that has reached its final resolution

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, House Bill 397 creates a new law violation for violating a court stay away order when the underlying
• the terms of that injunction that in and of. itself is a violation.
• the stay away or the no contact order that violation in and of itself becomes a new law violation for
• At least any time there was any sort of pretrial violation.
• It's actually not, it's a first because that's the same level of violation for a violation of injunction

Transcript Highlights:

• Are they in violation of the rule?
• and there just violation of of the rule?
• Whereas pre the violation of the rule.
• impropriy or to avoid a rule violation? impropriy or to avoid a rule violation?
• <00:17:19.919> our in and by accepting it we violated our in and by accepting it we violated

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Senate rules committee continued work on a proposed rule restricting campaign fundraising in the Capitol and during session or special session. Senator Nethercott and LSO attorney Mr. Shaw explained that the draft was revised to add clarity after concerns that the earlier language could unintentionally penalize a senator who merely received a contribution without affirmatively soliciting it. The committee discussed two options: option one, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting a contribution and accepting it by affirmative act, and option two, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting or accepting a legislative campaign contribution by affirmative act. A new subsection C was also added to make clear the rule would not apply when a senator merely discovers that a contribution was made and took no affirmative act to solicit or receive it. Members focused on how the term “solicit” should be understood, including whether a campaign website donate button or online promotion would count as solicitation. Mr. Shaw said the rule does not define the term and suggested it should be applied reasonably, noting that a static donate button may be treated differently from actively promoting donations. Several senators said subsection C addressed the main concern about accidental receipt of a mailed contribution, but that further guidance may still be needed on passive receipt and how to handle donations connected to pending legislation. Senator Duro said the committee was responding to an unacceptable incident that occurred in the building and wanted to make clear such conduct would not be tolerated. After discussion, Senator Rothfuss moved option two and Senator Gierau seconded. The committee voted to adopt option two, with Senators Gierau, Nethercott, Salazar, and Chairman Biteman voting aye; Senator Rothfuss also voted aye. The committee then adjourned, and it was noted that the adopted rule would become part of the permanent Senate rules unless changed at the start of a future session.

Transcript Highlights:

• . violated. violated.
• . violated. violated.
• caused the violation. caused the violation.
• But a person found to have violated violated violated violated<02:22:31.520> the<02:22:31.760>
• caused the violation. caused the violation.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or date of filing the report to the discovery of the violation by the commission.
• intentional violations occur.
• It's a lot of times, and, you know this, the violations are unintentional and usually, and most violations
• And for the most part, it's a violation.
• And for the most part, it's a violation.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard and acted on several nominations and bills. It first recommended advise and consent for Governor’s Message 573, confirming Luann Blake to the Statewide Elections Accessibility Needs Advisory Committee after she described her experience as a blind voter and her goals of improving outreach and accessibility for voters with print disabilities. The committee then took up the judiciary supplemental budget bill, HB 2095, with testimony from the courts and several supportive organizations. The courts requested funding for security, cybersecurity, substance use treatment contracts, public guardian services, staffing, and capital projects; members questioned the lump-sum CIP request, the substance use contract funding, and the Kamanu Hale elevator project. The committee later voted to pass HB 2095 with amendments, including changes to cybersecurity funding, security-related report language, and other committee-report notes. The committee also heard HB 1520, which changes the five-year statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions of campaign finance violations to begin upon discovery by the Campaign Spending Commission. The commission supported the bill, saying it would prevent delayed reporting from avoiding prosecution, while one senator raised concerns about due diligence, tolling, and the difference between administrative and criminal enforcement. The bill drew broad support from advocacy groups and was advanced with an amendment clarifying “criminal prosecution.” HB 1548, which reduces the maximum sentence for misdemeanors and other offenses punishable by up to one year to 364 days, received strong support from the Public Defender, immigrant-rights groups, OHA, and others, who said the change would reduce immigration consequences for noncitizens. The committee later amended and passed the bill, limiting it to non-violent offenses. HB 2050, increasing partial public financing limits and available public funds, was supported by the Campaign Spending Commission and good-government groups, while OHA asked for parity with lieutenant governor races. The committee passed it with amendments increasing the public-fund match and funding levels, and requested additional appropriations in the committee report. HB 2494, which would set factors for warrantless arrests for petty misdemeanors and violations and require documentation of the justification, drew strong support from the Public Defender and civil-liberties advocates but opposition from the Attorney General’s office, prosecutors, police, and some business groups, who warned it would restrict officer discretion and trigger litigation. The committee nevertheless passed it with amendments. In a final decision-making agenda, the committee also passed HB 2250 with amendments, adding blank appropriations and committee-report language related to claims against the state, including claims involving exonerees and a disputed USEPA-related claim.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is a violation.
• um violations that do not that are um violations that do not imminently<00:28:26.720> endanger
• <00:29:21.840> is outline kind of what the violation is outline kind of what the violation
• It's not a direct if there are violations and these types of violations result in a stop payment.
• It's not a direct if there are violations and these types of violations result in a stop payment.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Subsequent violations are up to $1,000. And for committees, it starts with $1,000 per violation.
• Subsequent violations are up to $1,000. Subsequent violations are up to $1,000.
• Uh it to be injured by the violation.
• seventh circuit. uh where the violation seventh circuit. uh where the violation takes<00:02:10.399
• would probably be in violation already. would probably be in violation already.

Keywords: Technology - Room 210, 3 February, 2026; 11:30 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee heard a bill aimed at regulating artificial intelligence in qualified political advertisements. The sponsor explained that the measure applies only when an ad uses AI-generated image, audio, or video and is made on behalf of a candidate, committee, or other person in connection with an election or ballot issue. The bill would require clear disclosures: visible disclaimers for text or graphic ads, spoken disclaimers for audio ads, and both visual and spoken disclaimers for video ads. It was emphasized that the bill does not ban AI use in campaigns, does not regulate captions or written posts, does not apply to private social media activity, satire or parody, or news coverage/documentaries, and does not create criminal penalties. The sponsor also said liability would attach only to the person or committee that created the AI-generated ad, not to broadcasters or cable/satellite providers that air it. Penalties were described as up to $250 for a first violation by an individual, up to $1,000 for subsequent violations, and $1,000 per violation for committees. Enforcement would be available to the attorney general and to an injured or likely injured candidate, with venue in Hinds County or the county where the violation occurred or where voters were targeted. The sponsor said the attorney general’s office had been sent the bill and was monitoring it. During discussion, a senator praised the sponsor’s work and said the issue was already arising in practice. The sponsor then noted that, because the bill would have to return to the elections committee, an amendment would be added to adopt the universal definition of artificial intelligence and remove the current language for consistency. A motion to “sub pass” was made, and the committee proceeded to a vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• hearing about if there's a violation, and I'm just curious if there's a violation, do all these contracts
• What if there's a violation and the violation is corrected?
• What if there's a violation and the violation is corrected?
• <01:33:43.760> triggers it's unclear how a violation triggers it's unclear how a violation
• Thank you. violation of the patient Bill of Rights violation of the patient Bill of Rights help<01:34

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee held a hearing on House Bill 619, which would appropriate $1 million to the Solid Waste Management Fund for matching grants to municipalities and businesses for waste diversion projects, with 50% of the money prioritized for food waste diversion. Representative Karen Ebel, the sponsor, said the fund would help New Hampshire meet its solid waste diversion goals, preserve landfill capacity, and support composting, recycling, and related local business activity. She cited New London’s composting program as an example, saying 172 families participated and 32 tons of food waste were diverted in 2024, reducing tipping and trucking costs. Committee members asked about possible alternative funding sources, including a surcharge on landfill tipping fees. Ebel said many other states use such surcharges to fund recycling and solid waste programs, while New Hampshire relies on general funds. She also said the current fund balance was about $900,000 because some money had been used for staffing, and that the grant program was still in rulemaking. Questions also focused on how household composting works and whether municipalities could generate revenue from compost; Ebel said participation is optional, most programs use buckets and transfer stations, and the main benefit is cost savings from reduced disposal rather than compost sales. Testimony in support came from the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the Northeast Resource Recovery Association. Both said municipalities are interested in food waste diversion and composting, that these programs can reduce long-term disposal costs and property tax pressure, and that there is growing demand for technical assistance and grant support. The Northeast Resource Recovery Association said food waste makes up about 24% of municipal and business waste, that fewer than two dozen communities and fewer than two dozen businesses currently offer such services, and that a City of Lebanon pilot program saw about 30% savings by composting on site. The Department of Environmental Services said it was not taking a position but is working on rulemaking for the grant program and expects strong interest from municipalities, private composters, farmers, and anaerobic digester operators. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• , which allows these violations to be entered as a money judgment.
• These three violations allow the violations to be entered as a money judgment, thereby providing the
• It's actually kind of the reverse of the situation in which a violation of the ADA is a violation of
• So if you cure an access violation under state law, you have also cured the ADA violation.
• Notwithstanding the cure, there was still a period of violation.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills. AB 416 would allow emergency room physicians to initiate 5150 mental health holds, with supporters saying it would reduce emergency room bottlenecks and speed care for patients in crisis. County and behavioral health representatives opposed the bill, and some members raised broader concerns about the 5150 system and juvenile placements. The bill was ultimately approved on a do-pass as amended vote. AB 446, the Surveillance Pricing Act, drew extensive testimony. The author and supporters argued it would prohibit businesses from using personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service, describing the practice as discriminatory and exploitative. Business and industry groups opposed the bill, warning that its language was too broad, could affect discounts and loyalty programs, and would create litigation risk through a private right of action. After discussion about enforcement and possible amendments, the bill passed on a do-pass motion. AB 632 would give local governments a faster way to collect penalties for serious code violations, including unsafe housing, fire hazards, and illegal cannabis activity, by allowing certain fines to become money judgments and clarifying lien authority. It had support from county and city groups and no opposition was voiced in the hearing; the bill passed as amended. ACA 7, a constitutional amendment intended to clarify and limit misuse of Section 31A, also moved forward after brief support testimony. The committee then took up AB 649, which would extend protections for businesses that proactively obtain certified access specialist inspections and fix accessibility violations; the author, a small business owner, and others testified in support, while disability rights groups moved to neutral after amendments. Members discussed the balance between access enforcement and reducing predatory litigation, and the bill was still under consideration as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• violence order violations.
• found guilty of a probation violation found guilty of a probation violation and<00:08:52.200>
• <00:08:58.720> unfortunately violations unfortunately violations unfortunately those<00:09:01.040
• :09:02.800> into those violations were all lumped into those violations were all lumped into one
• <00:20:17.760> where you get technical violations where you get technical violations where

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met for its first meeting, established a quorum, welcomed new members and guests, and announced that committee rules would be sent out later. The committee then took up House Bill 38, sponsored by Representative Tipton, which would increase the penalty for repeated violations of an order of protection. Under the committee substitute, a third violation of the same protective order could be charged as a Class D felony instead of a Class A misdemeanor. The substitute was adopted by voice vote. Representative Tipton said the bill was prompted by a constituent’s experience with repeated abuse and violations of protective orders, and he argued the change was needed to better protect the public. Maryanne Pratt testified in support of the bill, describing a long history of domestic violence, repeated violations of protective orders, stalking through calls and social media, and her fear for her safety. Several members expressed support and praised her courage. Questions focused on whether the bill would cover social media contact and on the committee substitute’s language requiring the same victim and same order. Representative Burke raised concern that the same-victim language could allow an abuser to victimize multiple partners without triggering the felony provision. Tipton said the original bill was broader, that the change was added because of concerns about reverse protective orders, and that the issue might be revisited in the Senate. Scott West, speaking for the Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the bill addressed some concerns but warned that the third-offense trigger could be based on technical contempt findings rather than violent conduct, and he noted that stalking already can be charged as a felony in some cases. The discussion continued on those concerns, but no final action on the bill beyond adoption of the committee substitute was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and violators learn enforced routes, and violators learn their<00:08:52.640> lesson.
• So, faces and other license... camera is the violating vehicle. No camera is the violating vehicle.
• The violations have decreased over time: a 41% decrease in bus lane violations and then a 30% decrease
• in bus stop violations.
• the that the violation that way. the that the violation that way. >> Represent.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 3966, a bill authorizing transit agencies and local governments to use bus-mounted cameras to enforce existing rules against illegally parked or stopped vehicles in bus lanes, bus stops, and bike lanes. Representative Jones, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure is intended to protect transit investments, improve bus speed and reliability, and keep lanes clear for riders. The bill was amended with the A1 author’s amendment before testimony began. Testimony was generally supportive. A representative from the City of Minneapolis said bus and bike lanes are frequently blocked, citing repeated blockages at 7th Street and Nicollet Mall and Lake Street at Lyndale Avenue, and said the city was working with the author on technical details. A representative from Hayden AI also supported the bill, describing automated enforcement systems used in other cities and arguing they improve safety, accessibility, and transit performance. She said the system only captures violations, deletes other footage, uses human review before citations, and does not use facial recognition. Members raised questions about cost, privacy, who receives citations, and whether the cameras could capture other data or non-vehicle obstructions. The author and testifier said the bill is limited to parked or stopped vehicles, that data protections mirror existing camera laws, and that citations go to the vehicle owner or lessee, with appeals available for stolen vehicles or other defenses. A proposed oral amendment to delete an appropriation section was discussed but not pursued. After debate, the committee voted on the motion to re-refer House File 3966, as amended, to the Judiciary, Finance, and Civil Law Committee; the motion failed.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if they have violated a sanction of the judge, which may not be a statutory violation, it may be that
• If they have violated a sanction of the judge, which may not be a statutory violation, it may be that
• one or more technical violations?
• violation, it would be punishable by a penalty of $100.
• violation, it would be punishable by a penalty of $100.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 2 February, 2026; 4:30 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee took up a series of criminal justice and public safety bills. Early discussion focused on immigration-related concerns and the costs of enforcement, with one senator pressing for data to support claims about crimes by undocumented immigrants and another citing specific cases and DPS removals of drivers with falsified CDLs. The committee also heard a bill requiring the sex marker on a driver’s license to match sex at birth; the sponsor said it was the same measure passed by the committee the prior year, and it received a title sufficient/do pass recommendation. Several bills addressed corrections and court procedures. One bill clarified that people in intervention court are subject to the sentencing judge’s sanctions and are not entitled to a separate technical-violation hearing like probationers or parolees; the sponsor said it would reduce, not increase, leniency, and the committee passed it. Another bill extended the statute of limitations for felonious assistance program fraud from five to ten years, citing the TANF fraud case and the need for more time to detect abuse in executive agency programs; it also passed. The committee then approved a bill allowing judges, after a hearing and specific findings, to order firearms removed in domestic violence cases and protective-order proceedings when the weapons pose a credible threat. The committee also advanced a bill increasing penalties for witness tampering, with the sponsor saying prosecutors wanted a stronger tool because defendants were sometimes willing to accept the current five-year penalty rather than face the underlying offense. Members discussed whether the bill covered intimidation versus tampering and whether the penalty should be tied to the underlying crime; a motion to reconsider/adjust the bill was adopted, and the bill ultimately received a do pass recommendation. Another measure increased fines for handheld mobile device violations while driving, especially in school and work zones, and members discussed whether the bill should be stronger and how any collected fines would be used; it passed. Finally, the committee approved a bill requiring reporting of certain convictions and adjudications to the Child Protective Services central registry, and ended by passing a bill increasing the fine for failing to use a screen on loads that can spill from vehicles and damage windshields, with members noting the fine had not been updated since 1974.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:41.919> are specific armed cameras violations are specific armed cameras violations
• the enforcement of this violation. the enforcement of this violation.
• The<00:07:49.759> violation The violation The violation is<00:07:51.680> a<00:07:51.919
• <00:10:39.440> we this and the egregious violations we this and the egregious violations we
• The violation. So, it's no different. It just happens to be on a school bus. I'm an aye.

Keywords: 00:20 Roll Call 01:56 HB 7 13:46 HB 7 Vote 17:54 HB 226 24:05 HB 226 Vote 25:13 HB 258 27:13 HB 258 Vote, 958, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee met for its second meeting of the 2026 session and first took up House Bill 7, sponsored by Representative Hale, which would allow school districts to install stop-arm camera systems on school buses to enforce civil penalties against drivers who illegally pass stopped buses. Hale said the bill had passed the House before, described widespread violations and the danger to children, and outlined the bill’s provisions, including public warning signs, privacy protections, and fines of $300 for a first offense and $500 thereafter. Supporters cited child safety and personal experiences with school-bus-related incidents, while one member opposed the bill on the grounds that it relied too heavily on technology instead of a human officer. The committee then voted and reported HB 7 favorably. The committee next considered House Bill 226, sponsored by Representative Bratcher, which would redirect the $5 fee from Kentucky National Guard specialty license plates from the Kentucky Department of Veterans Affairs to the Kentucky National Guard Association. Bratcher and National Guard representatives said the change would send roughly under $15,000 a year to support readiness, mobilization, and professional development for serving Guard members, and argued that specialty plate revenue should go to the organization tied to the plate. Representative Donworth raised concerns about taking money from the veterans trust fund and suggested a direct budget allocation instead, but the sponsor said the amount was small and that the current arrangement did not return the funds to the Guard. The committee voted to report HB 226 favorably. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 258, sponsored by Representative Payne, as amended by a committee substitute. The bill raises the weight limit for hauling milk from 80,000 to 90,000 pounds and clarifies that the rule applies to both state and federal highways, based on federal treatment of milk as a non-divisible product. After the substitute was adopted, the committee approved the bill, and HB 258 was reported favorably with the committee substitute attached.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then the law enforcement violation.
• Uh they would committed the violation.
• that a violation uh did occur.<00:12:30.560> Now,<00:12:30.800> a<00:12:31.040> violation
• Now, a violation would not result occur.
• Uh and the of the date of the violation.

Keywords: Convene 00:00 Senate Message 06:11 Orders of the Day 06:59 HB 7 07:15 HB 48 17:57 HB 266 20:32 Motions, Petitions, and Communications 22:33 Introduction of New Bills and Resolutions 31:03 Recess for ConC/Rules Meeting 33:29 ConC/Rules Report 36:49 Floor Amendments 37:57 Adjournment 38:24, 958, all

Summary: The House convened with an invocation and pledge, established a quorum, approved the prior journal, and received notice that the Senate had passed Senate Bills 18 and 132 and requested concurrence. The chamber also suspended rules to allow co-sponsorships and vote modifications. Later, the Committee on Committees and Rules reported referrals of several bills and resolutions to standing committees and posted House Bills 49, 66, 139, and 313 for future consideration. The main floor action centered on House Bill 7, relating to school bus safety. The bill would create a voluntary, violator-funded stop-arm camera program for school buses, with civil penalties of $300 for a first offense and $500 for repeat offenses, due process appeal rights, and possible registration consequences for nonpayment. Members from both parties spoke in support, including one member who described being injured after getting off a school bus. The House passed HB 7 by a vote of 78-15. The House also passed House Bill 48, which updates and modernizes statutes governing the Kentucky Board of Physical Therapy without expanding scope of practice, and House Bill 266, which adds audiologists and speech-language pathologists as eligible credentials under the Kentucky Healthcare Workforce Investment Fund. Both bills passed unanimously, 95-0. The chamber then handled motions and announcements, including withdrawal of House Bill 105, notice of several committee meetings, and a resolution recognizing the last day of February as a day to honor Black women; that resolution was introduced and discussed but no final vote was taken in the transcript. The House adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday, February 10, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• violating our Second Amendment rights. violating our Second Amendment rights.
• We're not violation of Wyoming law.
• perhaps be a supremacy clause violation. perhaps be a supremacy clause violation.
• And so [clears throat] and then there's a violation that moves up into a firearms violation.
• . violated. violated.

Bills: HB0130, HB0095, HB0096, HB0097, SF0101, SF0106, SF0067, SF0123

Keywords: Second Amendment, firearms, state rights, federal regulation, law enforcement, civil penalties, government liability, concealed carry, public colleges, university facilities, weapons legislation, self-defense, campus safety, weapons, age requirement, permits, HB0097, Wyoming firearms privacy, merchant category code, MCC