Transcript Highlights:

• The Supreme Court's prior opinion in LULAC v. Perry from 2006, and its decision in Georgia v.
• Other cases that have been relisted and re-argued include Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v.
• It does the same thing here.
• This map does both.
• This map does both.

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum and heard a Governor’s Office presentation on a proposed congressional reapportionment map. The governor’s counsel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be considered at all in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection law and should be treated as non-severable. The presentation also discussed the pending U.S. Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais and the Florida Supreme Court’s Black Voters Matter decision as part of the legal rationale for the map. Jason Parada, who said he drew the map alone, described the map as based on 2020 census block data, with county-level population estimates used only as a guide to identify faster-growing areas. He said the plan keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores similar to the current benchmark map, and uses traditional geographic and political boundaries such as roads, railways, county lines, and municipal lines. He walked through regional changes, emphasizing a race-neutral redesign that significantly altered South Florida, including changes to districts in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and the Everglades, while leaving several northern districts largely unchanged. Members questioned the witnesses extensively about the legal theory, the use of partisan data, the role of race, population growth, and the timing and review of the map. The witnesses said partisan data was considered along with other traditional redistricting criteria, but race was not used. They also said they could not speak to who else reviewed the map beyond EOG staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns about the map’s compactness, county and city splits, the apparent partisan effects, and the fact that the map was released shortly before the special session. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation does not alter the criteria the board currently uses to evaluate judges, and it does
• THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT ALTER THE CRITERIA THE BOARD CURRENTLY USES TO EVALUATE JUDGES, AND IT DOES
• FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW >> Mr.
• Speaker, is exactly what this moment does not allow.
• Speaker, is exactly what this moment does not allow.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you may think that this is speculation. um what does Senator Pearl do that's um what does Senator
• 30.360><c> does</c><00:09:30.680><c> not</c> clear this does not clear this does not represent<00:09:
• The case of Saso v.
• </c> actually does the title of course does actually does the title of course does say<00:34:02.440><
• I completely agree that the Sao v.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Does it count? Do you guys know of that?
• That is Williams v. Lee from 1959. Williams v.
• And so Dorgan v.
• And prior to California v. Cabazon, there's a hunting and fishing case, which is New Mexico v.
• Does I clarify?

Committee: Joint Tribal and State Relations Committee

Summary: The committee met at Spirit Lake Tribe and heard an extended discussion with Spirit Lake tribal leaders and program directors about government-to-government relations with the state. Chairwoman Street and others outlined a number of concerns and requests, including taxation of tribal and trust lands, state school support for non-beneficiary students, homelessness services, Indian-managed health care, gaming/e-tabs, the Feather Alert system, industrial farming near waterways, tourism and cultural issues, and the need for more consistent tribal consultation. Committee members responded that many of these issues had previously been passed along without direct action, and several members emphasized the committee’s role in education, communication, and preparing possible legislation or resolutions for the next session. Tribal representatives also offered to provide training on treaties, IHS 638, and compact services to help legislators better understand tribal jurisdiction and billing issues. A major portion of the meeting focused on Spirit Lake Fish and Wildlife concerns, especially jurisdictional “gray areas” around hunting and fishing on the reservation, recognition of tribal licenses, and the boundary of the reservation around Spirit Lake/Devils Lake. Tribal officials said they wanted a co-stewardship agreement or MOU with the state to clarify jurisdiction, improve cooperation, and address invasive species and aquatic nuisance species. Committee members discussed whether to draft legislation or a resolution directing the executive branch and state agencies to negotiate such an agreement, and they asked for further input from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department at a future meeting. The committee also discussed county involvement in land status changes and trust land issues, with Spirit Lake leaders describing a past Benson County resolution that tried to block fee-to-trust transfers and saying it was later rescinded. The committee then heard from Benson County tax equalization director Randy Thompson, who explained how the county values land and handles tax-exempt, inundated, and fee-to-trust parcels. Members asked about the impact of tax-exempt lands on county services and discussed prior legislation that helped counties with large tax-exempt bases. The committee also received a presentation from Dr. Steven Smith of Sisseton Wahpeton College, who described the college’s programs, economic impact, and funding needs, including support for non-beneficiary students and workforce training. Members asked about expanding tribal college education into correctional settings, and Smith said the idea was worth exploring through the tribal college system. Finally, HHS interim medical services director Christoph Framing presented remotely on 1115 Medicaid waivers and the IMD exclusion, explaining current state funding mechanisms for inpatient and residential behavioral health services and the bill draft directing HHS to pursue a waiver for IMD payments.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 1962, Baker v. Carr. In 1964, Reynolds v. Sims. In 1964, Wesberry v. Sanders.
• In 1986... ...In 1986, Thornburg v. Gingles. In 1993, Shaw v. Reno. In 1995, Miller v. Johnson.
• In 2004, Davis v. Bandemer. In 2008, Vieth v. Jubelirer. ...In 2013, Shelby County v. Holder.
• In 2017, Cooper v. Harris. In 2019, Rucho v. Common Cause. Mr.
• And if it does, then I'll consider filing.

Transcript Highlights:

• John Doe.
• John Doe. I'm a doctor in My name is Dr. John Doe.
• John Doe.
• John Doe. conversation. Sincerely, Dr. John Doe.
• </c> out on your own does create problems. out on your own does create problems.

Committee: Joint Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Where does this issue really lie?
• It does not block it, does not require, and or say shall not. It simply says prioritize.
• This amendment does not prevent them from doing so.
• And this does change it.
• The other case that was mentioned was Barber Lumber v. Gifford.

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:06:59.480><c> Harvard</c> Admission v. Harvard Admission v.
• Why does this bill not apply to them?
• Why does this colleges and universities.
• Like it does go to clear about that.
• ,</c><00:12:51.360><c> but</c> not know this, our committee does, but not know this, our committee does

Transcript Highlights:

• In 1969, the Supreme Court case Tinker v.
• Here's what the bill does and what has been learned.
• The bill does not allow for unlimited speech.
• And then there's the copy editor that does the edits.
• And New Voices does protect that.

Committee: House Elementary and Secondary Education

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2710, which would revise school accountability report cards. The sponsor and members described a committee substitute that clarified the report card’s purpose, added an appeal process and changed deadlines, set the top decile of schools as the highest rating, addressed the 95% participation issue with an asterisk-style disclosure, shifted the Show Me Success funding language toward growth-based criteria, clarified growth-to-proficiency language, added agricultural industry reporting, and removed an anonymous survey section and a changing-target provision. After discussion about how letter-grade cutoffs would be set and whether the bill captured enough information about school quality, the committee adopted an amendment changing “growth to proficiency” to “growth relative to grade level” and exempting special school districts or state-operated schools serving only students with disabilities. The substitute was adopted and the committee voted the bill do pass by 16 ayes and 6 noes. The committee then considered House Bill 2872, a literacy bill. The sponsor explained that the substitute kept the four approved screeners, retained the commission, and softened the three-cueing language so science of reading remains the primary approach while allowing teachers some flexibility. Members discussed retention and possible future exceptions, including parental consent and reading plans, but those changes were not yet drafted. The substitute was adopted and the bill passed the committee 20-0, with two present. Next, the committee heard House Bill 2120 and House Bill 1698 together under a combined substitute addressing bullying and related reporting requirements. The substitute removed language on second-degree harassment, added a title reference to Sawyer’s Law, modified reporting procedures to require notice by the end of the school day or the next school day if the incident occurs on a weekend, and clarified investigation and liability protections for teachers. The substitute was adopted and the combined bill passed unanimously. The committee then moved out of executive session and heard House Bill 2335, which would let districts and administrators reduce repetitive annual teacher trainings by using a rotation after a teacher’s first three years. The sponsor and several witnesses from school administrator and teacher groups supported the bill as a time-saving retention measure, while a student witness raised concerns about ensuring continued training on mental health emergencies. Testimony then began on House Bill 2918, the Cronkite New Voices Act, which would expand student journalism rights at public schools and public colleges. The sponsor, a Hazelwood plaintiff, student journalists, an advisor, a law professor, and free-speech advocates testified in support, arguing the bill would protect student speech while preserving limits for libel, obscenity, privacy, and disruption; no opposing testimony was presented before the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• This proposed legislation does two things. This proposed legislation does two things.
• The second thing that this bill does is liberate our schools from needless reporting.
• The second thing that this bill does is liberate our schools from needless reporting.
• Does everybody else have it in their OneDrive? Yeah, there might be a glitch, Mr. Chairman.
• So if they wanted to discuss the Hecox v.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• The Missouri v.
• Indeed, it does the opposite.
• What does it mean?
• And the last point I'll make is, because Murthy v. Missouri and Missouri v.
• He has used it to stifle views he does not like.

Committee: Senate Constitution Subcommittee

Keywords: censorship, First Amendment, social media, misinformation, free speech, government regulation, Big Tech, public discourse

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on the implications of government involvement in censorship, particularly regarding social media platforms and compliance with misinformation standards. senators and witnesses discussed growing concerns over the influence of large tech companies, like Facebook and Google, in shaping public discourse and suppressing dissenting views. A significant part of the meeting included testimonies from various experts emphasizing the dangers of the 'censorship industrial complex'—a term used to describe the collaborative efforts between government entities and private organizations to control information flow. This collaboration is viewed as a violation of First Amendment rights, with calls for urgent legislative action to restore free speech protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, what does changed substantially.
• So, what the bill does is the state.
• One of those statues is the children from Brown v. Board.
• One of those statues is the children from Brown v. Board.
• So, does this mean your this score."

Transcript Highlights:

• If anyone doesn't register and does want to speak, we will have that open opportunity.
• In 2013, in Shelby County v.
• In 2021, in Brnovich v.
• Calais decision. ...in Section 2 of the Federal VRA in its Louisiana v.
• Yeah, the direct question is: does the Department of Elections agree with that scenario?

Bills: HB344

Committee: Senate Elections & Government Affairs

Summary: The Senate Elections and Government Affairs Committee heard several election- and campaign-related bills. House Substitute 2 for House Bill 155 would make Public Integrity Commission reports publicly available on the commission’s website, add a specific travel-expense reporting category, and remove the FOIA requirement for accessing reports; Senator Richardson said he supported the transparency measure and asked to be added as a co-sponsor. The committee also took up House Bill 444, the Delaware John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would create state protections against voter suppression and vote dilution, expand language access, prohibit intimidation and deception, and allow court remedies for violations. The bill drew strong support from advocacy groups including YWCA Delaware, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, and the Legal Defense Fund, and several senators voiced support and interest in moving it quickly. House Bill 430, a constitutional amendment proposal, would make explicit that only natural persons may vote in Delaware elections, including municipal elections, in response to concerns about corporate or other artificial-entity voting in some towns. The discussion focused heavily on Fenwick Island, where the mayor testified that the town’s charter has long allowed certain artificial entities to vote in local elections and said the system is limited and has worked for years; other speakers argued the bill was needed to prevent corporate dilution of residents’ votes. Senator Richardson expressed concern about restricting entities with a local stake, while Senator Hoffner and others emphasized the principle of one person, one vote. Senator Townsend presented House Bill 344, which would tighten campaign finance rules by requiring Delaware bank accounts for candidates and committees, recurring training, better documentation of candidate loans, longer record retention, automatic filing extensions, and inactive status for noncompliant committees; one public commenter opposed the bill on cost grounds. He also presented House Bill 448, which would allow campaign funds to be used for reasonable security expenses for candidates and elected officials, with guardrails, and a commenter suggested allowing electronic security systems without a cap. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 472, a local de-annexation measure for Noble’s Pond in Cheswold to remove scattered residential lots from town boundaries and resolve uneven tax treatment; Senator Hoffner noted local law enforcement supported the change. The committee adjourned after hearing no further public comment on HB 472, and the vote to adjourn was unanimous.

Transcript Highlights:

• A life V is an effective alternative to dying.
• There was not a life V in school to even attempt to save him.
• when there is no other options a life V is<00:04:48.520><c> an</c><00:04:48.720><c> effective</c><00:
• It's noninvasive, which means it does not enter the body.
• like comes with non-powered and it does like comes with a<00:07:59.080><c> pediatri</c><00:07:59.720

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 44, also called Landon’s Law, which would allow schools to keep anti-choking devices such as LifeVac and remove liability concerns for schools that have them. Representative Candy Massaroni and other supporters said the bill is intended to provide an added rescue option in choking emergencies, especially for children and students with disabilities, and cited concerns that there are no current procedures to rescue some individuals who use wheelchairs or have disabilities. Testifiers from Equal First Aid and Life Act described the device as noninvasive, non-powered, and available with adult and pediatric masks, saying it works by creating suction to dislodge an object from the airway. They also referenced American Heart Association, CDC, and Red Cross guidance in support of broader availability. Lauren McCubbin, Landon McCubbin’s mother, gave emotional testimony about her son’s life and death, saying he choked on a bouncy ball at Boston Elementary on November 21, 2022 and died despite the presence of a nurse and firefighters. She said the bill is meant to ensure no other family has to experience a similar loss and argued that a LifeVac device might have given her son a chance. Committee members asked for clarification about what the device is and why paramedics did not have it, and the bill’s supporters explained that it is a simple suction device and that some emergency services are only beginning to adopt it. After the testimony, a motion and second were made on the bill. The committee then moved into questions and discussion about the device’s function, FDA registration, and use in schools, but no final vote or other action was stated in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> even more critical and coercion does even more critical and coercion does happen.<00:32:38.559><
• </c> the details of informed consent uh does the details of informed consent uh does not<00:46:01.599
• Policy does not mean practice.
• In fact, when Roe v.
• In fact, when Roe v.

Bills: HB0117 , HB0126

Committee: House Labor, Health & Social Services

Transcript Highlights:

• The Supreme Court's prior opinion in LULAC v. Perry from 2006, and its decision in Georgia v.
• Other cases that have been relisted and re-argued include Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v.
• It does the same thing here.
• This map does both.
• This map does both.

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> No other state in the union does that. No other state in the union does that.
• That was further clarified in State v. Baker. State v.
• And then how serious does the threat have to be before you need to retreat? That'd be State v.
• That's State v. Shippey. It's repeated in 1884 in State v. Sorensen and again in 1905 in State v.
• That's State v. Shippey. It's repeated in 1884 in State v. Sorensen and again in 1905 in State v.

Summary: The committee heard Chair Bliss present HF 13, a bill to change Minnesota self-defense law so that a person using reasonable force in resisting an offense against the person would not be required to consider retreat. Bliss tied the proposal to a recent Minnesota Supreme Court case involving a man at a light rail station and argued the court had effectively created a duty to retreat that the legislature had never enacted. He said the bill would codify the right to stand one’s ground while still leaving reasonableness to judges and juries. Supporters Bryan Gosh of the NRA and Rob Door of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus testified that Minnesota’s duty-to-retreat rules are confusing, judicially created, and out of step with other states. They argued the bill would clarify self-defense law and protect people who defend themselves or others, citing examples from other states and a Texas church shooting to argue that a retreat requirement can endanger victims and bystanders. Opponents Maggie Emery of Protect Minnesota, Sarah Erickson of Giffords, and Don Einwalter of Moms Demand Action argued the bill would function as a “shoot-first” law, increase homicides, worsen racial disparities, and make communities and law enforcement less safe. They cited studies linking stand-your-ground laws to higher homicide rates and pointed to incidents in Florida and Minnesota involving firearms and children. The committee also took up two amendments. Representative Hollins offered an amendment on safe and secure firearm storage, saying it was intended to reduce child access to guns and suicides; she requested a roll call. Chair Bliss opposed it, saying current law already covers negligent storage and that the amendment was too broad, including for a rural constituent who keeps a shotgun by his door. Representative Hudson and Representative Pinto argued over whether current law is sufficient and whether the amendment would remove needed flexibility. The transcript ends during discussion of the amendments, with no final vote or disposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bartz v. Anthropic was decided last year.
• So with the two cases, Coles v. Bonta and then the Babylon Bee v. Lopez.
• So if it mentions AI, does it come here? Does it go to those other committees?
• So if it mentions AI, does it come here? Does it go to those other committees?
• So would that be characterized by a polling place supervisor saying, 'What does this—how does this rule

Committees: House Artificial Intelligence & Innovation , House House Artificial Intelligence & Innovation Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• And does that, when you have more appeals, does that cost your agency extra?
• The original Arnold v.
• And that is what the 55-person cap at ASH does. The words bed don't occur in Arnold v. Sarn.
• Pursuant to the Arnold v.
• What does that type of treatment that unfortunately does happen? If it's day or night anymore.

Bills: SB1095 , SB1114 , SB1116 , SB1162 , SB1164 , SB1178 , SB1179 , SB1249 , SB1253 , SB1346 , SB1347 , SB1446 , SB1561 , SB1813

Committees: House Health & Human Services , House House Health & Human Services Committee of Reference

Keywords: gender transition, minors, irreversible surgery, health professionals, puberty-blocking drugs, medical procedures, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, behavioral health, patient brokering, appropriation, state funds, Maricopa County, claims review, medical necessity, American Indian health program, healthcare regulations, healthcare compliance, behavioral health technicians, licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• What does that mean? Is that bankruptcy?
• Distinguishing Blevins v. Hudson: The Commission relied on Blevins v.
• does not require dismissal.
• This claim does not seek appellate review of a court decision and does not ask the Commission to reverse
• Okay, so who—does this, does the state have the land?"

Committee: All ALC-CLAIMS REVIEW/LITIGATION REPORTS OVERSIGHT

Summary: The committee first reviewed litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing involving wage claims brought under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Members questioned the department’s authority, jurisdiction, use of attorney fees and costs, and whether defendants had to be licensed. The department explained it has long enforced wage and overtime laws, that the claims were small-dollar cases handled by investigators and counsel, and that one case had been paid and dismissed while others were unresolved or had service issues. The committee voted to review or batch-file the labor cases after discussion. The University of Arkansas System then reported three pending lawsuits: an age- and race-discrimination claim by a tenured professor that was resolved early; an ADA/FMLA retaliation claim by a former employee that survived in part on a motion to dismiss and was moving into discovery; and a Section 1983 claim against a UAMS sergeant arising from a parking-ticket dispute, with the university explaining that only punitive damages could create personal exposure for the officer. The committee reviewed each report and voted to accept them. The Department of Finance and Administration presented a proposed tax settlement reducing a sales-and-use tax assessment from about $48,000 to $20,000 and waiving interest and penalties, which the committee approved for review. The Claims Commission then presented several claims: an unpaid salary differential for a Department of Health employee, reissued warrants, unpaid DHS bills, and multiple negotiated settlements involving ATRS, UAMS, Arkansas State Police, and ARDOT. Members approved or affirmed most of these items, including a $65,000 settlement in the Tetronics/ATRS matter, a $150,000 medical-negligence settlement, and several vehicle-accident settlements. The most extended debate involved a tax-delinquent property sale claim by Sharon Greer and relatives. The claimant argued they were not properly notified and sought the $4,200 excess from the 2009 sale. Land Commissioner counsel explained the excess had escheated to the county after the statutory claim period expired, while members debated sovereign immunity, standing, heirs, and whether the committee could or should award money anyway. The committee ultimately chose to hold the matter over for further review in a future joint session rather than decide it immediately. The committee also heard appeals from dismissed claims, including a UAMS medical-negligence claim, a land-sale notice claim, a pothole claim against ARDOT, and a judicial-immunity claim against the Court of Appeals; most dismissals were affirmed, and the Simpson matter was held over for additional review after the claimant testified.