Transcript Highlights:

• They're celebrating 100 years in racing. They're racing. It's thriving area, Tampa Bay Downs.
• So if that organization down South wants to continue race, they can continue race.
• I've racing one year later, Pompano Park run its last race, taking the state standard bred racing and
• A century-old racing circuit.
• to maintain racing days.

Transcript Highlights:

• We try to be race conscious without having race predominate. There are problems with that.
• region for a particular race.
• For the race neutrality theory, no, sir. For the race neutrality theory, no, sir.
• Also, I've been hearing today race-neutral, race-neutral, race-neutral.
• Also, I've been hearing today race-neutral, race-neutral, race-neutral.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So how do we— Except for race?
• It’s not leaning on race at all. So we’re not, when you talk about...” “Race.
• by race.
• by race.
• It leaned too heavily upon race, right? It was gerrymandered upon race, it appeared.

Bills: SR122, SR123, SR124, SCR12, HB940, HB221, HCR109, HCR58, HB27, HB143, HB205, HB259, HB267, HB288, HB308, HB403, HB405, HB414, HB417, HB478, HB546, HB548, HB555, HB557, HB609, HB670, HB672, HB740, HB779, HB786, HB796, HB812, HB848, HB909, HB915, HB917, HB921, HB930, HB933, HB938, HB971, HB1095, HB1096, HB1103, HB1129, HB1154, HB1166, HB1187, HB1195, HB1230, SB121, SCR22, SCR24, SB29, SB30, SB32, SB41, SB42, SB43, SB47, SB84, SB93, SB113, SB192, SB199, SB219, SB220, SB221, SB222, SB241, SB253, SB255, SB289, SB292, SB306, SB314, SB351, SB399, SB404, SB14, SB102, SB133, SB151, SB165, SB169, SB170, SB200, SB217, SB280, SB291, SB300, SB303, SB330, SB449, SB489, SB521, SB45, SB156, SB181, SB203, SB274, SB304, SB379, SB396, SB410, SB425, SB427, SB436, SB424, SCR61, SCR9, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, HCR31, HB296, HB299, HB322, HB364, HB519, HB535, HB538, HB568, HB571, HB622, HB635, HB676, HB772, HB784, HB1006, HB1018, HB1043, HB1070, HB1134, HB1239, HB62, HB193, HB203, HB210, HB220, HB228, HB246, HB420, HB475, HB486, HB574, HB584, HB750, HB813, HB815, HB826, HB870, HB949, HB953, HB1045, HB1092, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1177, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB22, HB28, HB33, HB41, HB47, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB195, HB214, HB217, HB233, HB283, HB290, HB319, HB324, HB345, HB362, HB363, HB368, HB377, HB380, HB382, HB386, HB392, HB406, HB431, HB441, HB466, HB503, HB533, HB559, HB575, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB636, HB655, HB664, HB685, HB692, HB707, HB715, HB732, HB738, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB807, HB822, HB856, HB860, HB868, HB887, HB888, HB905, HB908, HB961, HB980, HB990, HB992, HB999, HB1000, HB1010, HB1146, HB1157, HB1233, HB1236, HB1243, HB17, HB36, HB73, HB119, HB126, HB129, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB211, HB226, HB245, HB271, HB280, HB337, HB351, HB354, HB399, HB677, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB728, HB759, HB789, HB844, HB850, HB966, HB1036, SB149, SB382, SB441, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782

Keywords: SR122, Senate Resolution 122, Metairie Park Country Day School, Country Day Cajuns, Cajuns basketball, LHSAA, Louisiana High School Athletic Association, Division III Select, boys basketball, state championship, high school sports, athletic commendation, sports resolution, Lake Charles, Marsh Madness, Mike McGuire, Brennan White, Kellen Brewer, Calvary Baptist Academy, school recognition

Transcript Highlights:

• We try to be race conscious without having race predominate. There are problems with that.
• region for a particular race.
• So more of a race-based map than necessarily one to address population? A race-neutral map?
• For the race neutrality theory, no, sir. For the race neutrality theory, no, sir.
• Also, I've been hearing today: race-neutral, race-neutral, race-neutral.

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:

• And are they doing racing as well?
• Statutorily, we need to race 40 days a year. We race 200.
• race.
• I would hope and pray, and I love the horse racing industry.
• race.

Summary: The subcommittee first heard presentations on protecting minors from age-restricted products from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Attorney General’s office. DBPR described its Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco division’s licensing and enforcement work on alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, and hemp sales, including inspections, undercover underage-purchase operations, arrests, and coordination with the Attorney General on hemp and nicotine enforcement. Members asked about trends in youth use, retailer training, use of underage decoys in investigations, and whether additional education or penalties could help reduce sales to minors. The Attorney General’s office then outlined the new nicotine dispensing device directory created under last year’s law, explaining the criteria for listing devices attractive to minors, the notice process for manufacturers and retailers, and enforcement consequences once listed devices become contraband. Members discussed online sales, product descriptions, notice to industry, and whether more outreach to parents, schools, and local partners could help. The committee then took up House Bill 105, which would decouple thoroughbred pari-mutuel permit holders from the requirement to conduct live racing in order to operate card rooms/slot gaming. The bill sponsor said the measure would align thoroughbred permits with other live-event permits and argued the industry is already declining and heavily subsidized, so the Legislature should not force a private business to keep an unprofitable line of business. An amendment by Rep. Yeager was adopted to remove live-racing requirements for thoroughbred permit holders who are card room licensees, broadening the bill’s effect to include Tampa Bay Downs as well as Gulfstream Park. Public testimony was sharply divided: supporters said decoupling would give tracks flexibility and not end racing, while opponents from the thoroughbred breeding and racing industry warned it would undermine live racing, breeding, jobs, farmland, and the broader equine economy. After debate, several members spoke in favor of the bill, emphasizing business flexibility, declining foal counts, and the view that the state should not require a private industry to maintain racing to keep gaming rights. Opponents argued the bill could damage a signature Florida industry and its economic impact. The committee then voted 10-6 to report HB 105 favorably, with several members voting no and some excused. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We try to be race conscious without having race predominate. There are problems with that.
• region for a particular race.
• For the race neutrality theory, no, sir. For the race neutrality theory, no, sir.
• Also, I've been hearing today, race-neutral, race-neutral, race-neutral.
• I'm not here to pull a race card. And it's unfortunate. I'm not here to pull a race card.

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:

• set, this race set, and this race set.
• In this case, three races. It selects three races at random.
• racing was $3.5 million. racing was $3.5 million.
• <02:21:33.120> going racing to keep live horse racing going racing to keep live horse racing
• instate race or an outofstate race. instate race or an outofstate race.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• seven county fairs with harness racing seven county fairs with harness racing that<00:04:00.319>
• Um, racing extensions over the years.
• We have 13 race wagering to our menu.
• , If we focus on historical horse racing, If we focus on historical horse racing, the<00:18:06.880
• maybe just a a race uh uh in the race maybe just a a race uh uh in the race division,<00:46:32.319

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from its August 21 meeting and then received an update from Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation leadership on implementation of Senate Bill 299 and House Bill 566. Jamie Eids and staff described the agency’s new structure after charitable gaming was brought under the corporation, including new divisions, staffing, banking, payroll, insurance, procurement, and reporting systems. They also unveiled the corporation’s new logo and tagline, and said the transition had been designed to avoid interruption for charities, licensees, and racing operations. A major focus was the fee structure required by House Bill 566. Eids outlined current licensing fees across racing, sports wagering, and charitable gaming, compared Kentucky’s fees with other states, and recommended keeping the status quo for one more year because the agency has only recently brought all three components fully in-house. Members asked about whether charitable gaming had harmed veterans’ groups or other nonprofits, whether any revenue should be transferred back to the state, and whether the charitable gaming licenses cover one-off raffles as well as standing operations. Eids said she had not heard complaints, said the licenses include all such activity with some exemptions, and agreed to look at the question of future transfers. The committee then heard from Melissa Combs Wright on pari-mutuel wagering and Hannah Sims on sports wagering. They reported continued growth in historical horse racing, more than $11 billion in total pari-mutuel wagering in fiscal year 2025, over $10.5 billion in HHR wagers, and about $161 million in pari-mutuel tax revenue, with most of that supporting the general fund and horse-breeding development funds. They also said sports wagering has generated nearly $5 billion in wagers since launch, $73 million for the public pension fund, and more than $2 million for problem gambling services, while expanding to 13 retail locations and 92 additional sports events. Members raised concerns about players being cut off after winning, the lack of local government revenue sharing from gaming facilities, and the growth of computer-assisted wagering; the witnesses said they were reviewing CAWs and that Kentucky does not license poker rooms through the corporation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're trying to be race conscious without letting race predominate.
• we draw the line between being race conscious but not race predominant.
• for us to be race conscious.
• Now, I drew this map using race-neutral practices, meaning I did not consider race.
• Race neutral? Try race neutralized, perhaps. The map effectively neutralizes minority voters.

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting met to consider HB 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts using the governor’s proposed map, EOG PCRP 26. Representative Persons-Mulicka briefly introduced the bill, and Jason Jazeel and Jason Pareda of the governor’s office presented the legal rationale and map details. Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is not prohibited, that the governor’s position is to draw districts without considering race, and that federal equal-protection principles should control over state race-based redistricting provisions. Pareda said he drew the map alone using 2020 census data and census blocks, while also considering population growth estimates, traditional redistricting criteria, and county/city boundaries where feasible. Pareda described the map as race-neutral and said it keeps 48 counties whole, 382 cities whole, and has a boundary-analysis score of about 85.7%. He walked through regional changes, including major revisions in South Florida, adjustments in Central Florida, and changes in the Tampa Bay area, explaining that population shifts and the need for exact congressional population equality drove many of the district configurations. Members questioned the timing of the special session, the use of 2020 census data versus newer population estimates, the role of the legislature versus the governor, the legal basis for mid-decade redistricting, and whether the map complies with the Voting Rights Act and Fair Districts amendments. Motions to place witnesses under oath and to extend the committee meeting by 30 minutes both failed. During public testimony, every speaker who was heard opposed the map. Commenters argued that the proposal was a partisan power grab, would reduce Democratic and minority representation, and violated the Florida Constitution and voting rights protections. Several speakers criticized the short notice and lack of public input, while others said the map would confuse voters or split communities. The chair repeatedly reminded attendees to maintain decorum and limited each speaker to about one minute.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Racing Commission was established in 1949 to regulate and supervise horse racing and wagering in
• and the racing industry.
• In horse racing, the racing team has strengthened licensing and suitability reviews by incorporating
• Especially given our racing seasons currently, where racing only occurs from November through May in
• Yes, the Racing Commission.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the Arizona Auditor General’s sunset review of the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found some strengths, including timely licensing and complaint resolution in the sample reviewed and rules that matched statutory curriculum requirements, but it also identified a major finding that the board had imposed inconsistent discipline for similar violations and lacked documentation for deviations from its disciplinary guidelines. Other issues included missing reciprocity education requirements, weak application quality control, incomplete school and establishment oversight, and compliance concerns involving open meeting law, public records, and conflicts of interest. The report made 25 recommendations total, including two tied to the disciplinary finding and three suggested statutory changes on esthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and eyelash technician training. The board’s executive director said the board agreed with the findings, had already implemented several recommendations, updated disciplinary policies and conflict-of-interest procedures, and was working on legislation and rule changes. After questions about enforcement consistency, licensing verification, cash handling, complaint volume, and conflict disclosures, the committee voted 7-0 to recommend the board be continued for six years, until July 1, 2032. The committee then took up the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Arizona Racing Commission, and the Arizona Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission together. The Auditor General reported that the department correctly distributed more than $158 million in tribal contributions in fiscal year 2024 and issued event wagering licenses to reviewed applicants, but found several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audit reports for event wagering and fantasy sports operators, did not fully comply with conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements, and lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes. The review also found delays in distributing Compact Trust Fund payments to some tribes, gaps in IT security and horse-racing license checks, and incomplete fee-setting and public-records practices. The report made 36 recommendations to the department, six to the Racing Commission, and 13 to the Boxing and MMA Commission, and all three entities said they agreed and would implement them. In response, the Department of Gaming director said the agency was already making changes, including a historical look-back on operator audits, updated guidance to operators, a new constituent services unit and complaint-tracking process, and improved conflict-of-interest training and forms. She also explained the Compact Trust Fund dispute, saying the department administers the fund but the beneficiary tribes must agree on the revenue baseline formula, which has been complicated by COVID-era closures; no Category Three distributions had yet been made. Committee members asked about possible revenue losses, penalties, and the status of 2024-2025 audits, as well as prediction markets and whether they are legal under Arizona’s event wagering framework. The director said the department had issued cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed prediction-market operators, would review licensed operators for suitability if needed, and would continue to enforce Arizona law. The transcript ends while questioning on prediction markets is still underway, before any vote on the gaming-related reviews is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• of race whatsoever.
• They claimed that they drew it in a race-neutral way and that race was not considered in any way.
• And the second reason why we're here is to make sure that the districts are all race neutral. race neutral
• or race-neutral districts.
• They ask you your race.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Racing Commission.
• That's a decision the Racing Commission will make, and when it comes to the horse racing side of it,
• They start pre-race examinations because we went from pre-race examining 20 to 30 percent of our horses
• that are entered to race on any given race day to only pre-race examining them at the rate of 20 to
• And we figured our regulation costs about $7,000 to $7,100 per race day. That's just per race day.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• horse racing.
• dealt uh inter interstate horse racing. dealt uh inter interstate horse racing.
• horse races.
• uh historic racing machines, post race uh historic racing machines, post race uh HHRs.
• else in that race in that race.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on SB 60, which would expressly authorize advanced deposit wagering for horse racing in New Hampshire and set the online tax rate at 1.25%, matching the existing rate for in-person horse betting at Seabrook and Belmont. Senator Tim Lang said the bill is intended to clarify that online horse betting is permitted, regulate the activity, and create a revenue stream while keeping the tax rate consistent with brick-and-mortar wagering. Members asked about the rate compared with other states, whether the bill was really about casino front money, and whether geofencing would apply; Lang and later witnesses said the bill is narrowly limited to parimutuel horse racing and would use geofencing to keep wagering within New Hampshire. Peter Bragdon, speaking for Churchill Downs, supported the bill and described advanced deposit wagering as remote betting on horse races under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978. He said Churchill Downs and other operators have long been active in New Hampshire, but the state’s lack of a specific statute has created a gray area. Bragdon said Churchill Downs stopped its own New Hampshire online operations in 2022 after discussions with the Lottery Commission and attorney general, while competitors continued operating, and he framed the bill as a fairness and consumer-protection measure that would clarify the law going forward. He also said the bill would not affect historic horse racing machines and would not create cannibalization of charitable gaming. Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre said the Lottery Commission and attorney general had identified the issue as similar to the earlier fantasy sports situation, where legislation was used to regulate an activity rather than pursue enforcement. He said the commission requested the bill, would serve as the regulator, and would address violations through rulemaking and penalties. McIntyre said operators would maintain customer and transaction records, with the commission reviewing them as needed, and he noted that three operators are currently active in the state and not paying the proposed 1.25% rate. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's to align the thoroughbred racing industry with all.
• Gulfstream or first racing married the horses. To get casinos.
• We are much more than just racing horses.
• I'm a lover of the race. I've been involved in the racing industry for the better part of a decade.
• No one's talking about stopping racing.

Transcript Highlights:

• account of race whatsoever.
• They claimed that they drew it in a race-neutral way and that race was not considered in any way.
• And the second reason why we're here is to make sure that the districts are all race neutral. race neutral
• or race-neutral districts.
• They ask you your race.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• account of race whatsoever.
• They claimed that they drew it in a race-neutral way and that race was not considered in any way.
• And the second reason why we're here is to make sure that the districts are all race neutral. race neutral
• or race-neutral districts.
• I keep hearing us say a lot about race.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• no account of race whatsoever.
• They claimed that they drew it in a race-neutral way and that race was not considered in any way.
• or race-neutral districts.
• They ask you your race.
• I keep hearing us say a lot about race.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• account of race whatsoever.
• They claimed that they drew it in a race-neutral way and that race was not considered in any way.
• or race-neutral districts.
• They ask you your race.
• I keep hearing us say a lot about race.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• account of race whatsoever.
• They claimed that they drew it in a race-neutral way and that race was not considered in any way.
• or race-neutral districts.
• They ask you your race.
• I keep hearing us say a lot about race.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's called *Place Not Race*.
• It's called *Place Not Race*.
• It's called *Place Not Race*.
• It's called *Place Not Race*.
• It's called *Place Not Race*.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Postsecondary Education met to consider House Bill 4, relating to postsecondary education. Before taking up the bill, the committee adopted a committee substitute. The substitute removed language creating a private right of action and immunity provisions, added a definition of “indoctrinate,” revised language tied to the Attorney General, and added a new section directing the Auditor of Public Accounts to review compliance every four years. If an institution is found out of compliance, it would have 180 days to cure the issue or become ineligible for formula funding increases in the following fiscal year, with an opportunity to petition the Attorney General. The substitute also added language barring licensing authorities from requiring diversity, equity, and inclusion training as a condition of initial or renewal licensure. Representative Decker presented the bill as an effort to end what she described as unconstitutional DEI practices in Kentucky’s postsecondary system and to refocus colleges on academic instruction, equal opportunity, and affordability. She argued that DEI offices and initiatives have cost taxpayers heavily and have not improved enrollment outcomes for low-income and underrepresented students. Michael Frasier, testifying in support, framed the bill as an equal-protection measure rather than simply an anti-DEI bill, saying it targets preferential treatment and discrimination while exempting traditional civil-rights compliance offices such as Title IX, disability, and other anti-discrimination functions. He also argued that the bill aligns with recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent and that Kentucky should shift toward socioeconomic-based approaches. Several members raised concerns about the bill’s assumptions and effects. Representative Willner questioned the claim that DEI initiatives caused enrollment declines and asked why the state would not make such programs more inclusive instead of eliminating them. Representative Stalker argued that the bill ignored decades of exclusion in higher education and asked what would replace DEI efforts aimed at closing achievement gaps and preventing brain drain. Supporters responded that the bill addresses unconstitutional preferences and that the state should move toward equal treatment and socioeconomic factors rather than race-based criteria. After discussion, the committee substitute was adopted, and the committee continued consideration of House Bill 4.