Transcript Highlights:

• We have both legal and operational concerns. Thank you.
• An opt-out of processing isn't the same as deletion.
• Processing is a defined term in the CCPA.
• You're legal? Yes, we are. You're legal? Yes, we are. Do you like to start with 1114 first? Hey.
• They believed in the process. They showed up.

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• Washington legalized recreational cannabis in 2012 with Initiative 502.
• The investigation process is like the inspection process that Ashley described earlier.
• And the inspection process is like the investigation process is like the inspection process that Ashley
• Processes and staffing. Amanda Adrick and Susanna Pratt.
• But we don't know the length of time for the whole process from... ...process works and to make adjustments

Summary: At the May 14, 2025 JLARC meeting, members approved the January 9 minutes and adopted the 2025–27 biennial work plan with a minor typo correction. Staff reviewed two new work plan studies: a drug takeback program fee-setting and expenditures review due in December 2025, and a state energy performance standard compliance review due in June 2027. Staff also summarized recent JLARC session activity, noting six committee presentations and five bills enacted related to JLARC work or recommendations. The committee then heard a preliminary cannabis market study. JLARC staff reported that Washington businesses likely produced two to three times more cannabis than retailers sold in 2023, but that incomplete and unreliable Liquor and Cannabis Board data limits regulation, tax verification, and diversion tracking. Staff recommended that LCB submit a plan by the end of 2025 describing what resources and funding would be needed to collect accurate data by the end of 2026. Members and agency representatives discussed the 2031 timeline for a new tracking system, data quality problems, and the social equity program; LCB said it is evaluating vendor options and will provide more information on its plan. JLARC also presented a preliminary report on Department of Health oversight of hospital data reporting, inspections, and complaints. Staff concluded DOH is late on many hospital inspections, does not verify third-party inspection standards, does not review adverse health event correction plans, and could make hospital data more accessible. The report included five recommendations to DOH and one to the Legislature. DOH said it would work with JLARC on a strategic management plan and acknowledged the need for improvements. The committee next reviewed a preliminary report on the public records survivor exemption, concluding the exemption is being used but needs clearer guidance. JLARC recommended keeping the exemption and having the Attorney General provide additional implementation guidance. Members then approved a proposed final report on Developmental Disabilities Administration processes and staffing; DDA concurred with the recommendations and described steps it has already taken on metrics, data quality, and workforce planning. Finally, JLARC introduced proposed study questions for its upcoming review of DCYF juvenile rehabilitation programs, focusing on safety and security, access to services, staffing, education, and comparisons to best practices. No votes were taken on the preliminary reports, and the meeting adjourned after the study question presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Legally when indeed they are not. They cannot prove through MVD that they are here legally.
• But what is your process when somebody comes in? Mr.
• I also know that if you cannot provide legal documents, legal ID to the federal government, they will
• And so if you have a legal green card, then you do have ID.
• You know, ADOT kind of manages the process, and there's one sole source, essentially, for this process

Summary: The committee heard several transportation-related appropriation and policy bills. SB 1273 would appropriate $14 million in FY2027 for pavement rehabilitation of Olga Frontage Road between Bowie and San Simon; after brief discussion about the road’s length and whether it was on a rural transportation priority list, the bill was reported out 3-2 with a do pass recommendation. SB 1452 would create a cargo theft task force in the Attorney General’s office, modeled on the retail theft task force, with reporting and investigative duties; Tony Bradley of the Arizona Trucking Association testified in support, describing cargo theft as a growing, sophisticated problem and noting the funding would come from the consumer fraud protection fund rather than the general fund. The committee adopted an amendment making the task force subject to appropriations and then passed the bill 5-0. The committee also considered SB 1332, which would require the Auditor General and an independent transportation research entity to study Maricopa County light rail expansion and compare it with other transit technologies. Senator Kavanaugh argued the study was needed before committing billions more to light rail and said the governor’s office was open to the concept. Supporters, including local business owners, said the study would provide needed transparency and reflect concerns about business impacts and changing transportation options. Opponents, including Valley Metro, the City of Phoenix, and transit advocates, argued the state should not second-guess locally approved transit plans and pointed to existing studies, ridership, and economic development along light rail corridors. The bill passed 4-3. SB 1059 appropriates $9.2 million for an additional right-turn lane at State Route 87 and State Route 260, and Senator Wendy Rogers used the hearing to describe several rural road projects she and Representative Blackman were pursuing, emphasizing safety, congestion, and local requests from mayors and councils. Members broadly supported the need for rural infrastructure, and the bill was reported out unanimously. The committee then took up SB 1209, which would exempt homeless individuals and others without a residence address from non-operating ID fees if they prove U.S. citizenship. Testimony from the Homeless ID Project and ADOT focused on how IDs help people obtain work and services, how citizenship and authorized presence are verified, and whether the amendment would create operational or fiscal issues; the discussion continued as the transcript ended, with no final vote shown for that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• by the terms of a legal contract?
• Of a legal contract.
• Legal costs. Now, we know here in New Jersey, we love us. for legal costs, right? Legal costs.
• a long process to get to and build a budget. ...a long process to get to and build a budget.
• The budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seth will speak more to how this process... ...across the agency.
• Okay, so we have a couple of slides here about the CEM benchmarking process.
• And we expect, as Marcus mentioned, we're in the process of getting the new report.
• And it's a constant process of making sure your technology is staying modern.
• There's legal fees involved in executing the merger to make sure it's all done. legal fees involved in

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved the September minutes and then received a presentation from DRS staff on the FY 2024 CEM benchmarking survey. DRS described its administrative costs, service levels, and technology modernization efforts, noting that its overall service was just below peer averages but had recovered since COVID, and that major projects such as the CorePAM system replacement are a significant driver of costs. Committee members and DRS emphasized that the benchmarking is meant to compare administrative efficiency, not the total cost of benefits, and DRS said the CorePAM project is expected to finish around September 2027. The committee then continued its LEOFF 1 study discussion with staff, the Office of the State Actuary, the Attorney General’s office, Ice Miller, and the State Investment Board. The discussion focused on two legislative approaches: a merger of LEOFF 1, PERS 1, and TRS 1 into a Legacy Plan (5085) and a terminate-and-restate approach for LEOFF 1 (2034). Testimony explained that both approaches could satisfy federal tax requirements if the IRS issues a favorable determination letter and private letter ruling after enactment, and that the merger is viewed as the more conservative option. Witnesses said the exclusive benefit rule prevents surplus assets from being used for non-benefit purposes, but allows them to support benefits and reasonable administrative costs for plan members and beneficiaries. Questions from members centered on whether the IRS would require plan funding above 100 percent, how overfunding could be managed, the effect of prior legislation such as ESSB 5357, and the costs and timing of IRS filings; staff and counsel said the IRS process can take a year or more and recommended waiting for approval before implementation. The committee also adopted preliminary 2026 meeting dates. During public comment, several speakers supported the merger bill because it would permanently eliminate the current LEOFF 1 employer surcharge and provide a permanent COLA for retirees, while others urged caution about creating additional pension burdens for state and local governments. One commenter asked the committee to study climate change as a systemic risk to pension investments, and another requested an ad hoc COLA for Plan 1 retirees in 2026. The meeting ended with no action on the LEOFF 1 study beyond discussion and with the meeting calendar approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• to legally purchase a gun.
• Why does being married make this illegal act legal?
• Instead, it funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars into the legal process.
• The legal immigration process and protections that were once in place for immigrants who have come forward
• and denied their due process.

Committee: House Public Safety

Summary: The committee heard several public safety measures. SB 704 by Senator Arreguín would require firearm barrels to be purchased through licensed dealers with a background check, as part of efforts to curb ghost guns. Supporters, including Brady Campaign and the California Police Chiefs Association, said barrels are a key unregulated component used in ghost guns; opponents argued the bill would burden lawful gun owners and would not meaningfully stop criminals. The bill was held for a later vote because the committee did not yet have a quorum when it was heard. SB 258 by Senator Wahab would remove the remaining spousal rape exception for victims unable to consent because of disability. Support came from prosecutors, sheriffs, and disability service organizations, while disability rights groups and public defender organizations opposed or sought amendments, warning the bill could worsen misunderstandings about consent for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. After extensive testimony, the committee voted 7-0 to pass SB 258 to Appropriations. Senator Umberg presented SB 27, which would make CARE Court more efficient and expand eligibility to some people with schizophrenia-like conditions and certain mood disorders with psychotic features, including some misdemeanor defendants found incompetent to stand trial. Supporters said it would improve treatment linkage and reduce jail cycling; opponents, including county behavioral health directors and many disability advocates, argued it could make CARE Court more coercive and expand a program they view as ineffective. The committee passed SB 27 on a 7-0 vote. The committee also heard SB 36, a price-gouging measure with a proposed search-warrant expansion, and SB 571, which increases penalties for impersonating emergency personnel and looting during disasters; SB 571 passed on a 4-0 vote, while SB 36 was held on call after mixed testimony and a vote. Later, SB 627 by Senator Wiener, which would restrict masking by law enforcement and federal agents with exceptions for safety and undercover work, drew strong support from immigrant-rights and civil liberties groups and strong opposition from police associations; the transcript ends during that hearing before any final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> continue to drive safely and legally. continue to drive safely and legally.
• This proposed PAC process offers no appeal process that considers those needs.
• appeal process uh pack process offers no appeal process uh that<00:35:31.200><c> considers</c><00:35
• </c><01:19:02.800><c> process</c><01:19:03.199><c> and</c> we spent years on process process and we spent
• years on process process and more<01:19:03.600><c> process</c><01:19:04.000><c> lining</c><01:19:04.320

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> been able to handle legalizing been able to handle legalizing marijuana.<01:04:21.520><c> They</
• How many states are legalized? >> 24 states have legalized? Fully legal or relatively. Thank you.
• And if I legalization of cannabis.
• </c><01:20:26.640><c> believe</c><01:20:26.719><c> we</c> legalize cannabis, and I believe we legalize
• </c><01:24:21.679><c> So</c> milligrams but technically legal. So milligrams but technically legal.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• And how about the matter of illegal versus legal immigration?
• ...of illegal versus legal immigration.
• ..between legal and illegal immigrants.
• We are a statewide legal services organization that provides direct legal services and representation
• How are they going through the process? I'm happy to start.

Summary: The Tribal Relations Committee held a work session on the Keep Washington Working Act, hearing first from the Office of the Attorney General, then the Office of the Governor, and finally advocates from the ACLU of Washington, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and One America. The Attorney General’s office described the 2019 bipartisan law as limiting state and local involvement in federal civil immigration enforcement, emphasizing minimal data collection, privacy protections, definitions in the statute, model policies for agencies, and the role of court orders and federal funding exceptions. Committee members asked about consistency in legal guidance, possible federal challenges, and whether the law has been litigated in Washington or elsewhere; the office said it has not been challenged in Washington and cited similar laws in other states that have been upheld or dismissed in litigation. The governor’s office said the administration is implementing the law across agencies through case-by-case review of data-sharing requests, coordination with the Attorney General and privacy officials, and a new executive order creating an immigration sub-cabinet to improve agency coordination and community input. Officials said the state will continue to protect immigrant communities, avoid using state resources for civil immigration enforcement, and comply with federal funding requirements where necessary, citing Medicaid and other programs as examples. They also discussed recent court rulings in Washington that blocked federal grant conditions tied to immigration enforcement and said agencies are being trained to review data privacy and sharing practices. Advocates argued that Keep Washington Working is grounded in anti-commandeering principles and is meant to ensure state resources are used for state purposes, not federal immigration enforcement. They said the law helps immigrant communities trust police, schools, and public services, but warned that data sharing and aggressive federal enforcement are eroding that trust and harming families. The panelists described cases involving alleged unlawful local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, family separation, detention, and due process concerns, and suggested possible improvements such as stronger enforcement mechanisms, a private right of action, and broader limits on data sharing. No votes or formal actions were taken; the committee closed the hearing after members thanked the presenters and invited follow-up on implementation issues and potential legislative changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and if there are problems with that process, we will proposals through the AB-927 process.
• And so, to your point about that process, there's a lot to be said about that process.
• There's a lot to be said about that process.
• The 927 process in general.
• Legally work on campus.

Committee: House Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• So you are a legal entity as well.
• So you are a legal entity as well.
• So you are a legal entity as well.
• So you are a legal entity as well.
• What was the process for reappointment? We had to go through the whole hiring process again.

Committee: House Public Safety

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety met on January 31, 2025, and first heard House Bill 1062, a housekeeping measure relating to the Hawaii Air National Guard. Testimony in support came from representatives of the Adjutant General and other National Guard witnesses. A member raised a technical question about language allowing the Guard to hold the rank authorized by the Department of the Air Force, and the response was that the bill should not require additional HR language; no vote was taken. The committee then heard House Bill 674, which would authorize allowances for TRICARE dental and vision coverage for Hawaii National Guard personnel ordered to active duty for more than 30 days. The Department of Defense supported the bill through Brigadier General Ross, Director of Joint Staff, and Terry Heiti also testified in support. There were no questions or action taken on the measure. House Bill 652, relating to veterans’ rights and benefits and regulating compensation for advice or assistance on veterans’ benefits, drew the most discussion. The Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of Hawaii supported the bill, arguing it would protect veterans from illegal or exploitative practices and noting its own service to more than 2,000 veterans in fiscal year 2024. Opposition came from the National Association for Veterans Rights and Veteran Benefits Guide, which argued the bill would restrict access to needed services and that some for-profit providers operate legally and should not be barred. Committee members questioned the scope of the bill, accreditation requirements, and whether nonprofit or pro bono services would be affected. A Department of Defense veteran services official said veterans can be vulnerable to exploitation and that some legal fee arrangements can be abusive, while also noting pro bono options exist. The committee did not reach a decision on the bill during the excerpt. The committee also began hearing House Bill 1058, which would create a veteran cemetery board within the Office of Veteran Services to help state veteran cemeteries comply with federal standards. The Office of Veteran Services and Terry Heiti testified in support. Members asked about the board’s membership, timeline, and consultant selection, and were told the working group was still in an organizational stage and no construction timeline had been set. The final measure discussed was House Bill 503, which would appropriate funds for a consultant to evaluate locations and designs for a Hawaii First Responders Memorial. The Department of Accounting and General Services supported the bill, and testimony in support was received from county and city officials, UPW Hawaii, and individuals. Members asked about the working group, timeline, and budget, and were told the project was still in early planning; no final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a legal process that was involved in this at the secretary's level, the Finance and Administration
• There's a legal go through the process.
• There's a legal process<00:20:21.919><c> that</c><00:20:22.080><c> was</c><00:20:22.240><c> involved<
• process, if Open Fiber disagrees with that, they have legal rights over at the Franklin Circuit Court
• Fiber</c> we've so the legal process if Open Fiber we've so the legal process if Open Fiber disagrees

Summary: The meeting began with routine business, including welcoming new committee member Senator Reginald Thomas, approving the minutes, and receiving a correspondence report on several information items. Those items included University of Kentucky research equipment funding, UK capital project funding using federal/private funds, debt issues from McGoffin County and Owen County school districts, lease modifications by the Division of Real Properties, asset preservation project revisions at Eastern Kentucky University and Northern Kentucky University, and Kentucky Communications Network Authority (KCNA) information on Kentucky Wired critical infrastructure. The main discussion focused on a dispute over the Kentucky Wired communication shelters, or “huts,” and related payments under KCNA’s agreement with Asellicom/Excel. Brad Kilby of Asellicom testified that KCNA had not paid for the huts, that Asellicom had not received the alleged $8 million or any later payment, and that Asellicom remained the legal owner. Committee members pressed him on whether payment had been received, whether anyone else might have received it, and whether the lawsuit or dispute resolution process clarified the issue. Kilby said no payment had been received and that the matter was part of ongoing litigation. KCNA Executive Director Doug Hendricks and General Counsel Adam Atkins then testified. They said a certified check for $8.5 million was mailed in July, based on the Finance and Administration Cabinet secretary’s determination that $8.5 million was due under the model procurement code, even though KCNA had initially requested about $12 million to cover a worst-case estimate. They said the contract allowed payment in full or in tranches, that the huts were completed and operational, and that KCNA had not received documentation supporting Asellicom’s higher $10.1 million claim. Members expressed frustration over the missing check and the broader implications for Kentucky Wired, and one member requested that the committee obtain all agency requests related to KCNA/Kentucky Wired since inception; the co-chairs said they would look into making that information available. No formal vote was taken on the dispute during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this bill... ...processes, it's very difficult to get them served.
• Good faith actually doesn't have a legal definition in this arena.
• But it's legally inconsistent. It's legally infirm. You're taking away the gatekeeping.
• But it's legally inconsistent, it's legally infirm.
• People have to have faith in the process, and what we've done to put teeth in this and form and process

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum present, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and heard several member introductions and recognitions, including awareness resolutions and visiting groups in the galleries. The chamber then moved to special order bills. Senate Bill 88 on utility terrain vehicles passed 32-5 after debate over allowing local governments to opt in to street use of UTVs under safety restrictions; Senator Smith opposed it over safety concerns. Senate Bill 102 on exceptional student education passed 36-0, creating a workforce credential/badge program for students with autism or on modified curricula; supporters emphasized employment opportunities and safety training, while Senator Davis raised concerns about added costs to school districts. Senate Bill 106 on exploitation of vulnerable adults passed 37-0, allowing alternative service on scammers through the same apps used to contact victims. Senate Bill 130 on compensation for victims of wrongful incarceration passed 38-0, extending filing deadlines and removing restrictive barriers; supporters called it a long-overdue justice fix. Senate Bill 158 on diagnostic and supplemental breast examinations passed 38-0, eliminating cost sharing for follow-up breast tests in the state employee health plan to encourage early detection. The most contentious measure was Senate Bill 234 on criminal offenses against law enforcement officers. The bill sought to clarify that violent resistance to officers is not justified by claims about the legality of the detention and to add manslaughter of a law enforcement officer to offenses carrying life imprisonment without release. An amendment by Senator Jones to restore “in good faith” language failed, after debate centered on due process, racial profiling, and the role of juries and suppression motions. Several senators spoke in support of law enforcement but objected to the bill’s breadth and mandatory life penalty; Senator Leek ultimately postponed the bill temporarily rather than taking a final vote. Senate Bill 262 on trust code technical changes passed 36-0. Senate Bill 274 designating roads for Harris Rosen and Geraldine Thompson passed 38-0, followed by a successful co-sponsorship motion and remarks honoring Thompson’s legacy. Senate Bill 280 on candidate qualification passed 38-0, creating an enforcement mechanism for party-affiliation filing requirements. Senate Bill 296 on middle and high school start times passed 38-0, repealing the statewide start-time mandate and shifting implementation decisions to local districts while requiring public reporting and discussion. Senate Bill 356 designating January 27 as Holocaust Remembrance Day also passed unanimously, with senators emphasizing remembrance, anti-Semitism, and the educational value of the memorial and observance.

Transcript Highlights:

• That process can be time consuming. It's oftentimes financially burdensome.
• Members, in closing, the eviction process is inherently lengthy.
• Um, the current legal remedies to deal with a person trespassing on private property with the purpose
• It's important to state legal occupation for NRHC is not a political issue, and it's not an issue of
• Rather, a legal occupation is about criminal activity.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill basically creates a process where we pretty significantly need process.
• It standardizes that process for filing complaints.
• This bill isn't about data systems or legal framework.
• That's legally solid and well within the state's authority. Thank you.
• That's legally solid and well within the state's authority.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills related to open meeting law, municipal meetings, town meetings, and remote participation. Senator Rausch supported S. 2205 and S. 2206, and House companion H. 3382, saying they would make remote participation in public bodies permanent and streamline open meeting law and public records complaint processes to reduce burdens on local officials. Committee members and the senator discussed concerns about complaints being weaponized, the role of the Attorney General, and whether public testimony should be presumed allowed unless a chair limits it with justification. The senator said the bills do not change public records fees and are meant to improve process and transparency. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 3342 and S. 2197, which would modernize municipal meetings, town meetings, and local elections by allowing permanent remote or hybrid participation. Supporters included Wayland officials, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller, MAPC, MACC, and others, who argued that hybrid and remote options increase participation, help parents, caregivers, people with disabilities, and residents with travel or work constraints, and have worked well during the pandemic-era extensions. Municipal officials emphasized that a mandate would be costly and difficult for smaller communities because of staffing, technology, room design, cybersecurity, and uneven internet access, especially in western Massachusetts. Committee members asked about equal access, funding, and whether local discretion should remain; the chair said the committee wants a permanent solution beyond emergency rules but must balance access with local capacity. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3328, which would allow remote participation to count toward quorum for statewide appointed bodies such as commissions on women and LGBTQ issues. Supporters argued this would improve regional equity and make it easier for people outside Greater Boston to serve, while committee members noted it is a separate issue from municipal meetings and may be easier to address than broader local-government changes. Another bill, H. 4351, was supported by Rep. Brandy Fluker Reed, who described it as creating an Office of Freedmen Affairs to address longstanding racial wealth disparities affecting descendants of enslaved Americans. The hearing also included testimony on H. 3299 from Common Cause and MASSPIRG in favor of guaranteed hybrid access for public meetings with public participation components, with advocates saying it would improve transparency, accessibility, and civic engagement.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> counsel or other designated legal counsel or other designated legal representation. representation
• We are asking for a legal warrant and a legal reason for them to be on school property.
• </c> are asking for a a legal are asking for a a legal uh<00:23:27.800><c> warrant</c><00:23:28.640><
• </c> designated legal representative. designated legal representative.
• . process. process.

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> in the mission statement is uh legal in the mission statement is uh legal precedence<00:05:30.520
• </c> bit so the absentee voting process bit so the absentee voting process is<00:25:31.799><c> is</c>
• I would echo that process.
• That's the process.
• That govern the voting process.

Committee: House Election Law

Transcript Highlights:

• requiring a form, a board, and an approval process, and how that process informs the witness's thoughts
• requiring a form, a board, and an approval process, and how that process informs the witness's thoughts
• He explained that if the question is about legal questions, there is a process in the constitution for
• He explained that there is a process in the constitution for the legislature to send a legal question
• He explained that there is a process in the constitution for the legislature to send a legal question

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 232, which would protect health care workers’ conscience rights in connection with certain procedures, especially abortion and sterilization, and also referenced contraception. The prime sponsor, Rep. Mark Pearson, said the bill is meant to prevent medical professionals from being forced to participate in procedures that violate their beliefs, while still prohibiting discrimination against patients based on protected characteristics. He said the measure was intended to help retain health care workers in New Hampshire and noted he had added an amendment to address concerns about people taking jobs only to later refuse duties, as well as emergency situations where a provider is the only one available. Committee members raised concerns about how broadly the bill and amendment were written. Questions focused on whether the protections could apply to non-physician staff such as schedulers, receptionists, or pharmacy employees; whether a provider could refuse to schedule, refer, or otherwise assist with services; and how “emergency” would be determined in practice. Several members also questioned whether the bill could affect access to contraception, including pharmacy sales and procedures such as tubal ligation, and whether the language was clear enough to prevent confusion or unintended refusals of care. Pearson said the bill was not intended to allow refusal of emergency care or general patient discrimination, and he acknowledged some language could be tweaked. Rep. Paige Boerman, a maternal-child health nurse, testified in opposition, saying she had seen pharmacists question prescriptions related to miscarriage care and that the bill could create barriers to contraception and other reproductive health services. She warned that the lack of a disclosure requirement and the broad definitions could create risks, especially in rural areas with limited providers. She also pointed to problems she said had occurred in other states, arguing the bill could lead to delayed care in emergencies. The hearing ended after questions and discussion; no vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the legal standard of good faith?
• And then somewhere in that process.
• And then somewhere in that process.
• And then somewhere in that process.
• Generally, the purpose of insurance is to have coverage, legal.

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• For the record, Travis Fink, North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents.
• For the record, Travis Fink, North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents.
• Obviously, alcohol is legal once you're 21 years of age. Marijuana would still be illegal.
• I don't hear from all law enforcement, so their process, they don't take a vote.
• process on the side of law enforcement, correct?

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened with a hearing on HB 1596, which would change low-level marijuana and THC possession and paraphernalia offenses into non-criminal citations or infractions, with fines and court procedures varying by amount and age. The bill’s sponsor said it was intended to reduce burdens on law enforcement, prosecutors, indigent defense, and the courts, while still deterring possession; testimony from the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents supported the bill but suggested an amendment to keep those under 21 in infraction status rather than non-criminal citation status, to align more closely with alcohol laws. Committee members questioned whether the bill was based on weight rather than potency, how it would affect criminal records, and whether the proposed amendment would treat 20-year-olds with marijuana similarly to 20-year-olds with alcohol. Opposition came from the Chiefs of Police Association, Ward County Sheriff’s Department, and the Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ Association, which argued the bill would decriminalize a Schedule I substance and move North Dakota toward legalization contrary to voter decisions. They also said existing local plea practices already reduce workload and that the bill would still leave law enforcement with evidence handling and reporting duties. After debate, the committee adopted a do not pass recommendation on HB 1596 by a 5-2 vote. The committee then took up HB 1416, a gaming-related bill involving charitable gaming and the ability to conduct multiple gaming activities at a site. Members discussed concerns about rural facilities, local flexibility, and whether the bill was necessary given that gaming activities can be paused or covered during another event. Senator Myrdal moved a do not pass recommendation, which passed on a 5-2 vote. The committee then adjourned until the next morning, with two bills still pending for later consideration.