Transcript Highlights:

• Sealing of criminal records, that entire section was removed.

Committee: Senate Fiscal Policy

Summary: The committee took up a series of criminal justice, health, and public safety bills, with several measures reported favorably after brief sponsor presentations and mostly no opposition. CS for SB 1782 on dangerous excessive speeding, CS for SB 306 on Medicaid provider network access, CS for SB 716 on mandatory minimums for certain sexual offenses by registered offenders, CS for SB 1084 on intimate image dissemination and digitally forged images, and CS for CS for SB 1604 on corrections-related litigation and sentencing changes all passed the committee. Members also approved CS for SB 1838, which increases protections for court officials from tampering, harassment, and retaliation, and CS for SB 1252, which directs FDLE to study a statewide pawn data database. CS for SB 468 on fleeing or eluding, CS for SB 490 on off-duty concealed carry for certain officers, and CS for SB 890 on blood clot screening and treatment also received favorable votes, with SB 890 drawing supportive testimony from the bill sponsor, medical and patient advocates, and family members affected by blood clots. The most extensive debate centered on CS for CS for SB 1804, which would create a capital offense for adults trafficking children under 12 or mentally incapacitated persons for sexual exploitation. Senator Martin defended the bill as a response to especially heinous crimes and argued it fit within constitutional punishment principles, while several members raised concerns about the Eighth Amendment, the risk of lengthy and costly litigation, and the possibility of retraumatizing victims. The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified in opposition, citing moral objections, due process concerns, and constitutional precedent; the bill nevertheless was reported favorably. The committee also approved CS for CS for SB 572, the “Pam Rock Act,” which tightens dangerous-dog rules, adds enclosure, microchip, insurance, and penalty requirements, and allows stronger enforcement actions after serious attacks. The Rock family and animal control supporters testified in favor, describing the bill as a response to fatal dog attacks and urging stronger accountability for owners. For SB 572, members discussed insurance requirements, the role of local authorities in classifying dangerous dogs, and whether the bill would affect ordinary pet insurance or only liability coverage after a serious attack. The sponsor said the measure is not breed-specific and is aimed at dogs that have already caused significant harm. The committee also heard testimony from family members of Pam Rock and other victims, along with supporters from animal control and sheriff’s offices. All of the bills taken up in the meeting that were voted on were reported favorably, and no roll-call votes failed.

Transcript Highlights:

• 350,000 affidavits printed on specialty cardstock paper with both black and red ink and the state seal

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• To ensure that the public, private, and sealed data remains secure and reliable as cybercrime becomes

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:

• way it is, what's happening right now, especially in the veteran community, especially in the Navy SEAL
• especially</c><03:20:20.880><c> in</c><03:20:21.040><c> the</c><03:20:21.120><c> Navy</c><03:20:21.439><c> Seal
• </c> community, especially in the Navy Seal community, especially in the Navy Seal veteran<03:20:22.080

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 1651, which would create a civil sexual assault protective order for survivors who do not have a domestic violence or stalking relationship with the offender, and would also update the sexual assault survivors’ bill of rights regarding evidence kit retention and tracking. Representative Jennifer Rhodes, the sponsor, said the bill is intended to fill gaps for survivors assaulted by strangers, acquaintances, or others outside existing protective-order categories, and to ensure evidence is preserved for the longer of the statute of limitations or the retention period. Committee members asked whether the new order could be misused and how the bill would prevent frivolous petitions; the sponsor said the same legal process would apply and a victim would still have to prove they were actually assaulted. Representative Eileen Kelly and Lynn Shallet of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence testified in support, saying current law leaves many sexual assault survivors without a meaningful civil remedy unless they qualify for domestic violence or stalking relief. Shallet said the gap has existed for decades and noted that other states already have standalone sexual assault protective orders. She also said the bill would clarify survivors’ rights to know the status and location of their evidence kits. Shauna Foster of New Beginnings Without Violence and Abuse described local cases where survivors were denied protective orders because they lacked the required relationship with the offender, including a co-worker assault and an assault involving an unhoused survivor. Lisa Curtis, a survivor and founder of Safe Haven Ballet, gave emotional testimony in support, describing her own sexual assault and the difficulty of seeking protection and justice. She said survivors need safety to recover and that the bill would better align the justice system with trauma-informed support. Janet Carroll, a sexual assault nurse examiner and advisory board co-chair, testified that the bill’s evidence-kit provisions reflect federal changes and existing tracking practices. She explained that New Hampshire uses a kit tracking system that lets patients and professionals follow kits through the process, and said the bill would codify the right to be informed of a kit’s status and location. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• own state universities for financial reasons, but I had talked to them about this, and this kind of sealed
• </c><01:24:05.040><c> this</c><01:24:05.280><c> kind</c><01:24:05.520><c> of</c><01:24:05.760><c> sealed
• </c><01:24:06.080><c> the</c><01:24:06.320><c> deal</c> this and this kind of sealed the deal this and
• this kind of sealed the deal for<01:24:06.639><c> them.

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Bills: HB4553 , HJR105 , HJR106 , HJR104 , HR539 , HR672

Keywords: energy, water development, appropriations, fiscal year 2026, flood control, infrastructure, Bureau of Land Management, North Dakota, resource management plan, congression disapproval, public lands policy, HJR106, H.J.Res. 106, Congressional Review Act, CRA, BLM, Central Yukon, Alaska, public lands, land management

Bills: HB2240 , HB2255

Keywords: law enforcement, police, officer safety, officer wellness, violent attacks, ambush attacks, assaults on police, anti-police violence, public safety, Department of Justice, Attorney General, FBI, National Institute of Justice, Uniform Crime Reporting, UCR, NIBRS, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Data Collection, LEOKA, bulletproof vests, Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership

Transcript Highlights:

• So that was probably the one that really kind of sealed it.
• was probably the one that really<01:20:54.320><c> kind</c><01:20:54.440><c> of</c><01:20:54.679><c> sealed
• but</c><01:20:56.000><c> um</c><01:20:57.000><c> you</c><01:20:57.120><c> know</c> really kind of sealed
• it but um you know really kind of sealed it but um you know I'm<01:20:57.520><c> more</c><01:20:57.760

Committee: House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs

Summary: The House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs heard testimony on House Bill 606, as amended, a bill aimed at preventing physicians from denying medically necessary sterilizing or fertility-affecting treatment based on a patient’s age, number of children, marital status, or a doctor’s speculation about future reproductive intentions. Representative Ellen Reed, the sponsor, described the bill as a response to her own long experience with PCOS, heavy bleeding, and repeated refusals by doctors to perform a hysterectomy despite her clear wishes. She said the amendment narrows the bill to medically necessary care, adds definitions for “medical condition” and “appropriate reproductive care,” and removes earlier provisions about voluntary sterilization referrals. She also said the bill does not target religious objections, and that doctors could still refuse for medical, payment, or existing religious reasons not addressed by the bill. Committee members asked about religious freedom, informed consent versus waivers, and the scope of the new definitions. Reed responded that religion was not added to the list of prohibited reasons for denial, and that the amendment is intended to protect doctors when patients sign informed consent or waivers. She explained that “appropriate reproductive care” includes procedures such as hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, salpingectomy, and endometrial ablation, and that the bill now focuses on medically necessary treatment rather than elective sterilization. She said the change was intended to make the proposal narrower and more tailored after earlier concerns. Several witnesses supported the bill with personal accounts of being denied hysterectomies or other procedures despite serious symptoms. Representative Lauren Selig described a decade-long effort to obtain a hysterectomy after years of cycle problems and migraines, saying doctors dismissed her concerns and treated her symptoms as normal. Jade Flad also testified in support, saying she had long been told to simply endure her cycle problems and noted that her husband was offered a vasectomy without similar barriers. The sponsor said online support was strong and that there was little or no written opposition testimony. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was probably the one that really kind of sealed it, but I’m more concerned about the ability of
• was probably the one that really<01:20:54.320><c> kind</c><01:20:54.440><c> of</c><01:20:54.679><c> sealed
• but</c><01:20:56.000><c> um</c><01:20:57.000><c> you</c><01:20:57.120><c> know</c> really kind of sealed
• it but um you know really kind of sealed it but um you know I'm<01:20:57.520><c> more</c><01:20:57.760

Committee: House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• , needing to say something bad about somebody so they could stay within the rules and go ahead and seal
• and</c><04:21:27.159><c> go</c><04:21:27.319><c> ahead</c><04:21:27.520><c> and</c><04:21:27.640><c> seal
• </c><04:21:28.040><c> those</c> non-public and go ahead and seal those non-public and go ahead and seal

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened its hearing with a procedural discussion about a forthcoming Monday hearing, and the chair confirmed that any amendment deemed non-germane would be made public in advance and included in the calendar. The committee then took up House Bill 6, which would replace the word “citizen” in the Right-to-Know law with “any person,” allow requesters to specify the format of records, and expressly reference preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or majority of a public body as disclosable material. The sponsor said the bill was intended to clarify existing law, remove uncertainty after a Rochester-related dispute over requester eligibility, and make records easier to obtain electronically unless doing so would be impossible, unusual, unduly burdensome, or harmful to recordkeeping integrity. Testimony was mixed. Cordell Johnston, speaking for himself as a municipal attorney, opposed most of the bill, especially the requirement that records be delivered electronically or by mail, arguing that out-of-state or out-of-country requests can be fishing expeditions that impose significant burdens on towns and clerks. He said local residents already can obtain records at town hall and that many municipalities voluntarily email records as a courtesy, but should not be required to mail large volumes of material. He also said the preliminary-draft language was unnecessary because such drafts are already covered when circulated to a quorum or majority. Representative Alexander raised concerns about the breadth of “any person,” potential abuse by bad actors, and the cost to municipalities, while Representative Peternell asked about whether the bill should account for nonresident property owners and business owners. The sponsor responded that limiting requesters by residency would not meaningfully stop abuse and said he did not know the bill’s fiscal impact, though he suggested it might improve efficiency. Yil Biset of the ACLU of New Hampshire testified in support of HB 6, calling it a modest and reasonable transparency measure. He said the preliminary-draft language was acceptable and consistent with existing exemption language in the public-meeting and documents statutes, and he said he was not aware of foreign-bot document requests occurring in New Hampshire. He also noted that current law already requires electronic disclosure when records exist electronically and can reasonably be provided that way. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• > dis and as the discussion wore on, I dis and as the discussion wore on, I could<00:41:47.200><c> seal
• feel</c><00:41:47.920><c> myself</c><00:41:48.400><c> getting</c><00:41:48.800><c> angry</c> could seal
• feel myself getting angry could seal feel myself getting angry that<00:41:49.920><c> this</c><00:41:

Transcript Highlights:

• 02.960><c> a</c> intrinsic efficacy. uh this results in a intrinsic efficacy. uh this results in a sealing
• 03.680><c> on</c><02:22:03.920><c> opioid-</c><02:22:04.479><c> like</c><02:22:04.720><c> outcomes</c> sealing
• effect on opioid- like outcomes sealing effect on opioid- like outcomes and<02:22:05.680><c> significantly

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• do contributions for mitigation purposes, for like an enhancement, say some kind of a put the town seal
• do contributions for mitigation purposes, for like an enhancement, say some kind of a put the town seal

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• All my legal documents were changed in Vermont, and they were sealed under a court order.
• And they were sealed under a court order.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• They're through a seal labor.

Summary: The committee opened by adopting its mission and priorities for reviewing Kentucky’s 1915(c) home- and community-based services waiver wait lists, including evaluating current capacity and bottlenecks, comparing other states’ practices, and considering a tiered priority system based on urgency of need. The chair also announced that, although public comment was not on the agenda, the committee would allow 30 minutes for comments and asked speakers to keep remarks brief. He noted that public comment would not continue in the smaller subcommittees after this meeting, but could still be made at the larger MOAB meetings or by email. Department for Medicaid Services officials Leslie Hoffman and Carmen Hancock then gave a detailed overview of Kentucky’s waiver programs: the acquired brain injury waiver, ABI long-term care waiver, home and community-based waiver, Model 2, Michelle P. waiver, Supports for Community Living waiver, and the newly approved child waiver. They explained each program’s eligibility and level-of-care requirements, described funded, filled, allocated, reserved, and available slots, and said the state had already added new slots from House Bill 500. They emphasized that available slots can coexist with a wait list because of reserved slots for money-follows-the-person transitions, emergency slots, annual slot churn, and waiver-year reconciliation. They also reported that the unduplicated wait list total was 18,948, and gave current wait-time figures by waiver, noting that the numbers change constantly. Members asked about how level-of-care determinations are made, whether all people on the wait list have been assessed, and whether undocumented individuals appear in the counts. The department said full level-of-care assessments are done only when a person is moving off the wait list into a reserved slot, and that only Medicaid-eligible individuals can reach the wait list. Senators and representatives also pressed on the meaning of “churn,” why slots cannot be reissued immediately when someone leaves, and whether people who receive even a small amount of service keep their slot for the rest of the waiver year under CMS rules. Officials said that once a participant receives service during the waiver year, the slot generally cannot be reassigned until the next waiver year, even if the person later disengages. The department also presented county distribution, annual member growth, average total cost per member, and total annual waiver expenditures, saying fiscal year 2025 closed at about $1.8 billion in waiver services. In response to questions, officials said they would provide additional churn data for other waivers, including Michelle P., and would look into the average wait-time calculations requested by members. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the youth is successful, that youth's record is sealed.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several public safety bills, with most of the discussion focused on AB 1650, AB 2014, AB 1886, AB 2126, AB 2624, and AB 2257. AB 1650 would require clearer identification on privately owned vehicles rented or leased to government agencies for enforcement operations; supporters framed it as a transparency and safety measure in response to ICE activity, while no opposition testified. AB 2014 would allow post-conviction habeas relief where gender bias or stereotypes were used at trial and may have affected the outcome; supporters described cases involving sexist and anti-LGBTQ stereotypes, while the California District Attorneys Association opposed the bill as overbroad and likely to restrict relevant evidence, though the author said recent amendments removed the evidence-code provisions and left only the habeas remedy. AB 1886 would extend a 12-month probation presumption to youth in out-of-home placements and those discharged from secure youth treatment facilities; youth advocates supported it as a fairness and rehabilitation measure, while judges, probation officials, and district attorneys opposed it as undoing a recent compromise and limiting individualized decisions. AB 2126 would speed hiring of peer partners in child welfare by creating a narrow exemption process for certain foster-youth-related offenses; it drew broad support and no opposition. AB 2624 would expand the Safe at Home address-confidentiality program to immigrant service providers, employees, and volunteers; supporters cited threats, doxing, and harassment, while one journalist opposed it over possible effects on reporting, and the author and committee members said the bill preserves press protections and is narrowly aimed at threats and harassment. AB 2257 would restore county authority to create a separate corrections department to run jails instead of the sheriff; supporters argued it would improve accountability and address jail deaths and fiscal problems, while sheriffs opposed it as unnecessary and said sheriffs are already subject to oversight. The committee also noted several bills pulled by their authors and adopted a consent calendar of unrelated measures. Votes were not always taken immediately because the committee was waiting for a quorum, but AB 2624 was moved on a do-pass-as-amended motion to Appropriations and left on call, and the chair indicated support or favorable recommendations on several of the other measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• because I still was incredibly frustrated, but I will concede that the kind of emergency well-control, sealing

Summary: The committee heard several energy, water, and utility bills, with extensive testimony on cost, ratepayer impacts, and climate or reliability goals. SB 919 by Senator Grayson would extend the biomethane monetary incentive program through 2030 and support renewable natural gas development by reducing interconnection cost barriers. Supporters said RNG helps methane reduction and organic waste diversion, while opponents, including TURN and environmental groups, argued the bill could shift costs to ratepayers and subsidize combustion-based fuels, especially dairy digesters. The author said committee amendments removed the rate-basing provisions and instead urged the CPUC to act quickly on its pending decision; the bill was left for a later vote. SB 931 by Senator Laird would reauthorize the Diablo Canyon Community Impact Mitigation Program through 2030. Supporters said San Luis Obispo County and local schools rely on the funding for emergency preparedness and public safety, while TURN argued the extension would add about $47 million in statewide ratepayer costs and should instead be paid from existing PG&E deal revenues. Members discussed the bill as a continuation of the 2022 Diablo Canyon agreement, and the author said the measure simply restores the five years omitted from that deal. The committee also heard SB 1215 by Senator Cortese, which would direct the CPUC to set deployment targets for EV charging in multifamily housing. Supporters said renters and apartment residents are largely shut out of home charging, and that prior utility programs showed the model can be cost-effective and beneficial to ratepayers. The bill was amended to address affordability, ratepayer benefits, and limits on major system upgrades. SB 1295 by Senator Stern would create a framework for using distributed batteries and other local resources to solve grid constraints more cheaply than traditional infrastructure. Supporters said it could improve reliability and reduce costs by targeting batteries where they provide the most grid value, while utilities said they were open to continued discussion. SB 1359, also by Senator Stern, would require the CPUC to more carefully evaluate major gas infrastructure investments and alternatives such as electrification before approving new spending. Environmental groups supported the bill as a guardrail against stranded assets, while gas utilities opposed it, warning it could undermine the obligation to serve, create safety and reliability risks, and retroactively change the rules for approved investments. On water policy, SB 1125 by Senator Menjivar would create a statewide low-income water rate assistance program upon appropriation. Supporters said about 1.6 million households have water debt and that affordability is a statewide issue, not just a problem for disadvantaged communities. Some members raised concerns that the bill lacked a funding source and that state mandates, such as chromium-6 treatment requirements, already strain local water agencies; the author and supporters responded that the bill includes administrative caps and transparency measures and is intended to work alongside future funding. The committee then heard SB 1098 by Senator Pérez, which would restrict the use of utility memorandum and balancing accounts by requiring exceptional circumstances, adding sunset dates, and creating cost-sharing or lower-return rules for certain spending. TURN and other supporters said the accounts allow utilities to recover costs after the fact with too little discipline, while Edison and PG&E opposed the bill, arguing that some costs are unpredictable and that the CPUC already has a formal review process. SB 1125 was moved to Appropriations with a roll call, and the roll was left open for additional votes; the other measures were discussed with no final committee actions announced in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the youth is successful, that youth's record is sealed.

Committee: House Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• Will this bill seal all of those? I hope so in its place.

Committee: Senate Education Policy