Bills: SB27, SB30, SB293, HB4, HB2974, HB5138, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59

Keywords: judicial conduct, judges discipline, judicial compensation, retirement benefits, judicial transparency, SJR 50, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, securities tax, transaction tax, occupation tax, financial markets, broker-dealer, stock exchange, securities exchange, trading platform, clearing agency, transfer agent, FINRA

Transcript Highlights:

• NMSA 1978, being Laws 1993, Chapter 77, Section 31, as amended.
• These 21 amendments, all of them, the question was, I think, asked by my good colleague to These 21 amendments
• And now with these amendments, we're squared it up, and we can pass a compact— With these amendments,
• That was why I brought the amendment, Senator Gonzalez.
• I, I, was why I brought the amendment, Senator Gonzalez. I appreciate you taking that amendment.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Constitution.
• Constitution.
• Constitution.
• Constitution.
• Constitution.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Whether that should be part of the constitution or should the constitutional amendment pass be added
• Whether that should be part of the constitution or should the constitutional amendment pass be added
• because<03:12:52.640> I amendment to the constitution because I amendment to the constitution
• to do it as a constitutional amendment. to do it as a constitutional amendment.
• amendment<03:28:59.120> that Uh it's a constitutional amendment that Uh it's a constitutional

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And it does, in the bill, have built-in First Amendment protections.
• But I will tell you that if the bill gets to the floor, there'll be an amendment that's agreed to by
• Bonin has agreed to propose in a later session. floor amendment.
• amendment.
• Senate Bill 1539 relates to procedures in the context of an election on a proposed constitutional amendment

Bills: SB1960, SB1730, SB766, SB2342, SB2501, SB2903

Keywords: digital rights, replication, Voice likeness, visual likeness, private causes of action, fee structure, online service providers, postmortem rights, self-defense, stand your ground, castle doctrine, use of force, deadly force, civil immunity, civil liability, tort claims, attorney fees, court costs, lost income, Chapter 9 Penal Code

Transcript Highlights:

• Constitution.
• the amendment.
• The amendment is out of order. Read the next amendment.
• President: Show the amendment fails. Read the next amendment.
• We didn't add any additional oath because you have to go through a whole constitutional amendment process

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This constitutional amendment grants crime victims specific rights, including due process, fair treatment
• Any questions on the amendment? There's an amendment to the amendment, barcode 645826.
• Let's take up that amendment to the amendment. Thank you.
• Any questions on the amendment to the amendment? Appearance cards to speak on that amendment.
• Oh, was that the amendment? Was that the amendment? Yeah.

Summary: The committee heard and voted on a long series of criminal justice, public safety, victim protection, and regulatory bills. Several measures were reported favorably, including SB 1374 on school district reporting requirements, SB 1378 on restitution for leaving the scene of a crash, SB 1072 creating an expedited DNA testing grant program, SB 1140 establishing a Hillsborough County criminal offender substance abuse pilot program, SB 1266 revising public records protections for crime victims and certain law enforcement identities, SB 1546 delaying and refining background screening requirements for athletic coaches, SB 1430 on post-judgment execution proceedings related to terrorism victims, SB 1444 making a broad set of criminal justice changes, SB 240 on domestic and dating violence protections, SB 606 clarifying public lodging and food service removal procedures for nonpaying guests, SB 1450 giving law enforcement discretion in arrests involving people with significant medical conditions, SB 44 increasing penalties for impersonating law enforcement with unauthorized red or blue lights, SB 1000 expanding court-ordered sealing options, SB 1400 requiring platforms to remove altered sexual depictions, and SB 1696 addressing rideshare impersonation and transit service rules. Many of these bills were amended before final passage, often with strike-all amendments or technical changes, and several had support from law enforcement, advocacy groups, or industry representatives. Testimony was generally supportive on the public safety and victim-protection bills, with speakers emphasizing faster DNA testing, better protections for domestic violence survivors, clearer rules for hotel and motel operators, and stronger tools against fraud, impersonation, and trafficking. Some bills drew notable concerns or opposition. SB 1266 prompted questions about whether a 72-hour cooling-off period for officer identities could be extended too broadly, while SB 606 drew concerns that the bill could affect families living in hotels or extended stays during the housing affordability crisis. SB 1444 generated discussion about false reporting language, off-duty carry for prosecutors and judges, and the scope of automatic sealing changes. SB 1000’s expanded sealing relief received broad support but was narrowed by amendments excluding certain offenses such as DUI and indecent exposure. The most contentious measure was SB 1804, which would create a capital offense for trafficking a child under 12 or a mentally incapacitated person for sexual exploitation. The sponsor argued it targets the most severe trafficking cases and includes safeguards such as excluding minors from capital punishment and preserving life imprisonment if the capital procedure is invalidated. Opponents, including the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, argued the death penalty is unconstitutional for non-homicide crimes, costly, and ineffective, and committee members raised concerns about whether the bill would incentivize traffickers to kill victims to avoid identification. Debate also touched on broader concerns about the death penalty’s constitutionality and whether life imprisonment is a more severe punishment. The transcript ends during that debate, without a final vote on SB 1804 included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So maybe we can make an amendment to the amendment.
• So maybe we can make an amendment to the amendment.
• We're on the amendment.
• Are we talking about the amendment? We're talking about the amendment.
• The vote yes is for the amendment. A vote no is against the amendment. No.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Show the amendment to the amendment has failed. Please read the next amendment to the amendment.
• So the amendment to the amendment is withdrawn. Please read the next amendment to the amendment.
• Please read the next amendment to the amendment. Late-file amendment to the amendment, barcode...
• Amendment withdrawn. Please read the next amendment to the amendment.
• So that amendment to the amendment is not adopted. Read the next amendment to the amendment.

Summary: The Senate opened with a prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the reading of an amended joint proclamation expanding the Legislature’s immigration agenda. The proclamation added items calling for financial penalties for government officials, enhanced criminal penalties for offenses committed by illegal aliens, and programs and appropriations to support law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration law. The chamber then took up the special order calendar, beginning with Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2B, the immigration bill. Most of the meeting was devoted to debate and questions on the strike-all amendment to SB 2B. Sponsor Senator Gruters described the bill as a broad immigration enforcement package aligned with President Trump’s agenda. He said it would require greater cooperation with federal immigration authorities, strengthen participation in the 287(g) program, create a chief immigration officer and council, authorize financial penalties for noncompliance, provide bonuses for officers assisting ICE, and direct information-sharing with federal agencies. He also said the bill would bar DHSMV from issuing licenses or ID cards to unauthorized aliens and would end in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Senators Polsky, Pizzo, Smith, Jones, Berman, Osgood, and others questioned the scope of the bill, whether it would affect schools, churches, cities, nonprofits, and green-card holders, and how the 287(g) provisions would work in practice. Gruters repeatedly said the operational focus was on jails and detention facilities, not street-level enforcement. A major point of controversy was the bill’s proposed mandatory death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of certain capital offenses. Senator Fine said the covered crimes were the most serious capital felonies, including murder, child sexual battery, destructive-device offenses causing death, and certain trafficking offenses, and argued the provision was intended to withstand constitutional challenge. Senator Pizzo raised Eighth Amendment concerns and questioned whether the bill could mandate death sentences. The tuition waiver provisions also drew extended debate: Fine said the state would save about $41 million by ending discounted tuition for undocumented students, while Democrats argued the savings would not return to general revenue and that the policy would harm students who are already enrolled. Fine and Gruters said green-card holders would not be affected and that the bill targeted only students in the country illegally. The discussion also covered appropriations and implementation. Senator Smith asked about the bill’s large funding levels, and Fine broke down the spending as including $375 million for the chief immigration officer, $100 million in grants to local law enforcement, $29 million for the new Office of State Immigration Enforcement, and $10 million for an unauthorized-alien transport program. Gruters said the funds would reimburse local governments and help address staffing shortages, while critics questioned the lack of benchmarks and the fiscal impact. No final vote or disposition on the bill appears in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• right to vote that is protected by multiple amendments to the Constitution, multiple civil rights acts
• Shall provide to the watcher amendment amendment to that when they do it, give it to him right then.
• This bill is constitutional.
• The 24th Amendment was passed in 1964.
• Again, I would like to direct you to the United States Constitution, the 24th Amendment, the Uniformed

Transcript Highlights:

• This is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.
• To the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the department.
• Whether those restrictions are constitutional.
• Amendment.
• Which interprets the Constitution in a way that allows a federal district court judge to do this.

Keywords: John Eisenberg, assistant attorney general, national security, China Initiative, Department of Justice, judicial authority, executive actions, nomination hearing

Summary: The committee meeting primarily involved discussions around key nominations and pressing legal issues pertaining to the Department of Justice. Notable discussions included the nomination of John Eisenberg for assistant attorney general for national security, where concerns over the revival of the China Initiative were raised. Senators expressed significant apprehensions regarding previous actions taken under this initiative and its implications for national security. Additionally, there were critiques of the broader implications of executive actions that challenge judicial authority, aligning with ongoing dialogues about the integrity of the judiciary and executive oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, Senator Kruan had an excellent amendment that I think alleviated a lot of their concerns.
• Um, Senator Kruan had an excellent amendment that I think alleviated a lot of their concerns.
• <00:07:52.400> that particularly after the amendment that particularly after the amendment
• Maybe amendments that had gone on. Um, but again, I respect Senator Hoffman.
• constitutional problems with the constitutional problems with the legislative<00:18:00.320> branch

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• amendment.
• Constitutional amendments can only be adopted through approval of the voters.
• The ACA amendment does not make any direct changes to the calculation of the minimum guarantee.
• For me, what I'd like to know is: what is the current constitutional Gann limit for 2026-2027?
• Well, that’s governed by the Constitution.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight heard ACA 20, the Safe for California Futures Act, a constitutional amendment to strengthen the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (rainy day fund). The authors, Assembly Members Gabriel and Valencia, said the measure would raise the reserve cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, change how reserve deposits are treated under the Gann limit so deposits would not count against the spending cap until withdrawn, and update eligible debt repayments to include items such as budget loans, Proposition 98 settle-up obligations, and unemployment insurance debt. They emphasized that the proposal was intended to protect schools and core public services and to help California better withstand revenue volatility and future downturns. Committee discussion focused heavily on the technical effects of the measure, especially its interaction with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit. LAO and Department of Finance staff explained that Prop. 98 funding would not be changed directly, that the reserve deposits would be treated as exclusions from the appropriations limit, and that withdrawals would count when spent. Members asked about current reserve levels, mandatory deposits, and whether the measure would create more room for discretionary spending; supporters argued it would simply allow the state to save more in good years, while one member expressed concern that it could function as a slush fund and expand spending opportunities. Several members cited recent budget volatility, record revenues, and the need for stronger reserves, while others stressed that the measure should be understood as a future-oriented savings reform rather than a response to this year’s budget choices. Public testimony was uniformly supportive. California Forward, Elevate California, and the California Chamber of Commerce all backed the proposal, with the Chamber noting support for the policy and highlighting the importance of addressing unemployment insurance debt for small businesses. The chair concluded by thanking the authors, staff, and witnesses, and said ACA 20 was expected to move to the Assembly floor the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• The term also includes amendments or repeals of the rule.
• Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has constitutional authority to adopt rules
• We argue with the agency what constitutes a rule.
• We argue with the agency, what constitutes a rule.
• Is there one, I think, what do we have, 26 agencies governed by the Constitution or something?

Summary: The committee received an informational presentation from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC/JAPSI) staff and Chair Representative Overdorf on how Florida administrative rulemaking is reviewed. Mr. Plant explained that JAPC is a joint legislative oversight committee that monitors agency rules under Chapter 120, focusing on whether rules stay within statutory authority, whether agencies are acting consistently with legislative intent, and how the rulemaking process works. He emphasized that agencies are creatures of statute, that rulemaking authority must be specific enough to support the rule, and that without a date certain in statute, agencies may delay rulemaking indefinitely. Members asked about how to ensure agencies actually adopt rules, how to identify rules that exceed legislative intent, and how JAPC handles internal policies and delayed rulemaking. Representative Overdorf then described JAPC’s objection process and its limits. He said the committee does not approve or disapprove rules or direct agencies to adopt them, but it can object to proposed or existing rules that enlarge, modify, or contravene enabling statutes or fail to comply with Chapter 120. He noted that if an agency does not resolve an objection, a footnote is published in the Florida Administrative Code and the committee may recommend legislation to amend, suspend, or repeal the rule. He also discussed recent committee activity, including 1,355 proposed rules, 119 emergency rules, and 1,243 incorporated materials reviewed in 2024, and said the committee filed 31 objections against one agency after repeated noncompliance. The discussion also touched on possible changes to Chapter 120, including the governor’s 2019 request that agencies include five-year sunset provisions in rules, and a proposal to instead require periodic legislative review rather than automatic expiration. Overdorf also said the committee is considering raising the current statement of estimated regulatory costs thresholds of $200,000 annually or $1 million over five years because inflation has made those limits too low. No votes were taken on legislation, and the meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• . amendment. amendment.
• is the amendment. is the amendment.
• <01:09:31.040> as amendments to the US constitution as amendments to the US constitution as
• . amendment. amendment.
• . amendment. amendment.

Bills: HF3432, HF3411

Keywords: resident tuition, employment, higher education, Minnesota, tuition rates, state universities, immigration status, immigration, postsecondary education, privacy, data access, federal officers, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Constitution. The U.S.
• Amendment.
• Both bills will be amended. ...going to be amended. Yes.
• The amendments that were made protect First Amendment rights. Thank you. Those.
• The amendments that were made protect First Amendment rights.

Keywords: 1146, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They will constitutional questions.
• <00:15:16.000> Although law and the state constitution.
• Although law and the state constitution.
• She has a diverse our constitution.
• exercising their First Amendment right. exercising their First Amendment right.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a a record vote required by the Constitution.
• H.G.R. 15 by Smithy, proposing a constitution amendment authorizing the denial of bail under the limited
• amendment requiring the denial of bail for an illegal alien charged with an offense punishable as a
• Taxes referred to the Committee on Ways and Means H.J.R. 71 by noble proposing a constitution amendment
• Hgr 74 by toad proposing a constitution amendment authorizing the legislature provide the appraised value

Bills: HCR21, HCR22, HCR23, HCR24, HCR25, HCR26, HCR27, HCR31, HCR41, HCR42, HCR43, HCR44, HCR45, HCR52, HCR53, HCR66, HCR67, HCR73, HR8, HR10, HR13, HR20, HR21, HR50, HR59, HR61, HR71, HR74, HR79, HR84, HR86, HR90, HR91, HR102, HR103, HR107, HR113, HR125, HR126, HR132, HR142, HR145, HR149, HR150, HR152, HR167, HR179, HR181, HR183, HR186, HR192, HR196, HR199, HR207, HR211, HR212, HR213, HR216, HR249, HR256, HR259, HR261, HR263, HR272, HR281, HR285, HR294, HR295, HR300, HR305, HR311, HR313, HR315, HR316, HR323, HR331, HR339, HR340, HR346, HR349, HR352, HR357, HR358, HR360, HR363, HR374, HR377, HCR20, HCR28, HCR30, HCR32, HCR49, HR14, HR15, HR19, HR23, HR24, HR25, HR26, HR27, HR29, HR47, HR48, HR55, HR56, HR66, HR85, HR92, HR93, HR95, HR96, HR140, HR155, HR164, HR204, HR241, HR242, HR250, HR253, HR260, HR262, HR265, HR279, HR310, HR312, HR328, HR332, HR359, HR362, HR367

Keywords: recognition, award, petroleum industry, leadership, community service, HCR 22, House Concurrent Resolution, Texas Legislature, commendation, honorary resolution, Dr. James Olson, James Olson, University of Texas Permian Basin, UT Permian Basin, psychology professor, 50 years of service, faculty recognition, academic award, Piper Professor Award, Regents' Outstanding Teaching Award

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman Cook: We have a quorum; we’re constituted to do business.
• of their Authority do not not constitute of their Authority do not not constitute a<00:19:29.640
• We have a title amendment on this bill. I need a motion on the title amendment."
• <00:47:46.920> on favorably we have a title Amendment on favorably we have a title Amendment
• so if there's motion on title Amendment so if there's motion on title amendment<00:58:32.640> is<

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 90 / Senate Bill 17, a birth-related measure backed by the Kentucky Birth Coalition. Sponsors said the bill had been worked on for several years and described changes including a transfer agreement, insurance requirements, proximity to a hospital, informed consent, and accreditation/medical director standards that helped win neutral or non-opposition from the Hospital Association. The bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote with unanimous support. The committee then heard Senate Bill 65, presented by Senator Steve West and Representative Derrick Lewis. They said the bill would make regulations found deficient through the committee review process null and void by statute, and would bar agencies from reissuing the same or similar language for up to a year. Supporters argued this was needed to hold agencies accountable because deficiency findings alone had not led to action. After questions about specific Medicaid behavioral health regulations and concerns about legislative overreach, the bill passed the committee on a roll call vote, with some members passing or explaining reservations. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 84, with a House committee substitute. Sponsors said the substitute was intended to strengthen the bill and reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision by ending Chevron deference and requiring courts, not agencies, to interpret law. Opponents, including Audrey Ernsberger and Katherine Hargraves, argued the bill would intrude on the judiciary, violate separation of powers, and could harm public health, environmental, and workplace protections. Committee members also raised concerns about whether the bill told courts what standard to use; sponsors responded that agencies could still present persuasive arguments, but courts should not defer to them. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill then passed the committee on a roll call vote, with several members passing or expressing constitutional concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• amendment? amendment?
• amendment? amendment?
• . amendment. amendment.
• > Constitution 26th Amendment to the US Constitution 26th Amendment to the US Constitution and
• amendment to the amendment? amendment to the amendment?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all