Transcript Highlights:

• to the city of Alexandria, relative to administrative adjudication of certain code and ordinance violations
• Members, this is a bill for the city of Alexandria that allows the term housing violations to also encompass

Bills: SR145, SR146, SR147, SR148, SCR78, SCR12, HB302, HB221, HCR58, HB59, HB89, HB153, HB243, HB335, HB342, HB350, HB407, HB451, HB513, HB595, HB682, HB688, HB690, HB730, HB762, HB802, HB816, HB940, HB944, HB1003, HB1011, HB1029, HB1053, HB1058, HB1062, HB1064, HB1079, HB1084, HB1098, HB1161, HB1189, HB1203, HB1215, HB1247, HB1248, HB1251, HB1253, HB1257, HB1258, SCR3, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB426, SB435, SB487, SB488, SB523, SB56, SB163, SB341, SB504, SB322, SR125, SCR54, SCR59, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR27, HCR28, HCR66, HCR67, HCR72, HCR5, HCR32, HCR49, HCR50, HCR53, HCR60, HCR62, HCR64, HCR68, HCR78, HCR81, HCR86, HCR97, HCR102, HCR31, HCR47, HCR3, HB1095, HB1096, HB1103, HB1129, HB1154, HB1166, HB1195, HB1230, HB316, HB511, HB799, HB1039, HB12, HB66, HB145, HB167, HB196, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB256, HB291, HB326, HB352, HB401, HB430, HB433, HB434, HB448, HB456, HB476, HB481, HB487, HB492, HB549, HB579, HB608, HB621, HB624, HB626, HB632, HB637, HB656, HB722, HB745, HB804, HB818, HB821, HB833, HB864, HB867, HB874, HB893, HB909, HB951, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB979, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1005, HB1007, HB1024, HB1032, HB1038, HB1050, HB1051, HB1056, HB1059, HB1077, HB1080, HB1081, HB1086, HB1108, HB1112, HB1153, HB1172, HB1173, HB1175, HB1192, HB1193, HB1204, HB1218, HB1242, HB1244, HB1249, HB1252, HB1254, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB42, HB45, HB71, HB79, HB158, HB160, HB169, HB227, HB251, HB289, HB312, HB313, HB314, HB330, HB383, HB394, HB410, HB429, HB769, HB971, HB983, HB1017, HB1126, HB1234, HB1235, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB47, HB73, HB126, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB308, HB310, HB324, HB337, HB351, HB399, HB403, HB571, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB740, HB750, HB759, HB812, HB844, HB966, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1107, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB441, SB449, HB74, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB956, HB1117, SB149

Keywords: critical infrastructure, foreign adversaries, homeland security, task force, Louisiana Senate, military bases, oil and gas, refining facilities, energy generation, industrial manufacturing, agriculture, food supply, biosecurity, agroterrorism, Chinese Communist Party, People's Republic of China, Russia, Russian government, FBI, Secret Service

Summary: The Senate met with a quorum, received a Memorial Day guest minister introduction and prayer, and then moved through journal and legislative bureau matters. The chamber adopted or advanced several Senate resolutions, including SR 149 directing DOTD to study hazards from increased Norfolk Southern rail activity at the Alabo Street Wharf, SR 153 commending a Miss St. Tammany Parish Fair Queen, SR 154 asking LDH to study the in-home skilled nursing market, and SR 145 recreating the task force on protecting Louisiana critical infrastructure from foreign adversaries. It also adopted SCR 78 designating Bonfuca Museum and Research Center Day at the Capitol, and later adopted SCR 54 and SCR 59 memorializing Congress on the Mississippi River Basin Fishery Commission and Comite River Diversion Canal flood-risk map review, respectively. The Senate also considered a large number of House bills and Senate bills on concurrence or final passage, with most passing overwhelmingly. Topics included education and school policy, health care, criminal justice, natural resources, transportation, insurance, and local government. Among the measures discussed were bills on adolescent literacy, vocational training in graduation plans, special education due process, school crisis plans, autism therapy accommodations during the school day, Medicaid dental coverage, workers’ compensation procedures, prior authorization for certain generic drugs, boiler inspection authority, money transmission licensing, and alternative power sources for nursing facilities. Several bills drew brief explanations from sponsors about technical corrections or policy clarifications, while a few were returned to the calendar or recommitted to committee. A few measures prompted more substantial debate. Senate Bill 456 on workers’ compensation generated extended discussion over whether employers should be allowed to file actions to investigate questionable claims without first cutting off benefits; supporters framed it as a transparency measure, while opponents argued it would increase litigation and disadvantage injured workers. The bill ultimately passed 20-17. Senate Bill 401 on the Prescription Drug Affordability Board had House amendments rejected, and Senate Bill 487 on charitable gaming premises rental agreements also had House amendments rejected. Other bills, including SB 393, SB 415, SB 426, SB 435, SB 488, SB 523, and SB 163, had House amendments concurred in, while HB 1095, HB 1103, HB 1129, HB 1166, HB 1195, HB 220, HB 316, HB 511, HB 799, HB 12, HB 66, HB 145, HB 167, HB 196, HB 213, HB 218, HB 222, HB 256, HB 291, HB 326, HB 352, HB 430, HB 433, HB 434, HB 448, HB 456, and HB 1039 were among the House bills finally passed, many by wide margins.

Bills: SJR 3, SB 5, SB 21, SB 72, SB 703, SB 764, SB 790, SJR 36, SJR 3, SJR 34, SJR 18, SCR 9, SB 616, SB 565, SB 384, SB 5, SB 21, SB 72, SB 140, SB 262, SB 370, SB 372, SB 495, SB 627, SB 703, SB 764, SB 842, SB 971, SB 790, SB 767, SB 480, SB 1066, SB 929, SB 765, SB 523, SB 62, SB 19, SB 18, SB 666, SB 688, SB 707, SB 888, SB 687, SB 706, SB 847, SB 869, SB 890, SB 992, SB 1145, SB 494, SB 290, SB 766, SB 11, SB 10, SB 13, SB 263, SJR 3, SB 5, SR 172, SR 176, SR 177, SR 190, SR 193, SR 194, SR 202, SR 203, SR 208

Keywords: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, research institute, funding, grants, state health initiatives, cryptocurrency, bitcoin, investment reserve, economic resilience, financial security, vehicle rental, damage waiver

Bills: SJR3, SB5, SB21, SB72, SB703, SB764, SB790, SJR36, SJR3, SJR34, SJR18, SCR9, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB5, SB21, SB72, SB140, SB262, SB370, SB372, SB495, SB627, SB703, SB764, SB842, SB971, SB790, SB767, SB480, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SJR3, SB5, SR172, SR176, SR177, SR190, SR193, SR194, SR202, SR203, SR208

Keywords: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, research institute, funding, grants, state health initiatives, cryptocurrency, bitcoin, investment reserve, economic resilience, financial security, vehicle rental, damage waiver

Bills: HR72, HR73, HR74, HR75, HR76, HR77, HR78, HR79, HR80, HR81, HR82, HR83, HCR36, HCR37, HCR38, HCR39, HCR40, HCR41, HB368, HB433, HB1017, HB1018, HB1019, HB1020, HB1021, HB1022, HB1023, HB1024, HB1025, HB1026, HB1027, HB1028, HB1029, HB1030, HB1031, HB1032, HB1033, HB1034, HB1035, HB1036, HB1037, HB1038, HB1039, HB1040, HB1041, HB1042, HB1043, HB1044, HB1045, HB1046, HB1047, HB1048, HB1049, HB1050, HB1051, HB1052, HB1053, HB1054, HB1055, HB1056, HB1057, HB1058, HB1059, HB1060, HB1061, HB1062, HB1063, HB1064, HB1065, HB1066, HB1067, HB1068, HB1069, HB1070, HB1071, HB1072, HB1073, HB1074, HB1075, HB1076, HB1077, HB1078, HB1079, HB1080, HB1081, HB1082, HB1083, HB1084, HR70, HR71, HCR35, HB31, HB326, HB1013, HB1014, HB1015, HB1016, SB192, SB196, SB198, SB203, SB204, SB214, SB216, SB257, SB291, SB383, HB13, HB23, HB25, HB32, HB41, HB42, HB90, HB120, HB121, HB122, HB127, HB138, HB139, HB141, HB179, HB187, HB213, HB247, HB286, HB332, HB344, HB357, HB367, HB370, HB462, HB505, HB527, HB537, HB605, HB680, HB681, HB725, HB780, HB782, HB847, HB892, HB911, HB916, HB1012, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HB53, HB57, HB64, HB102, HB106, HB111, HB137, HB152, HB155, HB177, HB238, HB256, HB258, HB337, HB359, HB363, HB386, HB434, HB546, HB557, HB584, HB661, HB697, HB726, HB727, HB747, HB756, HB758, HB759, HB765, HB767, HB825, HB858, HB930, HB941, HB957, HB964, HB58, HB69, HB93, HB166, HB199, HB201, HB202, HB218, HB223, HB224, HB231, HB235, HB246, HB338, HB349, HB352, HB379, HB405, HB429, HB535, HB547, HB577, HB588, HB626, HB636, HB652, HB653, HB669, HB688, HB691, HB721, HB738, HB806, HB851, HB857, HB861, HB889, HB904, HB907, HB908, HB929, HB1009, HB868, HB119, HB140, HB739, HB842, HB875, HB919, HB61, HB185, HB233, HB613, HB848, HB52, HB228, HB289, HB735, HB796, HB722, HB284, HB301, HB827, HB953, HB901, HB9, HB46, HB193, HB400, HB436, HB468, HB570, HB582, HB733, HB746, HB923, HB952

Keywords: HR72, House Resolution 72, Sophia Patout, Layla Porter, St. Amant High School, Future Farmers of America, FFA, Coastal Restoration Heroes, coastal restoration, Louisiana coast, coastal land loss, wetlands, saltmarsh, barrier island, West Grand Terre Island, Restore or Retreat Inc., smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, black mangrove, Avicennia germinans

Transcript Highlights:

• $700 and a third offense of violating $700 and a third offense of violating the<00:07:43.360>
• The school bus arm had been violated, and in a day they saw 1.3 times somebody violate the school bus
• <00:09:54.720> in that generate evidence of violations in that generate evidence of violations
• <00:21:07.200> and Offense for the Stop arm violation and Offense for the Stop arm violation
• stop iron violations are you clearing stop iron violations are you clearing this<00:23:39.320>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: On February 3, 2025, the committee first took up Senate File 483, as amended by the A2 author’s amendment, which would expand Minnesota’s medical-review exemptions for drivers with a history of loss of consciousness or seizures. The bill’s author explained that current law still requires some people who have been seizure-free for years, and off medication for years, to keep returning to a physician for paperwork even when their doctor says no further review is needed. A testifier described losing his commercial driving career after a seizure disorder, then being forced to keep paying for periodic neurologist visits despite being seizure-free since 2003 and off medication since 2009. The committee adopted the A2 amendment and then approved the bill, sending Senate File 483 to the State Government Committee. The committee then heard Senate File 737, which would increase mandatory minimum fines for repeated school bus stop-arm violations from $500 for a first offense to $700 for a second and $950 for a third. The author and the Minnesota School Bus Operators Association argued that repeat violations remain too common and that stronger penalties, along with stop-arm cameras, would help deter dangerous driving and protect children. A State Patrol representative said 2024 saw about 2,100 stop-arm charges, roughly double two years earlier, and attributed much of the increase to cameras making violations easier to prove; he also said conviction rates on the charge are about 50 to 55 percent. Committee members asked about repeat offenders, camera coverage, and whether bus stop locations should be safer, with one member noting only 23 people had been convicted of a second offense since 2015 and one of a third offense. The discussion ended with no final vote shown in the transcript, but the bill received supportive testimony and extensive questioning about enforcement and bus-stop safety.

Transcript Highlights:

• You'll see $500 for the first violation, which is now for every violation.
• You'll see $500 for the first violation, which is now for every violation.
• You'll see $500 for the first violation, which is now for every violation.
• You'll see $500 for the first violation, which is now for every violation.
• The Violator or the perceived violator The Violator or the perceived violator but<00:12:03.720><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not an ethical violation.
• Chris Stanley didn't violate the law when he did so. He didn't violate the Budget Act.
• Is that an ethical violation?
• Is that an ethical violation?
• RCW 42.52.070. ...officially violates RCW 42.52.070.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not an ethical violation.
• Chris Stanley didn't violate the law when he did so. He didn't violate the Budget Act.
• Is that an ethical violation?
• The first way Representative Simmons violated this statute...
• First, through the... ...violation of this statute in several ways.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of them had 36 violations, one of them had 95 violations, and some were more serious than others.
• <00:49:41.400> are license violations are license violations are happening<00:49:44.160>
• , whether these are repeat violations, or the nature of what type of violation it is as well.
• <01:42:34.840> the kind of the specific violations the kind of the specific violations the
• that kind of leads to severe violation that kind of leads to severe violation or<01:43:12.760>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Courts have found such violations as well.
• constitutional violations for 152 years. constitutional violations for 152 years.
• While you can get a court order for rights violations that are ongoing, if a violation has already occurred
• While you can get a court order for rights violations that are ongoing, if a violation has already occurred
• <00:13:54.959> my actors who are who are violating my actors who are who are violating my

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 3477, Representative Long’s “Universal Constitutional Remedies Act,” which would create a civil damages remedy for constitutional violations by government actors, including federal officials. Long and supporting testifiers argued the bill fills a gap in current law, noting that people can sue state and local officials under Section 1983 but generally lack a meaningful damages remedy against federal actors. Supporters said the bill would improve accountability, make harmed individuals whole, and is consistent with the Supremacy Clause and federal law. Public testimony included Dr. Roger Day, who said the bill was important to people harmed by “color of law” abuses and urged broad, inclusive language. Members then considered amendments. The A1 amendment, offered by Representative Duran, removed subdivision 2, which had required federal law enforcement partners entering agreements with Minnesota to agree to abide by the state and federal constitutions; the amendment was adopted. The A2 amendment, which would have added a six-year lookback and limited the bill to future causes of action, was debated at length and rejected. The A3 amendment, which would have required state agencies to absorb litigation costs, was also debated; House fiscal staff said a fiscal note was not complete and costs were uncertain, and the amendment was not adopted. In discussion after amendments, opponents argued the bill would conflict with federal supremacy, duplicate or interfere with existing federal remedies, and could create fiscal and operational burdens. Supporters responded that the bill is modeled on existing remedies for state and local officials and that federal accountability is currently inadequate. The bill, as amended by A1, was then moved toward the general register, with a roll call requested on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Paul alleging Tenth Amendment violations by the Fridley Public School District for violations of the
• We have violations of or threats to violate six of those amendments in the last 3 months.
• violated in their entire existence. violated in their entire existence.
• to be violated.
• to be violated.

Bills: HF3477, HF3414, HF103, HF3661, HF3146

Keywords: civil rights, law enforcement, federal collaboration, accountability, state law, constitutional rights, color of law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, section 1983, civil action, damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, law enforcement task force, federal-state cooperation, intergovernmental agreement, federal agency partnership, Minnesota Constitution, U.S. Constitution, police accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• actors who regularly cause violations actors who regularly cause violations without<00:03:04.480
• two for every previous violation two for every previous violation committed<00:04:32.320> by<
• that would it have to if that violation that would it have to if that violation was<00:04:42.639
• in violation and that violation<00:12:06.360> sticks<00:12:06.760> and<00:12:06.880>
• an enhanced fine for a subsequent violation to be a violation that has reached its final resolution

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, House Bill 397 creates a new law violation for violating a court stay away order when the underlying
• the terms of that injunction that in and of. itself is a violation.
• the stay away or the no contact order that violation in and of itself becomes a new law violation for
• At least any time there was any sort of pretrial violation.
• It's actually not, it's a first because that's the same level of violation for a violation of injunction

Transcript Highlights:

• Are they in violation of the rule?
• and there just violation of of the rule?
• Whereas pre the violation of the rule.
• impropriy or to avoid a rule violation? impropriy or to avoid a rule violation?
• <00:17:19.919> our in and by accepting it we violated our in and by accepting it we violated

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Senate rules committee continued work on a proposed rule restricting campaign fundraising in the Capitol and during session or special session. Senator Nethercott and LSO attorney Mr. Shaw explained that the draft was revised to add clarity after concerns that the earlier language could unintentionally penalize a senator who merely received a contribution without affirmatively soliciting it. The committee discussed two options: option one, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting a contribution and accepting it by affirmative act, and option two, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting or accepting a legislative campaign contribution by affirmative act. A new subsection C was also added to make clear the rule would not apply when a senator merely discovers that a contribution was made and took no affirmative act to solicit or receive it. Members focused on how the term “solicit” should be understood, including whether a campaign website donate button or online promotion would count as solicitation. Mr. Shaw said the rule does not define the term and suggested it should be applied reasonably, noting that a static donate button may be treated differently from actively promoting donations. Several senators said subsection C addressed the main concern about accidental receipt of a mailed contribution, but that further guidance may still be needed on passive receipt and how to handle donations connected to pending legislation. Senator Duro said the committee was responding to an unacceptable incident that occurred in the building and wanted to make clear such conduct would not be tolerated. After discussion, Senator Rothfuss moved option two and Senator Gierau seconded. The committee voted to adopt option two, with Senators Gierau, Nethercott, Salazar, and Chairman Biteman voting aye; Senator Rothfuss also voted aye. The committee then adjourned, and it was noted that the adopted rule would become part of the permanent Senate rules unless changed at the start of a future session.

Transcript Highlights:

• . violated. violated.
• . violated. violated.
• caused the violation. caused the violation.
• But a person found to have violated violated violated violated<02:22:31.520> the<02:22:31.760>
• caused the violation. caused the violation.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate met with a quorum, approved the February 20, 2026 journal, and then moved into Committee of the Whole for second reading of bills on the consent calendar. Senate Bill 85, concerning military protection orders in domestic violence cases, and Senate Bill 25, concerning land survey monumentation, were both adopted on the consent calendar and later reported out as amended and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. The chamber also briefly recognized the Denver Alumni Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., and welcomed a visiting family member of a sergeant during moments of personal privilege. The committee then took up Senate Bill 5, which creates a state court remedy for violations of federal constitutional rights during immigration enforcement. Senators Weissman and Gonzalez supported the bill, arguing it is meant to protect constitutional rights and provide a civil remedy when those rights are violated. Senator Gonzalez urged a strong vote in favor, while Senator Weissman explained the bill’s scope and later supported amendments as technical or clarifying changes. Two amendments to SB 5 were debated at length and both were defeated. Amendment L004, offered by Senator Baisley, would have required that a violation be done “knowingly and intentionally”; supporters argued it would add fairness and guard against frivolous claims, while opponents said it would raise the burden for injured people and was unnecessary because the bill already concerns federal constitutional rights. Amendment L005, offered by Senator Lon, would have barred claims where the plaintiff provoked the conduct; supporters said it would protect self-defense and limit abuse of the bill, while opponents called it victim-blaming and said it would undermine accountability. Both amendments failed on voice votes, and debate on the bill continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• . violation. violation.
• . violations. violations.
• These are parking violations<01:35:01.400> only. violations only. violations only.
• site parking violation involved. site parking violation involved.
• violation, for example. violation, for example.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That is a violation.
• um violations that do not that are um violations that do not imminently<00:28:26.720> endanger
• <00:29:21.840> is outline kind of what the violation is outline kind of what the violation
• It's not a direct if there are violations and these types of violations result in a stop payment.
• It's not a direct if there are violations and these types of violations result in a stop payment.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• denial of registration, revocation, suspension, agents' contracts, disclosure, fees, penalties, violations
• If the fire leaves someone's property and does damage, then there are clear violations.
• He noted that parishes could put it in ordinance, but it was not very clear whether, if someone violated
• parish or the police jury that had these authorities, and he knew the sheriffs arrest people for violating
• Folks, this is a direct violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Bills: HR192, HR193, HR194, HCR80, HCR81, HCR82, HCR83, HCR84, HCR85, HR188, HR189, HR190, HR191, SB134, SB140, SB281, SB331, SB384, SB389, SB415, SB451, SB458, SB479, SB504, SB523, HR38, HR96, HR160, HCR31, HCR61, SCR19, HB316, HB549, HB578, HB646, HB748, HB798, HB824, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1032, HB1081, HB1108, HB1129, HB1140, HB1157, HB1186, HB1192, HB1195, HB1198, HB1222, HB1244, SB73, SB89, SB128, SB149, SB191, SB196, SB238, SB318, SB340, HB225, HR1, HR17, HCR5, HCR4, HCR47, HCR32, HB362, HB893, HB990, HB1007, HB1153, HB1243, HB12, HB42, HB205, HB222, HB267, HB324, HB325, HB350, HB478, HB610, HB617, HB745, HB749, HB752, HB797, HB807, HB821, HB896, HB979, HB992, HB1000, HB1024, HB1050, HB1166, HB1172, HB1173, HB1207, HB1218, HB1223, SB162, SB349, SB350, SB382, SB383, SB127, SB244, SB256, HB911, HB306, HB366, HB1161, HB1230, HB59, HB481, HB772, HB897, HB1003, HB1008, HB1112, HB1180, HB1189, HB181, HB1118, HB901, HR20, HR74, HB284, HB393, HB458, HB459, HB525, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB773, HB864, HB996, HB1035, HB1058, HB1082, HB1113, HB1234, HB1240

Keywords: ACOG, maternal health, healthcare professionals, patient-physician relationship, obstetrics, gynecology, condolences, military service, veteran, community, memorial, visual acuity, student health, de-identified data, longitudinal analysis, education policy, property rights, carbon dioxide sequestration, expropriation, Landowner Bill of Rights

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 258 by Senator Lambert: Children's Code relative to juvenile traffic violations; definitions
• If you come into that church property, you're asked to leave and you don't, you're in violation of this
• But under the construction of your bill, You're in violation of this offense.
• And then if you turn to the last paragraph of the bill, it says whoever violates any provision of this
• Look at those people who are in violation.

Bills: HR115, HR116, HR117, HR118, HR112, HR113, HR114, HCR51, HCR52, SCR18, SCR20, SB14, SB76, SB118, SB142, SB156, SB170, SB197, SB234, SB258, SB287, SB288, SB313, SB315, SB393, SB396, SB426, SB427, HCR7, HB76, HB84, HB132, HB181, HB210, HB250, HB265, HB275, HB291, HB322, HB342, HB457, HB475, HB477, HB486, HB616, HB635, HB639, HB690, HB740, HB757, HB761, HB766, HB774, HB808, HB855, HB866, HB872, HB883, HB886, HB903, HB949, HB962, HB996, HB1003, HB1036, HB1054, HB1071, HB1076, HB1078, HB1113, HB1132, HB1146, HB1232, HB1233, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HCR6, HCR19, HCR10, HR74, HCR26, HCR35, HB98, HB108, HB131, HB151, HB161, HB288, HB294, HB305, HB310, HB320, HB336, HB380, HB392, HB403, HB420, HB459, HB476, HB540, HB615, HB631, HB637, HB648, HB665, HB682, HB789, HB813, HB815, HB835, HB870, HB905, HB915, HB933, HB938, HB987, HB1040, HB51, HB82, HB143, HB145, HB160, HB180, HB192, HB393, HB430, HB445, HB506, HB515, HB521, HB565, HB590, HB614, HB638, HB670, HB672, HB685, HB692, HB752, HB773, HB781, HB799, HB860, HB874, HB887, HB917, HB937, HB956, HB965, HB972, HB977, HB982, HB1006, HB1010, HB1044, HB1072, HB1088, HB1179, HB1200, HB81, HB400, HB154, HB410, HB463, HB827, HB868, HB952, HB953, HB140, HB750, HB911, HB52, HB961, HB399, HB401, HB901, HB9, HB58, HB193, HB284, HB570, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB733

Keywords: Kappa Alpha Psi, fraternity, Louisiana, commemoration, community engagement, recognition, state championship, basketball, sports achievement, school commendation, commendation, athletics, team sports, youth, community recognition, water utility, tax credit, excessive rates, residential service, subcommittee

Bills: HR112, HR113, HR114, HCR51, HCR52, HR94, HR95, HR96, HR97, HR98, HR99, HR100, HR103, HR104, HR105, HR106, HR107, HR108, HR109, HR110, HR111, HCR46, HCR47, HCR48, HCR49, HCR50, SCR25, SB17, SB300, HCR35, HB51, HB82, HB143, HB145, HB160, HB180, HB192, HB393, HB430, HB445, HB506, HB515, HB521, HB565, HB590, HB614, HB638, HB647, HB670, HB672, HB685, HB692, HB752, HB773, HB781, HB799, HB839, HB860, HB873, HB874, HB887, HB917, HB937, HB956, HB965, HB972, HB977, HB982, HB1006, HB1010, HB1044, HB1072, HB1088, HB1157, HB1179, HB1200, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HCR6, HCR19, HCR10, HR74, HCR26, HCR45, HB54, HB67, HB73, HB125, HB133, HB158, HB168, HB169, HB191, HB195, HB245, HB280, HB283, HB296, HB319, HB339, HB399, HB407, HB448, HB550, HB591, HB826, HB995, HB1085, HB1086, HB98, HB108, HB131, HB151, HB161, HB288, HB294, HB305, HB310, HB320, HB336, HB380, HB392, HB403, HB420, HB459, HB476, HB540, HB615, HB631, HB637, HB648, HB665, HB682, HB789, HB813, HB815, HB835, HB870, HB905, HB915, HB933, HB938, HB987, HB1040, HB827, HB953, HB796, HB352, HB463, HB735, HB780, HB882, HB81, HB400, HB140, HB750, HB911, HB961, HB401, HB901, HB9, HB52, HB58, HB154, HB193, HB284, HB410, HB570, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB733, HB868, HB952

Keywords: commendation, community service, religious leadership, New Orleans, anniversary, Martha's Vineyard, African-American Film Festival, Black excellence, cinema, cultural celebration, Black voices, film industry, Hannuh Ray, Louisiana, youth development, pageant, leadership, community, recognition, compensation