Transcript Highlights:

• and continues to strive to be a good partner on legislation.
• and continues to strive to be a good partner on legislation.
• This legislation was enacted in 1992.
• I do need you to stay on point to the legislation.
• You'll never make it as a legislator. Okay.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 626, which would require cities to collect county development impact fees for facilities such as courthouses and jails. Rep. Alfieri said the bill was intended to prevent cities from opting out of collecting fees the legislature already authorized, and county officials and the Idaho Association of Counties testified in support, describing lost revenue and growth-related infrastructure costs. The Association of Idaho Cities and a private attorney opposed the bill, arguing cities are separate sovereigns, the measure could be unconstitutional, and the issue should be handled through intergovernmental agreements rather than a mandate. After debate over fairness and constitutionality, a motion to hold the bill in committee failed and the committee voted to send HB 626 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up House Bill 749, an annexation-related measure. Rep. Ehardt described the bill as a collaborative fix to problems faced by property owners, including large costs tied to forced annexation and utility hookups. The Hammonds testified about annexation expenses and uncertainty affecting their property, and the committee moved HB 749 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 659, which would require local and county law enforcement agencies to apply for 287(g) agreements with ICE and to explain any inability to do so. Rep. Hawkins said the bill was meant to help law enforcement cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and emphasized that it focused on jail-based models and applications for agreements. Supporters argued it would improve public safety and accountability, while sheriffs, police leaders, cities, and other opponents raised concerns about costs, staffing, state sovereignty, existing cooperation with ICE, publication of sensitive information, and possible conflicts with current law. Testimony continued from both sides, but no final committee action on HB 659 was shown in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lindsay Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel with the FPPC.
• I'm trying to legislate to hope that we don't have to deal with this.
• I'm simply trying to legislate and put that seatbelt on. Yeah.
• or future legislation fair. and on the child To, you know, make this legislation or future legislation
• Lindsay Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel with the FPPC.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met as a subcommittee until quorum was established, then heard a series of election- and public-trust-related bills. Early items included AB 2592, which would move lobbyist training from legislative ethics committees to the FPPC starting in 2029 and make it available online on demand; it drew support from the FPPC and an oppose-unless-amended request to make the training public and ensure lobbyists pay fees. AB 2573 would refine California’s confidential voter registration protections for candidates and elected officials, with support from the Secretary of State and county election officials after amendments narrowed some family-member coverage. AB 2753 would bar registered sex offenders from running for or holding local or state office; it prompted extended debate about public trust, second chances, and where to draw the line, but was ultimately advanced on a 5-0 vote with one member not voting. AB 2691 similarly would expand disqualifying felony convictions to include sexual assault and human trafficking, and it also passed 5-0 after testimony from victim advocates and discussion about survivors, restorative justice, and the power dynamics involved in public office. The committee also advanced AB 2413, which would prohibit public funds from being used for large-format ads featuring elected officials, and AB 2281, which would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to assess replacement resources after federal cybersecurity support cuts and allow consultation with academic researchers. AB 1664 would require local election officials to notify the Secretary of State and Attorney General within one business day of warrants, subpoenas, or investigations involving election records or voting systems; supporters said it would help the state respond quickly to improper seizure of election materials, and it passed 5-0. AB 2484, concerning San Diego MTS, would let voters authorize a local sales tax initiative for transit funding and exempt it from an existing cap; it drew support from transit leaders and labor, opposition from the Realtors, and a lengthy exchange over Prop. 13, Prop. 218, and whether the measure created a special deal, before passing 6-1. The committee then heard AB 2230, which would create buffer zones around voting centers and child care facilities to keep immigration enforcement away from those locations. The author said the bill was meant to reduce fear and intimidation for voters and families, while the opposition argued it was unenforceable, lacked evidence of a problem, and would interfere with federal officers doing their jobs. Members supporting the bill cited reported ICE profiling and intimidation in California communities, while others raised jurisdictional and practical concerns. The transcript ends during this debate, with no final vote shown for AB 2230.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:27.279><c> named</c> letter about the legislatively named letter about the legislatively named
• If you want the legislative site, well, Chair Nor if you wanted to look at the legislation that we passed
• and if you want the legislative site and if you want the legislative site well<00:11:46.079><c> chair
• </c><00:14:37.600><c> to</c> it is incumbent upon the legislators to it is incumbent upon the legislators
• </c> know the first one the legislative know the first one the legislative auditor<00:19:06.799><c> uh

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> legislate. The clerk will call the role. legislate. The clerk will call the role.
• </c> legislator to introduce the bill. legislator to introduce the bill.
• </c> to legislate. Further comments? to legislate. Further comments?
• </c> legislative body for adoption. legislative body for adoption.
• Um, if this is enabling enabling enabling legislation legislation legislation and<05:37:04.080><c> if

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c> the decision on the prior legislation, the decision on the prior legislation, &gt;&gt; correct?
• is the prior to the prior legislation is the prior legislation,<01:44:14.239><c> it</c><01:44:14.560
• like this and the previous legislation like this and the previous legislation<02:27:51.920><c> that<
• </c><02:35:15.439><c> or</c> the committee ITL this legislation or the committee ITL this legislation
• </c> think the framing of this legislation think the framing of this legislation might<02:37:25.760><

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Lord, bless this legislative body. So much has been achieved.
• And that, whether it be in legislation or whatever, is what is best for the people.
• And that's a lot of money we tax people to do these moronic pieces of legislation.
• It is our responsibility as legislators to represent our communities wholly.
• It is our responsibility as legislators to represent our communities wholly.

Keywords: 1146, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislative auditor concludes that the preference supports the legislature's goal.
• The legislative auditor concludes that the preference supports the legislature's goal.
• Also, the 2026 legislation... Also, the 2026 legislature narrowed the exemption.
• This brings us to the legislative auditor's conclusion.
• This brings us to the legislative auditor's conclusion.

Summary: The Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences met on August 4, 2026, with all five commissioners present. The commission approved the May 26, 2026 minutes, welcomed new commissioner Diane Tabilius, and re-elected Andy Knopfsiger Meadows as chair and Dr. Sharon Keiko as vice chair. JLARC staff also introduced two Evans School interns who are assisting with preliminary research for the 2027 review cycle. JLARC presented preliminary findings on seven tax preference reviews, focusing most heavily on the Main Street communities credit, the Equitable Access to Credit Program, and the urban data center exemption. Staff concluded that the Main Street preference has helped increase the number of communities and businesses and recommended continuing it, while also recommending that DAHP collect more detailed and standardized business-count data. The Equitable Access to Credit Program was found to support underserved communities and was also recommended for continuation. The urban data center exemption was found to have been used only for refurbishment projects, not new construction, and staff recommended letting it expire; commissioners and Representative Paulette discussed the need for better performance measures, cost-per-job analysis, and clearer legislative intent language in tax preference statements. Staff then reviewed airplane modification, landfill biogas, automotive adaptive equipment, and housing for people with developmental disabilities. The airplane modification preference was found to likely support jobs and state tax revenue and was recommended for continuation. The landfill biogas preference was also recommended for continuation, with a suggestion for more detailed reporting on use and renewable natural gas production. The automotive adaptive equipment exemption was found to continue providing relief to disabled veterans and service members and was recommended for continuation, while the housing transfer exemption for adults with developmental disabilities had not been used and was recommended to expire. No public testimony was taken at this meeting, and the commission noted that public testimony would be heard at its September meeting before final comments are adopted in October.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it strengthens legislative control over agency rulemaking.
• So I'm curious, was this legislation an original thought?
• Is this something that was brought to you by an organization, maybe model legislation?
• I have some original thoughts and some not-so-original thoughts that turn into legislation.
• We'll have to meet the guidelines set forth in the legislation outlined by this rule.

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee heard a presentation from Representative Esposito on a proposal to strengthen oversight of agency rulemaking under Chapter 120. The bill would require cost-benefit analysis at the front end and after implementation, create an eight-year sunset and review process for rules, and require express legislative authority for agency rulemaking. Members questioned the lack of concrete examples of burdensome rules, the effect on already slow rulemaking, the choice of an eight-year sunset, and the bill’s origin; Esposito said she was working with stakeholders and cited her chamber-of-commerce background and research with the Cicero Institute. No vote was taken on the bill itself. Staff then reported on legislatively mandated rulemaking from 2023 and 2024, noting that most required rules had been adopted, proposed, noticed, or scheduled, with a few agencies still outstanding. The Department of Financial Services explained a delayed notice of rule development for the MySafe Florida Home condominium pilot program as an oversight that has since been corrected, and the Department of Education said it did not proceed with rulemaking for the Fostering Prosperity grants because the program received no funding in the 2025 budget. The Department of Health described delayed rulemaking for the sickle cell disease and trait registry, saying the registry and opt-out forms were being implemented and that notices of rule development had now been filed. Members pressed the department on why rules took so long and discussed the need for statutory deadlines. The Department of Children and Families reported on two 2023 human-trafficking-related rules: signage requirements for residential treatment facilities and children’s safe homes, and a new certification process for adult safe homes. DCF said the signage rule is now moving forward and the adult safe home certification rule has been submitted for final review after workshops and stakeholder feedback. Senators questioned the lengthy timeline and the lack of oversight during the interim, while the chair emphasized the need for time-certain deadlines in legislation and for JAPAC oversight hearings. The committee also considered staff-proposed amendments to Chapter 120 addressing emergency rules pending legislative ratification and the process for initiating ratification, including a one-year limit and notice to JAPAC. After discussion, the committee voted to forward the proposed amendments to the Senate President and House Speaker. Finally, members discussed a proposed amendment to the administrative law judge appointment and retention process under Section 120.65. DOAH’s interim director opposed the change, saying ALJs and workers’ compensation judges have different functions and warning against shifting appointment power to cabinet officers whose agencies appear before DOAH. Members raised concerns about timeliness, consistency, and accountability in DOAH decisions. The committee voted to forward this proposal as well, with Senator Smith voting no on that motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> information and contacts legislative information and contacts legislative leadership<00:18:46.160
• legislators legislators don't<00:26:22.640><c> control.
• </c> activity is prevalent by legislators activity is prevalent by legislators does<00:27:35.120><c>
• legislator legislator to<00:29:48.000><c> learn</c><00:29:48.240><c> the</c><00:29:48.480><c> ethics
• </c><00:34:07.200><c> Representative</c> legislative session. Representative legislative session.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The commission heard argument on a renewed motion to compel discovery and related sanctions in an ethics case. Enforcement counsel said the respondent had provided incomplete and inconsistent discovery responses, including no authenticated medical records, and asked the commission to compel full interrogatory answers, bar the respondent from relying on unsupported medical claims at hearing, allow subpoenas for medical records and an LRC report, and continue the December 2 hearing. Respondent’s counsel replied that the defense had complied with discovery, that medical records were being withheld for reasons previously discussed, and that no outstanding discovery remained. The next matter was enforcement counsel’s motion in limine, which sought to exclude a wide range of evidence as irrelevant to the three ethics charges already found to have probable cause. Counsel argued the hearing should focus only on whether the respondent intimidated Fox’s, offered a favor in exchange for a donation, and engaged in inappropriate conduct while intoxicated in his office, and not on complainants’ motives, media coverage, bullying, religious discrimination claims, LRC policies, or other legislators’ conduct. He also argued that any claim of mental or physical condition should be excluded absent supporting medical proof. Respondent’s counsel opposed the motion, saying the excluded topics went to witness credibility, bias, motive, and context, and that LRC materials and testimony from additional witnesses were important to the defense. Commission members questioned both sides about the breadth of the motion in limine and whether any topics could be agreed to as irrelevant. Counsel for the respondent maintained that some challenged topics, including Lexington media coverage and broader legislative practices, were relevant to credibility and context. Enforcement counsel responded that even if such conduct were common, it would not excuse a violation of the ethics code. No final ruling or vote was announced in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> Head</c><00:04:17.519><c> Start,</c> legislation that funded Head Start, legislation that funded
• </c><00:16:08.079><c> session</c> forward with this legislative session forward with this legislative
• But those conversations led me through many of the legislation and how I’ve legislated here.
• But those conversations led me through many of the legislation and how I’ve legislated here.
• Those conversations led me through many of the legislation and how I’ve legislated here.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And that there is legislation that's trend continue.
• So there was only a few cases before that legislation came along.
• Austin Gunderson, Legislative Council.
• And do you know if... legislative council.
• This is about the legislative body. What do we want to clarify?

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to continue its study of charitable gaming, especially the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations and the relationship between charities, site owners, and gaming manufacturers/distributors. Legislative Council reviewed the background memo and Attorney General’s Gaming Division explained the legal framework, including site authorizations, rent limits, allowable expenses, and restrictions on distributors and manufacturers. Members focused heavily on electronic pull tabs, asking about the large gap between gross proceeds and adjusted proceeds, how much is paid out in winnings, how much is retained for expenses, and whether the 60% allowable-expense cap is being used as intended. The AG’s office said e-tabs account for most gaming volume, that winnings make up much of the difference, and that some organizations do not use the full 60% while others may exceed it, though only the capped amount counts as gaming expense. The committee also discussed the number of gaming organizations that appear to own or be affiliated with bars, the ways those ownership structures are formed, and whether some arrangements may create conflicts or site-selection pressure. The League of Cities and the Association of Counties described the local site-authorization process and recent model policies adopted after the 2025 session. Cities said they can require signed agreements, limit games and machines, set qualifications, and charge up to $100 for site authorization, but cannot require charities to donate net proceeds or force a specific charity or site. They said the new policies are meant to add transparency and local control, though the more controversial parts involve requiring a local nexus or community connection. County representatives said the issue is mostly a city matter and that counties generally take a lighter-touch approach. Committee members raised concerns about whether local rules could unfairly exclude larger regional charities or create inconsistent standards across cities. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance said it supports the study and provided information on charities that own or are affiliated with bars, emphasizing that most gaming organizations do not own alcoholic beverage establishments. Its representative said some charities may pursue bar ownership for site stability and diversification, while others decide against it because operating a bar is difficult. He also said a ban on charity-owned bars could raise federal tax-law issues depending on how it is written, and agreed to provide more detail. The committee asked Legislative Council and the Gaming Alliance for additional information on ownership structures and federal-law questions before the next meeting. Later, the Racing Commission gave a separate update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, and related charitable partnerships, and the State Hospital superintendent reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, staffing, and wait lists; no votes were taken on these presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor Committee.
• The legislative The committee of the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor shall be awarded to a member of
• Honor for the 89th legislative session.
• Uh, I move to nominate a person to receive the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor for this 89th Legislative
• Medal of Honor for the 89th Legislative session.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think this is important legislation.
• It has to be in the same legislation.
• Where in the legislation does it say sales... ...future legislation, that could put constraints on our
• And so essentially when it says that we do pass legislation...
• And if we do nothing else, that is legislation we must pass.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This idea and this piece of legislation has been a labor of love.
• This legislation also strengthens enforcement against cruel conditions.
• And so this legislation would authorize civil penalties as an alternative.
• This legislation also strengthens enforcement against cruel conditions.
• Given the importance of this legislation that I know is very near and...

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• New Jersey has also passed this legislation. ...prevent these alimony payments.
• New Jersey has also passed this legislation.
• Robert and Marianne quickly learned that they didn't just file legislation.
• They didn't just file legislation. They actually went to Washington. They lobbied.
• And that is the framework for this piece of legislation in front of you.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on a wide range of state, probate, and family bills, with chairs Edwards and Day outlining strict testimony limits and accepting written testimony. Early testimony focused on H. 1911/S. 1138, which would clarify that a durable power of attorney may create a trust if that authority is expressly granted; sponsors and elder law advocates said the bill would resolve uncertainty created by the Barbetti decision and align Massachusetts with other states. A major portion of the hearing centered on S. 1102, a proposal to establish medical panels in Probate and Family Court. Supporters, including attorneys, parents, physicians, and advocates, said neutral three-doctor panels would help judges resolve disputed medical issues in guardianship and custody cases involving children, elders, and people with disabilities. Testifiers described cases where medical treatment was blocked or contested by one parent or guardian, arguing the panels would provide impartial expertise and protect vulnerable people. The committee also heard support for bills addressing disability discrimination in family court, military parents’ custody rights, and a shared parenting bill, H. 1710, which drew strong opposition from domestic violence advocates and others who said a 50-50 presumption could harm survivors and children. The committee also took testimony on several probate and court-administration measures. Senator Lovely supported a bill on nominee trust partition, and Senator Comerford and probate officials backed legislation to codify additional registry staff positions and modernize registry operations. Other bills discussed included foster care liability insurance, with providers warning that rising premiums and loss of coverage could force program closures; health care proxy storage and activation; access to decedents’ email accounts; uniform trust decanting; the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; heirs’ property partition protections; a constitutional right to health care; alimony-related reforms; child-centered family law; and a right of disposition for funeral arrangements. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee repeatedly invited written testimony and follow-up questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• NCSL has been tracking prescription drug legislation for about a decade now through our drug legislation
• Several states do have legislation roll over from year to year...
• legislation during those years.
• So we won't be seeing legislation from those states either.
• We don't do model legislation. And so we don't weigh in on litigation.

Bills: HB2145, HB1828, HB2155, HB2437

Keywords: 340B drug pricing, healthcare access, patient rights, discounted medications, manufacturer limitations, health professions, plasma donation, physician substitutes, medical regulation, nursing titles, healthcare, regulation, professional standards, licensure, accreditation, opioid treatment, health services, fee authority, public health, 904

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Legislative Counsel with the Division of Legislative Services.
• So that was kind of part of the conversations that the commission had in moving that legislative legislation
• It mentioned was created by 2025 legislation.
• It was also the legislative session was a barrier to meeting.
• And as a legislator, I appreciate good data.

Summary: The Commission on Unemployment Compensation met, established a quorum, and elected Delegate Destiny LeVere Bolling as chair and Senator Mike Jones as vice chair. The commission also adopted its electronic meeting policy and heard introductions from new members, staff, and officials from the Secretary of Labor’s office and the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). Secretary Jessica Lumen outlined the administration’s workforce and labor priorities, including supporting workers, employers, and program transparency, while members raised concerns about business climate, job losses, labor participation, and the implementation of paid family and medical leave. Staff provided legislative updates on recent unemployment-related bills. These included increases to the weekly unemployment benefit amount enacted in 2025 and 2026, a bill on labor dispute disqualification that changed how lockouts are treated for benefit eligibility, and a budget item providing $75,000 for actuarial support to the commission. The commission also discussed the 2025 work group on annual adjustments to weekly benefit amounts; staff reported that the work group did not complete its charge, and members agreed to revisit whether to reconstitute it at a future meeting. Delegate Martinez expressed support for continuing the work, and the chair said the issue would be taken up at the next meeting. Deputy Commissioner Joanna Darkus gave a detailed presentation on Virginia’s unemployment insurance system, including current claims data, eligibility rules, employer tax structure, benefit levels, trust fund solvency, fraud prevention, and customer service operations. She reported that Virginia’s unemployment rate remains low, weekly claims are modest, the current weekly benefit range is $160 to $478, and the trust fund balance factor is projected at 50.9 percent, near the threshold for additional employer charges. Members asked about the taxable wage base, trust fund solvency, the effect of benefit increases, fraud controls, and the planned paid family and medical leave program. VEC said it is implementing that program through regulations, staffing, IT procurement, public listening sessions, and consultation with other states. A public commenter from the Virginia Poverty Law Center urged the commission to strengthen state investment in unemployment insurance and warned that federal support is uncertain. The commission then adjourned without taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Legislative Counsel with the Division of Legislative Services.
• I'm Legislative Council with the Division of Legislative Services.
• This work group, as Marvie mentioned, was created by 2025 legislation.
• The legislative session was also a barrier to meeting.
• And as a legislator, I appreciate good data.

Keywords: Commission on Unemployment Compensation, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I've worked with this team of people on legislative reform.
• I know that I want to focus on legislation probably.
• I know that I want to focus on legislation probably.
• There are specific parameters listed in the legislation.
• Do we have to create a new law and pass additional legislation?

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislative body. So even if we pass them, they're not law. They're not, they're not.
• This will be done through legislation.
• Let's work through that through a piece of proposed legislation.
• And it's the, I guess... ...to at least begin legislation on.
• Now, that doesn't prohibit any legislator from bringing a piece of legislation that looks like Tier 1

Summary: The special legislative study committee met with seven members present, adopted minutes from prior meetings, and then heard public testimony from Terrell Butler and his father about a transfer-eligibility dispute involving Leesville High School and Anacoco High School. They described a family decision to move schools for broader educational and personal reasons, but said the student was ruled ineligible for varsity athletics despite strong grades and a desire to play basketball. Several members responded that the rule seemed to punish students for adult decisions and for transfers within the same parish, and they urged the family to keep working hard while the committee considered broader policy changes. The committee then reviewed a draft report containing factual findings about LHSAA and discussed recommendations. Members expressed concern about inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, limited accountability, and LHSAA’s repeated absence from committee meetings. The committee adopted findings for the report and approved three recommendations: creating a structured student-transfer eligibility process allowing one transfer through junior year; making the House and Senate representatives on the LHSAA executive committee voting members; and adding a governor-appointed voting member to the executive committee. Speaker Pro Tem Johnson then outlined broader options for legislative action. One proposal, adopted as the committee’s recommendation, would create a cooperative endeavor agreement framework between the Department of Education/BESE and a nonprofit to administer high school athletics, with public-records coverage subject to existing privacy exceptions and an option for nonpublic schools to participate. A second, more expansive proposal would create a state Office of Sanctioned Athletics within the Department of Education; the committee agreed to include that concept in the report for future discussion but not as a recommendation. The committee also authorized staff to finalize the report, incorporate the adopted findings and recommendations, make technical edits, and send the report to the House and Senate education committees and LHSAA. The meeting ended with closing remarks thanking staff and members, followed by adjournment.