Transcript Highlights:

• someone who has overseen this agency over the last year and a half, when I went through my Senate confirmation
• There were 120 confirmed hate-related or discriminatory-related complaints.
• There were 120 confirmed hate-related or discriminatory-related complaints.
• FTB's court order debt program, FTB collects money owed to state and local agencies pursuant to judicial

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Judicial discretion carries enormous authority, and with it enormous responsibility.
• In fact, I served on the Judicial Council for four years.
• And we're creating a judicial removal through, we're creating judicial removal from a third branch, when
• We talk a lot about the Judicial Commission and how it functions.
• It only calls into question judicial discretion.

Summary: The House and Governmental Affairs Committee met on Senate Bill 123, a proposed constitutional amendment to create a legislative process for removing judges for cause. Senator Morris said the bill was needed because of uncertainty in the current Constitution about whether impeachment applies to judges, given the Judiciary Commission’s role in judicial discipline. He argued the measure would provide a clearer, higher-threshold accountability mechanism, and the committee adopted a technical amendment renumbering provisions and later clarified that the bill uses a majority vote in the House and two-thirds in the Senate, consistent with impeachment-style thresholds. Much of the hearing centered on testimony from Anna Carter and her family, who supported the bill after the murder of Jacob Carter in New Orleans. They described his death and other cases they said showed judges releasing dangerous offenders despite repeated violations, missed electronic-monitoring check-ins, and other warning signs. They argued the bill would create a last-resort accountability tool when judicial decisions or supervision failures lead to preventable harm. Several committee members expressed sympathy and said the testimony highlighted serious problems in the justice system, though some also suggested the bill should address district attorneys, electronic-monitoring oversight, or broader systemic issues. Opposition came from members who warned the proposal was overly broad, could become a political tool, and might conflict with existing constitutional provisions governing impeachment and judicial discipline. They argued the Judiciary Commission and Supreme Court already provide a disciplinary framework and that the bill could chill judicial independence or create due-process concerns. The ACLU’s Sarah Whittington also opposed the bill, noting technical inconsistencies in the draft, questioning why impeachment had not been tried first, and arguing the measure singled out judicial discretion while leaving other elected officials’ discretion untouched. The committee took no final vote on the bill during the hearing, but did adopt the technical amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial judicial branch.<00:32:16.240> The<00:32:16.559> independent<00:32:17.200>
• judicial<00:32:17.679> branch branch.
• The independent judicial branch branch.
• The judicial funded appropriately.
• Um, right now, with the judicial system.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• debate making judicial elections debate making judicial elections partisan,<00:45:24.160> that's
• > from limit judicial candidates from limit judicial candidates from responding<00:49:58.120><
• Now, Kentucky wants to prevent judicial Now, Kentucky wants to prevent judicial candidates<00:50
• When Kentucky writes these judicial When Kentucky writes these judicial cannons,<00:50:22.560>
• <00:50:57.920> candidates judicial candidates judicial candidates engage<00:50:59.920> in

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House convened, opened with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance, established a quorum with 96 members present, excused absent members, and approved the journal from March 4, 2026. The chamber also received notice that the Senate had passed Senate Bills 50 and 191 and requested concurrence. Several bills were reported for second reading and committee action, including measures on schools, barbering, virtual currency kiosks, eminent domain, DUI, fire protection, school district reporting, teacher certification, legal representation, cost and fee reporting, dentistry, credit insurance, harmful practices, elections, child welfare, health data, Medicaid directed payments, workplace violence in health care, utilities, solid waste, carbon sequestration, and coal/energy affordability. House Bill 534 was sent to the Rules Committee after receiving prior readings, and House Bill 600 was brought up for third reading and passage. House Bill 600, relating to the collection of delinquent tax bills, was explained as allowing counties to use a consolidated procedure to collect multiple delinquent tax cases more efficiently, requiring county attorney contracts with the Department of Revenue to include that option, and extending to counties some property-tax collection tools already used by cities for delinquent and dilapidated properties. A member from Jefferson raised concerns that the bill could allow foreclosure on occupied properties and warned about potential harm to elderly or low-income homeowners; the sponsor responded that the bill was not intended to remove anyone from their property. The House passed HB 600 by a vote of 82-11, and a clincher was applied. House Bill 662, concerning regulation of low-voltage battery-charged security fences by local governments, was described as a business-friendly measure supported by the Chamber of Commerce and affected industries, intended to define the fences and reduce regulatory uncertainty in commercial and industrial zones without removing local regulation. It passed unanimously, 96-0, and a clincher was applied. House Bill 364, relating to benefits for Kentucky National Guard members, was amended by House Floor Amendment 1 to define Commonwealth emergency pay and hazardous duty for Guard members on state active duty during emergencies. Supporters emphasized compensation for Guard members responding to disasters and emergencies, and members cited recent flood and crash responses as examples of their service. The bill passed 96-0, and a clincher was applied. House Bill 534, an elections bill, was taken up with House Committee Substitute 2 adopted. The sponsor said the bill was the product of work by the Secretary of State, the Board of Elections, county clerks, KREF, and others, and was intended to strengthen election laws. Debate focused on a provision that would remove from voter rolls individuals convicted of felonies even while appeals are pending; one member argued this would disenfranchise people before appeals are resolved and sought to offer an amendment, but a motion to suspend the rules for that amendment failed with only 18 votes in favor. Another member said the substitute was the best version of the bill and indicated he would offer amendments, including changes to the felony-appeal language and campaign finance timing, while also seeking to remove a section requiring federal cooperation. The transcript cuts off during that discussion, before final action on HB 534 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial centers and courthouse renovations throughout the state of Kentucky.
• generally set at 20 years for judicial generally set at 20 years for judicial center<00:38:05.760
• <00:40:00.880> center requesting for judicial center requesting for judicial center authorization
• judicial center.
• The Hall of Justice, judicial center, and old jail that we operate out of also.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:11 Approval of Minutes 00:02:00 Information Items 00:02:25 CPE Special Report 00:03:26 Review of Executive Branch Agency Plans 00:31:48 A. Attorney General 00:32:10 B. Court of Justice 00:36:41 C. Cabinet for Economic Development 00:50:44 D. Kentucky Public Pensions Authority 00:56:06 E. Board Discussion of Planning Issues 01:05:12, 958, all

Summary: The Capital Planning Advisory Board opened its fourth meeting, confirmed a quorum, approved the prior meeting’s minutes by unanimous voice vote, and then heard information items and agency presentations. The main substantive presentation came from the Council on Postsecondary Education, which outlined its capital planning recommendations for the 2026–28 biennium. CPE staff described the role of Kentucky’s research and education network (Kron), including connectivity to cloud services, Internet2, identity services, and new local AI/inferencing capacity, and argued that the network is now essential to higher education, health care, and extension services. They said the network’s recent upgrades were driven by privacy, security, redundancy, and the need to support modern research and AI workloads at lower cost than commercial providers. CPE also presented its broader higher-education capital request: $700 million for asset preservation and $1.73 billion for new construction, for a total recommendation of about $2.4 billion. Staff said they do not plan to recommend IT projects or equipment in this cycle, despite reviewing 48 IT submissions totaling nearly $1.4 billion and equipment requests totaling $322.6 million. For asset preservation, they said the recommended allocation method would remain based on each institution’s share of Category 1 and 2 square footage, and they noted that the state’s prior facility assessment is now 12 years old, with deferred maintenance still estimated in the $7–9 billion range. For new construction, they said the requests are heavily focused on STEM and health-related facilities that are difficult to retrofit into older buildings. Board members asked about how asset-preservation amounts were determined, including why Northern Kentucky University’s request was much larger than its prior allocation. CPE staff responded that campus size, building age, and institutional prioritization affect the requests, and that schools are asked to submit more projects than are likely to be funded. The board then moved on to an Attorney General capital plan overview, where senior counsel Will Schroeder began describing the office’s technology needs and the office’s prior reliance on a 2020 appropriation to replace legacy systems and improve security.

Transcript Highlights:

• I like it better in the judicial I like it better in the judicial protection<00:08:42.400> and
• way the judicial way the judicial protection<00:08:54.520> works.
• family members in the judicial family members in the judicial protection<00:08:59.080> law
• being put on through judicial fiat. being put on through judicial fiat.
• properties transferred through judicial properties transferred through judicial sales.<00:47:24.520

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to increase judicial and court safety. to increase judicial and court safety.
• safety resources for the judicial safety resources for the judicial branch. branch. branch.
• Jennifer Super, who's our judicial Jennifer Super, who's our judicial branch's<00:37:44.120>
• contain critical investments in judicial contain critical investments in judicial safety<00:40:03.480
• <00:40:28.280> officers reimbursements to both judicial officers reimbursements to both judicial

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Safety and Security Conference Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a quorum present and no immediate vote taken. Chairs explained the committee was working ahead of a possible target so it could act quickly later if needed, then proceeded with member introductions and a reminder about committee decorum. Staff noted a microphone delay and said the meeting would include a side-by-side walk-through of the House and Senate policy language and a review of the fiscal spreadsheet. Fiscal staff summarized major differences in court, public safety, and legislative security funding. The House and Senate proposals differed on safety and security funding for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and District Courts, as well as on courthouse grants, capital security enhancements, and a new legislative/protective services unit. Staff also reviewed Senate-only and House-only items, including a Senate proposal to require removal of insignia from public safety vehicles sold to the public, and House provisions for a security services task force and member security costs. Total general fund impacts were reviewed, with the House total corrected to include an open appropriation that had been omitted from the spreadsheet totals. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the policy differences. The Senate language focused on a Protective Services Unit and security for principal state officials, while the House language focused on a Legislative Services Unit and security for legislators. Both bills included provisions on Capitol Complex Security, reporting requirements, and reimbursement arrangements with local law enforcement, but differed on details such as whether elected officials must provide contact information to DPS and how requests for personal protective services are handled. The House-only amendment A8 was presented for discussion; it would revise emergency contact provisions, replace the House’s personal protective services request language with a more detailed threat assessment and mitigation framework, direct implementation of the new unit, and make related reimbursement and technical changes. Judge Richard Kyle, president of the Minnesota District Judges Association, testified in support of stronger judicial and court safety measures. He described rising threats against judges, citing survey results showing high rates of judges limiting personal information, receiving inappropriate communications, changing personal behavior, and experiencing threats to themselves and family members. He said the association supports legislative authorization and funding for home security and personal data protections for judicial officers, and emphasized that safety concerns for judges and court staff have become more serious in recent years.

Bills: SJR37, SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB108, SB125, SB251, SB318, SB378, SB379, SB396, SB472, SB487, SB503, SB533, SB565, SB583, SB608, SB650, SB686, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB763, SB854, SB875, SB916, SB924, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB987, SB988, SB1006, SB1019, SB1021, SB1024, SB1026, SB1038, SB1146, SB1185, SB1194, SB1202, SB1252, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1497, SB1498, SB1499, SB1527, SB1547, SB1596, SB1697, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SJR37, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB925, SB1362, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB379, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB1352, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB961, SB1038, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008

Keywords: voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, constitutional amendment, voting rights, central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy

Bills: SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB14, SB24, SB108, SB112, SB125, SB213, SB251, SB315, SB318, SB371, SB378, SB379, SB472, SB487, SB502, SB513, SB565, SB621, SB650, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB761, SB763, SB815, SB854, SB875, SB896, SB916, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB973, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1019, SB1024, SB1026, SB1146, SB1194, SB1198, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1497, SB1498, SB1527, SB1532, SB1547, SB1596, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB502, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB761, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SJR37, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Bills: SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB14, SB24, SB108, SB112, SB125, SB213, SB251, SB315, SB318, SB371, SB378, SB379, SB472, SB487, SB502, SB513, SB565, SB621, SB650, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB761, SB763, SB815, SB854, SB875, SB896, SB916, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB973, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1019, SB1024, SB1026, SB1146, SB1194, SB1198, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1497, SB1498, SB1527, SB1532, SB1547, SB1596, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB502, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB761, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SJR37, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Transcript Highlights:

• Number two, I did confirm at the end, I asked...
• And Peter Bragon stated for the record, I mean, we confirmed number one that it's an option—that being
• Number two, I did confirm at the end, I asked...
• <04:54:58.600> at number one number two I did confirm at number one number two I did confirm
• number one that it's an Ops confirmed number one that it's an Ops that<04:55:33.040> being<04

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Bucky from Judicial Council here? Say that again. Jay Bucky from Judicial Council is here.
• Oh, Bucky from Judicial Council is here. Oh, the Judicial Council. Yes, welcome.
• over which bills would get judicial over which bills would get judicial review<00:40:55.480>
• But it is a long-term view. that money from a different judicial that money from a different judicial
• right other questions for judicial right other questions for judicial councel<00:58:25.680> no

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed a proposed increase to the annual elevator certificate fee in the Department of Labor. The commissioner said the fee had been $50 for years and generated just under $300,000 annually, while the Inspection Division’s broader revenue far exceeded its expenses. Members noted the fee only covered the certificate, not the inspection itself, which is billed separately at $100 per hour. After comparing the fee to neighboring states and discussing the department’s revenue and staffing, the committee agreed to rewrite the language to set the fee at $75 and to vote on an amendment later. The committee then took up Section 139, which would expand the list of labor-law violations that can be penalized without first issuing a warning. The Department explained the change was meant to align House Bill 157 with other chapters, including youth employment and workers’ compensation provisions, where immediate civil penalties are already allowed. The section was accepted unanimously. A longer discussion followed on the Second Injury Fund. The commissioner explained that the fund reimburses insurers for certain workers’ compensation costs tied to claims involving pre-existing conditions, is financed by assessments on insurers, and requires notice within 100 weeks of injury plus a $10,000 deductible before reimbursement. He said the fund currently holds roughly $16 million to $22 million, one full-time employee administers it, and total staff involvement is about five to six people. Members questioned whether the fund should be sunset, but the department said the current House Bill 2 language does not propose a sunset; instead, it addresses increased hearing and litigation burdens after a recent Supreme Court decision. Sections 140 and 141, dealing with hearings, were then accepted unanimously. The committee also briefly discussed fines for late insurance coverage reporting, with the department noting the current rubric allows up to $50 per day but uses $112 per day, and members suggesting a lower amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• And my understanding that because the Supreme Court gave or confirmed that authority upon the governor
• And the court made it very clear that they have authority over their judicial branch, and that should
• <02:06:35.840> in<02:06:36.079> invading<02:06:36.719> the<02:06:36.960> judicial
• authority in invading the judicial authority in invading the judicial branch.<02:06:38.320> And
• branch uh and that and their judicial branch uh and that and that<02:06:46.719> that<02:06:46.800

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the June 9 minutes, then reviewed a deferred personnel contract involving workers’ compensation claims administration. Staff explained that the roughly $50 million figure included about $48 million for claims payments and up to $1.45 million per year for administrative services, with billing based on a fee schedule for specific services rendered. Senator Meredith raised concerns about the vendor’s history, the scoring and bid process, and prior allegations involving the company; the administration responded that the procurement had been conducted under 45A through open competition, with outside scorers and no finding of wrongdoing tied to this contract. Meredith moved to disapprove Contract 167, Hart seconded, and the committee voted 5-2 to disapprove it. The committee then deferred a Western Kentucky University personal services contract because the vendors were still not registered with the Secretary of State’s office. Hart moved to defer the contract until the August 2026 meeting, Meredith seconded, and the motion carried. The committee also approved the agenda covering the various contract lists and deferred items. Next, the committee heard from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services on several personal services contracts for medical staffing and related services. Secretary Steven Stack and staff explained that staffing shortages often require outside vendors, that the contracts were competitively bid under 45A, and that the cabinet uses a streamlined vendor pool for specialized needs such as actuaries, auditors, and technical consultants. The committee approved Contracts 52 through 55 without objection. Discussion then began on Contract 61, with Meredith expressing concern that the committee lacked enough detail to judge whether the services could be performed in-house or whether the exchange of resources was appropriate; Stack said the contract was intended to provide efficient access to specialized outside expertise. The transcript cuts off before a final vote on Contract 61 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• addresses that I got off the judicial addresses that I got off the judicial branch<00:23:09.159>
• six slide seven is our judicial six slide seven is our judicial headcount<00:39:01.359> we
• fully um staffed in terms of judicial fully um staffed in terms of judicial officers<00:39:07.599
• can I think if you have the judicial can I think if you have the judicial Council<01:06:08.799><
• It's quasi-judicial.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met for its first meeting of the new session with opening remarks, member introductions, and a discussion of committee logistics. Members described their backgrounds and priorities, including criminal justice, right-to-know and privacy issues, domestic violence, death-with-dignity legislation, abortion, firearms, landlord-tenant policy, housing, and technology/privacy concerns. The chair noted there were already 34 bills assigned to the committee and expected more, and said the committee would likely continue to have a heavy workload this session. The chair also outlined how the committee would operate: meetings would generally be on Wednesdays, with possible Mondays as needed; hearings would not require a quorum, but executive sessions would; and members were asked to provide updated phone numbers and email addresses, especially cell numbers. He explained that the committee would continue its practice of seating members in a mixed partisan arrangement to encourage communication, and that the new clerk had joined the committee. A significant portion of the meeting focused on procedures for executive sessions and meeting times. The chair said the committee would follow the traditional rule allowing executive sessions on bills heard that day if proper notice was given, but he would avoid taking up controversial matters without full attendance. Members then discussed whether meetings should start at 9, 9:30, or 10 a.m., with concerns raised about long commutes, evening obligations, and winter driving after dark. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the chair indicated he would try to accommodate the committee’s preference while balancing the workload.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then our judges have judicial performance evaluations.
• So let's talk about the First Judicial Magistrate cases.
• They wanted everything to go to the First Judicial District.
• Um, if the resources are needed, as I did in the First Judicial.
• The judicial ruling is that it is likely unconstitutional.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the first is the judicial security and courthouse bill.
• branch and all the courouses we judicial branch and all the courouses we have<00:02:00.399> across
• Um the first is<00:02:18.800> the<00:02:19.120> judicial<00:02:19.680> security<
• judicial security and courthouse bill.<00:02:21.760> Um<00:02:22.080> that<00:02:22.400
• <00:02:40.400> branch yellow ties here for the judicial branch yellow ties here for the judicial

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3230, a security package combining several bills related to political and Capitol security. Members first adopted the DE6 amendment, described as reflecting the negotiated allocation and appropriations language, and then heard Chair Mullen explain that the bill covers judicial security and courthouse grants, continued Capitol grounds screening, hardware and hardening improvements, legislative services home security, temporary local law enforcement support for credible threats, a new task force, funding for the BCA threat assessment team, and DPS deficiency funding tied to recent events. Discussion focused largely on the balance between security and public access. Representative West objected to the Capitol screening and metal detectors, arguing the Capitol is the “people’s house” and questioning the cost and fairness of the measures; he also asked whether the bill changed who controls Capitol security. In response, members said the scanners were not created by this bill but were already decided by the governor and security commission, and that the bill includes a provision clarifying the chain of command and training responsibilities. Other members supported the package as a necessary response to political violence and threats, emphasizing protection for lawmakers, staff, visitors, and the public. After discussion, the committee renewed the motion to place House File 3230, as amended, on the general register. The motion passed without opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• our school building without a judicial our school building without a judicial warrant. warrant.
• the school buildings without a judicial the school buildings without a judicial warrant. warrant
• valid judicial warrant. valid judicial warrant. That's<00:35:59.680> it. That's it.
• The Attorney General has already issued guidance to schools about judicial warrants.
• Thank you. guidance to schools about judicial guidance to schools about judicial warrants.<00:36:33.120

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That number was presented by the Board on Judicial Compensation.
• The Board on Judicial Compensation was created by the statute.
• And their budget is requesting a 517.58% judicial pay increase based on the Board of Judicial Compensation
• But I do think it's time that we have a judicial security officer housed at the Judicial Center that
• Primarily, we use the National Judicial College in Reno.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She confirmed that the updated amount is correct and said the earlier email was incorrect.
• She also confirmed that the $28 billion of exempt properties in the 37 counties is already included in
• Shelly confirmed they are still dealing in 2024 numbers and collecting 2025 data, but that it will not
• Just to note that, looking forward, I believe Chairman Vigesaa can confirm this or not, but I believe
• It won't be on the website for quite a while, but if you have it now, I think that would be judicious

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to continue its tax reform and relief study agenda, approved the December 3, 2025 minutes, and announced a new subcommittee to examine property tax statement issues with counties, auditors, and the tax office. Representative Headland was named chair, Senator Rummel vice chair, and Representatives Dressler and Dr. Dr. and Senator Patton were also assigned. The chair noted the group may need an additional meeting and thanked staff and attendees. A major portion of the meeting focused on economic development incentives. The Department of Commerce presented on the Renaissance Zone program and TIF districts, describing Renaissance Zones as locally tailored tools that combine local property tax relief with state income tax incentives. Commerce said the program has supported thousands of projects since 1999 and cited examples from Beach and Mandan showing increases in property and taxable value, business retention, housing, and downtown revitalization. Committee members raised concerns that smaller rural communities often lack the staff and expertise to apply, and Commerce said it provides outreach through conferences, office hours, and one-on-one assistance. League of Cities and local officials from Bismarck and Ellendale echoed the capacity issue, discussed how the programs have worked in their communities, and suggested possible reforms or more targeted support for small towns. Ellendale’s mayor also described two TIF districts, one for industrial infrastructure in Oaks and one for housing infrastructure tied to a data center project in Ellendale. The committee then turned to stripper oil taxation. The Tax Department gave a comparison of oil and gas tax structures in selected states, noting that most have some form of stripper or marginal well provision, while Alaska does not appear to have a specific stripper-well exemption. Members asked for more detail on definitions and North Dakota’s annual adjusted rate. The Department of Mineral Resources followed with a detailed presentation on North Dakota stripper wells, explaining the statutory thresholds, the 12-consecutive-month production test, and the fact that once a well qualifies it remains on stripper status even if production later rises. DMR said about 11,332 stripper wells are active, representing roughly 54% of wells and about 16% of state production, and emphasized that stripper status can extend well life, preserve tax revenue, and reduce orphaned wells. Committee members and industry witnesses discussed refracs, the economics of keeping marginal wells active, and the competitive disadvantage created by North Dakota’s oil price discount. No votes were taken on these informational items.