Transcript Highlights:

• So we are continuing to review the level of this request.
• So we are continuing to review the level of this request.
• John Char, Legislative Analyst's Office: As we continue to review this proposal, we would note that,
• John Char, Legislative Analyst's Office: As we continue to review this proposal, we would note that,
• Yes, we conduct and review CDSS data on a regular basis and are seeing very strong outcomes both with

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have two rules for the committee's review today.
• They will still have time to review and comment.
• They also have had at least two to three rate reviews.
• I am sure that there have been rate reviews.
• They have not been annual rate reviews to my knowledge.

Committee: All ALC-ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

Summary: The Administrative Rules Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council reviewed several agency rules and requests. The Insurance Department’s amendment to its holding company system rule was reviewed and approved, as were two State Board of Election Commissioners rules: one clarifying poll watcher conduct, vote challenges, and provisional voting, and another increasing pay for certified election monitors and defining training, observation, and report-writing compensation. The Arkansas Financial Education Commission also had its rule reviewed and approved after removing membership requirements tied to DEI language to comply with Act 938. The committee held over the Department of Education’s request to be excluded from reporting requirements for one month to allow further discussion about who should write or implement the rules. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Department of Human Services’ request to be excluded from reporting requirements for Acts 567, 568, 967, and 1025. DHS said CMS had raised comparability and other federal approval concerns, especially for the dental and diagnostic lab provisions, and that it might not be able to meet the acts’ effective dates. DHS described several possible paths forward, including broader benefit changes, waivers, or splitting the dental provisions so the pediatric rate increase could move separately from the special-needs adult cap increase. The Arkansas State Dental Association disputed DHS’s conclusion that the acts could not be implemented as written, argued that Act 1025 is workable, and urged DHS to continue pursuing implementation and preserve the September 1 effective date where possible. Public testimony also supported expanded dental access for adults with disabilities and special needs. After discussion, the committee voted not to exclude DHS from reporting requirements for those acts. The committee then reviewed the Division of Higher Education’s Act 781 report. The division said it has 32 rules in effect, asked to repeal three rules—two replaced by new rules and one no longer supported by authority or current law—and to continue the remaining 29 rules. The committee approved that request, with the repeals effective upon adjournment of the Legislative Council meeting on January 16, 2026. The meeting concluded with no questions on the remaining written rulemaking updates from prior and current sessions, which were filed without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just a quick review of the agenda. We'll start with an overview.
• We contract with a vendor who reviews all of those inpatient hospitalizations.
• Usually he's not involved in reviewing specific claims.
• So out of those recommendations, they were all reviewed and voted on.
• And number four, there should be a review. In the tiers.

Summary: The committee first received an update from the Attorney General’s office on a new workers’ rights unit and two request bills. The office said the unit will focus on wage theft and civil rights enforcement, using existing resources for a small staff. It also described a bill to expand civil investigative demand authority for labor, wage theft, prevailing wage, and discrimination investigations, and an Immigrant Worker Protection Act that would require employer notice when federal immigration authorities request employee records, limit access to nonpublic work areas without a warrant, and restrict disclosure of employee data without proper legal process. Senators asked about costs, funding sources, and the scope of the proposed authority, and the office said it would follow up with more detail. The committee then heard a detailed presentation on Washington’s workers’ compensation system from Labor and Industries, including how claims are filed, how the medical provider network works, and how treatment authorizations and utilization review are handled. L&I said the network was created to improve care quality and return workers to work, and explained that most routine care is automatically authorized while certain procedures require prior approval or review. A question from Senator Conway focused on the role of the medical director and the appeals process; L&I said decisions can be protested and reconsidered, with exceptions reviewed through a complex treatment unit and medical staff. An experience panel followed with testimony from labor representatives, physicians, and an injured-worker attorney, who argued that the medical provider network and treatment guidelines can delay or deny needed care, especially in complex cases such as PTSD, brain injuries, and serious orthopedic injuries. They described long appeals, utilization review barriers, provider shortages, and the impact on injured workers and families, while L&I’s presentation emphasized the system’s structure and review safeguards. The committee then heard a report from the Underground Economy Task Force in the construction industry. L&I summarized the task force’s findings on worker misclassification, unregistered contractors, and unpaid taxes and premiums, and outlined consensus and majority recommendations, including better interagency communication, stronger penalties for repeat offenders, more authority to address successorship, possible contractor notice requirements, and further study of cash payments. The Attorney General’s office, labor, and business representatives generally supported the report’s goals but differed on some recommendations, especially those affecting independent contractors, contractor liability, and administrative burdens. The chair and Senator Conway thanked participants and said the report would inform future legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are also conducting a comprehensive review to determine how this happened and make any necessary updates
• The State Patrol has been discussing the importance of a full security review at the Capitol complex
• In addition to that third-party assessment and our own internal review, there have been discussions and
• They do review protocols.
• And that's why we were asking for that independent review to come in, take a look at the communications

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The next section that I'd like to review with you is...
• They would fall under a small government review process.
• And then what we'll do is we'll review that information.
• Again, I mentioned this: review statutes.
• Review.

Committee: Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Efficiency

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, that is also under review.
• Um, that is also under review.
• Um, that is also under review.
• Um, that is also under review.
• Um, that is also under review.

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The data evaluation, or special review.
• ,</c><00:48:39.040><c> no</c> Uh there's no notice, no review, no Uh there's no notice, no review, no
• </c><01:09:52.480><c> the</c> with county attorneys who review the with county attorneys who review the
• </c><01:10:05.040><c> However,</c> to facilitate this review. However, to facilitate this review.
• </c><01:55:45.360><c> or</c> need to be looked at and reviewed or need to be looked at and reviewed or

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the October 15, 2025 minutes and then held a broader discussion on current challenges with data retention and government transparency. Judy Randall of the Office of the Legislative Auditor said historical data is essential for post-audits, which often look back three to five years, and that retention decisions must balance audit needs with the burden of separating public and nonpublic data. She described the records-retention panel process as informal and largely based on individual judgment, noting she had objected to a proposed 60-day email retention period and generally uses a three-year guideline, though she said that standard is not grounded in a formal rule. Members discussed whether auditing standards should set retention periods, with Randall saying auditing is a good starting point but other offices, including the attorney general, also have needs, and that some agency discretion is unavoidable because of the gray area between official records and non-records. Representative Elkins raised the related principle of data minimization, arguing that government should not keep data longer than needed and citing a University of Minnesota legacy data warehouse breach as an example of the risks of retaining unnecessary sensitive information. Randall agreed that data no longer needed is a liability and said her office purges workpapers after five years. Representative Scott pressed whether three years is enough for fraud investigations and financial records; Randall responded that a reasonableness standard is needed and that longer retention can produce diminishing returns, though she said she would follow up on whether financial records should be treated differently. Tanya Tacker of the Rum River Special Education Cooperative testified in support of updating Minnesota’s data-retention laws for schools. She said districts want to protect student information and maintain transparency, but the current general retention schedule dates to 1985 and 2000 and does not reflect digital records, modern systems, or the volume of special education data. She urged modernizing the schedule, clarifying what must be kept in paper versus digitized form, aligning state rules with IDEA and other federal requirements, and providing practical guidance and tools. Members praised the specificity of her recommendations. Dr. BB Newman testified that retention failures in St. Anthony Village have made it difficult to obtain routine municipal and police data, with records delayed, missing, or inconsistently produced and no clear explanation of what systems were searched or whether records were destroyed. Newman argued these gaps undermine statutory access rights and force residents into costly litigation, and recommended stronger retention auditing, documentation of destruction, mandatory disclosure of systems searched, and consequences for noncompliance. In response to questions, Senate counsel said there is generally no direct penalty, but affected parties may seek mandamus, Data Practices Act claims, or informal mediation/opinions from the Data Practices Office. The discussion closed with calls for clearer standards and possible legislative updates to improve compliance and transparency.

Transcript Highlights:

• hearing in their Sunset Review Report and the committee's Sunset Review Background Paper.
• SB 1368 addresses the issues discussed during the board sunset review hearing in their sunset review
• SB 1368 addresses the issues discussed during the board sunset review hearing in their sunset review
• Addresses the issues discussed during the board sunset review hearing in their sunset review report and
• the committee's sunset review background paper.

Committee: Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You will find those rules on page 110 through 112 of your Rules Review book.
• To assist the committee in its review, we have provided a detailed crosswalk of these changes.
• The board spent a significant amount of time reviewing this issue. So why did this change?
• The board spent a significant amount of time reviewing this issue.
• I will now review the changes to the IDAPA rules based on the review of the 2024 building codes.

Committee: House Business

Summary: The House Business Committee met with a quorum and first considered two pending fee rules from the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses. The committee approved Rules Docket 24-21-2501 for the Idaho State Contractors Board, which raises annual registration and renewal fees from $50 to $60 to help the board meet statutory cash-balance requirements. It also approved Rules Docket 24-2201-2501 for the Board of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Safety, which increases licensure fees by 15 to 20 percent to address a negative cash balance and comply with Idaho’s board solvency statute. Members asked about the causes of the shortfalls, possible consolidation of boards, and why one training fee was left unchanged. The committee then took up Rules Docket 24-2801-2501 for the Barber and Cosmetology Services Licensing Board. Representative Graham moved to hold the docket subject to call of the chair, citing concerns raised by industry participants and the need to work through issues with the department before advancing the rule. The motion carried, and the docket was held in committee. The longest discussion centered on Rules Docket 24-3930-2502, the Idaho Building Safety Code rules, which would adopt the 2024 building codes with Idaho-specific amendments. Supporters said the proposal would improve housing affordability, add flexibility for builders, address lithium-ion battery fire risks, and update energy and residential provisions while preserving many 2018 standards. Committee members raised concerns about overlapping authority with the State Fire Marshal, wording on garage heat detectors, whole-house ventilation language, and whether some provisions should remain in the building code at all. After public testimony from building officials, home builders, and city representatives in support of the rule, the committee first failed a substitute motion to hold the docket, then adopted a motion to reject the rule docket. The meeting adjourned with a reminder that the next floor session would begin at 11 a.m. the following day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee, did everybody get a chance to review the minutes of our last meeting?
• present that information to the committee, as she's been pretty involved in the drafting and the review
• Beth was pretty involved in the drafting and the review of that policy, so she’ll be able to field any
• The committee reviewed several practical clarifications and revisions to the documents.
• The committee reviewed alternative options that may be taken after a complaint is received.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: Legislative Management met with a quorum, approved the July 11, 2025 minutes, and then considered recommendations from the Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee. Beth Dittes explained proposed special session rule changes, which largely mirror prior special session rules and are intended to speed floor action. The changes would allow faster second readings and transmission between chambers, replace regular standing committees with two joint committees for the special session—Joint Appropriations and Joint Policy—and limit bill introduction methods. The package also included delayed-effective-date changes for the next regular session, such as moving the agency and Supreme Court prefile deadline earlier and advancing several resolution deadlines. Liz Fordall then reviewed revisions to the legislative workplace harassment policy, including clarified definitions, longer intake and review deadlines, an option for informal resolution before a review panel, and clearer disclosure rules. The committee adopted the report and forwarded the rules and policy changes. The committee also approved tentative first-day special session agendas for both chambers, with a Speaker-requested revision to allow time to swear in new House members. Megan Gordon outlined the schedule: early Rules Committee meetings, morning floor sessions, a joint session for the governor’s State of the State, then meetings of the joint appropriations and policy committees, with optional later floor and committee time. Members discussed how the joint committees would handle bills and confirmed the process would mirror the prior special session. The agendas were adopted. Chairman Bekkedahl then reported for the Rural Health Transformation Committee, which had completed its work and recommended five bill drafts for the special session: a Presidential Physical Fitness Test requirement for schools, a nutrition component for physician continuing education, joining a physician assistant licensure compact, expanding pharmacist scope for lab testing and prescribing, and a two-year appropriations bill to cover the program through the next regular session. He explained the federal rural health transformation grant, the state’s application, funding restrictions, and the need to keep the bills aligned with CMS requirements to avoid funding reductions or clawbacks. DHS officials said the department would measure outcomes through required metrics, use templates for awards, and set up an Office of Health Transformation to track long-term impacts. The committee adopted the rural health report and forwarded the bills. Finally, members discussed special-session logistics. Legislative staff said employment committees would approve a limited number of staff, Legislative Management would serve as the delayed-bills committee, and a letter would be sent to legislators explaining the process and a suggested Friday noon drafting deadline for bills to be considered at the January 20 meeting. The committee also discussed how many bills might be introduced and how to assign the rural health bills to the House or Senate for origin. No formal vote was taken on those logistics, and the meeting adjourned with plans to reconvene on January 20.

Transcript Highlights:

• We come to the review panel, information about review.
• </c> conduct separate review processes. conduct separate review processes.
• For these reasons, it's reviews.
• Um, case reviews are those cases that the county, excuse me, that the state reviews.
• </c> And the cases that are being reviewed? And the cases that are being reviewed?

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Costs are tracked, reviewed, and then amortized over defined periods.
• Most utility spending is reviewed before it enters rates.
• I'm sure you have received this and have had an opportunity to review it.
• They review all of the modeling and recommendations of parties.
• Well, I may have had a chance to review your letters. It's an interesting proposal.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, wildfire costs, and the California Public Utilities Commission’s role. Chair and members framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while maintaining reliability and keeping bills affordable. The hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and the Public Advocates Office, with testimony from Professor Severin Borenstein and CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds. Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining that generation is largely deregulated while transmission and distribution remain regulated, and that most rate-setting follows cost-of-service regulation. He emphasized that the hardest issue is setting the allowed return on equity: too high can raise bills and encourage capital-heavy spending, while too low can deter investment and harm reliability. He argued there is no silver bullet, said performance-based regulation and price caps have limits, and suggested some costs now charged through electric bills—such as climate programs, low-income subsidies, and wildfire-related public policy costs—might more appropriately be paid through the state budget. Reynolds described the CPUC’s oversight role, saying the commission reviews utility spending through general rate cases, balancing accounts, and other proceedings, and that affordability is addressed through front-end scrutiny, post-spend accountability, and legislative direction. She highlighted wildfire mitigation as a major driver of rate increases, noted recent progress on clean energy procurement and battery storage, and said the CPUC is working on return-on-equity decisions, FERC advocacy on transmission costs, and implementation of SB 254 and other statutes. Members pressed on a range of issues, including wildfire securitization, load growth from EVs and data centers, gas-system stranded assets, balancing accounts, and a water-service dispute in Keene involving Union Pacific. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up commitments from the CPUC to provide data and updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Costs are tracked, reviewed, and then amortized over defined periods.
• Most utility spending is reviewed before it enters rates.
• I'm sure you have received this and have had an opportunity to review it.
• The PUC only reviews the evidence in front of it in making its decision.
• Well, I may have had a chance to review your letters. Okay. All right.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> automatically go to a review committee. automatically go to a review committee.
• </c> the General Assembly following a review the General Assembly following a review of<01:06:55.280>
• . review. review.
• </c> Assembly to engage in a review. Assembly to engage in a review. Period. Period. Period.
• </c> to review that prior to the sunset. to review that prior to the sunset.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• recent ruling from the California's Fourth District Court of Appeal determined that environmental review
• review committee that is established in this framework.
• review committee that is established in this framework.
• litigation opportunity and the time length that a traditional CEQA review would go through.
• But yeah, the idea is just to consolidate the review process, but not to end around any of the review

Summary: The committee heard a series of Senate bills on environmental, climate, recycling, wildfire, outdoor access, and clean transportation policy. SB 958 would clarify CEQA treatment of impacts tied solely to increased building height, and SB 1230 would increase penalties and create CalRecycle support tools for repeat commercial illegal dumping. SB 1341 would revise how processing fees are calculated for bag-in-a-box wine under California’s recycling program. All three measures received due-pass recommendations to Appropriations, with roll calls showing majority support and the bills left open for absent members. Members then took up SB 1300, which would create a more permanent legislative role in California’s international climate cooperation and establish a climate secretariat at UC; SB 1370, which would codify and streamline wildfire fuel-reduction permitting with added safeguards, geographic and size limits, and pesticide-related amendments; and SB 1260/1268, which would codify the Outdoors for All initiative and the Deputy Secretary for Access position at the Natural Resources Agency. Each drew support from environmental, utility, business, and local-government witnesses, while SB 1370 also drew opposition from environmental and advocacy groups concerned about reduced CEQA review and herbicide use. The committee discussed amendments at length, especially on SB 1370, and all three measures advanced with due-pass recommendations. The committee also heard SB 1213, the Clean Truck Transparency Act, requiring baseline pricing disclosure for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission trucks tied to state incentives and directing agencies to explore alternative financing. Support came from clean-air, business, and environmental groups, and the trucking/manufacturing opposition moved to neutral after amendments; the bill advanced on a due-pass vote. Finally, SB 1075, the Clean Air Promise, sought to strengthen AB 617 implementation and clarify community emission reduction planning, but it generated substantial opposition from air districts, business groups, and others over enforceability, funding, and the distinction between formal SERPs and community L-SERPs. The author described additional pending amendments to narrow L-SERP provisions, and the bill also received a due-pass recommendation to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1145 does not exempt qualifying CNWS projects from review and oversight.
• It leverages review and oversight already completed for the Concord Naval Weapons Station.
• Local governments still review projects to ensure they meet all applicable safety standards.
• The county elections official is going to then review the Commission.
• We look forward to reviewing the amendments and working with the author. Thank you. Thank you.

Committee: Senate Local Government

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And essentially we review that.
• and the substantive review portion.
• But one thing: we're not talking about the substantive review.
• There's administratively complete, and then there's the substantive review.
• Having reviewed the bill in briefing but not in committee, I am... and I... Thank you.

Bills: HB2026 , HB2027 , HB2028 , HB2031 , HB2078 , HB2094 , HB2095 , HB2101 , HB2102 , HB2103 , HB2260 , HB2278 , HB2827 , HB2932 , HB2933 , HB2934 , HB2986 , HCM2009 , HCR2038

Committee: House Natural Resources, Energy & Water

Keywords: assured water supply, groundwater, commingling, commingled water, water supply, Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR, active management area, AMA, subdivision plat, development approval, water rights, municipal provider, private water company, certificate of assured water supply, written commitment of water service, groundwater savings credits, gray water reuse, replenishment district, Central Arizona Project

Transcript Highlights:

• Reviewed interconnection issues.
• But in review of all rate cases, there is always a very good look at historical.
• We also have written testimony and support from the Hawaii reviewed the data and the improvements reviewed
• Again, they go through a review process for the PUC.
• So you know review process for the PUC.

Bills: SB2033 , SB2487 , SB2497 , SB2471 , SB2829

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: renewable energy, grid-ready homes, interconnection process, electric utility, energy independence, surcharge, customer access, energy storage, smart inverters, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, electric utility rates, ratemaking, performance-based regulation, performance-based incentives, performance incentive mechanisms, revenue adjustment mechanisms, cost control mechanisms, reward and penalty mechanisms, alternative ratemaking

Summary: The committee first reconvened on SB 2471 and SB 2829, both relating to the powers of artificial persons. After discussion with the Attorney General’s office and a prior Q&A period, the chair said the committee would defer decision-making again, with the intent to return with amended versions of both bills that could gain support from the administration and its lawyers. The measures were deferred to Tuesday, February 10, 2026, in Conference Room 229 at 9:30 a.m. The committee then took up SB 2180, relating to deposits of public funds. Members noted late testimony from the prior day’s joint hearing with the Housing Committee and moved to pass the bill out with amendments, including a defective effective date. The motion carried unanimously among those voting: the chair, vice chair, Senator Lamosao, and Senator Awa voted aye; Senator McKelvey was excused. The measure was adopted. A joint hearing followed on SB 2033, relating to renewable energy and a streamlined grid-ready homes interconnection process. The PUC supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about the time, resources, and stakeholder input needed to establish the proposed process, and asked for clarification of terms such as “grid-ready homes” and the role of HERA. Hawaiian Electric said it supported the intent but opposed the proposed process and HERA funding use. The Hawaii Solar Energy Association strongly supported the bill, arguing that faster interconnection is needed to meet rooftop solar goals and lower costs over time. Testimony totaled 27 in support, two in opposition, and four with comments. Members questioned costs, consumer protections, and whether the bill would burden low- and moderate-income households; the bill’s supporters said amendments could clarify the definition of grid-ready homes and add guardrails, while acknowledging that upfront costs and interconnection costs would still need to be addressed.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we were able to review all the documents.
• Meanwhile, candidates have easy review.
• But we were able to review signature.
• Um, and so all that has to be reviewed, and yes, we do accept...
• We review those, but we let you see those as well.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission met on March 9, 2026, with a quorum present in person and one commissioner participating from Florida. The meeting began with the swearing-in of new commissioner Joe Palumbo, who briefly introduced himself and his family and business background. The commission then approved the February 2, 2026 minutes and approved the staff budget report, with staff noting the office remained within spending parameters. Staff gave an update on the heavy workload from re-registration and reporting season, saying roughly 4,500 re-registrations and about 10,000 total forms had been processed. They credited the new online payment portal with reducing manual work and discussed ongoing LRC technology work to build a new system for desktop use, online re-registration, payment processing, and a searchable register. Commissioners asked about the timeline and current paper-based process; staff said the system is being built from scratch and that, for now, forms are still often downloaded, completed, emailed or mailed, and manually entered by staff. The commission also reviewed financial disclosure processing. Staff said all required disclosures had been received except one outstanding candidate filing, and that the candidate was still officially running, so notice was being sent by certified mail under the statute. Staff explained that their review is for completeness rather than audit-level accuracy, and that disclosures from legislators, candidates, and certain upper-management/LRC officials are posted for public access. The commission then discussed its informal advisory opinions, including how staff tracks and organizes them, and praised staff for quick turnaround before voting to enter executive session to discuss confidential complaints and informal opinions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And our review of... chief of staff for the state auditor.
• And our review of They hadn't published notice of election at all.
• And our review of the bond documents requires that we are attesting that all laws have been complied
• There are a laundry list of other things... ...election provisions of our review will be met.
• There are others that we are aware of that weren't ever brought to us for review.

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The Elections Committee met in executive session first and adopted a House Committee substitute for House Bill 2387, which combined HB 2387 and HB 2480. The substitute removed provisions on extending no-excuse in-person absentee voting and shortening the absentee voting window, shifted the presidential candidate filing fee to be set by state party committees, and added language to bind presidential delegates to primary results while allowing national party rules to control where required. Members discussed the legal basis for delegate binding, party input on the substitute, and the role of closed primaries, then the committee voted 10-2-1 to do pass HB 2387 as substituted. The committee also passed House Bill 1987 and House Concurrent Resolution 23 without opposition, and passed House Bill 1802 after members discussed election transparency and concerns about applying the measure uniformly across counties; the vote was 11-2. In public hearing, the committee heard House Bill 2605, which would update election notice requirements, especially for bond elections. Sponsor Rep. McGaugh and the State Auditor’s office said the bill would address technical publication errors that had jeopardized voter-approved bond issues by allowing notice defects to be cured if no election contest is filed within 30 days, while also allowing one newspaper publication and one direct mailing notice. Testimony from county clerks, school administrators, a fire district, the Missouri Press Association, and others generally supported the bill as a practical fix, though one witness urged broader website posting of notices. The hearing also covered House Bill 2301, a campaign finance cleanup bill that would clarify definitions and reporting rules in Chapter 130, especially for continuing committees and indirect political spending; the sponsor said it was intended to fix ambiguity from prior law, and the only testimony in favor called for additional restrictions on recurring donations and more transparency. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1787, which would require schools used as polling places to treat election days as school holidays beginning in the 2026-27 school year. The sponsor said the bill was intended to improve child safety and could also help with staffing and voter participation, while members raised concerns about school calendars already being set and whether the mandate should instead be optional or delayed to a later school year. A witness in favor supported the safety goal but asked for local control and a later effective date. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee adjourned after the hearing.