Transcript Highlights:

• of limitations. of limitations.
• Um, essentially when we look at categories of limitation—limits on prosecution—the statute of limitations
• <00:48:13.520> limits<00:48:14.000> on categories of limitation limits on categories
• the statute of limit uh limitations limitations limitations um<00:48:19.920> we<00:48:20.240>
• statute of limitations has run out. statute of limitations has run out.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House convened, suspended its rules to introduce 18 bills by number only, and referred the bills to the appropriate committees. House Bill 647, relating to the Vermont Sister State Program and carrying an appropriation, was referred to Appropriations under House Rule 35A. The chamber also read several resolutions: HR13, concerning support for the people of Palestine and Israel and the end of apartheid, was treated as a bill and referred to Government Operations and Military Affairs; JR88, condemning a U.S. military incursion in Venezuela and calling for withdrawal of U.S. forces, was likewise referred to Government Operations and Military Affairs; and JRS37, supporting gender equality in Nordic combined Olympic competition, was referred to Commerce and Economic Development. JRS39, a weekend adjournment resolution, was adopted in concurrence. On the action calendar, the House passed H541, relating to interference with voters and election officials. It then took up H5, which expands Vermont’s existing hearsay exception for child victims from age 12 and under to age 15 in specified abuse and sexual assault proceedings, with judicial safeguards and a July 1, 2026 effective date. The Judiciary Committee reported the bill favorably 10-1, and the House adopted the committee amendment and ordered third reading. The House also considered H626, a major Judiciary Committee bill on voyeurism, non-consensual disclosure of explicit images, and sexual extortion. Committee members described the bill as updating criminal and civil remedies for image-based abuse, creating a separate sextortion offense, extending criminal statutes of limitation, and clarifying civil recovery for trauma-related harm. During floor debate, members questioned the distinction between the voyeurism and disclosure provisions and the meaning of “reasonable expectation of privacy”; the committee responded with examples and statutory explanations, including that voyeurism covers unlawful recording while the disclosure offense covers later dissemination of images. The bill remained under consideration as the discussion continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• CURRENTLY, THERE ARE 12 COUNTIES THAT HAVE TERM LIMITS.
• THERE ARE NOW FOUR THAT HAVE 12 YEAR TERM LIMITS. THE OTHER EIGHT HAVE EIGHT-YEAR TERM LIMITS.
• I BELIEVE IN TERM LIMITS. I THINK THAT THEY SERVE A PURPOSE.
• POPULAR OF ANY TERM LIMITS.
• AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT IS CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE TERM LIMITS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The term limit thing is critical. We have to have term limits in the state of New Mexico.
• are term limited.
• From bringing a bill that limits term but would set term limits, Mr. Chair, Senator, no.
• can't support it without term limits, but I would be happy to do it with term limits.
• limit you."

Transcript Highlights:

• And is there truly a way to limit the convention?
• There are no rules and there are no limits.
• They claim that it could be limited to issues like a balanced budget or term limits.
• limiting.
• limiting.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing of the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs was opened by Chair Joe McGonagle and Vice Chair Senator Mike Rush, who noted that Chair John Velis was deployed with the Massachusetts National Guard. The chairs explained the hybrid format, three-minute testimony limit, live streaming, and filing deadlines, and said the committee would hear 11 House bills and eight Senate bills dealing with federal and overseas issues. Much of the hearing centered on competing resolutions about Article 5 constitutional conventions, along with related resolutions on D.C. statehood, child labor, Citizens United, and Cambodia. Supporters of H. 4692 and S. 284, a joint resolution to rescind all prior Massachusetts Article 5 convention applications, argued that old resolutions from the 1930s and 1970s could be used to count Massachusetts toward the 34-state threshold for calling a federal constitutional convention. Testifiers from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, Reproductive Equity Now, labor groups, and others warned that a convention would have no clear rules, could not be reliably limited to specific topics, and could put civil rights, reproductive rights, labor protections, and other constitutional protections at risk. Several speakers also cited a recent federal lawsuit and said the safest course was to remove outdated applications from the books. A large opposing panel testified in support of H. 3888, a resolution calling for a Convention of States to propose amendments limiting federal power, imposing fiscal restraints, and establishing term limits. Supporters argued that Article 5 provides a lawful way to address federal overreach, debt, and congressional stagnation, and said the process would be limited by state applications and ratification by 38 states. Some committee members and witnesses raised concerns about a runaway convention, broad language in the resolution, and whether Congress could or should set rules for such a convention. Representative Gentile also testified in support of several related resolutions on overturning Citizens United, D.C. statehood, and the child labor amendment, while Representative Howard and Representative Tongue supported a Cambodia resolution condemning political oppression and urging free and fair elections. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• limits, or whether states that don't have term limits experience a higher rate of turnover nationally
• I mean, I have a limit of four bill drafts.
• result in the need for interim limits?
• Do they support term limits on each elected office?
• But some people—I just like a reset in their term limits. Mr.

Summary: The Legislative Arrangements and Procedure Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up several follow-up items related to legislative security, public records, and the impacts of term limits. The Secretary of State’s office presented draft language to make legislators’ and candidates’ residential addresses confidential in public records, with discussion of who would be covered, how the protection would work, and whether it should expire when a candidate’s term ends. Members raised concerns about unintended consequences, transparency, and whether the public should still be able to see enough information to evaluate residency requirements. Rather than act immediately, the committee set the draft aside for a future meeting and asked for an amendment reflecting the Secretary of State’s suggested changes. The committee also reviewed a security best-practices memo and NCSL materials on capitol security. The memo encouraged legislators to be aware of their surroundings, avoid real-time vacation posting, vary routines, report threats, and follow security alerts. Members discussed a recent incident and the need to improve alert distribution and update contact information so legislators and staff receive notices consistently. The Secretary of State and committee members noted that the alert system may need refinement, including a separate legislative notification channel. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to Garrity Consulting’s final report on how to mitigate the effects of legislative term limits. The consultants summarized interviews, surveys, and focus groups with legislators, the public, and stakeholders, identifying major themes such as loss of institutional knowledge, leadership turnover, staffing pressures, and the need for stronger onboarding and training. Recommendations included considering annual sessions or shifting biennial sessions to even-numbered years, restructuring organizational session, making interim committees more consistent with regular committees, adding office hours, formalizing mentorship and leadership succession planning, expanding staff and professional development resources, creating public-facing educational tools, and improving communication and virtual testimony options. Members generally appreciated the report and its phased implementation roadmap, while also debating the practicality of some recommendations and the tension between making service more demanding and keeping the legislature accessible to new candidates.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's called the state appropriations limit at the state level.
• or the Gann limit.
• or the GAN limit.
• And so the Gann limit has been the focus of these discussions.
• And a key thing with the Gann limit, as it was amended in 1990, is that the Gann limit is designed to

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, I have a limit of four bill drafts.
• Will the impact of term limits result in the need for interim limits? Was asked to address.
• A number of the states have had term limits for over 20 years.
• Do they support term limits on each elected office?
• But some people, I just like a reset in their term limits. Mr.

Summary: The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up a draft bill to make legislators’ and candidates’ residential addresses confidential in public records. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State explained the proposal was prompted by security concerns and would protect residential addresses while still allowing election officials to verify residency and keep candidate names and offices public. Members raised concerns about unintended consequences, transparency, and how the change would affect rural districts and residency enforcement. The Secretary of State suggested an amendment to end the confidentiality when a candidate’s term ends, and the committee agreed to hold the bill over for further discussion at the next meeting. The committee also reviewed follow-up materials on legislator security and best practices, including advice on situational awareness, internet hygiene, varying routines, and reporting threats, along with NCSL materials comparing capitol security practices in other states. Members discussed a recent security incident and the need to keep alert contact information current, and staff said they would continue working with the Highway Patrol on legislative-specific notifications. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to Garrity Consulting’s final report on mitigating the effects of legislative term limits. The consultants summarized survey, focus group, and stakeholder input showing concerns about loss of institutional knowledge, leadership turnover, onboarding demands, and workload pressures, while also noting public support for term limits and annual sessions. Recommendations included considering annual sessions or shifting biennial sessions to even-numbered years, restructuring organizational session and interim committee work, creating office hours and more structured orientation and mentorship, expanding ongoing training and staff support, improving public communication and virtual testimony rules, and addressing barriers to service such as employer support and travel costs. Members discussed the tension between making the legislature more effective and preserving a citizen-legislature model, and the report was received as a roadmap for future implementation rather than immediate action.

Transcript Highlights:

• that was added was the limit. that was added was the limit.
• <00:08:29.039> on inserting establishing a limitation on inserting establishing a limitation
• too because what it kind of it a limit too because what it kind of it limits<00:08:53.760> your
• :28.720> the we are establishing a limitation on the we are establishing a limitation on the long-term
• 09:43.040> language believe that that limitation language believe that that limitation language

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The joint conference committee on House Bill 45 met to reconcile changes to the long-term homeowner property tax exemption. Members reviewed the original bill, which removed the exemption’s sunset, adjusted the signup/reporting date and procedures, clarified treatment for homeowners who sold one house and bought another, changed valuation language from assessed value to fair market value, and added a $3 million cap. The committee also discussed Senate amendments and a proposed cleanup amendment intended to prevent stacking the long-term homeowner exemption with a separate voter-approved homeowners’ property tax initiative if that initiative becomes law. Members asked about the difference between using “shall not qualify” versus a repealer, and were told the repealer was removed to avoid creating a trigger-bill issue if the initiative does not pass. Questions also focused on whether the catch title’s “limitation” language referred to the $3 million cap, and it was explained that the language could apply both to the cap and to the restriction on using both exemptions. One senator asked what Senate language was being deleted, and the response was that the committee was removing language that had gone too far, including a 25% exemption provision that was outside the scope of this bill and would be handled later in the interim. After discussion, the committee moved to concurrence. A roll call vote was taken, and all six members present voted aye. The committee announced concurrence and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• These limits are set in statute and increase with every general election based on the Consumer Price
• <00:10:41.519> in<00:10:41.760> statute limits these limits are set in statute limits
• <00:10:53.320> have will note that those limits have will note that those limits have increased
• You know, these spending limits have not been changed legislatively for many years. Should they be?
• You know, these spending limits have not been changed legislatively for many years. Should they be?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We would ask those to limit testimony to three minutes.
• Risk-limiting audits can provide high assurance.
• And risk-limiting audits are flexible.
• Tabulation is just to confirm the numbers, and a risk-limiting audit... ...risk-limiting audit.
• And then, with a risk-limiting audit, as Mark was saying, it can escalate.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on election security bills, focusing first on S. 517 and H. 876, which would strengthen Massachusetts’ post-election audit process. Testimony from the Brennan Center, Common Cause Massachusetts, Verified Voting, and the League of Women Voters supported expanding audits to include all ballot types, increasing audit frequency from every four years to every two years, requiring statewide audit reports to be posted within 30 days and kept online for six years, and allowing municipalities to conduct audits under state standards. Witnesses also praised the bill’s creation of a work group to study risk-limiting audits and other improvements, emphasizing public confidence, transparency, and the ability of audits to detect errors or deter fraud. Committee members asked detailed questions about how Massachusetts compares with other states, how risk-limiting audits differ from current tabulation audits, how audits are selected and expanded if discrepancies appear, and what the costs and mechanics of different audit methods would be. Witnesses explained that current audits are typically random, hand-count-based checks of selected contests and batches of ballots, that risk-limiting audits use statistical sampling and can escalate to a full recount if needed, and that Massachusetts’ local-control structure makes a collaborative work group useful. They also noted that audits generally confirm results but can uncover errors that do not change outcomes, and occasionally more serious problems. The committee then heard testimony on H. 832, which would authorize the Secretary of the Commonwealth to take emergency actions affecting elections during declared emergencies. Supporters said the bill would create a clear statutory process for rescheduling or adjusting elections during severe weather or other crises, including allowing emergency absentee ballot accommodations for civilian responders, and would reduce the need for court intervention. No votes were taken on the bills during the hearing, and the meeting ended with adjournment after no additional testimony was offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• limit for Supreme Court justices? limit for Supreme Court justices?
• limits uh just about. limits uh just about.
• limited to two terms as president. limited to two terms as president.
• religious freedom<02:43:53.359> or<02:43:53.680> limit freedom or limit freedom or limit
• term limits? term limits?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first continued its hearing on HB 1287, which concerns the definition of “veteran.” Representative Manion explained that the amendment would adopt the federal-style definition by including a general discharge under honorable conditions, while restoring documentation requirements such as a DD214 and removing a problematic reference to World War II allied veterans. The chair said the committee would close the hearing and take the bill up later in executive session. The committee then moved to HCR 13, a resolution calling for an Article V convention limited to proposing a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress. Representative Joe Alexander, the prime sponsor, said the measure is narrowly focused on congressional term limits, that 12 states have already passed similar resolutions, and that broad public support in New Hampshire justifies action. Members asked whether the effort would prompt Congress to act on its own, whether the resolution should also cover Supreme Court justices, and how many states are needed; Alexander said the goal is to pressure Congress, that the Constitution already treats Supreme Court justices differently, and that 34 states are required. Testimony in support came from former Representative Linda Masamela, who gave a history-based argument for Article V conventions as a constitutional check, and from Deborah Childs and Aaron Ducet of U.S. Term Limits. Childs said New Hampshire voters strongly support term limits and argued they would open seats to younger, more diverse candidates. Ducet said the application is single-topic and would allow only one amendment, described Article V applications as historically common, and argued that state pressure can force Congress to act. No vote was taken in the portion provided; the chair continued hearing testimony on HCR 13.

Transcript Highlights:

• term limit type of thing? term limit type of thing?
• limit for Supreme Court justices? limit for Supreme Court justices?
• limited to two terms as president. limited to two terms as president.
• religious freedom<02:43:53.359> or<02:43:53.680> limit freedom or limit freedom or limit
• term limits? term limits?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think you're referring to the change in the treatment of the state appropriations limit.
• For me, what I'd like to know is: what is the current constitutional Gann limit for 2026-2027?
• What the actual limit is? Mm-hmm. I think it's around $200 billion. $200 billion.
• The appropriations limit is a little bit of an apples-and-oranges calculation, if I may.
• The Gann limit would apply in the year of the withdrawal. And Mr.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think you're referring to the change in the treatment of the state appropriations limit.
• For me, what I'd like to know is: what is the current constitutional Gann limit for 2026-2027?
• What the actual limit is? Mm-hmm. I think it's around $200 billion. $200 billion.
• The appropriations limit is a little bit of an apples-and-oranges calculation, if I may.
• The Gann limit would apply in the year of the withdrawal. And Mr.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Now we can take up Senate File 25, landowner license limits in limited quota hunt areas.
• Landowner license limits in limited quota hunt areas.
• <00:04:09.599> license hunt opportunities that limit license hunt opportunities that limit
• set a limit on landowner license issued. set a limit on landowner license issued.
• But it's limited to 50 organization. But it's limited to 50 licenses. licenses. licenses.

Bills: SF0025, SF0027, SF0043, SF0066

Keywords: landowner licenses, hunting, wildlife management, quota hunt areas, game and fish commission, game management, hunting regulations, black bear, tracking dogs, wildlife conservation, conservation, contracting, supervisor, funding, districts, hunting licenses, donated licenses, life-threatening illness, vision impairment, nonprofit organizations

Transcript Highlights:

• And for everybody, a two-minute time limit on testimony.
• is told, Or if certain things don't occur, that statute of limitations are tolled.
• So then is there a separate statute of limitations for the administrative side of things?
• I'm sorry, to limit it to violent offenses. Violent crimes are defined in HRS 134-1.
• limitations of section 40-68 from being claimed.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard and acted on several nominations and bills. It first recommended advise and consent for Governor’s Message 573, confirming Luann Blake to the Statewide Elections Accessibility Needs Advisory Committee after she described her experience as a blind voter and her goals of improving outreach and accessibility for voters with print disabilities. The committee then took up the judiciary supplemental budget bill, HB 2095, with testimony from the courts and several supportive organizations. The courts requested funding for security, cybersecurity, substance use treatment contracts, public guardian services, staffing, and capital projects; members questioned the lump-sum CIP request, the substance use contract funding, and the Kamanu Hale elevator project. The committee later voted to pass HB 2095 with amendments, including changes to cybersecurity funding, security-related report language, and other committee-report notes. The committee also heard HB 1520, which changes the five-year statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions of campaign finance violations to begin upon discovery by the Campaign Spending Commission. The commission supported the bill, saying it would prevent delayed reporting from avoiding prosecution, while one senator raised concerns about due diligence, tolling, and the difference between administrative and criminal enforcement. The bill drew broad support from advocacy groups and was advanced with an amendment clarifying “criminal prosecution.” HB 1548, which reduces the maximum sentence for misdemeanors and other offenses punishable by up to one year to 364 days, received strong support from the Public Defender, immigrant-rights groups, OHA, and others, who said the change would reduce immigration consequences for noncitizens. The committee later amended and passed the bill, limiting it to non-violent offenses. HB 2050, increasing partial public financing limits and available public funds, was supported by the Campaign Spending Commission and good-government groups, while OHA asked for parity with lieutenant governor races. The committee passed it with amendments increasing the public-fund match and funding levels, and requested additional appropriations in the committee report. HB 2494, which would set factors for warrantless arrests for petty misdemeanors and violations and require documentation of the justification, drew strong support from the Public Defender and civil-liberties advocates but opposition from the Attorney General’s office, prosecutors, police, and some business groups, who warned it would restrict officer discretion and trigger litigation. The committee nevertheless passed it with amendments. In a final decision-making agenda, the committee also passed HB 2250 with amendments, adding blank appropriations and committee-report language related to claims against the state, including claims involving exonerees and a disputed USEPA-related claim.

Transcript Highlights:

• Where's our credibility if we're not willing to set term limits here? And we have no term limits.
• There's no term limits.
• If you think term limits is that topic for true value, then let's enact term limits.
• Term Limits, Inc. v.
• While language in this bill mentions limiting the convention to term limits, I do not trust this would

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, on the limits that I'm hoping we can consider going forward. concentrate limit is dangerously
• to the recommended 30% concentrate limit to the recommended 30% THC<00:59:08.799> limit<00:59
• <01:05:22.079> on the idea of a limitation on the idea of a limitation on concentrates.<01
• space and with that limited space comes limited eye time by the consumer.
• have limited space and with that limited have limited space and with that limited space<01:11:59.199

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• speed limit.
• limit.
• So just putting up a speed limit limit.
• people following the speed limit some people following the speed limit sign,<00:26:49.440> that
• MnDOT would be willing to look at an experimental speed limit in this area, a temporary speed limit,

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The statute of limitations is two years for a private suit.
• Why do we have these limits in place?
• Number one, a reasonable limit increase.
• And in Texas, their limits are 250,000 and 500,000.
• There was a 300, 500 limit discussed. There was a 400, 600 limit discussed.

Summary: The subcommittee first heard HB 6507, a claims bill for Marcus Button, who suffered severe permanent injuries in a 2006 school bus crash. Representative Andrade explained that a jury awarded Button more than $2 million in 2009, but only a small amount was paid under sovereign immunity limits. He said Pasco County later reached a settlement with Button, but believed it lacked legal authority to pay without legislative approval. The bill would give the county that authority. There was no opposition testimony, and the bill passed unanimously, 18-0. The committee then took up HB 301, which would substantially revise Florida’s sovereign immunity framework. Representative McFarland said the bill would raise liability caps for state and local governments from $200,000/$300,000 to $1 million/$3 million, with a later increase in 2030, align statutes of limitations with private suits, allow governments to settle above the caps without a claims bill, and prevent insurance policies from conditioning payment on legislative approval. She framed the bill as a way to reduce the need for the claims bill process and provide faster redress to injured people. Testimony on HB 301 was sharply divided. Local governments, school districts, counties, cities, hospital groups, and insurance representatives opposed the bill, arguing the higher caps would sharply increase insurance and taxpayer costs, especially for small or fiscally constrained entities, and that the claims bill process and special masters provide useful review and leverage. Supporters, including the Florida Justice Association and several members, argued the current system is too slow and political, leaves seriously injured people waiting years for compensation, and should be modernized to better hold government accountable. No vote was taken on HB 301 in the portion of the meeting provided.