Transcript Highlights:

• The first would be to make some corresponding changes to the Uniform Probate Code to reference the sections
• I support the idea of removing Section 10 from the bill if that is what it takes to allow the rest of
• Today I support the elimination of Section 10 and the passage of the bill. Thanks very much.
• 10 from the idea of removing section 10 from the bill<00:15:51.519> if<00:15:51.720> that<
• in sections in sections 508a<01:20:40.800> and<01:20:41.199> 510<01:20:42.159>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard SB 1231, which would repeal the Parentage Uniform Act of 1973 and update Hawaii’s parentage laws, including parts of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017. Supporters said the current statutes are outdated and do not adequately address assisted reproduction, surrogacy, and modern family formation. The Attorney General’s office supported the bill with technical amendments, including conforming changes to the Probate Code and child support provisions, and several testifiers urged passage as a needed modernization of the law. A major point of disagreement was Part 10, which concerns donor anonymity. Some supporters, including members of the task force, the Uniform Law Commission, fertility and family law practitioners, and LGBTQ+ advocates, backed the bill as written or said it should move forward even if Part 10 is removed. Others, including donor-conceived adults, parents, and advocacy groups, opposed Part 10 and urged the committee to adopt the 2024 version of Article 9 or delete Part 10 entirely, arguing that anonymous donation harms donor-conceived people’s access to genetic, medical, and identity information and that anonymity is not realistic in the DNA-testing era. One task force member and attorney said she supported the bill but preferred removing Part 10 if necessary to pass the rest. The hearing included extensive public testimony both in support and opposition, with many individuals describing personal experiences with adoption, IVF, surrogacy, and donor conception. No committee vote or final action on the bill was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• in Chapter 13 and then were cross-referenced in the section that is 127A21 Subdivision 6.
• That section is Section 9, Article 7 of the bill. So it's page 28, oh sorry, of the DE 1.
• But the language in Section 3, the proposed 1332.11 and 1382 were not included in the DE.
• So that whole section is, I believe there's an amendment to not include that section, to delete it.
• So the amendment will be to delete section 9 on page 28.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first section change that you'll see is section two. This is a technical change. Mr.
• The first section change that you'll see is section two. This is a technical change.
• The rest of the bulk of the section.
• <00:18:36.400> six, The same thing is true of section six, The same thing is true of section
• c><00:18:43.200> last particular section was amended last particular section was amended last

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• the um higher education section. the um higher education section.
• yet or I was going to go to section two? yet or I was going to go to section two?
• section? section?
• two, section one.
• Um, and sections two, section one.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you got to at least keep that section you got to at least keep that section and<00:31:12.200>
• Um the other the survey section.
• into just the survey section. into just the survey section.
• also has to be applied in section five. also has to be applied in section five.
• section two. section two.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference first took up House Bill 158 on public inspection of absentee ballot lists. The Senate explained that its amendment replaced the original bill with a requirement that the Secretary of State review absentee ballot data after each general election and report findings to the committees of jurisdiction, focusing on unusual patterns such as multiple ballots sent to the same address. After a brief caucus, the House agreed to the Senate position, and members voted individually to concur. The committee then discussed House Bill 281, which concerns making the electronic voter checklist available in a sortable format. The main dispute was whether the public list should include the mailing address where an absentee ballot was sent if it differs from the voter’s registered address. The Senate argued that including mailing addresses could expose where voters actually live or are away from home and could create safety concerns, while the House argued the information could help candidates reach voters and was not primarily a fraud measure. The parties also discussed a related nursing home verification provision and record-retention/public-records questions. After caucusing, the House agreed to the Senate’s position with the added nursing home signing language, and the committee closed the bill on consent. House Bill 340, concerning electioneering by public employees, was then taken up with a Senate amendment that narrowed the definition of electioneering by tying it to existing statutory language, added a prohibition on expressly or primarily political surveys, and created a civil penalty option alongside the misdemeanor penalty. Senators and representatives debated whether the penalties should be mandatory or discretionary and how the language would apply to certain categories of public employees. After further clarification and caucus, the House accepted the Senate’s amended replace-all language, and the committee closed HB 340. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 1062, authorizing the Secretary of State to conduct random audits of citizenship qualifications of registered voters. The Senate explained that its changes removed the need for a permanent audit power by allowing records to be checked against databases and by requiring identification for registration going forward, which is why it added a sunset clause. The House member objected to the sunset and wanted the authority to continue indefinitely, and discussion continued as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's what this section is meant to make very clear.
• benefit account made under this section benefit account made under this section shall<00:07:01.280
• <00:08:38.000> one signed and then subsection section one signed and then subsection section
• Let's take a look at that section. >> That's on page five.
• Let's take a look at that<00:09:24.720> section. that section. that section.

Bills: HB0028, HB0080

Keywords: sexual exploitation, child protection, law amendment, explicit conduct, sex crimes, identification cards, nursing facilities, assisted living, renewal process, resident rights, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But under the communication sections, or E911 communication sections, it was the use of E911 funds.
• House Bill one section re them.
• The Senate removed that section areas.
• There are over 560 sections. The House had almost 450 sections in House Bill 2.
• uh senate the house had almost sections uh senate the house had almost 450<01:27:44.080> sections

Keywords: LBA Briefing on Budget, 928, house, all

Summary: The presentation was an LBA overview of Senate changes to the House-passed state budget, with Michael Kane explaining how Senate Finance updated revenue and spending estimates after April revenue figures and agency discussions. He said the Senate’s revenue outlook was higher than the House’s in some areas, but lower in others, especially video lottery terminal revenue, and that the biggest differences also came from changes to revenue splits between the general fund and education trust fund, lapse estimates, and several policy changes in House Bill 1 and House Bill 2. Kane highlighted several major revenue and policy differences: the Senate changed the business tax, tobacco tax, and real estate transfer tax splits; adjusted liquor revenue dedication; removed the House’s meals-and-rooms distribution cap; delayed the Lakes Region facility proceeds plan; altered the PECARD fund treatment; added a granite patron of the arts tax credit; and changed the treatment of unique funds and video lottery terminal revenue. On spending, he noted Senate changes to judicial, corrections, HHS, human rights commission, and other budgets, including additional settlement costs, higher lapse assumptions, and a different approach to Medicaid premium revenue and retirement savings. He also described Senate additions such as a nursing home bed fee, Hampstead Hospital transition funding, and changes to the YDC claims settlement fund. The presentation focused on comparing House and Senate surplus statements across fiscal years 2025 through 2027, including projected ending balances and rainy day fund transfers. Kane repeatedly emphasized that the numbers were still dependent on final revenues and lapse amounts, and that some balances would be carried forward and trued up later in the biennium. No committee vote or final action was described in the excerpt; it was an informational budget briefing and comparison of the two chambers’ proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• Code 21, Section 623A, or Section 21—excuse me—U.S. Code 21, Section 464(c).
• Code 21, Section 623A, or Section 21—excuse me—U.S. Code 21, Section 464(c).
• Code 21, Section 623A, or Section 21—excuse me—U.S. Code 21, Section 464(c).
• Code 21, Section 623A, or Section 21—excuse me—U.S. Code 21, Section 464(c).
• Code 21, Section 623A, or Section 21—excuse me—U.S. Code 21, Section 464(c).

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee opened by noting member absences and then reviewed the governor’s HB 2 trailer bill language creating a solid waste site evaluation committee. The chair explained that Finance would want the committee’s input on the proposal and also announced a temporary change to the committee’s schedule, with additional Wednesday meetings planned around school vacation. The committee then moved into a work session on several bills. On HB 150, Representative Ktoa offered a simple amendment changing food-processing language from “washed and rinsed” to “cleaned and sanitized” in the processing area. Members agreed the change better matched food safety practice, and the committee indicated support for advancing the bill. On HB 307, dealing with homestead food production areas, members discussed proposed amendment language that would add clearer sanitary requirements, including handwashing access, sanitary storage, sanitizable food-contact surfaces, and pest exclusion. The committee also discussed whether to replace “potentially hazardous food” with “time temperature control safe food,” but several members favored keeping the existing term because it is already well defined in food safety law. The bill was held for further amendment work rather than being executed immediately. The committee spent substantial time on solid waste legislation. For HB 479, members recalled a prior plan for a letter to the solid waste working group and agreed to proceed with the bill in executive session, with an offer of drafting help from Representative Bixby. For HB 77, which would require DES to establish site-specific setback distances for proposed new landfills, Representative Penza said his amendment was not ready yet but was close, and the bill was left for further discussion. The most detailed discussion was on HB 2115, which would require landfill permit applicants to submit a report on the project’s harms and benefits. Representative Germana explained an amendment that would replace section one, expand the list of benefits to include economic potential and infrastructure improvements, and set up a third-party review process in which the applicant submits a list of reviewers, DES screens the list, and the commissioner selects a reviewer if no agreement is reached within 60 days. Members asked about who could serve as contractors, whether they had to be local, and how DES would judge qualifications; the response was that environmental engineering and similar firms could be used, local or outside the community, and that the process would remain somewhat flexible. Representative H. Haskins asked whether the legislature or subcommittee would be formally notified of preliminary review problems, and the chair said no additional notification process would be built in beyond existing practice. The committee planned to continue work on the bills in upcoming executive sessions, including after school break.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's section 19-124.
• It is to, on line 16, at the word 'this,' start a new section.
• I move that on line 16, we start a separate section at the word “this.”
• Thank you. ...only for this section.
• I think, to that particular section, it's frustrating.

Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• This section of the RSA was enacted in 1999, and again it references New Hampshire criminal RSAs but
• <00:05:25.919> this numeral 1 through 7 of this section this numeral 1 through 7 of this section
• <00:08:21.560> of states and points to various sections of states and points to various sections
• was used but inadvertently two sections was used but inadvertently two sections referenced<00:24
• Okay, so I also struck the section on page five, lines 10 to 12.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill amends Section 13-1b-301 to repeal subsection 1 of that section.
• Subsection 1 of that section was a requirement that before a... ...of that section.
• If a provision already had a merger section in that chapter, that section is repealed because it is now
• As part of that, there is one amendment that deletes the section... Code.
• As far as the state goes, they adopt the whole section.

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We would ask that there be further amendments to the bill on section one.
• one it is Page seven that on uh section one it is Page seven that the<00:13:26.240> revenues<
• Also, to add a new section to amend Section 342G-104, subsection B3, to add 'evaluate' instead so it
• Also, to add a new section to amend Section 342G-104, subsection B3, to add 'evaluate' instead so it
• amend section 342 amend section 342 g-104<01:03:16.680> subsections<01:03:17.319> B3<01

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 818 HD1, which would establish the Waiawa Community Development District. The Attorney General’s office said the bill may not comply with requirements for a special fund, and DLNR asked for further amendments so lease revenues would remain with DLNR while it continues managing the lands. DLNR cited ongoing costs, including the Uncle Billy’s demolition debt and management needs at Banyan Drive/Banyan Country Club. HCDA/Waiawa representatives supported the bill, agreed that DLNR should keep lease revenues while it remains the land manager, and said a future transfer of land management would change where revenues should go. Members focused on whether removing lease revenue would undercut the bill and on how existing and future revenues should be allocated. The committee then took up HB 338 HD1 and HB 339 HD1 on renewable energy-related utility transactions and procurement. Testimony came from the Consumer Advocate, the State Energy Office, the Public Utilities Commission, Hawaiian Electric, IBEW Local 1260, Ulupono Initiative, and Life of the Land. Supporters generally backed the measures, while some asked for labor-related strengthening language. Discussion centered on how the PUC should handle competing bids or offers in utility merger or acquisition situations, with concerns raised about NDAs, timing, and whether the original version or amended language better allowed public and intervenor participation. A witness from Life of the Land argued that utilities should not negotiate under NDA in a way that blocks later public competition, and a PUC-related witness said the current language was changed from the original to address PUC testimony. Finally, the committee heard HB 1467 HD1 on housing resiliency. OIP was not present, while B&F raised concerns about placing federal funds into a special fund, saying federal grant money should remain in a separate P fund for transparency, accountability, and single-audit compliance. State agencies and groups including OPSD, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, the Climate Advisory Team, and Hawaii Realtors supported the measure. Testimony emphasized that many older roofs lack hurricane clips and that strengthening homes could reduce disaster sheltering and temporary housing costs. IBEW Local 1260 supported the bill but argued that building to current standards upfront is preferable to retrofitting later. Members questioned funding structure, eligibility, and whether the program should be needs-based; the bill was described as limited to households under 140% AMI. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving through, and that's in the findings section, I would recommend that in Section 5, about the piece
• 82, around First Amendment... ...law, and it cites General Law Chapter 71, Section 82, around First
• I just want to clarify and I propose that that section be written to say, DESE should coordinate with
• General Law, Chapter 71, Section 82, and also cite to my colleague, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan
• And then in the very last section, measures to build— And in the very last section, measures to build

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism met to review and discuss draft preliminary recommendations, with the co-chairs explaining that the draft had been released publicly and that the meeting was intended for open discussion and edits rather than a final vote. They emphasized the urgency of addressing antisemitism in Massachusetts, especially in K-12 schools, while noting that the recommendations are preliminary, may be revised, and will be supplemented by further testimony and a final report later. Several members also referenced recent allegations and incidents in local schools as examples of why the commission’s work is needed. Commissioners broadly supported the draft but proposed numerous refinements. Common themes included clarifying the distinction between antisemitic incidents and hate crimes; strengthening reporting systems and privacy protections; adding clearer guidance from DESE and the Attorney General on First Amendment issues, curriculum, and investigations; expanding Holocaust and genocide education; and improving professional development for educators, school committees, and administrators. Several members urged better links to mental health and victim services, more support for the Genocide Education Trust, and stronger language on bystander training, digital literacy, and the role of school committees in addressing bias. There was also discussion of how to frame antisemitism as a distinct form of hate, how to address antisemitism related to Israel and Zionism without restricting legitimate political speech, and how to avoid unfunded mandates for school districts and municipalities. Some commissioners suggested adding timeframes, a centralized reporting or investigative mechanism, and more explicit model policies for schools. The meeting ended with the chairs thanking participants and the public for their input, and the commission then moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• , which is an entirely separate section of the SAT.
• then they take the reading and writing section.
• , that essay section.
• So the essay section would still remain as a voluntary section, but it would not necessarily be a requirement
• The essay section is a separate voluntary section, and it's not, I will say too, even though we've had

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Freedom Account Oversight Committee met on March 27 and approved the agenda, adding a request for clarification on how the Children’s Scholarship Fund separates applications for the EFA program and the education tax credit program. The committee also approved minutes from December 30, 2025, and March 27, 2026, with a request that the March minutes include a link to the live stream. Members discussed the status of pending Legislative Budget Assistant audit reports on EFA and special education, noting the reports were still not released and would likely come later in the summer after review by the Department of Education and the Children’s Scholarship Fund. A major topic was the EFA program’s administrative fee, which statute allows up to 10% of deposits. Children’s Scholarship Fund representatives said current administrative costs were under 8%, that staffing had been reduced through the ScholarVia platform, and that any unused amount is reconciled and returned to students at year’s end. Members asked for historical administrative-cost data and a written explanation of how the withholding and reconciliation process works. The committee also reviewed the distinction between the EFA and education tax credit funding streams and was told the two programs use separate applications and separate funds, though both use the same platform. The committee spent substantial time on assessment and accountability. Department of Education staff explained that EFA students may satisfy annual assessment requirements through a portfolio, a norm-referenced test, or the statewide assessment; only about 10 EFA students took the statewide assessment, while most used portfolios or standardized tests such as the California Achievement Test and NWEA. Staff described how statewide assessment data are kept separate by student identifier and can be aggregated for EFA reporting, and members asked for breakdowns by grade, test type, and school district. The department also discussed linking assessments through Lexiles and Quantiles and said it could provide a list of commonly used formative assessments in New Hampshire districts. The committee additionally discussed a possible PSAT addition to the state contract and the costs of the statewide assessment program. Another major issue was special education eligibility and services within the EFA program. Members questioned the rule allowing a medical certification of disability from a licensed professional anywhere in the United States as an alternative to an IEP-based determination. Department staff said the current system allows either pathway, that about 1,000 EFA students are identified as special education students, and that the program does not track growth or service alignment on an individual basis. Members expressed concern that the medical-certification route may be too broad and asked for data on the disability categories used. The committee also discussed career and technical education access for EFA students, noting that Senate Bill 491 would provide guidance and that House Bill 1817 would address access and funding issues, but that current law still allows EFA funds to be used to pay CTE costs. The meeting ended with a request for future agenda items and a decision to leave the next meeting date open until fall, pending further information from the LBA audit process.

Transcript Highlights:

• But one of the questions that I had is I understand the argument with Section 13.
• Why do we need Sections 1 through 12?
• And then what is the, why do you even need Section 12? Mr.
• Actually, I think Section 12 is, I do like Section 12.
• Can you, so this is Section 5.

Bills: HB253, HB153, HB255, HB287, HB371, SB151, HB8, SB177

Keywords: distance learning, virtual instruction, public education, student enrollment, school funding, education standards, pandemic education response, low-carbon construction, construction materials, rebate, environmental product declaration, EPD, embodied carbon, carbon intensity, greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonization, industrial incentives, clean manufacturing, cement, concrete

Transcript Highlights:

• Mexico Constitution, I am authorizing for your consideration... ...Section 5(B)(2) of the New Mexico
• Senate Executive Message Number 35... ...Article 4, Section 5(B)(2) of the New Mexico Constitution, I
• Pursuant to Article 4, Section 5(B)(2) of the New Mexico Constitution...
• 77, Section 31, as amended.
• Section 3, as amended.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• TEPPER FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY SPEAKING FOR INFORMATION ON SECTION 2 OF THE AMENDMENT.
• THAT IS THE ONE SECTION, PRESIDENT AS A DOUBLE I WILL GIVE YOU A YES VOTE.
• Pizzo: IT WAS SECTION 2 OF YOUR BILL TWO YEARS AGO.
• YOU RETAIN IN YOUR AMENDMENT THE SECTION THAT SAYS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW, CORRECT?
• IF IT IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH IN K-12 AS ITS OWN SEPARATE SECTION, THIS IS TOO FAR ENCAPSULATING.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The definition section and section one is then repeated later in the Air Quality Act.
• Insert a period, and then for section H, we turn that we turn Number 8 into section H.
• So, Madam Chair and Senator, we have in section, I think it's section three.
• Yes, section three and the bottom seven.
• The Air Quality Control Act, which this section amends, puts in a new section that defines local board

Transcript Highlights:

• 1.6 to 1.7 make the title of the section 1.6 to 1.7 make the title of the section consistent<00:
• Section 1, 2, and 3. Section 1, 2, and 3.
• operating shortfall, which under Section operating shortfall, which under Section 4. 4. 4.
• that's in Section 3, and I'll point that that's in Section 3, and I'll point that out. out. out.
• c> on<01:29:26.480> to<01:29:26.560> section And then section Moving on to section

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee took up Senate File 203, a broad housing bill authored by Senator Port. Port described the measure as a package including $50 million in housing infrastructure bonds, MHFA administrative and investment reforms, expanded Greater Minnesota infrastructure grants for workforce housing, manufactured housing bill of rights provisions, and a private equity restriction on large investors buying certain single-family homes starting in 2026. Fiscal analyst Eric Olafson walked through the spreadsheet and said the $50 million bond authorization would add debt service costs over time, with the total estimated debt service for that authorization at about $75.8 million. Senator Draheim raised concern about the growing cost of bonding and said the state should rely more on cash than debt. The committee then adopted two technical amendments. The A21 amendment, described by Port as correcting manufactured housing bill of rights language, aligning MHFA board meeting language, conforming a lived-experience exemption to federal law, and fixing a capacity-building grants reference, was approved without objection. The A20 amendment, offered by Draheim, was also adopted and would give the legislature more control and visibility over MHFA funding and how quickly program dollars are reinvested after agency operations. Members then debated Draheim’s A22 amendment, which would delete the manufactured home park provisions from the bill. Draheim and several Republicans argued the section could function like rent control, could burden good park owners, and might have unintended consequences for park operations and purchases. Port, Senator Boldon’s allies, and other supporters said the provisions were needed to protect residents from rent spikes and private equity abuses in manufactured home communities, where residents own their homes but not the land. The transcript ends during that debate, before any final disposition on A22 or the bill itself is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The measure would permit laws to be enacted to facilitate, safeguard, expand, or implement the section
• And if the section conflicted held invalid would not affect the remaining provisions.
• And if this section conflicted with North Dakota law, this section would control.
• conflicted with North Dakota law, this section would control.
• believe, like, we would look at which one was passed later, and this language that says that this section

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to fill a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation, and the House majority recommended Representative Berg to replace him on the committee. The motion to appoint Berg was approved unanimously. The committee then took up its assigned task of estimating the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, the school meals measure, which would require public schools, and optionally nonpublic and tribal schools, to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and reimburse schools through state funds after federal reimbursements are maximized. Legislative Council’s Liz Fordall summarized the measure’s requirements and answered questions about implementation, including the 2027-28 start date, the measure’s interaction with the Legacy Earnings Fund, and the fact that the Legislature would still control the funding source. DPI’s Linnell Johnson then testified at length on current school meal programs, direct certification, CEP and Provision 2 participation, and likely behavioral changes if the measure passed. She estimated the biennial fiscal impact at $124 million to $134 million, with an additional roughly $300,000 in administrative costs, and explained that the estimate assumed higher participation and some schools shifting to CEP/Provision 2 to preserve federal reimbursements. She also noted that if no new applications were filed in non-CEP schools, the cost could be substantially higher. After discussion, Senator Sorvaag moved to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State, and the motion carried. The committee also received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation, explaining that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s prior ruling and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, leaving the court-imposed map in effect for now. No action was required on that item, and the meeting adjourned after a brief note that the prior minutes would be brought back at a later meeting.