Transcript Highlights:

• Candidates are required to disclose the address at which they're registered on the...
• Candidates are required to disclose the address at which they're registered on the...
• House Bill 2333 makes the address at which the candidate is registered confidential.
• The reporting would be required to be included on the committees' or candidates' reports.
• No one could be opposed to securing safety for elected officials and candidates.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills, beginning with House Bill 2333, which would expand protections for elected officials, candidates, executive state officers, election officials, and criminal justice participants by allowing address confidentiality, redacting campaign and property records, increasing some penalties for threats, and authorizing security assessments and reimbursement for personal security measures. The prime sponsor and supporters described rising political violence and personal threats, while opponents and agency staff raised concerns about implementation, constitutional issues, public-records transparency, costs, and whether the bill would actually prevent determined actors from finding addresses through other sources. The Secretary of State’s office, county officials, and the Public Disclosure Commission said the bill would create major logistical and fiscal challenges, while prosecutors, judges, and advocacy groups testified that the protections were needed for safety and retention in public service. House Bill 2176 would make collaborative drug therapy agreements confidential under the Public Records Act except when the agreement is the basis for a disciplinary action, in which case only relevant information would be disclosed with personal information redacted. The sponsor and supporters, including pharmacists, physicians, and reproductive-health advocates, said the bill would protect clinicians from harassment and out-of-state targeting while preserving accountability for misconduct. News media representatives and open-government advocates said the underlying agreements should remain accessible only in limited circumstances and emphasized the balance between privacy and transparency. Committee members also discussed how the bill would affect access to the agreements and the scope of disclosure. House Bill 2120 would eliminate two JLARC reporting requirements: the biennial report on municipal lodging-tax revenues and the periodic evaluation of the training benefits program. The bill’s sponsor and JLARC leadership described it as a cost-saving measure that would free staff for other audits, while the hospitality industry supported tourism funding but warned that the lodging-tax report provides useful oversight and accountability. The committee also received staff briefings on House Bill 2244, which would implement multiple Public Records Exemptions Accountability Committee recommendations by changing confidentiality rules in 13 areas, including grand jury reports, accident reports, driver case records, certain health and social-service records, corporate interrogatories, family court files, and other records.

Transcript Highlights:

• This section also requires that for candidates who must prove residence in their district when filing
• who are filing for office using the absentee candidates for a period of time.
• Making it so that the two candidates can basically agree, and that would be changed.
• It would just be court costs, and so the goal there was to incentivize candidates.
• deadlines and confusion for candidates, voters, and election staff.

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:

• So many other candidates on their ballot in November.
• Discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or incumbent so it has
• I cannot see how this bill is not an attack on the opposition, because many of the candidates have run
• You know, candidates who aren't necessarily a part of the establishment, or candidates who don't have
• They actually wanted to raise taxes, this other candidate. That's what their money was going to.

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• We're eager to learn more about candidates and campaigns.
• I will start us off at the website, which is where most of the candidates and campaigns that we work
• It is a user-centered design, so no matter if you are a candidate, a lobbyist, Candidates and campaigns
• So we have actually seen growth in numbers of candidates over the years.
• So we often—not often, but sometimes—encounter candidates who say, for a number of reasons.

Committee: House State Government & Tribal Relations

Transcript Highlights:

• The next candidate, I believe, had eight; the next county commissioner had eight candidates, and the
• But all three had at least three candidates to choose from. Follow up? No, I think that's good.
• The candidate was a very good candidate, but it is...” “I don’t think it was a case of nepotism.
• The candidate was a very good candidate, but it is close in that regard as well.
• I think that’s set too high to only have a single candidate nomination.

Committee: House Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• The second, on four and five, is on elections, and Senate Bill 4 protects voters and candidates from
• voters and candidates from AI generated<00:04:52.240><c> misinformation</c><00:04:53.240><c> notably
• He said the bill would invite candidates to turn political campaigning into lawfare.
• talking about the public; we are talking about us as a candidate.
• It's not just elected officials and candidates.

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 4, as amended by a committee substitute, which would create a state artificial intelligence governance framework for Kentucky government agencies and address AI-generated misinformation in campaigns and elections. The bill’s sponsors said it is intended to regulate only state government use of AI, not the private sector, and would require oversight by the Office of Technology, agency reporting, and annual reporting to the General Assembly. They also said the elections provisions were narrowed to focus on AI-generated audio and video, remove image disclosures, eliminate prior restraint and monetary damages, and rely on disclosure requirements modeled on laws they said had survived constitutional review in Texas. Testimony on SB 4 was mixed. Supporters emphasized transparency, human accountability, and the need to prepare state government for rapidly changing AI tools, citing possible uses such as fraud detection, inmate classification, and transportation planning. An opponent from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression argued the bill would burden core political speech, create First Amendment problems, and invite litigation and abuse, especially in the election context. Members asked about litigation, constitutional concerns, costs, and whether the bill should be expanded later to cover ordinary citizens harmed by AI-generated content. Several members expressed support but noted reservations about the election sections or the need for future amendments. After discussion, the committee voted on SB 4 and reported it favorably. The roll call showed the measure passing with favorable expression, with some members explaining votes as supportive but cautious, and one member initially passing before later recording a yes vote. The chair then moved to Senate Bill 130, and Senator Scott Maiden and Kentucky Retail Federation representative Shannon Stiglets began presenting it as a response to gift card scams and theft of redemption information, describing recent large-scale supermarket fraud cases in Kentucky and saying the problem is tied to broader organized retail crime.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um I particular candidate for the PUC.
• </c> for the candidates we most preferred. for the candidates we most preferred.
• </c><01:05:51.280><c> election</c> prevent candidates from seeking election prevent candidates from seeking
• </c><01:24:36.800><c> that</c> easily identify the candidates that easily identify the candidates that
• the candidates are likely to stand?

Committee: House Election Law

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on CACR 30, a constitutional amendment that would make Public Utilities Commission members elected rather than appointed. Representative Thomas Opel testified in support, arguing that rising energy costs and the utility rate-setting structure make the PUC too insulated from ratepayers, and that elected commissioners would be more accountable. He also said the proposal should ideally include a ban on contributions from regulated utilities to PUC campaigns, and acknowledged the draft had errors and needed work. Representative Lane questioned whether a contribution ban would be constitutional, and Opel said there may be ways to structure one to survive legal challenge. The hearing closed with five online supporters and two opponents reported, and no one else testified. The committee then went into executive session on House Bill 1062, authorizing the Secretary of State to conduct random audits of voters’ citizenship qualifications. Representative Newsome offered an amendment to clarify how voters with no evidence either way would be treated and to require a public report on audit results, including referrals, costs, and databases used. Representative Aqua opposed the amendment, saying the bill should pass as written. The amendment failed 9-7, and after further debate over privacy and the purpose of audits, the committee voted 9-7 to recommend ought to pass on HB 1062. Representative Barry was assigned the majority report and Representative Newsome the minority report. The committee next considered House Bill 1388, which would clarify the form of ballots for constitutional amendments. Representative Weary said the bill simply provides clarity for voters and imposes no hardship on the Secretary of State’s office. The committee unanimously voted 17-0 to recommend ought to pass and placed the bill on the consent calendar. Finally, the committee opened a public hearing on House Bill 1125, enabling school districts to adopt partisan school district elections. Representative Weary said partisan labels would help voters understand candidate positions and address low turnout in local elections. He emphasized the bill is enabling, not mandatory. Members questioned why the change was needed if few municipalities have used existing authority, and whether it would increase divisiveness. Weary said many voters are unaware of the option and that partisan labels would give them more information. The hearing closed with five online supporters and 184 opponents. The committee then began executive session on House Bill 1187, concerning the filing deadline for special-election candidates for state representative, but discussion was still ongoing in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• , as we do not currently engage in candidate investigation.
• , as we do not currently engage in candidate investigation.
• We strongly believe that the function of the state's office in connection with candidates, engage in
• candidate investigation.
• Issue of who’s going to be qualified or unqualified to become the candidate of the United States.

Summary: The committee heard three bills. SB 73 by Senator Cervantes would bar county registrars from allowing federal agents to inspect voting machines, framed by the author as a response to federal interference in California elections. The Secretary of State supported the concept and asked for amendments to clarify procedures for inspection requests. Senator Choi opposed it as unnecessary and beyond state authority, arguing federal subpoena rules already govern such inspections. The bill passed on a 4-1 vote to Appropriations after the call was lifted. SB 401 by Senator Hurtado, presented by Senator Allen, would authorize the FPPC to extend filing deadlines for statements of economic interest during declared emergencies. Testimony from the FPPC said the commission had no formal position but could administer the extensions, while members raised concerns that the bill was too open-ended and lacked a defined extension period. The author and committee members agreed to work on narrowing the language, and the bill passed 5-0 to Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. SB 46 by Senator Umberg would give the Secretary of State authority to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential or vice presidential candidates from the California ballot, with the author focusing on preventing a third presidential term. Supporters argued the Secretary of State already has a role in enforcing ballot qualifications and that the bill is constitutional. The Secretary of State’s office raised concerns about turning the office into an investigatory body and suggested alternative language limiting the measure to the 22nd Amendment or using an independent special counsel. Members debated whether the state should make such determinations, and the bill passed 4-1 to Appropriations. The chair also used the end of the hearing to thank staff and note it was her final hearing as committee chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• not stricken from the ballot, and instead allows for write-in candidates.
• not stricken from the ballot, and instead allows for write-in candidates.
• The office is not stricken from the ballot and instead allows for write-in candidates.
• In this case, if there is no write-in candidate, votes for the deceased candidate are not counted and
• committees organized for the purpose of supporting or opposing candidates.

Summary: The State Government, Tribal Affairs and Elections Committee met on February 24, 2026, for what was described as its last regular meeting of the session. The committee reviewed a large slate of bills and gubernatorial appointments, with staff briefing measures on voting rights, voter registration challenges, military justice victims’ rights, terminology changes from “alien” to “non-citizen,” shared leave for hate-crime and immigration-enforcement-related absences, civil service coverage for Washington Technology Solutions security staff, language-access services, small works roster limits, deceased candidates on ballots, postgraduate degree requirements, foreign national participation in elections, public records exemptions, and personal information protections. Several amendments were discussed, including changes to voting-rights language, county-residency requirements for voter-registration challengers, and a proposal on foreign national certifications; a satirical amendment to the terminology bill referencing “extraterrestrial” was also presented and later withdrawn. After caucus, the committee moved into executive session and took action on four gubernatorial appointments, recommending confirmation for Megan Matthews, Reedy Mukapade, Kiana Daniels, and Gauri Shratria, all subject to signatures. The committee then voted out the bills, generally on unanimous voice votes, sending most to the Rules Committee and several fiscal measures to Ways and Means. Amendments were adopted on HB 1710, HB 1750, HB 1916, and HB 2123, while the amendment to HB 2632 was withdrawn. HB 2574 and HB 2637 were noted as not being moved that day. The chair and members closed by thanking staff for their work and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm giving you the opportunity if you all to go back in the room and hand-pick your candidate.
• I heard you mention a minute ago the 1983 case where the Democrats chose their candidates.
• I heard you mention a minute ago the 1983 case where the Democrats chose their candidates.
• You remember when I talked about handpicking candidates?
• The parties can pick their candidates any way they want to.

Transcript Highlights:

• It prohibits state universities from conducting candidate polling activities related directly to candidates
• And so would that be a ban on candidate polling for local, state, and federal candidates?
• One of the things I’m concerned about is the minimum of three candidates.
• One of the things I'm concerned about is the minimum of three candidates.
• It's candidates figures out that they're not going to be it, and they withdraw.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education heard and approved two bills before moving into confirmation hearings for several university and college board nominees. CS/SB 1458 on apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships was presented as a measure to improve consistency and transparency in local education agency partnerships, cap LEA administrative funding at 10% when applicable, and require public meetings and work papers for workforce funding model decisions. Support was noted from Associated Builders and Contractors, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Foundations for Florida Futures, and Independent Electrical Contractors. The bill passed unanimously and was reported favorably. The committee then considered CS/CS/SB 1726 on higher education governance and presidential searches after adopting a delete-all amendment and a late-filed amendment defining the final group of presidential applicants as no fewer than three. The amended bill added provisions on trustee citizenship and residency/alumni eligibility, interim president succession planning, longer presidential contract renewals, limits on candidate polling by universities, syllabus posting, textbook/open-access material lists, and other governance and academic policy changes. Senators raised concerns about the minimum-three finalist requirement, interim president selection, trustee eligibility, and polling restrictions, while supporters said the bill would depoliticize leadership selection and improve transparency. The bill was reported favorably after the amendments were adopted. The committee then heard confirmation testimony from multiple appointees and reappointees, including nominees for FAMU, UNF, Pensacola State College, UWF, and UF. Most nominees emphasized ties to their institutions, student success, workforce development, military connections, and institutional growth. Several UWF nominees were questioned extensively about their votes for former chair Scott Yenner and his controversial comments about women and other groups; some said they were unaware of those remarks at the time of the vote and would not have supported him with that knowledge. Public testimony on UWF expressed concern about the nominees’ lack of higher education experience, their ties to the region, and the impact of Yenner’s views. The committee later voted to recommend a block of non-UWF nominees favorably, and it agreed to vote on the UWF nominees individually, with some remaining nominees deferred to a later hearing due to time.

Transcript Highlights:

• Candidates that wanted to be a part of our system paid $50,000, the presidential candidates, and that
• Candidates that wanted to be a part of our system paid $50,000, the presidential candidates, and that
• I mean, we could have a dozen or more candidates on either side.
• As far as the candidates coming, a lot of the other caucus System.
• As far as the candidates coming, a lot of the other caucus states don't have trouble getting the candidates

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The committee first met in executive session and voted to pass House Bill 2125, which drew some concern from Rep. Woods about subpoena power for the Secretary of State, and House Bill 1812, which passed unanimously. The committee then moved to public hearing on House Bills 2387 and 2480, both aimed at reinstating Missouri’s presidential preference primary and adjusting absentee voting rules. Sponsors Rep. Veit and Rep. Banderman argued the primary would increase participation, make Missouri more relevant in presidential politics, and better reflect voter preferences, while also proposing changes to the in-person absentee window to reduce overlap with April elections and encourage in-person voting. Testimony in support came from the Missouri Republican Party, the Missouri Democratic Party, the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, ACLU Missouri, Missouri Farm Bureau, and several individuals. Supporters emphasized broader voter participation, the value of a primary over caucuses, and the need to make Missouri’s presidential process more accessible and visible. Party representatives said they were willing to work on binding language so primary results would inform or bind delegate selection, and Democrats said their rules already bind delegates to primary results. Several members said they would be more comfortable supporting the bills if the primary were made binding by statute and if the primary were closed to party members only. Opposition focused on the fiscal cost, the nonbinding nature of the primary as written, and concerns that the bill could mislead voters into thinking they were directly electing a nominee when delegates are still chosen through caucus/convention processes. Witnesses and clerks also objected to shrinking the excused in-person absentee period from six weeks to three, warning it could create confusion and burden election offices. The committee heard no final vote on HB 2387 or HB 2480 before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• or contributing to candidate or non-candidate<00:31:21.279><c> committee</c> non-candidate committee
• non-candidate committee candidate<00:31:23.440><c> sorry</c><00:31:23.760><c> non-candidate</c><00:31
• :24.480><c> committees</c> candidate sorry non-candidate committees candidate sorry non-candidate committees
• </c><00:53:32.400><c> or</c> from contributing to candidates or from contributing to candidates or non-candidate
• </c><00:53:34.160><c> Uh,</c> non-candidate committees. Uh, non-candidate committees.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 126, which would change civil asset forfeiture law. The Attorney General’s Office, Honolulu Police Department, and county prosecutors opposed the bill’s proposed SD1, arguing that requiring a criminal conviction and changing how forfeiture proceeds are distributed would weaken or effectively end the tool, create fiscal and law enforcement problems, and make it harder to address organized crime or cases where an owner cannot be identified. The Public Defender’s Office, Community Alliance on Prisons, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, and other supporters argued the measure would improve transparency and accountability, protect property rights, and reduce abuses that disproportionately affect low-income people. The chair questioned law enforcement about fairness, storage of seized property, and access to counsel, and the discussion focused heavily on whether forfeiture should depend on a conviction. No vote was taken. The committee then heard HB 280, which would make the Community Outreach Court permanent and appropriate funds for it as a division of the First Circuit district court. The Department of the Attorney General and Judiciary supported the concept and described the court’s success in helping people resolve cases, clear license stoppers, recall bench warrants, and access services, but suggested amendments to remove the Attorney General from the bill’s definition and funding mechanism. The Public Defender, Department of Human Services, mental health and substance use advocates, neighborhood and community groups, and others strongly supported the bill, emphasizing its benefits for people facing housing instability, behavioral health issues, and transportation barriers. No opposition was voiced, and no vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 370, which would increase partial public campaign financing for elective offices. The Campaign Spending Commission supported the original bill and asked the committee to restore the original percentage amounts, keep the proposed funding increases, and reinstate funding for two additional full-time staff positions. Supporters said the public financing system has not kept pace with inflation and needs modernization to be viable; a few testifiers opposed the measure. The committee reported 30 in support, two opposed, and one comment, and then moved on without a vote. Finally, HB 371 was heard, a campaign contribution bill that would bar state and county contractors, grantees, and certain related persons from contributing during the contract period. The Campaign Spending Commission said the bill is intended to address pay-to-play concerns and false-name contributions, while the State Procurement Office raised concerns about the burden of requiring agencies to provide contract information for all contracts regardless of dollar value. The testimony ended with the commission saying it was working with procurement and the Attorney General on implementation details; no vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is an election for the party's candidate.
• They can choose their own candidate and they can put up a no-party candidate, and they'll get to vote
• candidate like a former governor in the race.
• formidable candidate like a former governor in the race.
• There’s actually a past case where a candidate...

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 20, 2026, with a quorum present and no minutes available for approval. The committee first heard HB 181, which would let the legislative auditor review income tax data to verify eligibility for Medicaid and, at LDH’s request, SNAP. The auditor said the work would be limited to internal data testing under sharing agreements and not disclosed to third parties. After questions about privacy and duplication, the bill was reported favorably to the floor without objection. The committee then took up HB 906 on presidential preference primaries and party nominating petitions. The Secretary of State and bill author said the measure would let major parties decide whether unaffiliated voters may participate in their primaries, with 180 days’ notice to the state, and would keep party rules consistent within presidential years so elections can be programmed properly. Several senators raised concerns that the bill would disenfranchise no-party voters and give parties too much control, but supporters said both major parties had approved the approach. The committee voted 4-3 to report the bill favorably. Members also advanced HB 398, which would require the judiciary to use the federal GSA meal per diem rate instead of the current higher state judicial rate; HB 1052, which strengthens confidentiality protections for child abuse investigations handled by child advocacy centers and multidisciplinary teams; HB 1245, which protects witness criminal history records from unintended public release in clerk of court records; HB 202, which requires state civil service or hiring agencies to notify applicants when a vacancy is filled or they are rejected; HB 540, which requires disclosure of paid digital election advertising; HB 9, designating stuffed shrimp as a Louisiana specialty; HB 1057, extending the validity of absentee-by-mail applications for military voters from one year to two; HB 225, proposing a constitutional amendment to limit governors to two lifetime terms; HB 177, allowing retired court reporters to contract with former public employers; and HB 459, requiring disclosure when campaign materials use AI, with amendments adopted after discussion of First Amendment and campaign finance concerns. The committee also rejected an amendment to HB 1057 that would have expanded Sunday early voting in certain parishes. After the bills, the committee held confirmation hearings for James Kelly and Charles Wilkinson to the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System, both of whom described education and workforce development backgrounds and were favorably received.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I guess, you know, like, could someone organize a candidate forum where both or all candidates are
• So I guess, you know, like, could someone organize a candidate forum where both or all candidates are
• So I guess, you know, like, could someone organize a candidate forum where both or all candidates are
• It just looks like you, Senator Gray, are expressly advocating for this one candidate."
• </c> advocating for this one candidate. advocating for this one candidate.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• For instance, a major party candidate for president could be an 18-year-old or an individual who is not
• , as we do not currently engage in candidate investigation.
• , as we do not currently engage in candidate investigation.
• We strongly believe that the function of the state's office in connection with candidates, engage in
• candidate investigation.

Committee: Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Summary: The committee heard three bills. SB 73, by Senator Cervantes, would bar county registrars from allowing federal agents to inspect voting machines and was presented as a response to alleged federal interference in California elections. Supporters said it would help local governments defend election systems, while Senator Choi opposed it as unnecessary and beyond state authority, arguing federal law already governs access to voting equipment. The bill passed on a 4-1 vote to Appropriations after the call was lifted. SB 401, by Senator Hurtado and presented by Senator Allen, would authorize the Fair Political Practices Commission to extend Form 700 and other economic-interest filing deadlines during declared emergencies. Testimony and committee discussion focused on whether the bill gave the FPPC too much open-ended discretion, with members asking for clearer limits on how long extensions could last and when they would apply. The author and FPPC counsel said they would work on clarifying the language, and the bill passed 5-0 to Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. SB 46, by Senator Umberg, would give the Secretary of State authority to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential or vice presidential candidates from the California ballot, aimed at preventing a third presidential term. Supporters from CREW and a constitutional law professor argued the measure was constitutional and necessary to enforce the 22nd Amendment, while the Secretary of State’s office raised concerns about creating an investigative role and suggested alternative language or use of an independent special counsel. Members debated whether ballot eligibility determinations should be made at the state or federal level, and the bill passed 4-1 to Appropriations. The chair then thanked committee staff and adjourned the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:37.040><c> or</c> security issues with uh candidates or security issues with uh candidates
• , but you couldn't do it for candidates and we all know that kind of defeats the purpose.
• If you're getting threats as a candidate, you obviously will be getting the same feelings as a sitting
• , but you couldn't do it for candidates and we all know that kind of defeats the purpose.
• If you're getting threats as a candidate, you obviously will be getting the same feelings as a sitting

Summary: The House Elections, Constitutional Amendments, and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee met with a quorum and opened with the pledge and prayer, followed by routine reminders about microphones, cell phones, and the 24-hour rule for committee substitutes. The only item on the agenda was House Bill 136, sponsored by Representative Wade Williams of Hopkins County. The committee first considered and adopted a committee substitute for HB 136 without opposition. Williams explained that the substitute removes a $15,000 cap that had been added in the Senate, saying the cap was arbitrary and created more problems than it solved. He then presented the bill as amended, describing it as a campaign finance modernization measure that would allow campaign funds to be used for reasonable security costs for a state candidate or officeholder, their family, campaign employees, or office staff. He cited recent political violence and threats as reasons for the change and said the language aligns with federal election guidance and a recent KURF recommendation. Members asked about whether threats and security concerns are common in Kentucky, and Williams responded that such threats do occur and that the issue is not limited to one party or office level. The committee then took a roll-call vote on HB 136 as amended by the substitute, and it passed favorably 15-0. Afterward, the committee had no further business and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> would require uh legislative candidates would require uh legislative candidates to<00:08:09.400>
• </c><00:10:30.200><c> for</c><00:10:30.360><c> that</c> is going to or even candidate for that is going
• to or even candidate for that matter<00:10:30.680><c> is</c><00:10:30.760><c> going</c><00:10:30.880
• there is some Statewide candidates there is some definition<00:20:53.480><c> or</c><00:20:54.720><c>
• <00:25:15.480><c> um</c><00:25:15.799><c> 80%</c> candidate um 80% candidate um 80% were<00:25:18.600

Transcript Highlights:

• It proved state universities from conducting candidate pulling activities related to directly to candidates
• And so would that be a a ban on candidate pulling for local state and federal candidates?
• Pulling on any candidate for any office in the state of Florida. You're recognized.
• One of the things I'm concerned about is the minimum of 3 candidates frequently.
• And so you end up a situation where the committee has has given you 3 candidates.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are ones that the teacher candidates themselves apply for, so programs don't apply; teacher candidates
• She said teacher candidates apply for those grants directly, not programs.
• She said these are applied for by teacher candidates themselves, not by programs.
• It’s a cohort-based model that places candidates for the full academic...
• It’s a cohort-based model that places candidates for the full academic...

Bills: HF846 , HF1538 , HF1959

Committee: House Education Finance

Keywords: education, special education, apprenticeship, funding, grants, intermediate school districts, teacher apprenticeship, registered apprenticeship, teacher licensure, teacher shortage, workforce development, education finance, K-12 education, higher education, Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board, PELSB, Tier 3 license, teacher preparation, mentor teacher, school district