Transcript Highlights:

• begs leave to report that it on rules begs leave to report that it on rules begs leave to report that
• with dealing with having interpreters with dealing with having interpreters involved whether there's
• rules if it does not make it what's of rules if it does not make it what's of rules if it does not make
• continue and it adds interpreters continue and it adds interpreters foreign language interpreters uh
• that wiretapping interpreting that wiretapping interpreting interpreters is already allowed under interpreters

Keywords: sessions, 2025-R, 1, 219

Transcript Highlights:

• This interpretation places an unsustainable financial burden.
• We are asking for flexibility in the interpretation of this provision.
• The home rule petition was a little bit cumbersome for us.
• I was also here in June supporting the similar home rule petition.
• As interpreted, this means that...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing on two late-file bills: H. 4867, concerning school choice, and H. 4927, concerning access to applied behavior analysis (ABA). For H. 4867, testimony focused on a DESE interpretation of M.G.L. c. 76, §12B(k) that would require small elementary-only districts with school choice students to pay secondary tuition when those students continue into high school. Superintendents, school committee members, parents, teachers, and a representative argued this creates large fiscal shortfalls for rural districts such as Hancock, Warwick, Richmond, and Worthington, which do not operate high schools and already rely on tuition agreements for their own resident students. Witnesses said the current interpretation has led some districts to stop accepting school choice students, reducing class sizes and limiting educational opportunities; they urged an exemption or amendment so these districts could continue school choice without assuming high school tuition obligations for nonresident students. Committee members asked about the number of affected districts, how the arrangement worked before 2023, and whether alternative statutory language might solve the issue more broadly. Representative Barrett described the bill as a simple fix to an unenforced provision that had only recently been raised by DESE, and the hearing later included testimony from both district officials and families supporting the bill. The committee closed testimony on H. 4867 and H. 4927 and then adjourned. H. 4927 drew testimony from educators, an ABA provider, and a parent of a child with autism in support of protecting in-school ABA access. Witnesses said the bill would clarify that qualified ABA providers, including BCBAs and RBTs under supervision, may deliver services in schools while allowing districts to maintain neutral safety and operational rules. They argued that inconsistent access to ABA can undermine districts’ obligations under IDEA, including free appropriate public education and placement in the least restrictive environment, and that school-based ABA can reduce removals from class, improve student progress, and support families. A parent testified that her young son needs ABA to function in school and that promised supports had been delayed or not delivered, while another witness said the bill would help ensure accountability and consistent services for students with autism.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are organizational rules. The Podiatry rules proposal makes changes to those rules.
• These are organizational rules. The Podiatry rules proposal makes changes to those rules.
• rule as proposed is rule and um so the rule as proposed is what<00:09:27.360> they<00:09:27.519
• Um, we have had some quorum rules.
• fines that are included in these rules. fines that are included in these rules.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: JCAR convened with a quorum, approved the minutes, and approved the consent agenda after removing two items for separate review: Board of Podiatry rule 2025-25 and Guardian ad Litem Board rule 2025-36. The Podiatry item concerned organizational rules deleting language on subcommittees. Committee members and OPLC counsel discussed whether the board still had statutory authority to create investigative or other subcommittees. OPLC said the prior authority had been repealed and no current statute appeared to support subcommittees for that board; members noted the issue may require a broader legislative fix. The committee then approved the Podiatry rule. The committee next considered rule 2025-36 involving CASA advocate training. Staff said the rule requires CASA individuals to follow certification, continued-status, and ethics provisions, and noted a dispute between CASA and the board over applicability. OPLC explained the rulemaking had been delayed for years due to quorum issues and substantive discussions, and acknowledged it should have been done sooner. The committee approved the rule after brief discussion. Finally, the committee reviewed Department of Health and Human Services rule 2560 on home visits for postpartum and newborn assessment. Staff noted the rules had expired in 2023 but the department continued reimbursement under statutory authority and the Medicaid state plan. Concerns about broad language were addressed through a conditional approval and revisions, and DHHS said it had no further comments. The committee expressed appreciation for the changes and approved the item before the meeting ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• of certified interpreter.
• of certified interpreter.
• California interpreters.
• California Interpreter Act.
• interpreters include.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a series of Assembly bills, with no formal votes taken because the committee was operating without a quorum and repeatedly noted that motions and votes would occur later when a quorum was present. Several measures drew broad support and no opposition, while others generated both support and opposition testimony on policy and legal grounds. AB 1744, the Clear Labels, Clear Seas Act, would prohibit sunscreen products marketed as reef safe, reef friendly, or similar terms from containing chemical UV filters. The author and student supporters said the bill is a truth-in-labeling measure meant to prevent greenwashing and protect marine ecosystems; Consumer Reports also supported it. No opposition was offered, and senators praised the student advocates. AB 713 would allow undocumented students at UC, CSU, and community colleges to access campus jobs. The author, a law professor, and many student and immigrant-rights organizations supported it, arguing it would reduce exploitation and improve affordability and retention; a few opponents argued it would conflict with federal law. Committee members expressed strong support and personal reflections on the issue. AB 1359 would let people age 80 and older opt out of jury service without a doctor’s note, and supporters said it would reduce burdens on older adults and people with Alzheimer’s or other conditions; there was no opposition. AB 2563 would standardize and clarify definitions of sex discrimination across California codes. Supporters, including women’s rights and reproductive health groups, said it would strengthen and harmonize protections; opponents argued it would blur distinctions between sex and gender identity and create legal conflicts. AB 1705 would require websites hosting sexually explicit content to verify consent for depicted persons before upload; supporters framed it as a response to nonconsensual pornography, while TechNet opposed the bill as overbroad for sites that prohibit such content, though Senator Wiener said he would support it while seeking further privacy-related amendments. The committee also heard AB 1940 on menopause-related workplace protections, with supporters saying it would clarify existing rights and improve workplace awareness, while the Chamber of Commerce opposed expanding the protected-class framework and urged reliance on reasonable accommodation law. AB 1824 would incorporate ICWA and Cal-ICWA protections into the Probate Code to prevent guardianship proceedings from being used to bypass tribal child welfare protections; tribal representatives and advocates strongly supported it and no opposition appeared. AB 2115 would issue a formal legislative apology to California Native peoples for historic state violence and discrimination and place a commemorative plaque at the Capitol; Native leaders and allies supported it, and committee members offered strong remarks in favor. AB 2076 would add nitrous oxide to age-verification restrictions on dangerous online products, prohibit purchase with gift cards or store credit, and increase penalties for large sellers; supporters cited youth misuse and public safety harms, and TechNet/CCIA moved from opposition to neutral. AB 2783 would expand court reporter licensure reciprocity and extend a remote court reporting pilot, with support from court reporters and the Judicial Council and no opposition. AB 1916 would include American Sign Language interpreters in the court interpreter collective bargaining framework; interpreters and disability advocates supported it, while the Judicial Council opposed it, saying the act was designed for spoken-language interpretation and the amendment did not fully resolve implementation concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• have the responsibility for regulating the practice of law, including the promulgation of statewide rules
• <00:04:34.919> of the promulgation of Statewide rules of the promulgation of Statewide rules
• Then, in April of last year, the Department of Justice at the federal level issued a rule amending the
• Then, in April of last year, the Department of Justice at the federal level issued a rule amending the
• <00:40:59.359> events going to have these interpreter events going to have these interpreter

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee heard a presentation from State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba on the Minnesota judicial branch’s 2026-27 budget request. He outlined the courts’ structure and workload, noting 322 judges, about 2,800 staff, roughly 1 million district court cases annually, and a current budget of about $479 million. Shorba emphasized the courts’ constitutional role, the fact that court fines and fees are deposited into the general fund rather than retained by the branch, and recent legislative investments that helped reduce pandemic-era backlogs, improve technology, sustain treatment courts, and raise interpreter and examiner pay. The budget request focused on several areas: a 6% judicial salary increase to address recruitment and retention problems, including a 15% rise in turnover and a 27% drop in applicants since 2020; funding for health care and office lease cost increases; digital accessibility compliance work required by new federal ADA rules; a modernized justice partner access system for court records; higher pay for forensic psychological examiners, whose workload has risen sharply; increased juror compensation from $20 to $100 per day and mileage adjustments; and ongoing funding for interpreters, jury services, and cybersecurity. Shorba said the total request would be a 12% increase over the FY 2026-27 base budget. Members asked follow-up questions about funding for newly launched treatment courts and how those courts are financed after federal grants expire. Shorba said he would provide more detail later and noted the branch generally starts treatment courts with federal funding before seeking state support. Representative Ric also asked about labor negotiations, and Shorba explained that the judicial branch negotiates its own contracts rather than using the executive branch, with three unions involved and many unrepresented employees. No votes or formal actions were taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• . and we follow those bylaws and rules.
• Right now, I have some interpreters who are employees and on staff, and the rest of the interpreters
• With this growing need for interpreter hours, my employee interpreters end up spending roughly half their
• time scheduling the contract interpreters.
• They also review the rules that go out.

Transcript Highlights:

• interpreting these rules and the statute to mean that any medical provider really means provider of
• interpreting these rules and the statute to mean that any medical provider really means provider of
• interpreting these rules and the statute to mean that any medical provider really means provider of
• I think this is just an interpretation of rules issue, which unfortunately sometimes we end up with,
• I think this is just an interpretation of rules issue, which unfortunately sometimes we end up with,

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and consent calendar, then moved through several Department of Health and Human Services Medicaid-related rules. Rule 25-220 from the Department of Energy was postponed until June so stakeholders would have more time to review revised language. Rule 25-240, involving Medicaid income verification and deductible provisions for medically needy applicants, was adopted after staff noted the cited sections had expired but the agency said it had continued operating under federal law and the state plan; the agency also said it had begun rulemaking on the cited provision. Rules 25-265 and 2633 were also adopted, with staff explaining that although parts of the rules had expired, the agency had continued implementing the policies through the Medicaid state plan, billing manuals, and related rules. The most extended discussion centered on rule 25-304 from the Bureau of Aging and Adult Services, which covers case management services for the CFI program. Staff and the agency explained that the amended conditional approval request clarified how case management agencies indicate staffing capacity, how telehealth decisions are evaluated, and that the department—not the case management agencies—sets the timeline for accepting or denying cases. The agency said the rule is intended to ensure participants are not pushed into telehealth when they do not want it or cannot use it, while leaving technical and clinical telehealth decisions to the provider. A case management provider testified in opposition to parts of the rule, arguing that the committee should not require agencies to admit unverified patients, that reimbursement-rate issues belong in legislation, that the quality-management section duplicates existing licensure oversight, and that the telehealth language improperly gives case managers authority over how other licensed providers deliver services. Committee members questioned whether the telehealth language was simply allowing case managers to determine whether telehealth fits a person’s care plan, and agency representatives responded that this was the intent. No final vote on rule 25-304 is shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:32:12.799> at to because I can change the rules at to because I can change the rules at
• interpreting needs are changing. interpreting needs are changing.
• Minnesota healthcare interpreting Minnesota healthcare interpreting profession.<01:36:14.000>
• Although the the interpreter.
• or uncertified individuals interpret or uncertified individuals interpret interpreting<01:41:20.239

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh House bill for reference Uh House bill for reference under<00:08:46.440> rule<00:08:46.840>
• Uh, this is under Rule 44 going to be referred to the Rules Committee. It’s okay.
• The Rules Committee was late, so they didn’t get their work done.
• The rules committee was late, It's okay.
• I would move that the rules President.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [Music] The Minnesota Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct,
• Um, I think it's not right and I don't think it's fair to, um, have this subjective interpretation sort
• sort of pinned on Senator interpretation sort of pinned on Senator Champion.<00:02:53.840> I<
• violation of Senate Rule violation of Senate Rule 56.3<00:09:58.720> that<00:09:58.959>
• Senate Rule Senate Rule 56.3<00:10:41.519> and<00:10:41.760> that<00:10:42.000>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Justin T. further pointed out that under this ruling a woman walking home at night would not even be
• This ruling not only prohibits a woman from using her keys to fend off an attacker, she's expected to
• The Legislature creates laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch interprets
• Reasonable force is left to be interpreted by a judge or a jury as it is with other standards.
• Reasonable force is left to be interpreted by a judge or a jury as it is with other standards.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• correct that uh statutory interpretation correct that uh statutory interpretation error<00:02:47.400
• we need to correct this interpretation we need to correct this interpretation of<00:04:24.280>
• public with now the court interpretation public with now the court interpretation that<00:31:27.519
• Rules.
• had um I think the the interpretive had um I think the the interpretive question<01:36:53.639>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , that draft ruling... ...that draft ruling that was then rescinded, I believe, and look forward to getting
• So the draft ruling is quite clear, and it's evident from reading the draft ruling that the department's
• So my question is: does the ruling still reflect the department's interpretation of the existing statutes
• That draft ruling is based on their interpretation of existing law.
• That draft ruling is based on their interpretation of existing law.

Bills: HB2143, HB2273, HB2290, HB2373, HB2784, HB2794, HB4037

Keywords: public safety, retirement system, investments, trust fund, board of trustees, financial report, income tax rebate, Pinal County, taxpayer eligibility, state revenue, financial assistance, transaction privilege tax, business location, tangible personal property, shared vehicle, sourcing, income tax, veterans, donations, tax refunds

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee first set aside House Bill 2794 at the sponsor’s request and then took up House Bill 2290, which would clarify Arizona transaction privilege tax sourcing rules for tangible personal property by specifying that an order is received at a seller’s business location and that server location does not control sourcing. The sponsor said the bill codifies existing, historic treatment and would provide certainty for taxpayers, while the League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposed it, arguing it would be a major departure from current practice, could shift revenue away from rural communities, and could create multiple tax rates for a single transaction. The Department of Revenue said it was neutral, acknowledged ongoing ambiguity and administrative complexity, and explained that a 2023 draft ruling had been based on a legal analysis but was never finalized. Several business and association witnesses supported the bill as necessary to prevent inconsistent audits and to preserve origin-based sourcing for in-state sellers. After extended debate, the committee passed HB 2290 on a 5-3 vote, with one member absent. The committee then heard House Bill 2373, which would add a space on the individual income tax return for taxpayers to voluntarily direct part of a refund to the Veterans Donations Fund or a veterans service organization fund. The sponsor and a representative of veterans advocacy groups described it as a simple, voluntary way to support veterans organizations and local projects. No opposition was raised, and the bill was approved unanimously by the members present, 8-0, with one absent. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 2143, a technical change to Public Safety Personnel Retirement System law that would limit the 5% ownership cap to publicly traded corporations. PSPRS representatives said the change would reduce compliance costs and avoid unnecessary workarounds while maintaining existing investment safeguards and diversification rules. Members discussed that ASRS does not have the same cap and that PSPRS already has broader limits on concentration risk. The bill was presented as an administrative cleanup measure, and discussion focused on clarifying that it would not increase investment risk.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:38:14.720> It rulings. There's a reason for it. It rulings. There's a reason for it.
• 45:41.359> rules<00:45:41.680> writing<00:45:41.920> authority because the rules
• have needed to have uh a uh interpreter have needed to have uh a uh interpreter with<01:24:10.480
• You don't have to have a sign to know the other rules of the road. You just follow the rules.
• You don't have to have a sign to know the other rules of the road. You just follow the rules.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, your Rules and Ethics Committee, Mr.
• He talks about addressing court rulings.
• Okay, maybe they're interested in another court ruling: the Black Voters Matter ruling, right?
• He talks about addressing court rulings. We just got He talks about addressing court rulings.
• Okay, maybe they're interested in another court ruling. The black voters matter ruling, right?

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As you came into the room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance
• I encourage members of the public who are in attendance to beware and observe those rules.
• Please beware that any violations of these rules or other violations of general courtesy or decorum may
• this committee and are eligible for the Assembly Floor consent calendar, consistent with Assembly rules
• as other certified court interpreters under the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on April 22, 2026, with a quorum present and first took up a large consent calendar. It moved a set of bills to the Assembly Floor consent calendar by unanimous vote, including AB 1773, 1785, 1828, 1873, 1918, 2001, 2085, 2173, 2412, 2536, 2644, and 2781, and separately approved another group of unanimous bills not eligible for floor consent, including AB 1544, 1555, 1614, 1621, 1637, 1704, 1816, 1933, 2529, 2559, 2663, and 2731. The committee then heard several individual bills, with each author describing the measure and witnesses generally testifying in support; no organized opposition was recorded on the bills discussed. Among the measures heard, AB 2393 would create fixed statutory damages for certain false imprisonment and arrest claims, while exempting peace officers, custodial officers, and public entities. AB 1697 would delay implementation of a recently enacted prohibition on employment contracts that require workers to repay employer debts if they leave a job, and AB 2534 would extend Domestic Violence Prevention Act restraining order protections to attempted forced marriages and survivors of forced marriages. AB 1608 would strengthen the High-Speed Rail Inspector General’s office by adding staffing and contracting authority, requiring public reports, and allowing limited temporary confidentiality for sensitive information; the bill drew questions from members about transparency and whether information could be withheld, but the author and Inspector General said the measure would increase accountability and only allow narrow, time-limited confidentiality. The committee also approved AB 1916, which would allow American Sign Language interpreters to participate in the same collective bargaining process as other certified court interpreters, and AB 1803, which would require anti-hate speech training as part of workplace harassment prevention training for employers with five or more employees. AB 1821 would change Public Records Act response timelines from calendar days to business days, with local government sponsors arguing it would better reflect actual processing time for broad and complex requests without reducing access. AB 1919 would establish election procedures to let voters decide the future of Santa Cruz Metro service funding after a one-time grant expires. Each of these bills was moved forward on due pass votes, with some members not voting on certain measures. The committee then approved a long suspense file, and the remaining suspense bills were deemed approved without further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><01:22:45.840> we interpretation of this rule that we interpretation of this rule that we discussed
• ignoring an interpretation of a rule. ignoring an interpretation of a rule.
• That's not how we make rules. It's not how we interpret the rules.
• So members, we are here to interpret laws and make laws. We are here to interpret rules.
• This is a very here to interpret rules. This is a very plain<01:38:42.639> rule.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• to each other for an interpretation of it.
• To interpret it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator.
• They use the Green Amendment, in most of these cases, to interpret it.
• To interpret what was passed here in this way because of the Green Amendment.
• I think that I am still very concerned about the interpretation of...

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• KLC respectfully interprets KRS chapter 278, specifically 278.718, differently.
• KLC respectfully interprets KRS chapter 278, specifically 278.718, differently.
• will interpretation ultimately stands will interpretation ultimately stands will depend<00:20
• I think that's kind of the simple ruling of this... >> All right. Thank you very much.
• <00:22:13.440> of<00:22:13.600> this ...the simple ruling of this case.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But even if you wanted to make that bright line, even if you wanted to change the rules and make that
• and it wound up with an interpretation that favored EEC?
• He simply agreed to a different interpretation of it.
• And frankly, it was an interpretation that both of the parties, EEC and AEJG, agreed to.
• The board is free to interpret the law as written to the facts of this case.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.