Transcript Highlights:

• the superior courts, courts of limited jurisdiction, and juvenile courts.
• support for our court system.
• Washington does not have a unified court system, so LFOs are handled differently in every jurisdiction
• In my work at the Thurston County Courthouse, I see how inconsistent the court system can be.
• When people are choosing between rent, food for children, versus court debt, the system is not promoting

Bills: HB2161, HB2332, HB2102

Keywords: attorney general, legal authority, state powers, judiciary, civil rights, driver privacy, data protection, personal information, surveillance, consumer rights, legal obligations, financial responsibility, debt management, consumer protection, court systems, 904, all

Summary: The committee first heard public hearing testimony on House Bill 2102, which would sharply limit legal financial obligations by prohibiting courts from imposing costs unless specifically authorized by statute, repealing many fees and costs, ending interest on restitution, and making certain eliminated debts unenforceable and void. The sponsor and supporters argued that LFOs are ineffective, unevenly imposed, and create long-term debt that hinders reentry, while opponents from cities and collections interests warned the bill would preempt local discretion, shift costs to local governments, and reduce funding for probation, supervision, and related services. Some testimony supported the bill’s relief for indigent defendants but raised concerns about restitution interest and implementation details, and one Pierce County representative requested a clerical amendment to help clear thousands of unenforceable old LFOs. The committee then heard House Bill 2161, which would expand the Attorney General’s authority to issue civil investigative demands for possible violations involving civil rights, labor standards, jail standards, police conduct, and related laws. Supporters from the Attorney General’s office, labor groups, and police-accountability advocates said the bill would make investigations faster and more effective, especially in wage theft and discrimination cases, while opponents from law enforcement, cities, retailers, and collectors argued it was an overbroad expansion of power with insufficient standards, due-process protections, and safeguards for local agencies and businesses. Several members asked about the bill’s standards for issuing CIDs, the process for challenging them in court, and how the authority would be constrained if used in bad faith; the sponsor’s office said existing legal and professional-responsibility limits and court review would provide protection. Finally, the committee took testimony on House Bill 2332, which would regulate automated license plate reader systems by limiting authorized uses, restricting sharing and retention of data, barring certain uses such as immigration enforcement and tracking protected activity, and creating enforcement provisions. Supporters, including privacy, reproductive-rights, and civil-liberties advocates, said the bill is needed to prevent out-of-state or federal access to Washington data and to protect shield-law and privacy interests, though some urged even shorter retention periods, stronger limits on vendor access, and public-records access. Law enforcement, cities, business, and technology representatives generally supported privacy guardrails but argued the 72-hour retention limit was too short, the bill was too restrictive for investigations, and some provisions needed technical fixes or a warrant standard; several witnesses also requested amendments to clarify campus parking use, misdemeanor coverage, and data-sharing rules. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this bill is not for people who are going through the court system.
• Valleywise would renew the court-ordered treatment after mental health court.
• Those are the time frames for when things are supposed to go through the court system, and they're supposed
• the appellate court.
• I'm concerned that we don't have this court system in northern Arizona now.

Bills: SB1095, SB1127, SB1170, SB1208, SB1211, SB1237, SB1239, SB1240, SB1243, SB1244, SB1259, SB1283

Keywords: gender transition, minors, irreversible surgery, health professionals, puberty-blocking drugs, medical procedures, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, reporting abuse, child neglect, mandatory reporting, child safety, medical treatment, faith exemptions, penalties, narcotic drugs, fentanyl, sentencing, drug offenses, juvenile justice

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Toth: By the health system.
• Wu: system of lower level invertebrates, mainly worms, correct? Dr.
• And I know in court you have to prove up your defense. You have to defend your actions.
• But this bill will turn that system upside down.
• Darby: ...studying alert warning systems and our alert preparation, so I move passage.

Bills: HB25, HB48, HB149, HB254, HB26, HB192

Keywords: ivermectin, pharmacist authority, prescription-free, healthcare regulation, patient access, HB 48, Texas alert notification systems, emergency alerts, public warning systems, alert fatigue, notification fatigue, Texas Division of Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, DPS alerts, emergency management, State of Texas Emergency Assistance Registry, STEAR, disaster notifications, weather alerts, Amber Alert

Transcript Highlights:

• City Court.
• This makes clear that all district courts and parish courts—there are two parish courts, Jefferson and
• I'm the director of the Teacher's Retirement System.
• Catherine Whitney, Director of the TRSL system, and Mr.
• , but also keeping the system healthy too.

Bills: SB8, SB10, SB11, SB12, SB13, SB14, SB16, SB17, SB18, SB20, SB21, SB22, SB416, SB455, SB456, SB477

Keywords: Municipal Employees' Retirement System, Louisiana, participation, employer, retirement, SB 10, Act 222, Louisiana State Police Retirement System, state police retirement, retirement system funding, employer contributions, actuarial gains, amortization, Permanent Benefit Increase, PBI account, benefit increase reserve, supplemental permanent benefit increase, public retirement systems, state pension, pension funding

Summary: The Retirement Committee met on April 29, 2026, established a quorum, and heard a series of retirement-related bills, mostly cleanup or technical measures affecting various public retirement systems. SB 22 would extend Municipal Employees Retirement System eligibility to certain positions in the Second City Court constable’s office in New Orleans. SB 17 would create a funding deposit account for cost-of-living adjustments for registrars of voters’ employees’ retirement system. SB 455 would allow certain district and parish courts to participate in the Parochial Employees Retirement System. SB 456 would update compensation rules for assigned retired judges, and SB 8 would add the Louisiana Asset Management Pool as a participating employer in MERS. All of these bills were described as aligning statutes with current practice or expanding participation options, and each was reported favorably without objection. The committee also heard several Louisiana State Police retirement bills. SB 10 would repeal outdated priority allocation and retiree raise rules and adjust handling of surplus employee contributions; SB 11 would increase the funding cap for benefit increases from 2.5% to 3.5%; and SB 12 would update membership and definition language to reflect the State Police Commission rather than the Civil Service Commission. SB 18 would repeal a special exception allowing certain MERS retirees to return to part-time work while collecting full benefits, while protecting roughly 30 current participants. SB 20 and SB 21 would update actuarial gain/loss and unfunded liability funding rules for school employees’ retirement and LASERS, respectively, in light of the new permanent benefit increase funding structure. Each of these bills was supported by system officials as cleanup or modernization measures and was reported favorably. The committee spent the most time on education and return-to-work issues for teachers and public employees. SB 16 would reduce annual trustee training requirements for retirement system boards from 16 hours back to 12 hours, which witnesses said would better fit smaller systems and match the original intent of the law. SB 13 would similarly update TRSL’s actuarial funding rules after the sunset of the experience account. SB 14, based on a 2025 study work group, would consolidate and simplify TRSL return-to-work rules and expand options for retired teachers, with witnesses emphasizing teacher shortages and the need to retain experienced educators. All three were reported favorably. Finally, SB 416 would allow certain Department of Public Safety and Corrections retirees to return to critical shortage positions after one year, and SB 477 would classify the chairman of the Louisiana Gaming Control Board as a full-time state employee for retirement purposes. Both bills drew questions and discussion, especially SB 416, and both were reported favorably. The chair announced the committee’s next meeting would be moved from Monday to Tuesday, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• ...of the court, and so we are one court.
• to Superior Court.
• If the bill is changed and it starts in Family Court, it will stay in Family Court...
• Family Court judge decides it needs to go to Superior Court.
• a family court judge decides, it needs to go to Superior Court.

Bills: HB372, HB414

Keywords: HB372, Justice of the Peace Court, Delaware courts, Title 10, court administration, judicial staffing, county courts, Kent County, New Castle County, Sussex County, Wilmington, 24-hour hearings, court locations, court hours, magistrate court, access to justice, court consolidation, Delaware General Assembly, destructive weapon, possessing a destructive weapon

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met and heard three bills. HB 372 would reorganize Justice of the Peace Court resources by shifting the number of judges and court locations among counties, consolidating overnight operations into a single 24-hour court in Kent County, and adjusting staffing to address workload and efficiency concerns. Chief Judge Alan Davis said the change responds to increased civil filings, automated enforcement, and staffing shortages, and that a Sussex County pilot closing a 24-hour facility had worked without major issues. Some members raised concerns about impacts on Sussex and Kent County, bail processing, and local response times, while public comment included one supporter. The committee voted to release HB 372. The committee then considered SB 324, which amends Delaware’s permit-to-purchase law to allow constable agencies, including those serving institutions like Delaware Tech, to purchase handguns for newly hired constables without duplicative background checks. Sponsor Representative Cook said the bill aligns constable procurement with existing law-enforcement exemptions while preserving gun-safety requirements. Public testimony included support from Delaware Tech and comments urging broader fixes to the permit-to-purchase law, including exemptions for retired officers with federal 218 credentials and clarification on firearms returned from manufacturers, gunsmiths, or police departments. The committee voted to release SB 324. Finally, the committee heard HB 414, which clarifies that the Superior Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over certain destructive-weapon offenses applies only to adults, while juvenile cases would still begin in Family Court. Sponsor Representative Romer said the bill preserves the Family Court’s role in handling youth cases and allows referral to Superior Court when appropriate. The Department of Justice said it still believes Superior Court is the proper venue for these serious charges, while the Office of Defense Services supported keeping youth cases in Family Court first, arguing that rehabilitation and juvenile-specific dispositions are more appropriate. After public comment, the committee voted to release HB 414, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The United States Supreme Court has said that the free and uninterrupted functioning of our courts is
• The United States Supreme Court has said that the free and uninterrupted functioning of our courts is
• The courts weighed in.
• The courts weighed in.
• avoid in-person service of court documents.

Bills: HB372, HB414

Keywords: HB372, Justice of the Peace Court, Delaware courts, Title 10, court administration, judicial staffing, county courts, Kent County, New Castle County, Sussex County, Wilmington, 24-hour hearings, court locations, court hours, magistrate court, access to justice, court consolidation, Delaware General Assembly, destructive weapon, possessing a destructive weapon

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on public safety, courts, and family law. House Bill 141, with House Amendment 1, would require the Department of Safety and Homeland Security to create a firearm responsibilities notice for firearm purchasers through licensed dealers, covering Delaware gun laws, safe storage, lost/stolen reporting, straw purchases, suicide prevention, and other safety responsibilities. Testimony from the NRA, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Moms Demand Action, the Coalition for Safer Delaware, and Delaware State Police was uniformly supportive, emphasizing education, standardized dealer practices, and potential evidence for straw-purchase prosecutions. No committee questions were raised, and the bill was moved forward after public comment. House Bill 326 would create a new offense for theft by impersonating a family member, aimed at scams involving spoofed calls, texts, or online messages that pressure victims to send money. The sponsor described the bill as a response to increasingly sophisticated fraud enabled by artificial intelligence, and noted that a House amendment removed an original mandatory minimum jail term, leaving sentencing to the courts. No public testimony was offered on the bill. House Substitute 1 for House Bill 150 would prohibit civil arrests inside courthouses and certain Department of Labor proceedings, with the sponsor arguing that such arrests deter people from coming to court or seeking protection; the bill would allow criminal arrests and civil arrests only with advance written notice. No testimony was taken on that measure. Senate Bill 284, the First State Emergency Responders Act, would create a narrowly tailored offense for intentionally approaching within 25 feet of first responders at emergency scenes after crossing a barrier or ignoring warnings, if done to interfere, threaten, or harass. Supporters, including police, fire service, and sportsmen’s groups, said it would protect responders and preserve emergency operations, while the Office of Defense Services opposed it on First Amendment and overbreadth grounds, arguing existing laws already cover much of the conduct. Senate Bill 304 would amend Delaware’s safe school zone law to allow private schools to use trained, vetted sentries or similar security arrangements; supporters said it would give smaller private schools an affordable safety option, while the sponsor said the bill needed more work and should not move forward yet. The committee also heard Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 314, which would clarify how courts handle evidence that a sexual assault complainant previously made a false allegation; DOJ and ODS said the substitute reflects a consensus approach, and YWCA Delaware supported it as a survivor-protective reform. Finally, Senate Bill 343 would expand methods for serving child support respondents in Family Court by authorizing service through certified mail and carriers such as USPS, UPS, and FedEx, addressing cases where people avoid in-person service using doorbell cameras and other technology. The Division of Child Support Services supported the bill as a practical update that would improve timeliness while preserving proof-of-delivery safeguards. At the end of the meeting, a motion was made and seconded, and the chair adjourned the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so in every other parish, the clerk and the court system rely upon...
• And so in every other parish, the clerk and the court system rely upon the civil fees to help fund the
• What's going to happen to the new system that civil district court just had?
• The bill will throw our court system into immediate chaos. What’s the plan to clean that up?
• The bill will throw our court system into immediate chaos. What's the plan to clean that up?

Bills: SB256

Keywords: court consolidation, judicial administrative, Orleans Parish, civil district court, criminal district court, court clerk, judicial funding

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 256, which would combine the Orleans Parish clerks of criminal district court and civil district court into one office, with the bill taking effect upon gubernatorial signature. Senator Jay Morris said the change would align Orleans with other parishes, improve efficiency, and eventually help consolidate funding and operations, noting that Orleans is the only parish with two clerks and that the criminal side lacks the civil-side revenue streams used elsewhere. Committee members questioned the timing because the election for the next term had already been held and certified, and repeatedly raised concerns that the bill would effectively eliminate an office after voters had already chosen Calvin Duncan as criminal clerk. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill would be constitutional or fair if enacted before the new term began. Opponents argued it would disenfranchise voters, target Duncan personally, and set a dangerous precedent by abolishing an office after an election. Supporters and witnesses for Duncan said the bill was rushed, lacked a fiscal note, and would create confusion about staffing, records, training, and the transition between the two court systems. Several witnesses also argued that the criminal clerk’s office is essential to access to justice and that the data and efficiency rationale did not justify the timing or effect of the bill. Calvin Duncan testified that he ran to improve access to court records after his own wrongful conviction and incarceration, and said the bill sends the message that votes do not count. Other witnesses, including teachers, voters, attorneys, former officials, and advocacy representatives, echoed that the measure undermines democracy and appears aimed at preventing Duncan from taking office. Senator Morris denied personal targeting and said the bill was about abolishing an unnecessary office, but acknowledged litigation was likely. The committee also adopted a three-minute rule for testimony by a 10-3 vote, then began hearing public testimony, with the first witnesses overwhelmingly opposing the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so in every other parish, the clerk and the court system rely upon...
• And so in every other parish, the clerk and the court system rely upon the civil fees to help fund the
• What's going to happen to the new system that civil district court just had?
• What's going to happen to the system that criminal court just implemented? What is going to happen?
• The bill will throw our court system into immediate chaos. What's the plan to clean that up?

Bills: SB256

Keywords: court consolidation, judicial administrative, Orleans Parish, civil district court, criminal district court, court clerk, judicial funding, 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > blocking</c><00:13:02.160><c> constituents</c> school system were blocking constituents school system
• </c> but there was nothing that any court but there was nothing that any court could<00:13:33.200><c>
• </c><01:16:38.640><c> We</c> used uh the heart voting systems. We used uh the heart voting systems.
• 10 operating system.
• So what that does is that system.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• > blocking</c><00:13:06.160><c> constituents</c> school system were blocking constituents school system
• </c> but there was nothing that any court but there was nothing that any court could<00:13:37.200><c>
• </c> facilities and the entire voting system facilities and the entire voting system is<00:57:49.839>
• </c><01:16:42.640><c> We</c> used uh the heart voting systems. We used uh the heart voting systems.
• . system. system.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.

Bills: SB 302, SB 1335, SB 1734, SB 1760, SB 1975, SB 2127

Keywords: probate court, statutory judge, reimbursement, court costs, court proceedings, judicial assignments, judge assignment, cost reimbursement, judicial expenses, estate management, statutory requirement, court expenses, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, guardianship, incapacitated persons, guardianship fees

Transcript Highlights:

• system.
• And intervention shouldn't be routed through criminal court systems.
• Furthermore, House Bill 21 also establishes a system for statewide homelessness court systems to process
• system.
• Court.

Bills: HB29, HB39, HB77, HB153, HB183, HB211, HB263, HB299, HB324, HB519, HB520, HB533, HB538, HB559, HB562, HB805, HB823, HB1004, HB1011, HB1018

Keywords: insurance fund, retired employees, Ascension Parish, court clerks, premium costs, investment advisory board, HB 39, Act 283, peace officer, law enforcement officer, police certification, citizenship requirement, U.S. citizen, United States citizen, naturalization, lawful permanent resident, green card holder, immigration, public safety, law enforcement hiring

Transcript Highlights:

• It's $7 million that goes directly to the criminal court system in Orleans that no other court system
• I would love the uniform court system, clerk court system.
• with every other court system in the state.
• work for the court system.
• work for the court system.

Bills: HB141, HB178, HB179, HB187, HB188, HB527, HB782, HB911, HB916

Keywords: court proceedings, transcription, criminal law, recording, judicial discretion, court reporters, record retention, criminal cases, civil cases, legal proceedings, judicial administration, Louisiana Supreme Court, court reporting services, digital reporting, remote proceedings, virtual courts, court reporter fees, judicial district, statewide revision, costs

Transcript Highlights:

• There has to be a balance in the system.
• Recent Court of Appeals decisions as well that haven't been brought up are the Dallas Court of Appeals
• Now we have a total of four courts.
• to provide a unified bailiff throughout the whole court system.
• of law, but not under a district court.

Bills: HB1193, HB2495, HB2733, HB3104, HB3395, HB4325, SB3009

Keywords: HB 1193, informal marriage, common-law marriage, declaration of informal marriage, confidentiality, privacy, county clerk, vital statistics unit, Family Code, Health and Safety Code, marriage records, public records, personally identifying information, PII, legal representative, Texas marriage law, child enrollment, parent rights, managing conservator, education

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Orr's bill, sponsored by Senator Zaffirini, that we heard last time about the transfer of court
• matter of pending business, Senate Bill 1538, that's Senator Zaffirini's bill, that has to do with court
• The bill authorizes the Office of Court Administration to conduct a study about digital reporting and
• to require the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to submit a report of findings to the Governor and
• Office of Court Administration? Oh, Office of Court Administration. Okay.

Bills: HB1193, HB2495, HB2733, HB3104, HB3395, HB4325, SB3009

Keywords: HB 1193, informal marriage, common-law marriage, declaration of informal marriage, confidentiality, privacy, county clerk, vital statistics unit, Family Code, Health and Safety Code, marriage records, public records, personally identifying information, PII, legal representative, Texas marriage law, child enrollment, parent rights, managing conservator, education

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Orr's bill sponsored by Senator Zafarini that we heard last time about the transfer of court
• as a matter of pending visit Senate Bill 1538, that's Senator Zafarini's bill that has to do with court
• The committee substitute to Senate Bill 1538 authorizes the Office of Court Administration to conduct
• Office of Court Administration. Oh, Office of Court Administration. OK.
• by the Dean of the Senate, 3104 about the appointment and compensation of bailiffs, uh, in certain courts

Bills: HB 1193, HB 2495, HB 2733, HB 3104, HB 3395, HB 4325, SB 3009

Keywords: HB 1193, informal marriage, common-law marriage, declaration of informal marriage, confidentiality, privacy, county clerk, vital statistics unit, Family Code, Health and Safety Code, marriage records, public records, personally identifying information, PII, legal representative, Texas marriage law, child enrollment, parent rights, managing conservator, education

Transcript Highlights:

• That the Dean of the Senate laid out for us relating to the jurisdiction of a court in a suit to divide
• 2524, Representative Cook's bill sponsored by Vice Chair Senator Johnson, about the recovery of fees, court
• 2524, Representative Cook's bill sponsored by Vice Chair Senator Johnson, About the recovery of fees, court
• the House is, of course, the bill that deals with updating and continuing to refine our business courts

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support

Summary: The committee considered several House bills dealing with family law and civil procedure. House Bill 1916, concerning a court’s jurisdiction in suits to divide property not divided on dissolution of marriage, was reported favorably on a 4-0 vote and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. House Bill 1973, addressing proof of the identity of a child’s parents in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, was also adopted with a committee substitute, reported favorably 4-0, and sent to the local and uncontested calendar. House Bill 2524, on recovery of fees, court costs, and expenses in family law proceedings, and House Bill 2530, on special appointments in suits affecting the parent-child relationship, each received favorable 4-0 votes and were likewise recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then took up House Bill 3180, which was reported favorably 4-0 and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. The most detailed discussion centered on House Bill 40, relating to updates to business courts. Senator Hughes explained a committee amendment that made conforming changes requested by the Finance Committee and removed language creating two new judgeships, replacing it with a different judge allocation. The amendment was adopted, the amended committee substitute was adopted, and the bill was reported favorably on a 4-0 vote and sent to the local and uncontested calendar. At the end of the meeting, members briefly clarified procedural details about the House Bill 40 amendment and then closed out the agenda. The committee also noted a correction to an earlier reference to Bartleby the Scrivener, and the Chair recessed the Committee on Jurisprudence subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• They were victims of the family court system in an attempt to force a relationship with an abusive parent
• Obviously, the court has discretion to make changes as the court sees fit.
• Again, we give courts a lot of discretion, but there’s also a lot of the “court may not,” the “court
• I work with the court system in multiple counties, where I have been appointed as a guardian ad litem
• system.

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support

Summary: The committee heard several House bills, most of them relating to family law and court procedure, and left each bill pending after testimony. House Bill 1916 would clarify that the court that issued a final divorce decree retains exclusive jurisdiction over later actions involving undivided property. House Bill 1973 would require a certified birth certificate, if reasonably available, to be filed with a SAPCR petition or allow alternative proof of parentage while keeping the information confidential. House Bill 2530 would add qualifications and procedural safeguards for appointing amicus attorneys in SAPCR cases, including notice and hearing requirements, minimum qualifications, conflict rules, and limits on what amicus attorneys may do. House Bill 2524 would make Family Code references to attorney’s fees consistent by using “reasonable and necessary” language. House Bill 3180 would correct a scrivener’s error in the civil discovery rules by changing “settlement” to “statement.” The committee also heard House Bill 4213, which would change the interest rate on overdue child support from the current 6 percent simple interest to a fixed 5 percent and require the Attorney General to report on the impact of the change. Testimony was sharply divided: supporters argued lower interest could improve collections and help low-income obligors catch up, citing research and the size of child-support arrearages; opponents said lowering the rate would reduce incentives to pay and harm custodial parents and children. The Attorney General’s office raised implementation concerns about a House version that would have created a variable rate, while the committee substitute was described as restoring a simple fixed rate. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee also discussed House Bill 40, updating business court provisions and supplemental jurisdiction; House Bill 3421, streamlining probate procedures for original wills and copies; and House Bill 417, clarifying venue for lawsuits involving private transfer fees on real property. Each drew limited testimony and was left pending. Finally, House Bill 3783 drew extensive testimony on court-ordered counseling and reunification therapy in family cases. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would protect children and abuse victims from coercive, unregulated reunification practices, while opponents argued it was too broad, could interfere with legitimate therapy and judicial discretion, and might affect military families and other high-conflict cases. The committee heard testimony from judges, therapists, parents, survivors, and advocates, but took no final action and left the bill pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• County—and it does specify the city of Montgomery, I should say—participate in the Employees Retirement Systems

Bills: SB208, SB216, HB187

Keywords: Montgomery, retirement system, employees, constitutional amendment, city council, retired law enforcement, retirement benefits, employment, firemedics, salary cap, HB187, court fees, docket fee, sheriff's fund, sheriff's office, jail operations, law enforcement, county sheriff, court filing fees, Alabama Code 12-19-312

Transcript Highlights:

• court.
• court.
• courts.
• courts.
• Court.

Bills: HB2226, HB2406, HB2663, HB2695, HB2805, HB2976

Keywords: veteran status, veterans court, treatment court, diversion program, initial appearance, arrestee processing, criminal procedure, DD-214, Department of Veterans' Services, prosecuting agency, court notification, military service, armed forces, veterans benefits, reentry, mental health court, drug court, specialty court, Arizona criminal law, pretrial hearing