Bills: HB293

Keywords: political contributions, legislature, quorum, transparency, election code

Transcript Highlights:

• This could provide a lot of good transparency on, um, what mandates could cost for, uh, employers, insurers
• As rep Paul has said, given us tools and being transparent.

Bills: HB138

Keywords: voter registration, application rejection, transparency, election integrity, state law

Bills: HB 10, HB 12, HB 675

Keywords: public information, government transparency, civil penalty, recordkeeping, election reports

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, whether anything happens or not, I mean, we're, we're inflicting a penalty on the entire elected
• sessions during certain periods, for example, 60 days after a regular session, 60 days before an election
• You may recall 2217 was a was a bill that dealt with how we report election results and how procedures
• They get within the 30 day window before the election. They're already registered to vote.
• The election administrators brought this to the house because the law was kind of fuzzy before.

Bills: SB 53, SB 54, HB16, SB 19

Keywords: voter registration, election procedures, provisional ballot, change of address, residence requirements, Texas Election Code, voting rights, judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments, political contributions, special legislative session, election code, transparency, campaign finance, election law

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't have to figure out the 40th day from the election.
• We don't have to figure out the 40th day from the election.
• would be recorded in the first quarter report, January 1st through April 30th, before a primary election
• You know, and part of that's transparency, part of it's government, part of it's law, but this is a changeover

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The committee met to reconsider and further amend Senate Bill 2156, a campaign finance/reporting bill tied to Secretary of State filing requirements and new software implementation. Members and legislative counsel explained that the bill would keep current law in place for 2025, then take effect January 1, 2026, when the new system is expected to be ready. Discussion focused on hard reporting dates, how year-end and quarterly reports would be handled, which entities must disclose balances, and clarifying that some provisions apply to statewide political parties and certain political committees but not to candidates or candidate committees in the same way. Representative Steiner walked through the amendment, describing it as mostly technical and intended to align reporting deadlines with fixed calendar dates, simplify compliance, and preserve existing treatment for some balance disclosures. Members asked about public availability of certain filed information, the meaning of references to beginning and ending balances, and whether the new fines and other provisions would also be delayed until 2026. Legislative counsel said the bill’s effective date would cover the entire act and noted some disclosure questions were not clearly answered in current law. The committee adopted the amendment and then approved Senate Bill 2156 as amended on a do-pass motion. The roll call was unanimous, and the chair adjourned the meeting, noting the changes were intended to help the Secretary of State’s office and candidates transition to the new reporting system.

Transcript Highlights:

• statewide multi-candidate committee, the balance of the campaign fund on the 40th day before the election

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review amendments to a campaign finance bill, focusing on reporting requirements for ending balances and annual statements. Members and staff worked through whether the language should apply to all multi-candidate committees or only statewide multi-candidate committees, and whether the addition of non-statewide political parties created any unintended change from current law. Dustin Richard from the Secretary of State’s office explained that the draft needed to be tightened to mirror existing law by inserting “statewide” where appropriate, while keeping the new non-statewide political party provisions as intended. The committee also discussed an effective date and application clause. Staff explained that an effective date of January 1, 2026 would align with the new reporting requirements, and that 2025 transactions would still be reported under the old law while 2026 transactions would follow the new rules. Members asked for plain-language clarification about how the application clause would work and whether any statutory cleanup would be needed afterward. A motion was made, seconded, and approved to adopt the amendments, with the motion then rephrased to refer to the “Dustin amendments.” The meeting concluded with scheduling discussion about reconvening later in the week to keep the bill moving before the deadline, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the sentence that was deleted was: 'in the period 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before
• a special or general election.'
• or any term meaning the same as incumbent or challenger is used in support or opposition to the election
• . through December 31st and January 1st through the 40th day of the special election.
• ... ...contributed over $250 solely to influence a statewide election or an election for the legislative

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2217 will increase transparency in elections by requiring consistent data reporting across
• SB 2217 focuses on improving transparency, accuracy, and accountability in Texas elections by mandating
• It would also bring transparency and confidence. Elections based on targeted issues.
• It would also bring transparency and confidence to the election process in Texas. Thank you, Mr.
• So as long as they're transparent, you could ask, like this last election, 10, 100 votes different, and

Bills: HB311, SB447, SB505, SB2217, SB2753

Keywords: voter registration, electronic, Texas election law, Signature verification, DPS, internet application, Texas Election Code, signature verification, online application, data security, electronic application, Department of Public Safety, information security, electronic voter registration, voting technology, voter access, state election laws, digital signature, election irregularities, audit

Summary: The committee heard several election-related bills. SB 447 would let the City of Mission in Hidalgo County permanently move its municipal elections from May to the uniform November election date if it chooses. The bill was described as permissive and intended to increase turnout and reduce costs. Mission’s mayor testified in support, saying voters had already approved the change by a wide margin in a charter amendment election. The bill was left pending after no objection. SB 2217 focused on standardizing election data reporting and reconciliation across counties to improve transparency and comparability. Testimony was generally supportive of the goal, but Dr. Laura Presley and others flagged technical issues, including a discrepancy between a three-ballot mismatch threshold in existing law and a 1% threshold in part of the bill, plus a definition issue involving central accumulators. Supporters said consistent auditing and reconciliation would help election integrity, while the bill was also left pending. The committee then took up SB 2753, a major proposal to create a continuous in-person voting period that would combine early voting and Election Day into one uninterrupted process, with precinct consolidation and other changes. Supporters said it could simplify administration, reduce equipment changes, and improve security by using one set of machines. Opponents and neutral witnesses raised concerns about cost, staffing, ballot security, reporting changes, weekend voting, and whether the bill was ready for implementation; several urged a pilot or study instead. The committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. SB 505 would create a process for election workers, candidates, party officials, and measure proponents or opponents to request explanations of election irregularities, with escalation to the Secretary of State for audit or enforcement if responses were unsatisfactory. Supporters said it would provide a way to resolve irregularities and restore confidence, while opponents argued it was too broad, lacked guardrails against abuse, and could be used by partisan actors to pressure counties. The bill was left pending. Finally, HB 311 would expand Texas’s online voter registration system to first-time registrants and others, with supporters citing efficiency, lower costs, and broader access, and opponents raising concerns about signature verification and implementation details. Testimony was cut short because of the session deadline, and the bill had not been disposed of in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2217 will increase transparency in elections by requiring consistent data reporting across
• SB 2217 focuses on improving transparency, accuracy, and accountability in Texas elections by mandating
• to ask election officials questions regarding the election.
• It would also bring transparency and confidence to the election process in Texas. Thank you, Mr.
• So as long as they're transparent, you could ask, like this last election, 10, 100 votes different, and

Bills: HB311, SB447, SB505, SB2217, SB2753

Keywords: voter registration, electronic, Texas election law, Signature verification, DPS, internet application, Texas Election Code, signature verification, online application, data security, electronic application, Department of Public Safety, information security, electronic voter registration, voting technology, voter access, state election laws, digital signature, election irregularities, audit

Summary: The House Committee on Elections met with a quorum present and heard several election-related bills, with public testimony limited to two minutes per witness. The first measure, SB 447, would allow the City of Mission to move its municipal elections from May to November on a one-time, permanent basis. Supporters, including Mission’s mayor, said voters had already approved the change by a wide margin and argued it would improve turnout and reduce costs. The bill was left pending after no objection. The committee then heard SB 2217, which was described as a transparency measure to standardize election data reporting and reconciliation across counties. Testimony focused on a technical issue involving discrepancy thresholds for electronic voting system reconciliation, with one witness urging the bill be aligned with existing law’s “more than 3” standard rather than a 1% threshold, and another suggesting a definition fix. The bill was left pending. Members also heard SB 2753, a major proposal to create a continuous in-person voting period by combining early voting and election day into one uninterrupted period, with a committee substitute making it a pilot and permissive. Supporters said it could simplify administration and improve security, while opponents warned it would increase costs, require more staffing and equipment, delay results, and create logistical problems for counties. The committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. Finally, SB 505 would let certain election stakeholders request explanations of irregularities from election officials and, if unresolved, escalate the matter to the Secretary of State for audit or possible conservatorship. Supporters framed it as a tool for accountability and transparency, while opponents called it overly broad and vulnerable to abuse. The bill was left pending. The committee also took up HB 311, which would expand online voter registration to first-time registrants and direct state agencies to develop a pathway for Texans without a driver’s license to register online. Supporters argued it would modernize the process, reduce errors, and save money, while opponents said first-time applicants still need a wet signature and raised concerns about signature verification and implementation. Due to the late hour and floor deadline, testimony was cut off, the names of remaining witnesses were read into the record, and the bill was left pending before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, we're inflicting a penalty on the entire elected body by doing this.
• Rules that the judges are when they run for election or reelection.
• For example, 60 days after a regular session, or 60 days before an election.
• It was a bill that dealt with how we report election results and how procedures are conducted.
• The election administrators brought this to the House because the law was kind of fuzzy before.

Bills: SB 53, SB 54, HB16, SB 19

Keywords: voter registration, election procedures, provisional ballot, change of address, residence requirements, Texas Election Code, voting rights, judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments, political contributions, special legislative session, election code, transparency, campaign finance, election law

Bills: HB429, HB496, HB640, HB657, HB665, HB677, HB952

Keywords: Texas Election Code, elections, voting station, polling place, ballot marking, ballot reading, child accompaniment, minor, parental supervision, voter education, secretary of state, county election administrator, voter assistance, election administration, poll worker rules, ballot secrecy, HB 496, ballot option, none of the above, abstain from vote

Transcript Highlights:

• And this will be done to provide transparency and to preserve the integrity of the election.
• the election.
• He said his members want fair, accurate, transparent elections.
• He said he would be uncharacteristically brief and would take any questions. transparent elections.
• I think this bill transparent elections.

Bills: HB0085, HB0086

Keywords: elections, audit procedures, ballot integrity, political party observation, transparency, county officials, election code, misconduct, removal, government accountability, 916, all

Bills: HB0085, HB0086

Keywords: elections, audit procedures, ballot integrity, political party observation, transparency, county officials, election code, misconduct, removal, government accountability, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving the election date.
• Senate Bill 2217 will increase transparency in election actions by requiring consistent data reporting
• SB 2217 focuses on improving transparency, accuracy, and accountability in Texas elections by mandating
• Election period.
• to ask the election officials questions regarding the election.

Bills: HB311, SB447, SB505, SB2217, SB2753, HB311

Keywords: voter registration, electronic, Texas election law, Signature verification, DPS, internet application, Texas Election Code, signature verification, online application, data security, electronic application, Department of Public Safety, information security, electronic voter registration, voting technology, voter access, state election laws, digital signature, election irregularities, audit

Transcript Highlights:

• to the second Tuesday of... ...the second Tuesday of each election cycle.
• to have an election a day after all of that.
• So, the current law would place that election...
• The current law would place that election the day after Memorial Day, but it didn't.
• Everything's based on... ...so many days prior to the election.

Bills: HB258, HB308, HB258, HB308

Keywords: primary election, election calendar, off-presidential year, May primary, second Tuesday in May, fourth Tuesday in May, runoff primary, special primary, presidential primary, election administration, candidate filing, ballot access, political parties, county election officials, state election law, Alabama elections, elections, voter registration, publishing requirements, cost-saving

Transcript Highlights:

• If a balanced budget amendment is passed and our elected Congress at the time of passage accomplishes
• We have most of them right; we have term limits because they're elections. I go to the rest.

Bills: SB 312, SB 945, SB 946, SB 1367, SB 1861, SB 2044, SB 2337, SB 2403, SB 2819, SJR 54

Keywords: public school funding, education, budget allocation, financial transparency, state law, local control, fiduciary responsibility, public retirement systems, investment management, proxy voting, financial factors, insurance, political shareholder proposals, fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental regulation, discrimination, credit extension, social credit, value-based standards

Bills: SB312, SB945, SB946, SB1367, SB1861, SB2044, SB2337, SB2403, SB2819, SJR54

Keywords: public school funding, education, budget allocation, financial transparency, state law, local control, fiduciary responsibility, public retirement systems, investment management, proxy voting, financial factors, insurance, political shareholder proposals, fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental regulation, discrimination, credit extension, social credit, value-based standards

Summary: The Senate Committee on State Affairs was called to order and a roll call showed most members present, with one absent. The chair explained that the committee had arranged witnesses for a later meeting but had received responses from some parties declining to testify, prompting Senator Bettencourt to offer a written motion for subpoenas. The motion authorized the committee chair, under Senate Rule 11.20, to issue subpoenas to BlackRock, State Street, or other financial services companies affecting Texas public pension investments, along with their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, employees, agents, or representatives. The subpoenas would require testimony and production of records concerning investment practices, the impact on Texas public pension funds, and any investments intended to further political or social causes. Members discussed the importance of obtaining testimony and the limited but necessary use of subpoena power. The committee then voted, with 10 ayes, no nays, and one absent, to adopt the motion. With no further business, the committee recessed until the call of the chair, planning to return after the local calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have seen it in TRE elections. We’ve seen it in general elections.
• We have seen it in TRE elections. We've seen it in general elections. There's an election.
• I'm not sure what elections. We haven't seen it in at this point. There's an election.
• It's a transparency amendment.
• The focus is on election crimes. They're low volume, but critical for election integrity.

Bills: SB312, SB945, SB946, SB1367, SB1861, SB2044, SB2337, SB2403, SB2819, SJR54

Keywords: public school funding, education, budget allocation, financial transparency, state law, local control, fiduciary responsibility, public retirement systems, investment management, proxy voting, financial factors, insurance, political shareholder proposals, fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental regulation, discrimination, credit extension, social credit, value-based standards

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 945, 946, 2044, 2819, 2403, 2337, and 312, with all bills left pending after testimony. SB 945 would restrict insurance companies from denying or limiting coverage based on oil and gas activity or ESG-related goals, and supporters argued it would protect Texas energy producers from politically motivated shareholder activism and insurance discrimination. SB 946 would bar creditors from using social credit, ESG, DEI, or religious/political affiliation as a basis for denying or limiting credit; witnesses said it would prevent viewpoint-based financial discrimination and protect access to capital for Texas businesses. SB 2337 would require proxy advisory firms to disclose when recommendations are based on non-financial factors or when they give conflicting advice to different clients; supporters said the measure would increase transparency and curb ESG-driven influence over shareholder voting. SB 312 would direct public retirement systems to focus on financial returns rather than social or political objectives, with the author saying the bill responds to activist pressure on pensions and would reinforce fiduciary duty. The committee also took up election and ethics measures. SB 2044 would strengthen electioneering restrictions for publicly funded education institutions and personnel, prohibiting use of official resources to promote political agendas; testimony focused on alleged school district electioneering in bond and tax elections. SB 2819 would prohibit county elections administrators from holding certain officer positions appointed by elected officials, addressing potential conflicts of interest. SB 2403, the Texas Ethics Commission sunset bill, would restructure complaint handling with a three-tier violation system, risk-based complaint prioritization, longer response times, bipartisan preliminary review panels, and expanded hearing options; members discussed amendments aimed at dismissing minor complaints, clarifying categories, and adjusting lobbying and penalty provisions, but the amendments were withdrawn during committee consideration. Across the ESG and finance bills, invited witnesses from the American Energy Institute, Heartland Impact, Consumers Research, ADF Action, Texas Civil Justice League, and related groups generally supported the measures, arguing that banks, insurers, proxy advisors, and asset managers have used ESG or reputational-risk standards to discriminate against energy, agriculture, firearms, and religious organizations. No opposition testimony was presented in the excerpt, and the committee closed public testimony on each bill and left them pending.

Bills: HB398, HB906, HB1201, SB41, SB47, SB106, SB210, SB218, SB220, SB248, SB289, SB397

Keywords: travel expenses, reimbursement, state officials, US General Services Administration, disaster management, nominating petitions, unaffiliated voters, party primaries, political participation, elections, public meeting minutes, transparency, government accountability, publication deadlines, open meetings, boards and commissions, public records, contact information, email addresses, phone numbers

Transcript Highlights:

• If a balanced budget amendment is passed and our elected Congress at the time of passage accomplishes
• We have term limits because they're elections. I go to the rest. I mean, if you like, but if we...

Bills: SB312, SB945, SB946, SB1367, SB1861, SB2044, SB2337, SB2403, SB2819, SJR54

Keywords: public school funding, education, budget allocation, financial transparency, state law, local control, fiduciary responsibility, public retirement systems, investment management, proxy voting, financial factors, insurance, political shareholder proposals, fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental regulation, discrimination, credit extension, social credit, value-based standards