JD Williams

The lawmaker states they are voting to overturn the governor's veto because personal communications from constituents in their district have persuaded them that this is the right course of action.

The speaker supports concurrence because the bill asks for less government involvement and clarifies existing misdemeanor language rather than creating new penalties.

The lawmaker opposes overriding the veto because reverting all funds is overly prescriptive and ties hands for future opportunities that may arise in the coming biennium.

The lawmaker urges a no vote on division one because they believe county commissioners lack the necessary tools to handle this responsibility and that it does not fit in the bill.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it was requested by landowners to allow reasonable expansions for residential needs while explicitly excluding industrial or manufacturing increases in wattage.

The lawmaker supports the bill and opposes the amendment because it advances national energy dominance by funding reliable sources like coal, natural gas, uranium, and critical minerals.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he agrees with previous arguments that it is not the time to be timid regarding energy investment.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because they disagree with the opinion that no latitude should be given to school districts regarding the silo.

The lawmaker supports the bill to help fill hard-to-teach positions by removing barriers for out-of-state teachers, particularly benefiting military spouses and addressing shortages in special education, foreign language, and math.

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe it is necessary for the legislature to build expertise to address the growing issue of gaming, rather than delaying action.

The lawmaker supports the resolution by emphasizing the high thresholds required for approval and ratification, urging colleagues to overcome fear of potential changes.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it projects a return of recovered staff capacity if municipalities opt in.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because inaction regarding invasive grasses costs more than taking action, making it prudent to fund projects now while they can be addressed.

The lawmaker will vote no because they believe the bill's language regarding crossing onto government land is too broad and difficult to fix without an amendment.

The lawmaker states that current staffing levels and mandates are unsustainable without providing fair compensation, describing the situation as not investing in the future.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because investing now is more affordable than dealing with the consequences later, citing examples from neighboring states affected by cheat grass fires.

The lawmaker supports moving the bill to committee number six because they concur with the motion's sponsor.

The lawmaker supports the bill because having local crews allows for a faster response, which is critical in determining how long a fire lasts. They believe being proactive saves money by getting ahead of fires before they escalate.

The lawmaker asks for an affirmative vote because public employees should not be forced to financially support political causes without voluntary consent.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because having two modules could save money by reducing the need for expensive outside teams during fires. He also notes that these crews can perform mitigation work when there are no active fires.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because inflation has decreased the buying power of small towns, and they need the distribution restored to previous levels rather than cut back.

The lawmaker supports the bill because they found eminent domain conversations intimidating due to a lack of awareness about their rights and existing notification statutes. The legislation aims to educate landowners by providing information on these rights.

The lawmaker supports the bill by arguing that since scholarship funds are awarded directly to students who choose where to send them, this program is no more unconstitutional than the existing Hathaway scholarship.

The lawmaker expresses concern that if a caregiver delivers more than five ballots, there is no clear mechanism to determine which specific ballot should be invalidated.