Ken Chestek

The lawmaker supports an amendment because they believe it resolves the ambiguity in the previous language regarding industrial exceptions.

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe creating a committee will help regulate gaming and protect citizens, rather than legitimizing it.

The lawmaker argues the bill should be defeated because it punishes unintentional conduct by making accidental injuries a felony.

The lawmaker requests a no vote because he believes the bill requires more study from international law experts and that there is no emergency requiring immediate passage.

The lawmaker argues that forcing specific information during orientation constitutes forced speech and inaccurately presents land-grant status as the university's sole mission, which he believes is incorrect.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe it is an attempt to punish the court for a decision rather than addressing the increasing threat of violence against court officers.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it provides a necessary safety net for rural areas where food pantries and distribution sites are scarce or non-existent.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to strike specific language because he believes the intent is already clearly expressed in other lines of the bill regarding funding for reducing waiting lists.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because negotiations on the Colorado River Compact are happening without federal guidance, requiring Wyoming to defend itself against other states independently.

The speaker believes that forcing partisan positions does not provide useful information to voters and may mislead them if candidates disagree with party platforms.

The lawmaker proposes an amendment to prevent the bill from criminalizing authorized sex education classes taught by schools or religious organizations, while ensuring predators cannot use such classes as a cover for crimes.

The lawmaker supports the bill to improve public safety by limiting train lengths, requiring operational wayside detectors to prevent derailments from hot wheels, and mandating more frequent visual inspections due to lax federal regulations.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it repeals established choice of law principles, overturning well-defined rules that courts use to determine which laws apply.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it is unnecessary, intrudes on the relationship between women and their doctors, interferes with established medical standards for informed consent, and invites further litigation.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes it fundamentally misunderstands the role of deference, noting that courts already enforce plain meaning and only use agency deference as a tool when language is unclear.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe it creates a nanny state by telling families what they can eat. They also argue that the broad definition of accessory foods could cause providers to drop out due to reprogramming costs.