Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction over United States Military Installations
Summary
Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction over United States Military Installations; Provides that this state may accept relinquishment of exclusive concurrent legislative jurisdiction from U.S. over U.S. military installations located within boundaries of this state; provides that this state has concurrent legislative jurisdiction with U.S. over such military installations; provides procedures & requirements therefor.
Bill status
died
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Nov 2025
Committee Review
Feb 2026
House Passage
Feb 2026
Senate Passage
Feb 2026
Governor
Introduced Nov 5, 2025
Last action Mar 13, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 1 comparison
What changed between versions
H 351 Filed
→
H 351 c1
·
4 edits
MODERATE
The bill was amended to change 'accepts' to 'may accept' relinquishment of exclusive legislative jurisdiction, giving the state more flexibility. The text was reorganized to clarify that jurisdiction applies to specific military installation property indicated pursuant to the section and remains effective as long as the United States controls the property. The subsection numbering was adjusted to align with the new structure.
Scope change
The bill's scope was narrowed to apply only to military installation property specifically indicated pursuant to the section, rather than all military installations within the state boundaries.
ELIGIBILITY
Changed from mandatory acceptance of jurisdiction relinquishment to optional acceptance, allowing the state to decide whether to accept the transfer of jurisdiction.
DEFINITION
Added language specifying that jurisdiction applies to 'military installation property indicated pursuant to this section' rather than all military installations.
REQUIREMENT
Added language stating jurisdiction remains effective 'as long as the United States controls the property' to clarify the duration of the arrangement.
TECHNICAL
Reorganized subsection numbering from (3)-(7) to (2)-(6) to align with the new structure following the added language.
Floor votes · Senate Feb 26, 2026 · House Feb 17, 2026
How they voted
38–0
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 40
Feb 26, 2026
D
Democratic11
90% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Yea
R
Republican28
96% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
42
Key actions
11
Committee
12
Amendments
1
Mar 12, 2026
Introduced
Amendment 571886 Refuse to Concur
lower
Feb 26, 2026
Upper · Passed
CS passed as amended; YEAS 37 NAYS 0
upper
Feb 26, 2026
Upper · Passed
Amendment(s) adopted (571886)
upper
Feb 18, 2026
Committee
Referred to Rules
upper
Feb 17, 2026
Lower · Passed
CS passed; YEAS 109, NAYS 0
lower
Jan 22, 2026
Lower · Passed
Reported out of State Affairs Committee
lower
Jan 22, 2026
Lower · Passed
Favorable by State Affairs Committee
lower
Jan 20, 2026
Lower · Passed
Added to State Affairs Committee agenda
lower
Dec 12, 2025
Lower · Passed
Now in State Affairs Committee
lower
Dec 12, 2025
Committee
Referred to State Affairs Committee
lower
Dec 11, 2025
Lower · Passed
Reported out of Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee
lower
Dec 11, 2025
Lower · Passed
Favorable with CS by Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee
lower
Dec 4, 2025
Lower · Passed
Added to Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee agenda
lower
Nov 12, 2025
Lower · Passed
Now in Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee
lower
Nov 12, 2025
Committee
Referred to State Affairs Committee
lower
Nov 12, 2025
Committee
Referred to Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee
lower
1 primary · 2 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Patt Maney
RRepublican
Co
Alex Andrade
RRepublican
Co
SV
Susan Valdés
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about HB 351
Scope: FL
Hi! I can help you understand HB 351. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline