Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, Tuesday the 11th of February. We have a two minute time limit on testimony both here in person and on Zoom. If we have a monumental crash on the Zoom side, we'll try again tomorrow, Wednesday the 13th at 10am in the same room. 016.

First up today is SB 12, Senate Bill 1231. This repeals the Parentage Uniform Parentage Act of 1973 and updates laws relating to parentage, including enacting portions of the Uniform Parenting Parentage Act of 2017. First up on 1231 is judgment. I think she's judgment Daros. You're a judge, right? Okay. That's what I thought. Sorry. For the Judiciary.

Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Rhoads. Good morning. Vice Chair of Gabbard and Members of the Committee. It's respectfully requested that this Committee approve SB 1231. As you're aware, our current statute is severely outdated and we currently have the laws that providing oversight over surrogacy and assisted reproduction.

I hope all of you have had the opportunity to review the task force's report where you'll Notice that the Act 156 Task Force was made up of a vast spectrum of stakeholders, stakeholder community Members. The task force worked very hard to come up with this proposed draft that could be great benefit to our community.

I reviewed the Attorney General's testimony for today with proposed additional statutory revisions. We are in support including those modifications as it will bring the way about statutes together to be more consistent with the language.

Also as suggested in a number of by a number of testifiers, we would not be opposed if part 10 were to be deleted from the Bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm available for any questions.

Thanks very much.

Can I have somebody else?

Renson's available. Right. Next up is Lauren Chun, Deputy Solicitor General for the Attorney General on Zoom, I believe. Yeah, there you go. Go ahead.

Yes.

Morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Deputy Solicitor General Lauren Chun. We are testifying in support of the spill. As the previous testifier noted, we did have some suggested amendments.

The first would be to make some corresponding changes to the Uniform Probate Code to reference the sections of this Bill which would relate to assisted reproduction and surrogacy. And those are consistent with changes that were proposed by the Uniform Law Commission as well. And then our Child Support Enforcement Agency also had some suggested revisions.

One of them was to make sure that the Child Support Enforcement Agency would be a party in cases where the child had received public assistance monies.

And the other change was to just add the Child Support Enforcement Agency staff to the list of individuals who would be exempt from liability in cases where they provide information or help people fill out the voluntary acknowledgment of parentage forms. So that is our testimony, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next up is Michael Golio Jr. Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Michael Golo Jr. Vice Chair of the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission. Pronouns. He, him. We first, we would like to thank the task force for their hard work on this Bill. We also like to thank you for hearing this. We encourage you to pass it as is with the AG's amendments.

It is long overdue for to update our parentage laws here in the State of Hawaii as well as on a personal note, as somebody who has donated sperm anonymously, I would still like that as an opportunity. And I do know other people that are in the same boat as well.

So as you go to make your decision makings, we hope you take that into consideration as well. So we encourage you to pass the Bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up is Libby Snyder for Uniform Law Commission.

Good morning. Thank you very much. I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill 1231. This is a uniform act based on a Uniform Act, the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017. So far, we have eight enactments across the country, with several more states introducing bills this year.

We think it's vitally important that every state update their parentage laws to modernize them for current day and we are very happy to see this Bill be introduced. I'm primarily here to answer any questions that may come up. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next up, we have Elizabeth Kent testify for the Commission to Promote Uniform Laws. Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this Bill. I'm really pleased that Libby Snyder, who's special counsel for the Uniform Law Commission, is here today and offered her testimony. She and I worked closely on this act and when I was on the Committee that updated the language in Section 10.

Libby's a font of knowledge, so she's the one to ask the hard questions of. You have my written testimony and strong support of this Bill. And that lists the reasons for our support. When I read the testimony last night, I was impressed by all of the support for the Bill and the points that were made.

But there is 1 point of contention, and that's part 10. We prefer the version as revised by the Uniform Law Commission rather than the version that's in the Bill, strongly prefer that, actually. However, an option is to remove part 10 and to leave the remainder of the provisions.

And if that's done, the Uniform Law Commission will still consider this Bill as uniform. In closing, we think that this Bill will help the people of Hawaii and that enacting it is going to modern modernize parentage law in Hawaii. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next is Pride at Work Hawaii. Strong support. Strong support. Okay, Richard. Coalition for Truth and Transparency and Adoption on Zoom perhaps.

They're not available on Zoom Chair.

In opposition or at least as written. Caitlyn Bowler, US Donor of Conceived Council, also on zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard and Members of the Committee. My name is Caitlin Bowler. I'm here today on behalf of the U.S. Donor Conceived Council. We strongly oppose Senate Bill 1231 unless it is amended. We commend the bill's efforts to modernize parentage laws.

But as written, the Bill codifies anonymous gamete donation into Hawaii law by selectively adopting an outdated version of Article 9 of the Uniform Parentage Act. We respectfully ask the Committee to consider amending the Bill either by adopting the updated 2024 version of Article 9 or by removing Part 10 of the Bill entirely.

Donor conceived children deserve modern parentage laws. However, they should not have to sacrifice access to information about their genetic origins in order to obtain these protections. Without access to identifying information, donor conceived individuals are deprived of knowledge that can be very valuable to them in their identity formation, medical history and genetic heritage.

As written, the Bill will fail to provide protections that a donor that donor conceived individuals need and deserve. And we respectfully ask that you consider an amendment or vote no on that Bill is written. Thank you for your time and I welcome any questions.

Thanks very much. Next is Isis Osborne for Land Law Hawaii Law Student Association on Zoom.

They're not available on Zoom Chair.

In support. Next is Hawaii Women Lawyers. Sorry. Oh, she joined. Okay. In support, Abby Simons for Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. In support. Danielle Winston for the Seed Scout LLC with comments. John Frantarelli for Fertility Institute of Hawaii. In support. Wendy Kramer, donor of sibling registry in opposition. Deidre Maria Iha. Good morning.

Morning, Chair. Thank you. I'm Deirdre Marie Iha. I'm currently a partner at Good Sill, but I'm testifying as a Member of the task force. I was asked by Attorney General Anne Lopez to serve on the task force because of my prior experience with Hawaii's Marriage Equality Act more than 10 years. And I was honored to have that opportunity.

I'm very pleased with the work of the task force, and we worked very hard to make sure that it would protect all families, all children. And I would urge you to pass it as written. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Rachel Hefner on Zoom. Maybe. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee. My name is Rachel Hefner. I'm a Hawaii resident who has built my family through IVF with an anonymous egg donor in 2017.

While I support the need for a Bill like SB 1231, I strongly oppose the current version because of what is included in part 10, which codifies donor anonymity, even if a donor conceived adult later wants or needs to learn about their genetic origins.

Following leading best practices and our own hearts, we shared with our daughter from a young age about her conception story. She quickly had questions about our donor. Simple things like what does she look like? What's her name? Where does she live?

With our daughter's significant interest and curiosity, we felt passionate about providing her answers and found our donor. After writing her a letter, our donor let us know she was not open to contact. While my daughter is still young, I am concerned about this having a future impact on her identity formation and sense of self as she grows.

Yet I still believe finding our donor was the right choice and have no regrets over that action. Given today's technological realities, anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Donors must receive guidance about the potential for later contact, and donors who are not open to contact may not be candidates for donation.

The current language included within Part 10 would legalize a system where donor conceived people can be denied key pieces of their genetic and medical stories. I believe anonymity should never be an option because everyone deserves the choice to know where half their DNA comes from.

And donors should understand from the start the real impossibility of total anonymity in our modern world. Mahalo for hearing my testimony. I urge you to amend SB 1231 to include the updated 202024 version of Article 9 of the Uniform Parentage act to protect the best interests of donor conceived individuals and families.

If the Committee is unable to protect the rights of donor conceived individuals and families, I respectfully request that part 10 is removed so as not to further restrict the rights of donor conceived people. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up is Dr. Carrie Eichberg, also on Zoom.

They're not available on Zoom Chair.

In opposition, Laurel Johnston. Good morning.

Good good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Laurel Johnston. I did serve on the Act 156 Task Force on Parentage as a representative of adoptees. But I'm here today testifying as an individual. I understand the Uniform Law on Parentage needs to be updated and that it endeavors to recognize marriage equality for families using assistive reproductive technology and surrogacy.

But I am concerned about part 10. Part 10 is not something that will help donor conceived people. You just heard some testimony about that. And frankly, we've been down this road before with adoption and we had an intermediary system here before. It did not work, did not help adoptees. In 2016, thank you very much,

you did change the law. So now adoptees do have access to their sealed adoption record. And I can tell you I've spoken to people this has helped them immensely with birth heritage information and medical information. The bottom line for me is I would appreciate if you would amend the Bill to include the uniform Law Commission 2024 version.

It recognizes the need for donor individuals that were made through art to have access to this information. We're at a crossroads here. We can be leaders here or we can be followers. This law has passed in a few states. The task force realized that this law and this part has not passed yet in any state.

But we can be a leader on this. And you know, when I was sitting there this fall, it reminded me that I have a quote that actually I saw on my birthday last year. I'm not in the role to sit at the table and agree with everyone. I have done this many years.

I have not agreed with many people. But I've seen the results when we're leaders and I think we can be leaders here. So if you can, please update this Bill for the 2024 version or if not, please remove part 10 because it will do nothing to help democracy. People, thank you for your time.

Thanks very much. Next up is Carol Lockwood. Good morning.

Morning. Good morning Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for having us today and for considering this measure. I have submitted written testimony. I will not read the whole thing, which I'm sure you're very happy about. I am an attorney in private practice with the firm of Schlak Ito here in Honolulu.

I'm Hawaii's only Member of the Academy of Adoption and Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys. And I was the private attorney Member of the task force, the Act 156 task force. But I'm here in my personal capacity in strong support of SB 1231. I should mention I also am the proud parent of two boys born through Assisted reproductive technology.

I'm here as the cautionary tale, in a sense. When I started practicing in this area, there was no statutory guidance, no case law guidance. I had to invent how I was going to handle these cases.

Thank goodness for the support of our family courts who recognize that their families come in a lot of different ways in a lot of different forms and have been very supportive of our efforts.

But we don't want everybody out there having to make up the system, make up the process, and try to apply analogous but not directly applicable statutes and trying to help these families have children and build their families.

So I am in strong support of passing SB 1231 to make sure that that is no longer necessary, that the protections of the law that guarantee equal protection to so called non traditional families and infertile couples are there for everybody, and that we have a much more orderly process of handling these things.

On a private or personal note, I'm also the Russian judge in the room when it comes to donor conception. Both of my boys were born through anonymous donor conception. I support the idea of removing Section 10 from the Bill if that is what it takes to allow the rest of it to pass.

But I will tell you I do not agree that we protect people by preventing them from ever being born.

And I can tell you that both of my sons would gladly come and tell you how happy they are to exist and that therefore they don't consider their lives so terrible that it's not worth existing at all, which is what we would be doing. If we outlaw anonymous donors, those people will not exist.

Happy to speak more about that on another day. Today I support the elimination of Section 10 and the passage of the Bill.

Thanks very much. Next is Martin Diebel on Zoom. Good morning.

Well, there we go. I'm Mark. Thank you for letting me be here today. I'm Mark Diebel. I'm a retired Episcopal priest. I live in Kentucky. I was born in Colorado, but I'm from Hawaii. My grandfather came to Hawaii in 1919 when he was 16 and he became a pastry chef at the Royal Hawaiian.

My father was from Cuba. He did his residency at the Kapiolani Hospital. My mother was a nurse at Tip Tripler. I think that's why coming to Hawaii, I always feel like I'm coming home. I love the road through the red soil on the way to the North Shore. People think I'm local until I speak.

I was raised through the 1950s and 60s in Colorado. Being told it doesn't matter that you are adopted. Records were sealed and my Parents wanted me to think everything was fine. It was, in many ways. I was 49 when I decided to find out who these unknown people were. Reading their names changed me.

They became real to me. I learned their histories, where they came from, their families. I felt grounded. I realized that all of us come from somewhere. Today, this legislative body has the power to choose for a future generation.

Make them either set aside a crucial part of themselves, their body, the shape of their head, the color of their skin. All of these come from ancestors. Every one of us are descendants. This legislative body has the power to affect how a future generation thinks. Make them as free as you want to be.

S1231 is built on what you really believe is important. Put the children before everything else. Thank you for letting me testify today, and aloha and mahalo.

Thanks very much. Next up, we have Cat McClellan on Zoom, perhaps.

They're not available on Zoom. Chair.

He's in opposition. Next we have Mihoko Ito, who I think I saw. Oh, she left. Okay. In support, Jeff Esmond. Good morning.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. My name is Jeff Esmond. I'm the current Chair of the Hawaii State Commission on Fatherhood. And to be clear, the Commission on Fatherhood is not so much about fathers as it is about the children.

I represented the Commission on the Act 156 Task Force, but my testimony today is personal. Another personal story that closely relates to this Bill. I'm a gay, married father of three children who were born by gestational surrogacy with the use of anonymous donation.

I want to tell you that becoming a father was one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life. My children are teenagers now, and they still talk to me. And we celebrate being a family every single day. So it hurts me that I can't provide them their donor identity. I'll never be able to provide that.

We were not able to do this in Hawaii because of the law and accessibility. We did this in India, to be clear. There were eight of us from the task force who presented testimony. The two of us who opposed the outdated version of Article 9 have presented our reasons.

The six who presented testimony in favor of the Bill and who supported the outdated version of Article 9 did not present in their written testimony their defense of why we should allow for anonymous donation. If I could do this all over again, there's no question that I would not choose an anonymous donor.

The professionals involved in this process never once explained this to me and I didn't have the awareness to even ask the question. And this belief does not negate their existence whatsoever, nor does it harm our relationship. You are the decision makers and I think it's an easy decision on what to do today.

Replace Article 9, the outdated version, with the current Article 9, 2024. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Tiffany Yamauchi on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Yes, I'm here to oppose specifically part 10, which includes donor anonymity. And I am support in support of including the language from the updated 2024 version of removing donor anonymity.

I was raised full Japanese in Okinawan, but since I was a kid, people would always ask what I was and no one would believe me when I told them. Everyone said I looked Hapa and I would say it's because of my Okinawan eyes, but really, I didn't know why I looked like that either.

When I found out at age 34 that I was conceived by anonymous sperm donation, I immediately took a DNA test and found out that I'm also white and Korean. It was a relief to finally understand what I see in the mirror every day. To know why I'm the tallest woman in my family on both sides.

To know that I'm mixed race and not an Asian person that looks wrong. It was a relief. But I felt grief for 34 years that I spent feeling confused and insecure about looking like this and what that's done to my mental health.

Donor anonymity deprives donor conceived people like myself not only of the right to know their genetic heritage and relatives, but potentially their own race. It also deprives our parents of the ability to ensure that information is available for their child. In the 80s, my parents didn't have a choice.

Anonymous donation was the only option, but I would hope that if they were going through the process in 2025 that they would be supported in making a different choice. Donor anonymity also implies a false promise to donors as true anonymity. In these days with commercial DNA testing, it can't be guaranteed.

I identified my biological father in eight days after receiving my test results and my closest DNA match was a second cousin whose profile was only their initials. So trust me, there is no guarantee of anonymity.

And allowing donors to declare restrictions on releasing their information encourages people to contribute gametes without fully considering the impact being known to the people that are born from those donations. There is a reason this section of the Parentage Uniform Parentage act was updated last year.

So please kua if we are going to update our legislation, let's make the most current update. Let's remove the shame from assisted reproduction and give Hawaii the best chance to protect our future parents. Keiki and donors, mahalo.

Thanks very much. Okay, next we have Emily Gule, MD in support. Michelle Golou and support. Cheryl Burkhard in support. Megan in support. Thaddeus Fam in support. Kayla Marie in support. Lisa Pollock in support. If anybody's here or on Zoom, please let me know. Joyce Macbeth, in opposition. Doreen Akamine. In opposition. Kathleen O'Dell in support. Mary Akamine.

In opposition. Maaza Christos Curia. In opposition. J. Takane. In opposition. Carol Lieber Wilkins. In opposition. Andrea Makuanani in support. Jessica Kawamura in support. Celine Chang. In support. Nicholas vandenrad in support. Sean Taylor. In support. Aaron Ivalani Castillo Castello Castillo. In opposition. Victor Ramos. In opposition. Richard Velasquez in support. And Allison Shiozaki in support.

That's everybody who signed up for SB 1231. Does anyone else wish to testify on 1231? Come on up. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning Chairman, Vice Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Caprice Itagaki. I am a practicing attorney here in Hawaii. I am a surrogacy attorney and a reproductive technology attorney. I have been practicing surrogacy and reproductive technology for about eight years.

In the course of my practice, I've drafted and reviewed 250 to 300 gestational carrier agreements. I've been involved in at least, at least maybe 100 legal parentage actions within Hawaii and abroad. I have seen parents use donors to get pregnant by at home insemination kits. That includes turkey basters.

I have seen parents meet gestational carriers and donors on Facebook groups. Craigslist. My point is people want to build families. This issue is not going to go away. Our laws here in Hawaii have not. They just simply have not kept up to date with advancements in medical technology.

And it's shocking that this industry is still relatively unregulated at this point in time. I am embarrassed to tell my clients that our surrogate is the legal parent at the time of birth.

I'm embarrassed to tell them that the surrogate has to apply for a US Passport if there's foreign parents who want to travel back home, ideally we will get a court order confirming legal parentage and legal rights of the intended parents before the child is born. This Bill provides for that in some way, shape or form.

This Bill must move forward. It's time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is SB, sorry, going into some sort of auto subroutine there. Anyone else wish to testify on SB 1231? That's the right. That's the correct subroutine. Seeing none Members questions? And if you'd like to ask questions, Senator Lee, you're more than welcome. Wait till others go. I don't have any, so go ahead.

Sure.

Thanks. Ms. Marie, good morning. Morning. Thanks. And thanks for your work on the task force. And you know, over all the years, we've known each other for quite a while.

Yeah, it's been a while.

Yeah. I want to ask some of you because I know the passion with which you've come into this space, the advocacy for which you've committed so much time and effort over the years, the empathy and understanding that you've brought to the table, that has opened eyes so many on so many issues.

On this one, I raised this because, you know, this is obviously not the first year that we've had these discussions. It's not the first year that we've been through this exact same exercise. It's not the first year that we've had testimony from all around.

But on the task force when she served, and I think another gentleman has spoken to this who also was involved in that process, there are decisions being made with respect to the controversial portion of this which surrounds whether or not individuals can identify who their parents are at some point.

I guess given. Given that there's been an update to the code to resolve this and ensure that there is some path for people to be able to identify down the road who their parents might be. Is that something that you're opposed to?

Well, I can give you my personal opinion. I wouldn't be speaking for the task force. So the pros and cons on that one controversial portion are laid out in the task force's report, which is pretty extensive and includes the entire Bill attached. This was the most controversial issue in front of the task force.

We had multiple meetings, multiple discussions. We took public testimony. And this was the hardest part for the task force. For my personal opinion, the reason I personally. And you can look at the public records of the task force itself on the Attorney General's website. I personally voted against banning anonymous donation.

I can tell you my personal reasons for that vote. There were two. One is pragmatic and the other more of a legal reason. The first is that I understood primarily from the information provided by Dr.

Friatrelli, who's a Member of the task force, that the law, if enacted in the 2024 version, would have no current application in Hawaii because we don't have sperm or gamete banks in Hawaii that would be subject to it. I was told by Dr. Frattarelli, who practices in fertility medicine, that the gametes are basically imported from California.

So the existence of anonymity or non anonymity for those donors would be under California law and not under our law. So to me, that was. I don't have any way to verify. He certainly knows, and I trusted him.

So I thought, well, I'm not sure that this is something that the Legislature needs to regulate right now, because there would be no entity subject to Hawaii state law. That's the pragmatism. For myself personally, and this is where.

Where I landed, is that when you decide whether a person can be lawfully conceived and anonymously, you're at the intersection of the law and the most personal, intimate decisions that a person can make to have children, whether to have children, with whom to have children, how to go about conceiving them and raising them, that is among the most personal things that we ever do.

And so even though I heard and believed and am sincerely moved by the people who testified in front of the task force and in front of this Committee about how much it means to them to know the donors, I was not willing to have the government make that decision as opposed to allowing individuals to make that decision.

So I understood them to be absolutely correct. It's a good idea. I understand why they want that. I could not personally make the leap to having the government make that decision, which is what this body would be doing if you enact a law that requires either the bans anonymous donation. That was my personal reason.

And it's not because I didn't understand what they were getting at. I absolutely did. And I was very moved and I learned a lot from them.

But that was where I landed, was a combination of pragmatism in terms of the necessity of enacting a law that at least I understood would have no pragmatic implication application within the jurisdiction of the state. And then it's a private decision. And to take the leap to have the government make it for you.

I was unwilling to adopt that position.

Thank you. And as a donor, you get to choose to make a decision to become a donor. Or. Yes. For that matter. Yes. But if you're born as a result of that, then you make no decision.

Right. Which I understand. Right. But the. The other measure for me. And admittedly this is not a perfect analogy because we are, as always, limited by the biological realities by which our species reproduces.

But if you do a hypothetical where a woman has a passing sexual encounter with a man, conceives a child, knows very little about him, probably can't do much to identify him, is the government going to step in about her decision? And the answer to that is a resounding no.

So if that's the case, I know this Legislature would never do such a thing. Then why wouldn't you afford the same decision, good or bad. Right. To somebody who conceives by assisted reproduction? So, and I'm not saying that that's a perfect analogy. It's not.

I don't mean to offend anybody by it, but because I learned this when I worked on marriage equality, the way in which we would test whether the law was really equal was to run through hypotheticals. They usually turned into some kind of soap opera.

And that was the hypothetical I came up with as the nearest analogy where the government would make the choice for you. And I don't believe that a child conceived by sexual means that the government would ever interfere with that decision.

Yeah. As I understand, according to the testimony from the gentleman from before. Yeah. There are only a few folks who were adopted or had that personal experience on that task force.

There were the Ta. That's true. The task force to my. Well, no, I mean, I don't want to speak for individual Members, but there were several Members who had then conceived Their, Their own children by assisted reproduction, surrogacy, some combination of those means there was more than one.

I mean, people who themselves were the result of that.

zero, no, I don't believe so. Actually. Not by assisted reproduction. I'm by adoption, but not by assisted reproduction. So we did receive. And you can look at the records of the task force were open, like I said, on the AG's website, we received quite a lot of testimony on this issue. We had multiple meetings about it.

And like I said, I. I learned a lot from it and. But I landed in that place where it's the intersection of the most personal, intimate decisions that people make and whether the government should make that decision for you. And I thought, leave it to the individuals to make that decision.

Thank you. And Chair, if I just wrap up with two points here or two questions. And yeah, don't feel obligated to answer this because this is personal for everybody, but. Yeah. Do you know your parents?

I do, yeah.

Do you know what it feels like to not.

I do not. And that's why when I listened to the testimony of these heartfelt people, I told them during those task force meetings that I thought everybody was right, everybody was sincere. But at the end of the day, I, like I said, I can only tell you why I voted as I did.

And that is the reason I was not convinced that it had pragmatic implication within the jurisdiction of the state. And also I felt like the question of making your own decisions about reproduction should be left to the individuals choosing to produce children.

And I raised this because. Yeah, and I kind of wanted to say this for the record because this is like year number, you know, umpteen, that we're. We're here, but what it feels like to not know where you come from and who your parents are.

The closest thing I can describe, which is my case too, is the feeling of being lost just in life, not knowing what direction is forward or back, with no ability to look back, but yet at the same time with a level of hopelessness that that answer will never materialize.

And for a lot of other folks that I know who have the same experience, I did, you know, create some really fundamental psychological issues of suicidal ideation and all kinds of other stuff depending on the case and the person. And I raised this because obviously there's very serious personal things that only one can experience having been there.

So my last question is, does it not strike you that others on these working groups, not just this one, but before, who don't share that experience, who make the decision Collectively, to move this direction is really no different than a bunch of men somewhere deciding how women should.

No, Senator, I don't. I don't believe that. And the reason why is because I'm straight. And the passion that I brought to marriage equality was not limited by that. In fact, I learned a lifetime from doing that.

I'm not speaking with respect to engagement.

What I'm suggesting is that we could be allies. So if that is your concern, and like I said, I've understood it this whole time to be a sincere one, then I think the appropriate thing would be to delete that portion of the Bill.

But the rest of the need of the Bill is so desperately needed, the law is literally decades out of date, that that would be the way to address it and give you more opportunity. So if you're asking for my personal preference, that would be my personal preference. Rather than see the Bill held back because of this concern.

Thank you very much.

Exactly.

Thank you very much for your indulgence.

Yep. Any other questions? See? None. Thank you very much. Go ahead and move on to the next. Thank you. To the next Bill, which is 319.

This changes having to do with pakalolo changes from 1 ounce to 30 grams, the minimum amount of Marijuana that constitutes the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the second degree increases from 3 grams to 3 grams or less to 15 grams or less the amount of apocalova.

But it constitutes the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree. First up on 319 is Alana Bryant, Deputy Attorney General. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. Andrew Goff, Deputy Attorney General. The Department does oppose this Bill. It does increase the amount of decriminalized cannabis possession from 3 grams to just over a half ounce. This could lead to increased cannabis use and have associated negative health impacts related to overuse and increased driving accidents.

And it could also make enforcement of the current laws related to drug sales even more difficult than they currently are.

And quite simply, my Department opposes any expansion of criminal legalization that does not include any kind of adequate safeguards that protect the public, supports law enforcement, and provides some kind of tax revenue to offset in some way the negative impacts of increased cannabis use. I am available for questions if you have.

Thank you very much. Next is Haley Chong for Off the Public Defender. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Hailey Chang. I'm the First Deputy for the Office of the Public Defender. I'm sure the Committee is very familiar with our office's position on bills Such as this.

I believe this Bill and our office's position is that this Bill is following the national trends to start to decriminalize recreational Marijuana use. Our office represents defendants in probably 95% of the criminal matters at all levels throughout the criminal legal system and Marijuana.

While we are not saying it is of some concern in a certain amount or the distribution, Marijuana is not the issue.

And while we respect and understand other agencies positions, we do not believe in our personal dealings with our clients, their court cases and the impacts that other drugs have, that this is a gateway or leads to the crim. Leads to additional crime. The violent offenders that everybody should be worried about are generally not smoking Marijuana.

We've seen expansion of the use of it. Our probationers are allowed to present medical Marijuana cards for use. That demonstrates the value in responsible use. So we will submit on that and I will be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. I missed. Right. So you said we're familiar with your position. Could you state what the position is at the public defendant?

Sure. Our position is and has been and will continue to be that we are supportive of measures to start to decriminalize the use of Marijuana to increase the amounts before you can be criminally punished or prosecuted.

And that is because of our one on one interaction and representation of clients throughout the legal system who use Marijuana and have been charged with Marijuana related crimes. I could speak forever about the criminal systems generally, but that's our position.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Jared Radula for Department of Law Enforcement or sorry, the Director.

Good morning. My apologies. Chair. Vice Chair. Yeah, I wasn't sure, quite sure I could make it. So we had Jared. So I do apologize. Thank you Committee Members. This is a important Bill and I think that we're already at the sweet spot. I think 3 grams decrim is anywhere from 6 to 9 marijuana cigarettes or joints.

30 grams is quite a bit. So I would like you guys at least to consider the amount of Marijuana. Because the issue is, in my experience in narcotics Vice division is if you're carrying close to an ounce in the street, you typically are distributing or sharing the Marijuana that you do have.

So to put it into comparative, comparative perspective, three grams would be like somebody having a six pack at the beach. You can get a ticket for it. It's very likely that was meant for personal use. 30 grams is like rolling a keg onto the beach and then saying that it was just meant for me.

So if, if you guys could just kind of. I didn't mean to Be funny just trying to comparative analysis but just consider the amount that would be easily dish, that would be able, easily distributed when somebody has that in public. Thank you. I'll be available for questions. If it's after 9:30 then it'll be Jared.

Thank you. Next up is Steve Alm, prosecuting attorney for Honolulu. Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Steve Alm. We stand in strong opposition to Senate Bill 319. I think as public officials we should always try to first and foremost do no harm. And by right now personal use is to criminalize. This would raise it to dealer quantity, would be decriminalized.

And I think it sends the wrong message to our kids because if you're doing this, you're really saying Marijuana is safe. And we know for some adults it is, but for many others it's not. And there are so many harms associated, whether it's depression, suicidality, schizophrenia, chronic vomiting and the like.

The harms are increased because as of 20 only 2.5 million Americans reported daily use. As of 2022 that was up to 17 million. There are now more people using Marijuana daily than alcohol and the potency is so much stronger. It used to be 3% THC, now it's 20 to 40 with concentrates over 95.

And recent research that came out in November, meta analysis by Johns Hopkins and Harvard showed that in the states that legalized Marijuana, 13% increase by teens and for young adults it's a 22% increase. And our kids brains are not really developed into their mid-20s. And so this can have an effect.

And so the last point I'd like to make is that following Pareto's principle, like with alcohol, the people that consume most of the weed, most of the Marijuana that's sold in the United States are daily users. About 40% of the Marijuana users consume 80% of the Al of the Marijuana.

So if the more you do to legalize it, that's who's going to be using it. And if it's totally legal, that's who all the customers in the stores are going to be. But right now this just aids the black market. The people that are daily users use so much of it.

And I don't think the Legislature wants to be in the business of. Thanks sir. Supporting. Thank you very much.

Next up is Darnella Villanueva for Hawaii Hawaii Police Department in opposition. Next is Rainer Ikehara, Police Department. Good morning.

Morning General. Morning. Vice Chair Mike Gabard, Committee Members, My name is Ernest Robello I'm a lieutenant with the Hollow Police Department. I'm here on behalf of my Major RHNAr. I'm here to testify in person that the Hollow Police Department stance is that we oppose this Bill.

We actually are in opposition to any legislation that weakens current Marijuana laws for many of the reasons that both the prosecutor and the Director of TLE had stated. I will be available for any questions if there are any. I thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you very much. Next is Cat Brady for Community alliance on Prisons.

Good morning Chair Rhodes and Members of the Committee. Cap Brady testifying for Captain we support this measure. You know, in 2020 when the Legislature was debating medical Marijuana, the Institute of Medicine issued a report and they said, you know, if you keep on Decrimin criminalizing Marijuana, something worse is coming.

At that point we did have a meth problem and it just increased over time and it took 15 years for a dispensary system to be developed. So we support this measure and the amendments made by several of the testifiers.

Increase the decriminalized amount, include and define an equivalent amount of concentrates in infused products, remove penalties for paraphernalia and reduce the fine from $130 to doll with a community service alternative. Hawaii has too many people incarcerated for Low level crimes and we believe that this is not good harmful. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next is Karen O'Keefe for the Marijuana Policy Project. Good morning.

Aloha. Thank you. I'm Karen O'Keefe, Director of State policies at the nonprofit Marijuana Policy Project. MPP is a proud Member of the Hawaii alliance for cannabis reform. Both MPP and HACR strongly support SB 319 and request amendments which we have submitted.

It is harmful and wrong to lock people in cages and brand them criminals for possessing modest amounts of cannabis. Hawaii's decriminalization law applies to the lowest amount of any of the 31 decriminalization and legalization laws in the country. A mere 3 grams. Mississippi and Nebraska and many other states decriminalized about an ounce back in the 1970s.

It did not cause the sky to fall. Three grams isn't even an eighth of an ounce, which is a common amount for people buying a very small quantity. Because of this tiny threshold, hundreds of people are being arrested every year in Hawaii for cannabis possession.

A Hawaii public defender testified in writing before House JHA on the legalization Bill and said he recently saw somebody sentenced to 30 days in jail for about a cigarette pack's worth of Cannabis. It's about 20 grams. SB319 would bring Hawaii's decrim law closer in line with other states by increasing it to 15 grams.

However, it is still far less than most other states and would still impose traumatic arrests, jail time and life altering penalties. Of the criminal conviction. For personal use of cannabis, 27 of the 31 other decriminal legalization states apply to an ounce or more.

We urge that it be increased to 30 grams for the fine and that the penalty be reduced to a $50 fine or up to $50 fine instead of $130, which is out of reach for a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet.

The claims that more people would use cannabis if you stop jailing people for between 3 grams and 15 is just pure speculation. Please improve and pass SB319. No one should be deprived of their freedom for conduct that most voters believe should be legal. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you very much. Next up is Kerry Anshiroto for ACLU Hawaii.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabard and Members of this Committee. My name is Emily Sarasa and I'm testifying today on behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii. The ACLU of Hawaii is in strong support of SB319 for three reasons.

First, SB319 will further reduce the number of unreasonable arrests for cannabis possession in our already overburdened and overcrowded criminal legal system.

Second, SB319 provides a safe and small alternative to our current criminal cannabis laws, shielding people from entering the criminal legal system unless necessarily and experiencing the rippling effects of criminalization, reduced access to employment, education and housing opportunities.

Third, decriminalizing certain cannabis related offenses will reduce the disparate impact of cannabis laws against specific communities here in Hawaii, that is men under 25 and native Hawaiians who are overrepresented in our arrest population data. We do hear the concerns from different agencies and law enforcement bodies about cannabis harming our keiki.

We're also concerned about the Keiki, concerned about their lives being ruined for possessing a small amount of a substance that is already legal in half of US States. The war on Drugs has failed for decades. If our collective concern is really public safety, the groups opposing this Bill should be advocating for legalization, regulation and education.

Education will empower our CACI to make better decisions, but we know that criminalization will not. If the cannabis legalization Bill does not pass the session, it is critical that we further decriminalize cannabis used by passing SB319. We also urge you to adopt the amendments proposed by the Hawaii alliance for Cannabis Reform and Ms.

O'Keeffe, thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thanks very much. Next is Hawaii alliance for Cannabis Reform. In support. Next is Alan Shin for Hawaii Smart Approach to Marijuana. In opposition, Eva Andrade. Eva Andrade for Hawaii Family Forum. In opposition, Gerald Bush, MD, MPH, on Zoom.

Perhaps sorry, they're not available on Zoom.

Chair, in opposition, Jermaine Myers, also on Zoom.

She's also not available on Zoom.

In opposition, Alan Cardines Jr. Good morning.

Morning. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Alan Cardenas Jr. From Nanakuli, west side on the island of Oahu.

The last two years, our community has been rocked and rattled to its core with the number of problems due to people's inability to think straight, to be able to malama each other, take care of each other, to live aloha, love aloha. And to create families, healthy families.

A lot of it is due to mental illness, psychosis, schizophrenia and Marijuana. The last thing we need in our community is more drugs in our community. I am opposed to this Bill for that reasons and many, many more.

I like to ask the Committee to oppose this Bill and let's come together, work together to protect our keiki, protect our families, and to work together to create a safer, more caring home and community. We need help. And it's not isolated to just Nanakuli. It's around our home.

But in the last two years, seeing what we're seeing, I more drugs in our community means more problems in our community. So we ask. I'm opposed to this and I ask that you prayerfully consider opposing this for the sake of our keiki. So thank you so much. Thank you.

Next up is Daniel Chanen. Feeling I butchered your last name. I apologize.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Daniel Chanel. I'm opposed to this Bill. I'm a father, a husband and a pastor right here in this community. And so thank you so much for taking the time to hear us.

As you know, there's always two sides to a coin, just as there's two sides to this Bill and this issue of Marijuana. And so I'm just going to start with this, is that to, to, to change the law is going to change the whole animal.

You don't see a duck with a long neck, that's called a swan, you know, and so it just changes the whole thing. Just as an art piece has a frame, there's laws that's meant to really, to emphasize the art piece.

And so to change this law, to allow it to go from These grams, as Director Lambert put out, I mean, that was a great illustration of walking on the beach with a keg. It's like, okay, that really communicates the message. And especially for me as a father and a concerned father for my kids and my kids friends.

Like, I want my community to be safe. And. And so I'll just share two examples real quickly here with my time remaining is one. I'm listening to this documentary right now by these two twins and they're the twin brothers, Pedro and Jay Flores, who brought down El Chapel.

And they talk about their upbringing, that their father groomed them from seven years old to take care of Marijuana plants. And they were tasked to sell Marijuana on the streets. And at seven years old, like that was just normal for them. And that's as, as people say, Marijuana is not a gateway drug.

Well, that was the start of their career to eventually selling heroin on the streets. You know, a personal story of mine is that I went to University in Canada and so I came across a lot of different people who used a lot of different drugs. One of them was a man on the streets in Vancouver.

Beautiful City of Vancouver. A man walking around. Sorry.

Okay, cut you off there. Thanks so much.

Okay, thank you.

Next up is Dara Yatsushiro. In opposition. Aram Shannon. In opposition. Karm Akeem. In opposition. Joseph Paul Akeem. In opposition. Victor Ramos. In opposition. Wife. In opposition. Charis Logan. In opposition. Michella Kobayak. In opposition. Landis Lum, in opposition. That's everybody. We who signed up for SB319. Would anyone else like to testify? SB319.

Okay, we'll start in there and we'll work our way across. Come on up.

Good morning, chairperson and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jenny Fouch and I represent the Hawaii High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Haida. The mission of Haida is to increase collaboration between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking.

I stand before you to express our concern regarding the proposal to promote an increase in the possession of a detrimental drug. The first issue is that it is a public health concern. Chronic use of Marijuana is associated with an increased risk of cancer, lung damage, bacterial pneumonia and poor pregnancy outcomes.

The issues do not just lie with the user, but with the secondhand smoke and chemicals that non users are exposed to as well. This Bill does not increase public's health or safety. The second is for the Hawaii Keiki. Hawaii's youth are self reporting a lack of coping skills and social connection.

Increasing acceptance of Marijuana as a use of a method of coping will not assist in the development of healthy coping skills. We need to focus on creating bills that aid the education of youth about appropriate coping skills and the health issues that are associated with cannabis. Third is the impact on vulnerable communities.

While some believe the decriminalization will benefit marginalized communities by reducing incarceration rates, the reality is far more complicated. The Colorado Department of Public Safety has reported that 58% more black youth and 29% more Hispanic youth have been arrested for Marijuana possession since legalization.

The economic and social inequities that persist in society will likely be exacerbated by Marijuana decriminalization, not alleviated. In conclusion, increasing the acceptance of Marijuana possession is not the right solution. We must prioritize the health, safety and well being of our citizens.

I urge the Committee to consider the long term consequences that could arise from the decriminalization of Marijuana and reject this proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Someone else back here. Come on up.

Good morning.

My name is Joy Chennan and I just thank you so much for allowing us to come here. I'm mainly speaking as a mother and a grandmother that I don't want to see drugs, this kind of drug here in Hawaii. I don't want that for my grandchildren. I have eight grandchildren and they're precious to me.

And so I don't want them to be faced with this, having this drug here in Hawaii. And then the second thing, after reading the Bill, I thought, how is this going to be enforced?

We have, we don't even have enough police to, you know, do these kind of jobs to find out if people have that amount of Marijuana. So I just feel like this is not a good Bill. I sent a post to this Senate Bill 319.

Okay, thank you very much. Was anyone. Yeah, come on up. Come on.

Come on. Chair, Vice Chair, let's. Thank you so much for being so patient and listening. I'm just here to. That was my wife that just shared. So I come as a grandpa and. But number one is we can do this Bill and there'll be some immediate gratification. But what are the long term consequences?

And my, my father used to always teach me, Cal, don't go for the short term solutions. Look at what are the long range effects. What's going to be happening to the people in the long run. Your Kuleana is to take care of the people of Hawaii, especially for our keiki. This Bill surely will affect families out there.

Some people will enjoy it, but there'll be other families that literally will be destroyed because of this Bill. They're teenagers now. The effects of this Bill will be long lasting. And I would encourage you, and it's going to diminish for me, the greatest power we have here in Hawaii is aloha.

This will not further or deepen or widen or expand. Aloha in our families and in our community might give some great highs for a while, but real aloha is long lasting. It builds families and marriages and communities. This won't. This would be like saying, zero, you know, so many people have aerials, we might as well legalize aerials.

Yeah, a few people might die, but that's the collateral damage. In the long run, we'll make so much more money. Imagine how much money we'll make if we legalize areas as opposed to just having fireworks. Now, the ability to regulate that, just like the ability to regulate this will be almost impossible, much less enforcing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else in the room would like to testify in SB319. Okay. From the Hawaii alliance for Cannabis Reform. Are you still there? Apparently not. Okay. They're in support. All right. No, that's it for testimony. SB 319. Members, questions?

Sorry, Chair Karen O'Keefe is still here.

Zero, I'm sorry. So I know you testified already once for a different organization, so I guess.

I didn't intend to testify twice if that's the question. Apologies if I clicked the wrong button.

I would just say that if the General thrust of the testimony is the same, can you just say what the other organization is that supports it?

Sure, yeah. We have a number of organizations, including the ACLU of Hawaii, the Sustainable Chamber of Commerce, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, the Kupuna Council of the Democratic Party, and Last Prisoner Project are among them.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. My pleasure. Members, questions? Okay. Seeing none, let's go ahead and move on to the next Bill, which is SB169. SB169 requires the state to provide written notice to certain persons regarding the ability to file claim for redress under applicable wrongful conviction laws.

First up on 169 is Lee Ying Clock, Deputy Attorney General on Zoom. Or maybe in person. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Liang Fok, and I represent our Department with respect to SB 169, SD1. While the Attorney General appreciates the sentiment of the Bill, we must oppose this Bill from a legal standpoint because its provisions violate existing constitutional, statutory, as well as case law.

First, we note that creating a legal duty on the part of the criminal court to inform, inquire, and document a potential petitioner's position with respect to 661B violates the Hawaii Supreme Court's finding in Hawaii Police Department vs County of Hawaii that criminal courts should not entangle themselves in civil court proceedings.

Criminal and civil proceedings are governed by different procedural rules, and the proposed amendment would be an entanglement of criminal and civil procedures that is in direct conflict with existing law. Second, we note that the proposed Amendment to Section 661 violates HRS. 662. 11 because payment of claims in excess of $25,000 require legislative approval before appropriation.

A preemptive distribution of $5,000 a month for a successive 12 months without any legislative oversight would be in direct conflict with existing law. Third, the proposed amendment violates hrs. 662 to 13 because monetary awards of this kind must be based in legal evidence.

A preemptive distribution of $5,000 a month for successive 12 months without any requirement of legal evidence is in direct conflict with existing law. Fourth, the proposed amendment violates Section 5, Article 7 of the Hawaii Constitution, which requires that public money be distributed only pursuant to the appropriations process.

A preemptive distribution of $5,000 a month for a successive 12 months without going through the appropriations process is also conflict with existing law. Fifth, we want to clarify that a petition is not an oral statement but a formal pleading in the form of a complaint underlying the lawsuit against the state.

A petition cannot be presumptively valid because it's a mere allegation. And lastly, the proposed amendment appears to propose that if a.

Thank you very much, Time expired. Next is Sonny Ganondan for the Office of Public Defender or another representative office. Public Defender. Morning again.

Good morning. Thank you again. Haley Chang on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender. You know, we are receptive and understand the statutory issues that the Attorney General raises, and we are open to any proposed amendments that may address those.

However, I think the intention of the Bill as so clearly articulated is that these individuals, and I want to say that these, these are going to be very few and far between.

We are not going to have a mass of people who are in this situation because the Bill does require that there basically be a finding of actual innocence and that that does not happen very often.

But I think our office wants to convey that if you have been somebody who has been in this position, perhaps having your liberty deprived of you unconstitutionally illegally, your life is already in a negative place and you're not going to be oftentimes sophisticated enough or have the means or education or resources to file such petition on your own or may not even know about it.

So the notice provision is critical. We also, in just reviewing the SD1, appreciate and would support the amendment or the inclusion of the language that says that a petition is deemed to be automatically filed if there is that finding for all of the reasons that we've additionally stated.

So we stand in strong support and I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Kat Brady for Community alliance and Prisons. Morning again.

Community alliance on Prisons is in strong support of this measure. You know, there are five states with the fewest exonerations and Hawaii is one of them. We have had over the, from 2019 forward, 35 backward, 35 years, we've had three people exonerated. Maine has had three, Delaware has had three. Vermont has had two.

And New Hampshire has had one. No one who's been exonerated has ever received any compensation. I have talked to people who were wrongly convicted and their lives are a mess. Some of them have spent 20 years in prison. So this Bill is really about accountability and transparency.

If a mistake is made, then the state has the obligation to repair the harm that has been caused. Incarceration is a social determinant of health. So we have really hurt a lot of people and we need to fix that.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Next up is Jennifer Brown testifying for the Hawaii Innocence Project on zoom.

Good morning.

Good morning, Committee. Thank you so much for allowing me to testify. My name is Jennifer Brown. I'm an associate Director of the Hawaii Innocence Project where we represent people who have been wrongfully convicted pro Bono through our legal clinic at the William S. Richardson School of Law. So we stand on our testament.

I did want to bring to your attention. I did find a typo in my section one of that and I will resubmit. But just a couple comments. We're strongly in support of this Bill. We do want the Committee to consider other potential amendments to it since it is kind of right for kind of relooking at this.

Now that we've had some significant exonerations with the Schweitzer brothers being the Most recent in 2023, they still have not received compensation for their wrongful conviction. And Ian spent over 25 years wrongfully convicted before he was released from incarceration. So we'd like to the Committee to consider increasing the annual amount to over $100,000.

That's just to coincide with the cost of $37 per day to incarcerate someone. It seems to me that somebody is wrongfully incarcerated. If it takes $307 a day to incarcerate them, then the compensation on the other end should kind of be in connection with that.

We also want the Committee to consider expanding what compensation looks like when people are released from wrongful incarceration. They don't have identification. They don't even have Social Security cards. They've got a conviction on their record which is wrongful. So expanding the opportunity for education, health and mental health.

Most of these, most people that are wrongfully convicted do not get medical care while incarcerated. And so these are just a few of the things that we would like to the Committee to consider, including in this Bill as well.

Thanks very much. Next up is Dara Carlin in support, Brent Colbus in opposition, Kenneth Lawson in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB169. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 169? See now Members questions if not. I do, if Attorney General, please.

So you, you mentioned several times in your testimony that this Bill directly contradicts existing law. You, you do understand that the Legislature gets to change existing law?

Yes. We just want to bring to your attention that the provisions that they do violate are these specific.

So if I'm not sure what the. What's the point of that? I mean, we, that's what we do is we change the law.

Well, we just want the Legislature to know that the Bill as currently proposed is in violation of these provisions. We understand that you have the power to tweak them, but that still those tweaks are not acknowledged in the Bill. So.

So we never acknowledged the existing. I mean, the other part of it, of course, is the existing law is a Bill that I introduced like 10 years ago. So I just, I'm not sure what the point is when you come in and tell us it's existing law.

Well, respectfully, our review of the Bill is that it would not be legally feasible at this time due to the conflict with these.

Okay, so can you tell me how many claims have been filed under the compensation for wrongful imprisonment law since it was first enacted in 2016?

I don't have that specific statistic. I have personal knowledge of how many there are currently in my division. There are, I would say between 3 and 4, to my personal knowledge.

And how many of those claims have been admitted by the AG where you said, you're right, we'll give you the money.

I don't handle all those claims, so I don't know how the other. Other attorneys have resolved those cases.

I think the answer is zero. No one's gotten any compensation at all. Is that. Do you know of anyone that has gotten any compensation under that. Under that statute?

I don't have personal knowledge of that because I haven't handled any that have been resolved.

So is there someone else in the Attorney General's Office here today that would be able to give us that information?

We could go back to our division and see if we can round up statistics for you about the resolution of those cases.

My point is, if you're coming to testify in a Bill about this topic, wouldn't you want to bring the statistics about that topic?

We can, we can brief the matter, gather statistics, and send that back to your chambers if you like.

Okay, thank you very much. Can I have back the Hawaii Innocence Project if you're still on Zoom. Thank you. Are you familiar with other states laws that provide compensation for persons who are wrongfully convicted and imprisoned?

I am. I actually have been working with the New York Innocence Project. They do a lot of the policy work. And that part of that is coming along all the statistics from other states. So I am waiting on that report from their policy Director. I did ask for it again this morning and have not received it.

But I am generally familiar with jurisdictions that, you know, colleagues that I have in those areas have other.

Have other states paid out under their statutes, under similar statutes?

Yes. And a lot of states also have a provision, kind of what you are anticipating in this Bill, where there is compensation money that is provided right at the time that they're convictions are overturned and their convictions are vacated. Kind of like a walking Fund is kind of the term that we often use.

And that could be anywhere from 1,000 up to, you know, $5,000. And usually that's something that's provided right at the time that they are released. Because again, you're released with nothing in your pocket, not even bus money.

And so even if it's just $1,000, that goes a long way to them being, you know, able to at least try to get some sort of housing in place. That's another big hurdle too, is not only just access to identification. Without an ID, you cannot get any kind of services. You can't even open up a bank account.

And so a lot of other jurisdictions also provide for rental or housing assistance also, you know, helping with getting those key crucial documents, medical care, and then kind of in the long term, job training at some states, California being one, even provides tuition free for state colleges. So if the individual would like to go back to school.

Let me switch questions here. So the deputy Attorney General didn't know how many payments have been paid out under our current statute, do you?

I know of four that have been filed. So Alvin Jardine, Ron Esterell and Schw, the two Schweitzers. And none of them have paid, to my knowledge? No, none of them have been paid out.

Okay, Members, other questions. Okay, let me see what else I got here for the. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here for the public defender. Are you still here? Great. So just us, someone like the Schweitzers, who have been. Their, their, their convictions were vacated, as I recall. What's their legal status at this point?

Are they still considered a, I mean, are they still, are they still considered felons or is it, is it the vacation makes it so that they're not felons anymore.

Legally, they should not be considered felons after a vacation of a conviction.

So if they went and applied for a job, you wouldn't have to put. Anything on there about you should not have to.

Okay, does so. So that basically gives them the same status as all the rest of us who haven't been convicted of a felon?

Correct.

It should, yes.

Okay, so then typically if, if the state or the county were to refile charges about the same set of circumstances, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had been there, that they had committed a crime.

Correct. The vacation of the conviction, you sort of start at the beginning. And if they were to reinitiate a criminal offense, it would start all over.

Okay. Y. So the, the previous conviction is null and void.

I'm hesitant to speak in absolutes, but if it's one conviction, it has been vacated. That conviction's been vacated, then yes, it's considered basically null and void. Yeah.

All right, thank you, Members. Anything else? Okay, thanks very much. Thank you, Members. We're running out of time, so I think what I'm going to do is we'll go ahead and vote on the stuff that we've already heard and then I'm going to put off the rest.

The other, the rest of this agenda and the 9:31 agenda and the 10:00 agenda until.

See, we'll do it tomorrow. Of course, we typically don't have hearings on Wednesday.

Why don't we try for 9:45 tomorrow? So the, the remainder of this first agenda, which is SB283 and SB694, we'll hear those tomorrow at 9:45 and we'll take up our 9th 31 agenda, which is SB13 16 and do that tomorrow. I don't know.

Can we put these on one hearing of this or do we have to have to keep them separate?

Okay, so these three will put at 9:45 and then we have a DM agenda as well that we were supposed to have at 10 and we'll put that at 9:50 for tomorrow. So those are all world.

Yeah. So for we only got through SB 163 in our first agenda, our 9:30 agenda. So we'll take SB 283, SB 694 till tomorrow at 9:45 and we'll add on the SB 1316 which was our 9:31 agenda, and we'll hear all three of those at 9:45.

And then the 10:00 DM and decision making only agenda that we had today. We will roll over until 9:50 tomorrow in this room 116, both of them, in both hearings in this room 016 for the bills that we've already heard. If you guys are ready to vote, we'll vote. Okay. SB2 1231 is the first one up.

It repeals the Uniform Parenting Act of 1973 and updates laws relating to parentage. The recommendation here is to pass with some amendments. We'll go ahead and take out part 10 of the bill and that's about the information about the donor, which is the controversial point in this bill. And we'll try to resolve that another day.

And then we'll replace the provisions on the confidentiality of records in sections 508 and 510C, 910A4 and 914B4 with language from Section 806 of the Uniform Parenting Tax which provides for complete confidentiality of records except upon request by partners to the proceedings, the child in question, their attorneys or doh.

And this language will be inserted as applicable in part four and part I mean part five and part nine. This will make it more or less analogous to the adoption of what you can do with adoptions. Now.

Then we'll make the changes suggested by the Attorney General making corresponding changes to the wide probate code, Chapter 650 to reflect the existing requirement that the child support agency, child and Child Support enforcement agency be joined in proceedings where public assistance monies are or have been paid for the support of the subject child.

And there'll be some typos. Typos. We'll note in the Committee report that the forms reflecting the changes in this bill are in Appendix B of the Task force report for uni reference.

That's it. Questions or concerns. If not Senator Gabbard for the vote.

Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 1231 with amendments. [Roll Call]. The measure passes.

Thank you. Next up is SB319 relating to Marijuana. This changes from 1 ounce to 30 grams, the minimum amount of Marijuana.

For those who don't have that calculation in your head, that's a little bit more and increases from 3 grams or less to 15 grams or less the amount of Marijuana that constitutes the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree. The recommendation here is to pass unamended. Unamended questions or concerns, if not budsher.

Members present Are there any. No votes or reservations? Chair, I want to. I'm going to vote no on this measure. In the past, I've been a supporter of legalizing Marijuana. But in looking at the smart approaches to Marijuana. It's a research group and they came out with a study that I've always been curious about.

How is this affecting the 24 states that have had legalized Marijuana? And in this study, just a couple things that they do. Bullet points. Legalization is associated with a 25% increase in Marijuana use disorder in minors. Secondly, ER visits visit related to Marijuana abuse in California is up 89% post legalization.

Number three, Marijuana related hospital admissions in Colorado, up 148% since legalization. And finally, and there's much more, but this is the last one I wanted to mention. Hospital admin admissions in Arizona caused by Marijuana, up 267% since legalization. So based on some of those, I'll be putting you today. Okay, thank you. Moving on. Yes. Okay.

B measure passes. Thank you. Next.

319. Yep. Hi. Hi. Okay, thanks.

Okay, moving on to SB169. This requires the state to provide written notice to certain persons regarding the ability to file a claim for redress under wrongful conviction law. Our recommendation here is to pass some amendments.

Find them so.

So having considered the SD1, we're not going to accept that as an amendment. Instead, I would suggest that we replace the phrase actually innocent with the concept that the person's judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated when the person was pardoned, consistent with innocence throughout the chapter.

For judgments of convictions that are reversed or vacated, add language to require the court to make findings at the same time about the reversal or vacating in the required criteria in Section 661 that the law currently requires a petitioner to prove and incorporate some of the procedures upon reversal or vacating of the conviction that is proposed by page 4 to 5 of the proposed SD.

Amend the burden of proof. Be consistent with long held legal concepts that a person is innocent until proven guilty to require the AG if he contests the petition for compensation, to have the burden of proof. Also make.

Also make the proof AG is required to prove to prove be that the reversal vacating a partner was inconsistent with innocence, deem innocent. Any person whose conviction was reversed or vacated with prejudice. Suggest that we amend the notice requirement on page three to specify that is the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

That is to provide the notice to the person of the ability to file a claim in this chapter. Add that the notice provide the filing deadline and include copies of the statutory sections related to the filing requirements, plus a copy of the person's order or pardon.

Clarify that the process for payment of advance compensation $5,000 per month for qualifying petitioners and amend the preamble to conform to the amendments made and make additional findings. And it'll also be some technical amendments.

Questions or concerns. If not. Vice Chair for the vote on SB169. The chair's recommendations to pass with amendments to the Members present. Are there any. No votes or reservations, including the absence of Senator San Benavetura. The measure Passives.

Okay, thanks very much. That concludes our business for today. And as I mentioned, we will be taking up of items we didn't get to on the agenda tomorrow at 10. Sorry. 9:45 in this room.

We're adjourned.