Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome to the Judicial Committee hearing, this January 28th, Tuesday morning. My name is Karl Rhoads. I'm Chair of the committee. This is a in person and zoom meeting and it's being live streamed on YouTube as well. Includes just the one agenda, our 9:15 agenda. Because this is our first hearing of the year. I will, I will, I will ask my fellow Members, the ones who are here to introduce themselves.

Michael Gabbard representing District 21, West Oahu. Also Chair of the Agriculture Environment Committee. Aloha.

And there are three other Members who will be here sooner or later. As noted, this hearing is being streamed live on YouTube. You can find links to viewing options for all Senate hearings and meetings on the live and on demand video page of the Legislature's website at www.capitol.hawaii.gov.

And in the unlikely event that we have a major technical failure, we'll reconvene to discuss any outstanding issues on January 30th at 9:16am here in 016. But we will try to work through any technical problems we have today if it happens. So if you can hang around until we figured that out.

We do have a two minute time limit on answers on testimony, but if you can stay around for questions, that would be great. Oftentimes I and other Members do have questions. Okay. First up today is SB Senate Bill 94. SB 94.

This increases the mandatory minimum jail sentence for first conviction of knowingly or intentionally violating a temporary restraining order from 48 to 72 hours. First up on SB94 is Dasha Forster for the office Public Defender. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha Chair Rhodes and Vice Chair Gabbard. So we have submitted our written testimony. I just want to highlight that we do have two different issues that we wanted to bring up. We are opposing increasing the mandatory minimum from 48 to 72 hours.

We just quite frankly don't see what the efficacy is going to be for that. The current 48 hours seems to be effective and we're able to process cases efficiently with that mandatory minimum. One of our concerns is that it just lumps everybody into one category without any distinction between a simple text message.

So a violation of a restraint of a temporary restraining order can be a what, single text message saying I'm sorry, I miss you, I love you. Or it can be the whole other side of the spectrum where it involves, you know, words of threats.

And we just think there should be a distinction if the, if we're looking at maybe increasing it to 72 hours, I think we would request maybe looking at separating them in some way and using some sort of filter.

What that is, I don't know at this time, but that's something that I can certainly think about at if it moves forward. But our other issue has to do with the mental health counseling. If you note in our testimony, we just wanted to tweak the language the way it's written.

We don't think that it's going to be helpful. So we have some suggested language and we suggest that it be amended to, say, undergo a mental health assessment and comply with the recommendations of the assessment, because people are at different levels, different spectrums, different needs. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Next is Angelina Mercado, Executive Director for the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. We are the Association of domestic violence programs in the state, representing 16 organizations and 25 programs. And we respectfully ask that this measure be deferred.

There are about seven other bills addressing protection order and pro violations already, including House and Senate companions. One of the issues that we have with this Bill is that it really only addresses violations on the TRO side. And that's 5864. There's also 58611 which is what addresses violations of protection orders.

And we also have an issue. So that's incomplete. Right. You know, and so the other Statutes will address 5864 and 58611. And you know, we do have an issue and concern with the mental health assessment. Our biggest issue is that, well, we don't have enough mental health professionals in the state.

We don't have enough mental health professionals in the state who are qualified to understand, diagnose and address the power and control dynamics that are very specific to domestic violence.

That's not to say the folks who are perpetrators of domestic violence don't also have other mental health issues and concerns, but what we're concerned about is that then there becomes a conflation of causality. It's that your mental health diagnoses is the cause for your violence and for your abusive behaviors. And that is not exactly true.

So that's a concern. And then we don't know, like the statute, the language doesn't really say what to do and who will conduct those assessments. And quite frankly, what often happens is that there's mental health coercion that happens on the side for victims.

And so they are being told, zero, you act crazy or there's like the whole, like trope of women being crazy. And we think that that's an unintended consequence of this language. And so we think that it just be deferred until we can like add and, you know, mold the other measures that might completely address this. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next is Alan Johnson, chair for Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, in support, Lindsay Dreher in opposition. Deanna Espinis also in opposition Michael Older in support Monique Ibarra, Domestic Violence Action center, in opposition. That's all the written testimony we have submitted on SB94. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB94? Seeing non Members questions?

Okay, I don't have any either. Let's go ahead and move on to the next bill, SB 115, relating to attachment execution of real property. Increases the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution. First up on SB 115 is Marvin S. C. Dang for Hawaii Financial Services Association. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. I'm Marvin Dang for the Hawaii Financial Services Association. We offer comments on this bill. We just want to, among other things, clarify that this bill does not deal with exemptions against real property taxes. This is an exemption against claims of creditors.

We offer some policy issues that you might want to consider if you do pass this bill. One is that the whole idea behind this statute originally, I believe it was like a homestead exemption, and it would protect a person's home. The way the statute is currently written is there is no limitation in that regard.

Someone could use this exemption for vacant property, for commercial property, for investment property. If it's limited to a person's personal residence, perhaps that is something that could be done. And on page two, we offer other suggestions, such as limiting the frequency of the use of this particular exemption. Thank you. We'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Next up is Stefanie Sakamoto for Hawaii Credit Union League. Comments? Okay, next is Linda Nakamura for Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii. Also with comments, Bill Plum, Vice Chair, Collection Law Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association, in support, Tiffany Yajima or Mihoko Ito for Hawaii Bankers Association. Okay, comments. Lynn Murakami-Akatsuka in support. Dawn Wakukawa in support, and Yulani Nipo also in support. That's everybody who signed up for SB 115. Does anyone else wish to testify on SB 115? If not, Members, questions?

Yeah, I do. Thank you. Marvin Dang, you're the only one who testified, really. Sorry. So the reality is that this will only affect unsecured creditors because mortgage holders who are secured creditors are already, well, they're secured. So they they for the extent of their security, this will not affect them. Correct?

It would not affect them if they had the mortgage lien on record. Yes.

Right. And and also any lienors, who like judgment lienors, who have... So these are basically those who are unsecured like credit card, right?

It would be... So you mentioned the judgment creditors. If the judgment creditor actually recorded the recorded the judgment at the Bureau of Conveyances it would be a lien. If they have a judgment that's not recorded, they would be an unsecured credit card. If there's other debt, let's say credit cards or personal loans that have not gone through suit but are delinquent, they would be at risk.

And in fact, the law has not changed for over 50 years at the 20,000 because you know I've been trying to increase the exemption to match at least cost of living. So this is really a modest increase. Yes? I mean because otherwise in the, well like Texas and entire homestead is actually exempt regardless of how much the value is. It did what you said and just did a homestead exemption regardless of value, that would actually increase the attachment exemption rather than this modest increase of 90,000 regardless of whether or not it's a homestead.

Each state is different. Each state has different laws. For example, under the Bankruptcy Code of the United States, the exemption is $25,000. With regard to the fact that there might not have been changes over the years, yes. That's why for example the collection law section of the way State Bar Association is offering suggestion of $50,000.

But if we're going to go through after let's say 50 years of not making changes, perhaps we can look at clarifying what the true intent of this was. That is limited restricted to one person who can use it, provided that person has this as their primary personal residence.

Yeah. I mean to start over, like, what I'm seeing in... You're an attorney. People who inherited property, so but they end up having credit card debt. If we don't have this kind of increase, they're basically going to be back with only at most a 20,000, which is not enough to even buy a brand new car.

Yes, that's why we didn't object. We're offering comments. We didn't suggest a dollar amount. I think really comes down to what the committee based on input from various stakeholders feel is important. The bill would, there's two different exemptions here. One would both would triple the amount of the exemption.

What we're suggesting is perhaps there'd be just one exemption. Regardless of whether or not you fall in the first category, which is you're 65 years or older or ahead of household or if in the second category you're none of those, perhaps there'll be one. Whether it's $50,000 or some other figure, at least if we can clarify the, the intent, the purpose of it, then I think we perhaps as a matter of policy have accomplished what I think analyst think would be useful.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Senator.

My comment, Chair, is homestead exemption of unlimited amount. Thank you. Amendment.

Like Florida?

Like Florida and Texas.

Yeah. Other questions? I do have sort of a practical, not having practiced law question. So if, no matter what the attachment exemption is, as a debt collector or someone, as an attorney who's collecting the debt, can you, do you actually take the house and you just give them the $90,000 in, or the whatever, whatever it is now I forgot the amount in cash. They don't, they don't necessarily get to keep the house, right?

There's a number of ramifications for this particular statute. The attachment and execution part of it would, as has been used in not only in Hawaii but in other states, would be used through the court process where there would be a forced sale of the property and then from the sales proceeds there would be various creditors paid off, as the Senator alluded to.

There would be the mortgagees, the lenders who have recorded mortgages, then perhaps a judgment creditor who had recorded the lien. And then if there's anything left over that would be, quote, like equity, then you would deduct the exemption. And if there's anything else left over that would be available. The interplay...

But there's no, there's no guarantee that you keep a house?

No, there is no guarantee that you would keep the property under any circumstance under this.

Other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much and we'll go ahead and move on. Thank you. Next Bill, SB117. This protects individuals who make claims of sexual misconduct from defamation lawsuits unless the claims are proven to be made with malice. First up on 117 is Society for Human Resource Management, Hawaii in opposition.

Next is Michael Older with comments. Nanohe Botello, in opposition. That's everybody who signed up on SB117. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB117? Okay. Members, there's no one to ask questions of.

So I guess we'll move on to the next Bill, which is SB 121, this proposes an amendment to Article 6, Section 3 of the State Constitution to allow the Senate more time to confirm judicial appointments. Typic around when we're not in regular session. First up on this is Rodney Miley, Administrative Director of the Courts with comments.

And that's the only person who signed up on SB121. Does anyone else wish to testify on SB121? Seeing none, same situation. We'll go ahead and move on to the next Bill, SB 124. Another Conan proposing amendments to Article 4, Sections 4 and 6 of the Y State Constitution regarding reapportionment.

This proposes a constitutional amendment to specify that reapportionment shall be based on the resident population as counted in the most recent decennial census with respective reapportionment year rather than the permanent resident population. First up on 124 is Reese Nakamura, Deputy Attorney General. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes and Members of the Committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Reese Nakamura. We have submitted comments to this Bill.

Basically our comment is that the decennial report, the census report for the year of the reapportionment should be used in the in the language of the amendment and the CONAM ballot question because we it's a possibility that there might be a delay in getting the census for that particular year.

And if we just use the language where it's the most recent, that could be the previous one from 10 years ago. So that's our comments, but be glad to answer your questions.

Okay, thank you. Next is Jen Kagiwata, Council Member for the white excuse me, Hawaii County Council in opposition. Next is Scott Smart. Good morning.

Good morning, Senator, Members of Committee, I'm Scott Smart, testifying on my own behalf. Been involved in this issue since the 2001 apportionment. I went to the public hearings of the reapportionment Committee and found out that even though I was a Hawaii citizen, I voted in Hawaii, a Hawaii state resident income tax.

Because I was married to a service Member, I was not deemed a permanent resident of the state. And digging this further, it's difficult to find why this concept of permanent resident became part of our Constitution. I haven't been able to find out why.

It seems very anomalous that we'll take one segment of the population and say you're not to be considered part of the representative body. You know, districts should be set up to be roughly equal in population. You could say 100 years ago, military lived on ship, they were on barracks. Today, that's not the Case.

We live in the community. I live in Mililani. We live all over the state. Now, the most recent reapportionment, they went to the military. They said, how many military personnel and dependents, family Members are there? They got numbers, but there's no way to assign those numbers to census tracts. So they go, they take an arbitrary method.

They say, well, we'll take some from here, we'll take some from there. There's no basis for that. Meanwhile, if you're here as an undocumented immigrant, no problem. You're in the census numbers. We count you for representation. So. So a basic concept of fairness.

It seems improper that some geographic regions of our state have many more people in a representative and Senate district than others. And for that reason, I strongly support this constitutional amendment.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Next is Shannon Manson on Zoom.

Maybe they are here on Zoom.

Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, thank you so much for your time and taking my testimony. I do have written comments. I'm going to try to get through them and add a little bit in the time allotted, but I just wanted to make sure that this was on the oral record as well. I've.

I testified before you guys on this topic in the past. Um, my name is Shannon Matson. I'm a resident of Hawaii island and I did follow the last reapportionment and redistricting process extremely closely. And I've testified in opposition to this Bill in the past and I'm still in strong opposition.

While I do hear what the previous testifier is saying, my concern is with my district of Puna and the fact that there are thousands of people that I believe were not properly counted in the last couple of censuses. And that's for a variety of reasons, many which I know are far out of your control.

But considering our rural area, we, we don't get. Most of us don't get mail. We have P.O. boxes. And the census will not send their packets to PO Boxes. They will send little cards that encourage people to log on and participate in the census. But there's no way that we know who is doing that and who isn't.

A lot of folks in my rural area do not have Internet access. Many of them don't have phones. Yes, census takers were present in our area, but especially due to Covid, the access was somewhat limited. We have over 4,000 lots in, in my neighborhood with 75 miles of unpaved roads.

Many of those lots are three acre parcels that are fenced. They have dogs they have other things that prevent the census takers from accessing them. So we know that there are, again, hundreds to thousands of people that were not counted in the Puna area. And yet we are still the fastest growing district in the state.

Thank you very much. Am I out of time? Okay. All right. Thank you so much.

Next up is David Hunt in opposition. Corey Harden in opposition. Andrew Crosland, in opposition. Darlene Sconsella, in opposition. Mary True, in opposition. Janet Mason, in support. Jessica Kuzmeier, in support. Aria Juliet Castillo. Castillo, in opposition. That's everybody who signed up for SB124. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB124? Seeing none. Members, questions? No questions.

Okay, moving on. SP175. SP175 is another. Another proposed Con Am. This proposes an amendment to Article 6, Section 3 of the Y State Constitution. Increase the mandatory retirement age for state justices and judges currently at 70. This would raise it to 75. First up is Rod Miley, Administrative Director of the Courts.

In support, Sonny Gandan, Office Public Defender. Good morning, Representative.

Morning. Sonny Gandan and Deputy Public Defender, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, of course, there's differing ideas about this, both in the Office of the Public Defender and within the bar. The official position is in support. Considering the ages of judges and how we are losing talent in the judiciary.

Of course, this could be decided again by voters in 2012. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Caroline Kitarao, Director for Executive Office on Aging, in support. Next is Pat Brady, Community Lines on Prison. Good morning.

Good morning. Members of the Judiciary Committee. Happy New Year. New Year, Community. Pat Brady testifying on behalf of Community Alliance on Prisons in strong support of this measure. You know, 70 is like the new 50. So what really concerns me is losing all that institutional knowledge that's on the bench. And we think that's really important.

So just I did a lot of research on Ballotpedia. I'll give you just the cliff notes. 16 states have no retirement age. One state has 90 years. That's Vermont. Eight states have 75 years as retirement. 19 states have 70 as a retirement, and six states have retirement ages between 71 and 74.

And some states actually say if somebody ages out becomes 70 before their term is up, they can finish their term or they can finish a certain number of years in their term. So we strongly support this. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next is Henry Curtis, Executive Director of Life and Land, in Support. Next is Lynn Murakami Akatsuka, in support. Brent Coldis, in opposition. Michael Older, in opposition. Carolyn Eaton, in support. And that's everyone who signed up on SB175. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB175? See now Members questions.

Well, it's pretty straightforward, so I guess we'll move on to the next bill, which is SB 173. This requires the judiciary to establish a three year pilot program to provide free child care services to minor children of parties and witnesses who are attending court hearings in the First Circuit.

Requires the judiciary to submit reports to the Legislature and appropriates funds. First up on 173 is Rodney Miley, Administrative Director of the courts with comments. Next is Darcia Forester, Public deputy public Defender, in support. Okay. Next is Ryan Yamani, Director of Department of Human Services, State of Hawaii, in support.

Next is Angelina Mercado, Executive Director, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, in support. Thank you. Next is Kristen Hara, Community Domestic Violence Coordinator for Child and Family Services Service, in support. Next is Deanna Espinispenis, in support. Benjamin Rose, in support. Michael Older, in support. Lindsay Dreher, in support. That's everybody who signed up to testify in SB173.

Would anyone else like to testify in SB173? Seeing none. Members, questions?

For the public defender. Can you explain sort of the logistics of why they're assuming? I mean, you're supported. Why would, why will it, why will this help?

Oh, we have so many clients and witnesses and complaining witnesses all come in different ranges and different income brackets. It is not unusual for a witness, a complaining witness or even a defendant to not have a child care option and bring their child to court. And then there's a scramble. What are we going to do?

How are we going to accommodate the parent for, you know, we might ask a colleague to watch the child or we have to get permission for the child to come in. But if the child gets fussy, they have to leave the courtroom.

It can be very disruptive and it can be really, really stressful on the parties in cases. Sometimes childcare just bottoms out and you lose somebody at the last minute. But if you are required to be in court, you do not have a choice. You must show up whether you've got a child in tow or.

I've seen situations where there's three children in tow, you know, and they're. It's a stressed out mother with three children. There's a subpoena or they were ordered to come and everyone's just scrambling to, to figure out what are we going to do for them. So it's a real thing that happens on a regular basis.

All right, thank you. Any other questions on SB 173? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to SB 261. This increases the amount each juror or prospective juror is paid for each day of actual attendance at court. It's been, it would increase it from $30, which it is currently, to $50 a day.

First up is Michelle Acosta, deputy chief, testifying for the Judiciary. Oh, sorry. Morning. Okay. Okay, in support. Next to Darcia Forester, deputy public defender. Okay, thank you, in support. Next is Addison Bulosan, Council Member for Kauai County. In support. Mark Murakami, president of Hawaii State Bar Association, in support. Oh, in support. Okay, thank you.

And Michael Olderr, also in support. That's all the written testimony we have in SB 261. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 261? Seeing none, Members, questions? Let's see. For the Hawaiian State Bar Association, do you mind coming up for a sec? Right now, the bill says from $30 a day to $50 a day. Is $50 a day enough? That doesn't sound like very much to me.

That's more of a Judiciary appropriation and navigating the Judiciary's budget with the the Senate. I do think that there is a steep cost associated with jury service. It is a core bedrock of our judicial system, and so it has been $30 for a long time. A lot of our colleagues and citizens and neighbors opt out of jury service. Traditionally juries, you know, we want to incentivize folks.

It is how we make decisions, certainly in the criminal context, and our inability to... And I don't know if you've ever been in jury service, but the judges have, you know, have to corral people who don't want to be there. And so this is one step. I think it's well overdue. I don't want to get into the Judiciary's budget allocations and how much they're asking from this.

Thank you. Other questions, Members okay, seeing now let's go and move on to the next bill, which is SP 262. 262 relating to prospective jurors. Authorizes the judiciary to determine the format of the juror qualification form and the means of its delivery and return. Removes a requirement that the form be mailed.

First up on this is Michelle Acosta or Dana Nakasato for the state. Good morning again.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Michelle Acosta, Deputy Chief court administrator for the First Circuit here on behalf of Judiciary. We have submitted written testimony and strong support. Again, this is part of the judiciary's legislative package. Taking notice of some of the written testimony that was submitted for this bill.

I wanted to provide a little bit more information as to the introduction of this bill. The judiciary has a jury management system that was implemented in 2009. We're in the process of upgrading that system to make it more efficient and more current to the processing of jury service.

Part of that system includes a portal that would allow members of the public to respond to the annual jury qualification questionnaire. This because the statute reads to a limitation that it must be mailed out and returned to the courts. The statute is limiting the judiciary from exploring the utilization of more current technology.

There is no current plan right now to implement this in the upcoming 2026 qualification mail out. We are still looking at the system and how that can be implemented for the use for the residents in Hawaii.

As we do develop and understand the system a little bit more, we would be including, of course, our stakeholders the State of Hawaii, including the bar members and the trial divisions, and also taking a look at mindful of our access issues for certain populations in the state that do not have easy access to Internet or WI fi service.

And so those things will be in consideration. However, we do need the statutory amendment to allow us to be flexible in implementing some of these technological tools. I'm available for questions if there are any.

Great, thank you. Next is Darcia Forster, Deputy Public Defender.

Hello again. So I'm just going to reiterate some of my comments that I made. Our biggest concern is to make sure that a jury pool of prospective jurors accurately reflects our communities. And I'm really happy to hear the comments from the judiciary because not everyone has access to the Internet.

We have really great jurors who come to us who are retired and who are in college. But we need to make sure that we're not eliminating our older jurors who might have issues with the computer. And also we need to just make sure that we are mindful that not everyone has great Internet access.

We heard earlier from a lady from Puna talking about issues with the mail service and spotty Internet. So we just want to reiterate that we have concerns. We'd like our prospective panels to be full and fair in terms of a representation of our community as a whole and not eliminate groups of people because of Internet issues.

So thank you.

Thank you. Next is Addison Buason, Council Member for Kawa County Council, in support. And that's everybody who signed up on SB262. Would anyone else like to testify in SB262? Seeing on Members questions, I do have a question for judiciary. So I guess with the way the statute's written down, you have to mail.

It's pretty straightforward in terms of what you have to do. But if you, it's not clear to me from the language this is written now whether you only have to try one way, one method.

So if you emailed somebody and you don't get a response or the address is bad, then what's the judiciary going to do under that circum, in those circumstances?

We do have situations where we do mail and the, the address may be old, people have moved on. We do contract with a vendor that is supposed to take a look at any forwarding addresses and things like that. So we do resend out questionnaires for those situations.

But the, the way that the statute reads right now is that it needs to be mailed back to us.

Right, but then if this bill passes, then you will do what? So, so let me give you a specific hypothetical. So if you, if you, if you're, you think you have a legitimate email address, you email it. You don't get a response, what do you do?

So what we're looking at now is other jurisdictions have implemented a model where they would still mail out a postcard. The postcard. And some jurisdictions will use a QR code with a website address that people could log into and then access the question from there. So we're still utilizing a mail in terms of sending out the questionnaire.

Okay, so I guess the related question is if you can't get a response with whatever method you use first, do you try again or you just give up on that person?

It depends for the reasons. If it's a bad address and we are able to get from the US Postal Service a forwarding address and we can do it, but if there's no address to be mailed to, then we may not be able to send out.

Okay, but so if you, but if you back to the original, the original hypo. So if you emailed somebody didn't get a response, do you didn't. Are you automatically going to try mail at that point or do you just give up?

I don't know Senator, that we would be mailing out at the get go. We would still be using.

I'm saying after, after you got a balance on an email, what would you do? Would you, would you automatically mail to them as an, as an additional way to reach that person or do you just give up at that point?

I think the first step as we're envisioning is we would mail if we have an email address. I don't know that we are at that point yet to mail.

No, no. I guess I'm being very unclear. So you start with the email it out, you don't get a response or you get a response that indicates that that email is no longer valid or whatever. Then is there another step?

Do you try to reach them another way or do you just give up and say, well, they're not available?

If I may just clarify that the first step would be US Mail because we wouldn't be able to get an email address from the source in which. So we get DMV and voter registration information and that information has mailing addresses and not necessarily email for us to send out the questionnaires.

So if in the event that we are able to get an email address would probably not be at the qualification stage. So we send out the juror qualifications to all residents and from there we determine the minimum qualifications for statute age 18 US citizen. From there then we summon jurors, prospective jurors to serve.

Okay, but it sounds like you don't need this at all because you're going to mail to them first anyway.

Well, we would need it because the statute reads right now that we can mail out, but they have to mail back. And so if we allowed use this. Portal for residents.

Mail outs and electronic response.

Correct.

Okay.

Chair, I have questions when you...

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, thank you. So the public defender has made some good points. And my understanding when I first read this bill was that it would allow you the opportunity to determine the form of delivery and return. Which means you folks are going to create rules, right? On how you folks are going to do this. Is that right?

Because it sounds like the, what you said, you're going to mail first because that's all you get from the voter registration is the mail, but you're going to put a QR code on that. And I know a whole bunch of people who are not going to scan that QR code. So what are, are you folks going to create rules of, of not only bouncing, but failure to respond?

So that's, that's one model is to put a QR code. It's... We want to be able to utilize the technology for people to be able to respond to their questionnaires, whether we're sending that out with their hard copy questionnaire form with a QR code or a URL address for people to respond. So one model is that they can send in their hard copy if they wanted to, or respond online. So that's one model.

But you are, you guys are going to create rules, which are then going to be sent out to the bar in which like, like all of your rules.

I'm not sure that we would be creating rules. I have our review for that. But we would be creating procedures that we would be sharing with our stakeholders within the community on how to, how to go about this process.

So if we pass this bill, basically it's carte blanche. You guys are going to determine on your own without further public input or further bar input as to forms of delivery? Because then I have questions regarding that. I could see the need for efficiency, but just knowing myself, I get tons of email, and I don't get to, or my email goes to junk mail, and I'm not going to respond even if the email is valid.

So if I may just clarify that the reach out, the mail out the form for sending out the qualification is going to be still U.S. mail. So you would still get notice of the qualification through U.S. mail. But we have not made a decision to when to implement and how to implement.

But this allows us to move in that direction when it comes time to do so. And the Judiciary, of course, is cognizant of the concerns of the bar and the public. This is a major transition if the court does or the Judiciary moves in the direction of using an online portal for responding to juror qualifications.

So we would want to include the stakeholders within the community. But also if this is the move that we're going to be moving in that direction and implementing that, of course we would want to educate the public on how to respond to the juror qualifications.

Each year, historically and traditionally we continue to do this, we send out a press release announcing to the community that the questionnaires will be mailed out. So we would be following the same format and informing the public that the questionnaires are becoming, that will be coming out and this is the format or alternatives in which they can respond.

Chair, my request is that this bill be amended to require that the Judiciary submit rules of court like they do for everything else, like subpoena and service, so that the bar will have notice and be able to object if necessary. Thank you.

Thanks. Oh no. Can we, can we tell the Supreme Court to take their own, to do their own rulings? Well, it seems like a separation of power... Well, anyway, we'll discuss this.

They're asking us to be able to allow them. So that's not separate. If that's not a separation of power. We're just asking them to implement the rules so that there is no...

I hear your concern. I'm just, I'm just, it's the law school, law school student in me asking. Any any other questions, comments on SB 262? Okay, thank you very much. Next up is SB 263.

This is on increases the rate of compensation and maximum allowable amounts per case for court appointed counsel and criminal proceedings. First up on 263 is Ronald Judge Ronald G. Johnson for the Judiciary or maybe not. Maybe somebody else. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Long and I'm the Staff Attorney for the Criminal Administrative Division directly under Judge Johnson. And I'm here on behalf of the Judiciary and Judge Johnson. We've this is part of our judiciary package.

The testimony is pretty clear about the crisis that we are in right now.

And I just wanted to take a moment to address something that was in one of the testimonies with respect to the idea that individuals, if we do get this rate increase, that individuals may use this as their full time job and then be able to basically make way more than they could if they worked at the public defender's office.

That was from the Kauai prosecutors. When I first started with the judiciary, we had about 50 or 60 court appointed attorneys on our C felony list. There was probably about 30 to 50 on the B's, maybe 30 on the A's. Those individuals, we rotate them.

So when we assign cases to people we have a list and we go on rotation. No one individual is going to get repeated cases from this. If they get put on the list. They we we are very diligent in how we appoint attorneys.

So I just wanted to kind of clarify that that this is not going to be a full time job for some individual attorneys. But I'm available to answer any questions. Great, thank you.

Next is Darcia Forster, public defender.

Hello again again. So on behalf of our office we strongly strongly support this bill. The court appointed lists and available attorneys available to do court appointed work has shrunk significantly over the past five to 10 years.

We have a crisis situation in Kona when it comes to available people willing to do court appointed work and we have different islands asking attorneys on other islands. The situation is critical. I would agree with that. And our lists continue to shrink.

We now only have three attorneys on our juvenile list and all three of those attorneys attorneys are on the verge of retiring and we simply cannot recruit attorneys, young attorneys to join the list so that they are willing to do these kinds of cases.

Court appointed cases are just as hard and sometimes even harder because a lot of times the mentally ill clients that we service will go through several attorneys before they find someone who they will listen to.

And we rely on our court appointed attorneys to handle sometimes the most difficult exasperating clients and help us navigate those clients through the criminal justice system. So we consider them partners when it comes to how we do our work and in the Administration of justice in the criminal courts. They are utterly essential and they do need.

We need to be able to add young attorneys to these lists who are willing and able and qualified to do this kind of work. Nobody's going to be rolling in the dough.

This is about just basic being able to make a living and the rates are just simply too low and have been low for too long and we ask you to please fix it.

Thanks very much. Next is Addison Bulason, Council Member on Kauai, in support. Next is Rebecca Lee K prosecuting attorney for Hawaii. Sorry, sorry. Prosecutor, in support. Mark Murakami, President Hawaii State Bar Association. Hello Again.

Good morning Chair, Members of the committee on behalf of the. I'm the President of the Hawaii State Bar Association which is about 8300 Members strong, all active, inactive judges, etc. And the hoisted Bar Association strongly supports this bill.

We do think it's overdue and that the appointed counsel and their role in the criminal justice system is Critical as we see more and more multi party, multi defendant prosecutions with our, you know, as we develop from a rural community into a major urban center, these are going to be more and more common.

And the public defenders have conflicts and the appointed council have to have to are critical to our government and our society's ability to handle crimes. And so our membership is strongly in support of this.

Thank you. Thank you. Next is Richard Singh, Vice President for Hawaii Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, in support. Kerry Ann Shiroda for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, also in support, Daniel Kawamoto, an attorney. Possible online.

They're unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. In support. Nonohai Botello for Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform. Also in support, William Heflin for Hawaii Hawaii County Bar Association, in support. James Tabe. Maybe on zoom. Hello Mr. Tabe.

Good morning. Chair and Vice Chair, Members of Committee. It's been a long time since I appeared before this Committee. I've been a quarter. I've been a private solo practitioner for a year now after my retirement and I've taken, and I just work part time and I've taken court appointed cases. I am one of the three attorneys Ms.

Forster referenced out in Kapolei. I really wasn't planning on doing it, but I just felt like I needed to do it. The ages of the attorneys are, I'm the youngest at 62. One is 68 and one is 73. There is going to be a problem and it's not limited just to Coppola.

The problem with Coppola is that we don't get paid for travel time. So an attorney will have to from town especially is probably at least an hour round trip commute that's without traffic. So we, the only way to attract more people I would believe is to increase this rate. I know in town I do appellate work.

I get calls from Judge Johnson's chambers and I have to turn them down all the time because I just can't. It's just not worth my time to do the appellate work. It's difficult and I do some. I have said yes to three of them, but there's quite a shortage.

I know the public defender's office helps out finding attorneys. I just spoke to one of the felony supervisors and basically he tells me that attorneys know when, when he's around, they know that they're going to approach him for, he's going to approach them for, to accept conflict cases.

And they, they kind of, they all just say no, it's not worth it. So it's gonna there's gonna be a time. It's already a crisis, it's just gonna get worse. Thank you. And I'll submit on my written testimony.

Thanks very much. Next is Ryan Ha, in support. Georgette Yel, in support. William Bagasol, in support. Dwight Lum, in support. And that's all the written testimony in SB263 we have. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB263? Seeing non Members. Questions?

Yes, for Mr. Tabe.

Go ahead.

Mr. Tabe, are you still on? Yes, I am. Okay, thank you. Aloha. So I'm one of the retired court appointed attorneys who do used to take felonies and appeals. I'm the one of those that the judges would have to call when they couldn't find anybody else, so. But I'm retired.

One of my concerns is you can't even farm out ministerial stuff to paralegals because the law does not allow you to bill for paralegals. Is that right? So even if we pass this, were you able to bill for paralegals?

No I do everything myself. I'm just a solo. Yeah, I, I work from home. I do this part time just to supplement my pension and that's all I do now, just to these appeals. Just a kind of off question a little bit.

Judge Johnson's chambers has called me on the same case, weeks apart, begging me to take these cases and, and I just have to say no because I only want to work one at a time, so.

Yeah, no, I know, I understand. I used to get those phone calls too at night, begging me to take a case. But I'm retired now. But maybe the judiciary should think about this.

But I would suggest if they're gonna not raise court appointed visa, they should at least pay for paralegals so that for ministerial work we could at least be able to farm stuff out. But thank you, Mr. Tabe.

Okay, any other questions on SB 263? Seeing none. Let's go ahead and move on to SB 264. This relates to the examination of criminal defendants. Establishes the amount of compensation for private sector examiners who evaluate a criminal defendant's penal responsibility or fitness to proceed in a legal case. First up on SB264 is Judge Johnson or his designee. Good morning again.

Morning again. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Long. I'm the Staff Attorney for the Criminal Administrative Division of the First Circuit Court. We for the most part stand on our written testimony.

The only thing I wanted to kind of highlight was the fact that we are looking right now, at least in the First Circuit at a. An average of about nine examinations per month for our six examiners. And it's not just the examination. When they go in and conduct and they're appointed as our experts in these cases, they actually have to go in.

And it's a comprehensive review of the file, medical records that are obtained by acsb, medical records that may be in the custody of the Hawaii State Hospital or Medical Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as well as police reports and such.

So there's, there's that comprehensive document review as well as the examination itself, the preparation of the report and then coming and testifying if in fact the case ends up in a contested hearing. I'm available to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Next is Behavioral Health Administration for the Hawaii State Department of Health.

Hi, good morning. Okay, thank you. Dara Forester, Deputy Public Defender, in support.

Okay. Next is Council Member Bulason from Kauai, also in support. And Mark Murami Y. Safar, Association President and support. Okay, that's everybody who signed up for SB 264. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB 264? I don't see anyone on Zoom either.

Any numbers, any questions on SB264? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to SB265. This relates to compensation for court-appointed representation, increases the rate of compensation and maximum allowable amounts per case for court-appointed counsel and guardians, ad litem, and family court proceedings. First up on 265 is Dacia Forester, Public Defender in support. Okay. Senior Judge Medos for the State Judiciary or.

Hi, good morning. I'm Andrew Park. Good morning. Chair Roades. Good morning. Vice Chair Gabgard, Hon. Members of the Committee, I'm Andrew Park. I'm a family court judge in Kapolei. I serve under Judge Maderos. We wanted to stand on our written testimony and strong support. I had a chance to review the other submitted testimony.

Those that were not in support were in strong support. And you, you also heard from Deputy Public Defender Forrester detailing the situation in Kapolei, which I think would fall under this Bill because those are cases that arise under 571. And thank you to Mr. Tabe for comprising almost half of our patients. Panel of available attorneys. I'll stick around for any questions that folks may have.

Thank you. Next is Director Ryan Yani for Department of Human Services in support. Council Member Bulasan from Kawai in support. Ken Sho for ACLU. Not seeing her, but she's in support.

Mark Marukami President of the Hawaii State Bar Association, in support.

Okay. Marilyn Yamamoto for Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform. In support. David Kila Copper, Executive Director for Legal Aid Society. Also in support, Nonohe Botello for Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform and support. And Laura Miller in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB265. Does anyone else wish to testify on SB265?

See now Members questions maybe for judge was it Park So you said there's, there is a. This will affect what Mr. Talby was talking about in terms of the caseload out in family court.

Yes. So the Chapter 571 governs the prosecution of juveniles alleged to be law violators. And it's under that chapter that we appoint attorneys to represent those individuals who cannot be represented by the public defender. So this Senate Bill would change the rates and the cap for cases arising out of 571.

Okay, so, but, but the guardian, the guardians add light inside of it that doesn't affect the criminal side. That's more of a, that would be. More for other types of cases, more. Of the civil stuff. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Question, other Members, other questions since you're here.

All right.

Thank you.

I noticed that there's a separate Bill. I mean, there's a separate amount for other than an attorney, which I'm assuming is going to be like the guardian atlant, because this is under the family court section 571. Why isn't there a. And, and I don't know because it's not my package.

Why isn't there a similar amount in the criminal section so they can have paralegals do ministerial work like calling for hearings, setting hearings up, setting up instead of charging the attorney fee, time to go, you know, make sure the client shows up at court, that kind of thing.

You know, all I can speak to that, Senator, is because I think that this Bill in particular contemplates things such as guardians ad litem, which are not typically utilized on the, on the criminal docket. But other than that, I don't have another answer for you on that. Sorry.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Other questions on 265. If not, let's go ahead and move on to SB266. This establish one additional district court judgeship in the First Circuit, which is Oahu, for those who don't know. First up on 266 is Melanie May or Michelle Acosta, deputy chief judge here and for the State of Hawaii. Good morning again.

Good morning again. Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Michelle Acosta, Deputy Chief Corps Administrator for the First Circuit. We are requesting the statutory authorization to establish the 15th judge in the First Circuit District Court.

We did receive from the Legislature appropriations for the salary for the judge in 2023, and so we're now just looking for the authorization. I'm available for questions if there are any.

Thank you.

Next is Sonny Gannadin, Office Public Defender, in support.

Okay. Martin Morani, President of White State Bar Association in support. Bill Plum, Vice Chair, Function Law Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association, in support. Marvin Dang for Hawaii Financial Services Association, also in support. And Council Member from Kauai, also in support. That's everybody who signed up for SB266. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB266?

Seeing none of the Members questions. I. Don't have any either. Let's go ahead and move on to SB267. This establishes one additional district court judgeship in the third circuit. And I always have to think about where the Third Circuit is. Big Island. Big Island.

All right.

My district, because it used to be 3 and 4, and now it's only three and I just, I don't know, it's all confused. First up on this is Robert Kim, Chief Court, Chief Court Administrator for the Judiciary on Zoom or.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Kori Weinberger and I'm a Staff Attorney for the Third Circuit. I'm testifying today on behalf of our Chief Court Administrator, Robert Kim, who could not be here today.

We did support written test or we did submit written testimony in support of this Bill, but we wanted to just highlight a few items for the Committee. The creation of and funding for an additional district court judge in the Third Circuit is really critical to addressing the severe strain on the Kona District Court.

Currently, a single district court judge is sitting in Kona. This one judge is tasked with handling approximately 16,000 cases annually. This is really an overwhelming caseload that causes delays, inefficiencies, and really negatively impacts the court's ability to effectively carry out its mission to administer justice to the public in a fair, efficient and accessible manner.

Just by way of background, the first district court judge was sworn in in Ancona nearly 40 years ago. Back then, the population served by this court was just over 23,000 residents. Since then, the population of West Hawaii has nearly tripled to 62,000 residents. And the judicial resources just have not at pace with the population growth and caseload.

So the addition of a second district court judge in Kona would really help to ease the extraordinary court congestion that we're experiencing here. By dividing the caseload between two judges, would reduce delays, improve scheduling for litigants and the attorneys, and ensure that justice is being delivered to the public fairly and efficiently.

So we therefore are requesting your support for this vital request for the Third Circuit. I do thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have.

Great. Thanks very much. Thanks for being here. Next is Sonny Ganaden for office, Public defender in support. Okay. Council Member Bulason from Kauai. Also in support. Mark Murakami, President of White State Bar Association in support. Okay. Bill Plum, Vice Chair for the Collection Law Section of the Y State Bar Association in support.

And Marvin Dang for Hawaii Financial Services Association, also in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB267. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB267? If not Members? Questions? I don't have any questions either. If it's all right with everybody, we'll just go ahead and roll on into decision making. Any objections? Okay, first up, we have SB94.

This was relating to temporary restraining orders. Increases the mandatory minimum jail sentence for a first conviction of knowingly or intentionally violating a temporary restraining order from 48 to 72 hours. I'm concerned about the narrowness of it. It only applies to TROs, and the Bill title itself constricts.

Doesn't allow me to amend it beyond that or allow us to amend it beyond that. And as one of the testifiers pointed out, there are several bills on this topic floating around, so this one I'm going to defer. Next up is SB115 relating to attachment execution of real property.

Increases the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution. Recommendation here is to make the definition of head of family gender neutral and conformant with the same sex marriage law.

And then I'd like to make the amount for both classes $90,000 for Simplicity and to reflect the fact that housing prices have risen much faster than inflation overall since this was last touched. So it will be 90,000 for both classes and conforming amendments on the definitions. Anything else on that? Looking at. Good. Okay. Any questions or concerns?

If not Senator Gabbert for the vote. Chair's recommendation on SB115 is to pass with amendments. Chair Rhodes? Aye. Aye. Sherwood? Aye. Senator Chang? Aye. Senator San Ventura? Aye. Senator Awa Aye. Senator passes.

Thank you. Next up is SB117. This protects individuals who make claims of sexual misconduct from defamation lawsuits unless the claim was proven to be made with malice. Recommendation here is I'd like to move it along and there are some conceptual issues, but considering the situation that these applies to, I think it's worth continuing to discuss.

So I suggest we pass it out with a bad date. April 232057. It's a single. So we'll go over the House and we'll maybe we'll see it back and maybe we won't. Questions or concerns?

If not Vice Chair on SB117 the recommendation of the chair for passive amendments to the Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations? No.

No.

2 no votes. The measure passes. Thanks.

Next up is SB121. This proposes an amendment to Article 6, Section 3 of the Y state Constitution to allow the Senate more time to confirm judicial appointments. The situation is this is my baill, this is one we're trying.

The situation I'm trying to address is multiple special sessions during the summer to and, and occasionally they'll be for one judge. So what this would allow us to do is bunch the, the nominations into one special session, hopefully. And it will also.

Well just, it just costs money to have special sessions and it's hard to get Senators back in the building sometimes because they have other jobs and other commitments. And so this just gives us a little more flexibility. So the recommendation is to go ahead and move it forward and unamended questions or concerns. If not, let's share.

Share's recommendation on SB 121 is to pass. Unamended Chair Rhodes. Aye. Vice Chairwood Size Senator Chang. Aye. Senator Sandman and mature. Aye. Senator Awa Aye. Measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB124. This also proposes a constitutional amendment, this one to specify the reapportionment shall be based on the resident population as counted the most recent decennial United States Census for the respective apportionment year rather than the permanent residential population. I don't know. This one probably is somewhat controversial.

The reason I'm interested in it is because there are districts, mostly on Oahu where the, the representatives and Senators represent way more than anybody else does. And despite the fact that they're not being counted as residents, they still have concerns that the elected officials from that area have to deal with.

And it doesn't seem fair to me to have these vastly different districts. There are some precincts where the, the population is negative because of the way they pull out the, the non permanent ones. So I understand the, I understand why there are concerns about it. But let me suggest that we move forward with it.

I'd like to change the preamble to note that 47 states use residents instead of permanent residence. We had that wrong in the preamble to start with. We said 49. And then we'll remove the most recent language that's suggested by the AG regarding which census we're referring to. So that's the recommendation. Any questions or concerns?

My concern is that this is going to shortchange my district if this is passed. We're the fastest growing district because we have the most affordable housing and as the one testifier pointed out, we're already under counted because the homeless isn't being counted as part of the as part of the census.

So I represent probably far more than some people here on Oahu. But if this is passed, this is gonna for sure shortchange my district. For those reasons, I'm going to vote no.

Okay.

Other concerns. Okay. If not sir, Gabbard Chair's recommendation on SB124 is to pass with amendments noting the no vote for Senate when Eventura. Are there any other no votes or reservations? No and no vote for Senator Awa. The measure passes.

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB 175, another constitutional amendment, this one to Article 6, Section 3. This would increase the mandatory retirement age for state justices and judges from 70 to 75. The recommendation here is to pass with just technical amendments. Questions or concerns.

If not Vice Chair Recommendation is on SB175 is the pass of amendments. The Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations? No vote for Senator. Oah. The measure passes.

Okay. And thank you. Next up is SB173. This requires the judiciary to establish a three year pilot program to provide free child care services to minor children of the parties and witnesses who are attending court hearings in the First Circuit, which is Oahu.

So I suggest that we blank out the Ways and Means request to blank out the appropriate appropriation defect the effective date to April 23rd, 2057 and note that the $400,000 appropriate will note the $400,000 appropriation request in the Committee report. Questions or concerns.

If not Vice Chair on SB173 recommendation to chairs to pass with amendments. Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations hearing? None. The measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB261. This increases the amount of each amount each juror or prospective juror has paid for each day of actual attendance at court. Currently it's $30. Recommendation here is to go ahead and we'll delete the pro Ways and Means request.

We'll delete the amount of the increase and the appropriation amount and we'll make the Bill effective 4-23-2057. That will note the deleted amounts and date in the Committee report. But we'll state in the Committee report that the the proposed daily rate would be $75 a day instead of what's in the Bill now which I think is 50.

Yeah. So up at some more because because of inflation because you don't want people to try to avoid jury duty if you can avoid it. Questions or concerns if not Vice Chair.

On SB261 Chairs Recommendations to pass with amendments any no votes or reservations hearing none of the measures adopted.

Thank you Members. Next up is SB 262. This authorizes the judiciary to determine the format of the juror qualification form and the means of delivery. This is a judiciary single. I would like to move it forward but I'll go ahead and put a bad date on it. 04-23-2057.

I'd like to specify also that the method of delivery can vary and then attempts to contact any one juror may need to be made more than once depending on the response to the first attempt and will also indicate that this Bill is not we'll put this in the Committee report that this Bill is not intended to have any effect on the actual questionnaire the contents of the form.

This is merely a delivery a delivery Bill. So that will that would be the recommendation questions or concerns.

I appreciate your comments. That's going to be the Committee report. I'll still be voting with reservations. I don't like giving the Judiciary carte blanche without without rules being made up for the public to view and comment on.

Understood. Other concerns if not Vice Chair on.

SB 262 the recommendations to pass with amendments noting the reservations by Senator San Juan and Ventura. Are there any other no votes or reservations hearing none the measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB263. This increases the rate of compensation in maximum allowable amounts per case for court appointed counsel in criminal proceedings. Recommendation here is to blank the appropriation to put in an effective date of 04-23-2057.

And note that the in the Committee report that the total appropriation would be that we're requesting is 2.89 million questions or concerns if not Vice Chair on.

SB263 Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments Are there any no votes or reservations? No. Noting a no vote for Senator Awa the measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB264. This establishes the amount of compensation for private sector examiners who evaluate a criminal defendant's penal responsibility or fitness to proceed in a legal case. Recommendation here is to pass. We'll blank the appropriation. We'll note the increase of payment from 1000 to 2000 in total biennium appropriations of $975,000 in the Committee report.

And we'll defect the effective date with the usual April 232057.

Questions or concerns if not Vice Chair on SB264. The Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Any no votes or reservations hearing? None. The measures adopted.

Thank you, Members. Next up is SB 265. This increases the rate of compensation and the maximum allowable amounts per case of court appointed counsel and guardians, ad litem and family court proceedings. The recommendation here is actually this does not have an appropriation. Correct. My employee is not here. It does.

Okay, so we won't, we won't blank it out. We'll just pass it as is. Questions or concerns.

See none by Chair on SB265, the chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Any no votes or reservations? No. The no vote for Senator. Oah. The measure is adopted.

Next. Next up is SB266. This establishes one additional district court judgeship in the First Circuit. And I believe this one has already been funded. Is that correct? Correct. Recommendations pass as is Questions or concerns. Seeing none.

Vice Chair on SB266. Chair's recommendations to pass. Unamended. Any no votes or reservations Measures adopted.

Thanks. Next and last is SB267. This establishes one additional district court fellowship in the third circuit, which is Hawaii County. Again, there's no money involved, so we'll just pass it as is.

Questions or concerns if not by share on SB267. Chair's recommendations to pass Unamended. Are there any no votes or reservations hearing? None. The measures adopted.

Thanks very much. That concludes our business for today.

See everybody on on Thursday.