Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Foreign.

Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, January 30th, my little sister's birthday. We have this is our 9:15 agenda. We do have a two minute time limit for both people on zoom and in person. But if you can stick around for questions, oftentimes Members have them.

And if we have a catastrophic technical failure where we can't, where we, where we lose zoom, we will try again on tomorrow the 31st at 9:16 in this room 016. But we will try to fix the techn. We'll stick around for a few minutes to try to stick fix any technical problems we have. Okay.

First up today is SB 280, Senate Bill 286. This appropriates money in the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu for its career criminal prosecution unit. First up on SB 286 is Christine Denton for the City and County of Honolulu's prosecuting attorney or someone else. Good morning.

Good morning sir. Robes, Vice Chair Gabbert, Members of the jdc. I'm Paul Ma. I'm the Chief of Staff with the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. I'm testifying on this Bill, SB 286. You know, this Bill was introduced with this understanding in mind.

You know, in the past years the prosecutors has, has filed these types of bills because we found it to be necessary to ask for supplemental funding above the core amount that was included in the Department of the Attorney General's budget as part of the Executive budget and which we would see later in under the budget worksheets.

Of course there's been a significant shortfall over the years. And so what we do is we file these GIA bills in anticipation that there may be a shortfall because we don't always know specifically what the AGs will put, you know, as part of the allocation of their budget into these programs.

My understanding is that the AGS is adjusted the core amount so that this supplemental funding, you know, would be no longer necessary. And if that is the case, then the purpose of this Bill won't be necessary at all, you know, for us to do.

No supplemental amount would be requested if under the AG's budget the allocation in the core has been increased. So we don't want to be duplicative. Right. And ask for more than what's necessary. But we're just filed, we filed these bills in anticipation that we could have similar issues to prior years. Okay, thank you.

Next is. And I'll stay for the next Bill. Okay. Yeah, I want you to go ahead and Go back to your seat, if you mind. No problem. Next is Councilman Bulason for Kauai County Council. In support, Tina Yamaki, President, Retail Merchants Association, Merchants of Hawaii. Also in support, Zara Carlin. In support.

Okay, that's all the written testimony I have on SB286. Anyone else like to testify on SB286? Okay. Sing on Members questions. Well, you were right, Mr. Lau. Come on, back up. All right, so last year. Last year, did you get. Did. I mean, I know we passed it out of GDC BE routinely in the.

Final moments of the legislative session, the funds were restored. Initially they were cut. And it did affect both the Career Criminal Program and the Victim Witness Program under this second Bill that we're talking about today. Okay, so it's the same situation for the Victim Witness Program as faced with the Career Criminal. But you did get the money?

Yes, we did.

Thank you very much for that. The other question was. So you. It's phrased as a gia, but is it. It's. You're not. You didn't put in a GIA application? You know, the sort of public GIA application?

I don't believe so.

Okay, so you're just. Just designating it.

Yes. Correct. And then we've done it, I think maybe the last five years, something like this. And it's just so that it gives us an opportunity to talk about the importance of Career Criminal and. And Victim Vendors Program.

The Bill seeking funding only for fiscal 25-26. Is that.

Well, why is that? I believe it's. Well, because it's for the biennium. But as I understand what happened last year, funding was only made for the first half of the biennium. And so, you know, we were clear about what would happen on the second half. Ideally, we would like to get the funding every year.

Okay.

Yeah. But we do it year by year. Because I've been doing it. Yeah, because it was in the past only approved for half the bian. Okay. Okay. Can I speak to Victim Witness?

Hang on a second. Any other questions for this Bill? No. Okay. In that case, let's go and move on to SB287. This makes an appropriation for the Victim Witness Assistance Program. First up on this is sitting County of Honolulu Prosecuting attorney. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair Rose.

As I was saying, similar to the CCP GIA Bill, SB 287 seeks funding for the Victim Witness Program in the event that the AG's budget doesn't include sufficient funds for the program.

I believe, as I've been told by representatives from the AG that they did put it into the core and they have increased the core so that these supplemental bills aren't necessary. However, unfortunately, this year we have a new challenge that in particular that affects the victim witness program.

President Trump, through the Office of Management and Budget, did have that M25 13 letter and order that went out that throws federal funds.

And although it was rescinded pretty much the day after under M2514, the fear is that, you know, a similar order from OMB could reemerge, you know, directing some modified version of the freeze to federal funds. And what that did and why it specifically affects victim witness programs is that it affects the Victims of Crime Act.

We, the city, County of Honolulu receives funding under this. It's known as Voca. And the amount of money that we would lose in the event that the feds did cut that amount would be $1,876,542.

So Department of the Prosecuting Attorney wants to take this opportunity to inform the Senate, you know, of the possibility, you know, of a funding cut of this type. And as you can all understand, the consequences of such a drastic reduction in funding would be catastrophic to victim witness programs and services.

So I wanted to put it on the Senate and later the House's radar that in the event that the Feds do go forward.

Okay, thank you. Thanks very much. Time's expired. You can stay here this time. Council Member Bulason from Kauai and support. And Dark Harlan in support. Anyone else wish to testify in SB 287? 287. If not Members, questions. Okay. If not of some of the similar questions to the previous Bill. So you're only seeking 25-26.

Is it for the same reason? Yes. Okay.

It's just for FY26. At least 25-26.

Yes. And then in the end, last year, did you get funding for this? Yes, we did. Okay.

Thank you very much for that.

Yeah. I don't know what to tell you about the, the federal Administration. And we're all. We just don't know. Yeah, there's a bunch of stuff we.

Just don't know, understand. And, you know, what we wanted to do was to put this on the Senate's radar. And, you know, I'm sure it's going to affect the other counties as well because they all receive Voca, but this is just basically a heads up.

Okay. Other questions on SB287. If not, thanks very much. We'll move on to SB 289. This relates to ethics, administrative administrative fines. Establishes uniform provisions for the assessment of administrative penalties and state ethics code and lobbyist law. First up on 289 is Robert Harris, Executive Director of State Ethics Commission.

Good morning. Law chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee that might be watching. It's great to see all of you. This measure the the Hawaii State Ethics Commission is in support of. It is one of our measures that we asked to be introduced.

The intent is not to substantively change any of the current enforcement processes, except to allow us to issue a notice, an order of a fine, and then if the respondent chooses to, they can ask for a hearing and essentially have the full panoply of rights that they normally would do, but does speed up the process, which currently would involve filing a charge, having them answer us, filing a further statement of a charge, and then proceeding to hearing, which does generally in total can take about six months.

They hope from a respondent perspective, they may not feel the need to hire an attorney and other expenses related to this. The idea is just a faster, more expedited process, particularly in situations where the law or facts really aren't in contest. So again, we're hoping this is just a more efficient process for everybody.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next is Addison Bulason, Council Member for Kauai County, in support. Casey Tobar in support. And that's everybody we had that signed up for SB 289. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB 289? Seeing none. Members questions? Yes, Senator San-Buenaventura.

Victoria thank you, Mr. Harris. So my reading of this bill, which basically deletes the notice and order portion and just automatically finds kind of doesn't sit well with me. So it doesn't. How how are you able to determine the fine if you don't give the person who is violating an opportunity to to explain?

Or is it going to be like a ministerial fine, like a parking ticket, you're automatically you parked here. Automatically, you're charged like 10 bucks because your meter ran out.

Or my understanding has always been you give notice, the person has an opportunity to say, oh, I forgot, I didn't know I was supposed to have filed my ethics disclosure by January 31st, and I filed it by January 31st, but it got caught somewhere, the Internet went down.

And then then you could be able to assess a fine to me, you know, proportionate to the amount of violation. Like if it's somebody who always is late, I could see you automatically finding them. But it's somebody who has always filed on time, but then Sounds like a plausible reason because a storm came in.

How are you going to give a violator the opportunity to explain if you're going to just automatically find them?

Okay, thank you very much for the question. So the language you see on the first page under Section 2, there was already a language allowing us to issue a notice and order of administrative fines specific to financial disclosures. We're removing that section and then making it broad for the entire chapter. So the same language is being used.

It's simply being applied for any violation under the chapter under a thousand or the fine is under $1,000. So we'd still have to issue the notice and order. In General, with respect to financial disclosures, there's already a specific fine amount specified. And so we'd always have to just follow that statutory fine amount.

Unfortunately, it's not in this bill. It's already existing language. So if someone's late, there's a fine amount specified. Okay, so it's like a parking ticket.

So are you saying that 8417 which it refers to. And I just. I've got 20 million bills of my own before I look at this one up. Is specifically only for financial disclosures? It seems to me, yes, it's for any violation of 8417. Yes.

But 8417 is specific to financial disclosures. Okay. So, but I mean, the intent here is typically we will have interviewed people. We will have already heard various things. And so the intent here is simply after having interviewed somebody, sort of assessing the facts, seeing that there really isn't any dispute being able to issue small fines.

The intent's below $1,000. And then if they disagree with that, they can ask for hearing and fully articulate their answer, legal or factual otherwise, of why that finds inappropriate.

Again, so $1000 to us where we make less than 70,000 is a lot of money. Understood. Okay. So. And may. And maybe small to you, but not to us. So here's my other question. What is considered a minor amount? I mean, what is a typical. For failing to file within. By the deadline?

I think it's $50.

Okay. And then that's. That's listed somewhere, correct?

It's in 8417.

Yeah. Thank you.

Other questions? I do, Mr. Harris. So for all of. For all the various areas that you want to. Well, let me back up. So what you're trying to do is just. What we'd like to see done is just all the different possible fine areas. Lobbyist disclosure and financial conflicts of interest. The ethics one. Yeah. Correct.

Just have the same process for anything that's less than where the maximum penalties, where the fine is less than $1,000.

Correct. Or this would be one option. I think we could still pursue the charge option as well. Again, if there's uncertainty is a lot of fact, then we can still do that as well.

Okay, so that's.

So if you think it's a more egregious violation, then you can. Or where we might stand to significantly benefit from having a full answer from the respondent in writing.

But even for the, even for the, for the ones less than $1,000, there is a point in the process where the person accused can say, hey, wait a minute, yes, even it's $50, but I don't want to pay the $50 because I didn't do it or whatever. Correct. You can still challenge. Absolutely. Okay. Okay.

Let me just double check.

The specified requirement here is that they'd have to respond in 20 days. So there is a time period by which they'd have to respond, and then they'd ask for a hearing, and then they have the opportunity to go through a pool.

So in terms of the process, it is something like a parking ticket. You have to respond at a certain time and you can go in and contest it if you want. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Other questions, Members?

Yes.

Okay, go ahead. Senator Sanborn, mature.

84, 31G. Is the process that you're referring to where you're able to, where you're able to contest. And that's just added in.

Correct.

That's the 20th day. I, I just want to confirm.

Yeah. So that, that is essentially the, the language that you see deleted and 8417 is being picked up and put into. Correct.

Correct. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Other questions. If not, thanks very much. Thank you so much. For the next Bill. SB 304, I believe. Yeah. Establishes positions and appropriate zones for adult Services probation. The First Circuit Court first up on 304 is Sifaloy Aganan, Acting Probation Administrator. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rose, Vice Chair Gabard, and the Members of Committee. My name is Seiful Oy Agana, and I'm the Acting Probation Administrator for Adult Client Services branch of the first circuit. The judiciary stands in support of SB 304.

The goal of probation is to help facilitate rehabilitation of the individual as a whole, not just the person in relation to the crime for which they are sentenced to probation. An overwhelming number of clients that are placed on probation have long standing and ongoing challenges, which include substance use, mental health concerns, sexual deviance and anger management challenges.

Often these issues may not be associated with the current crime, however, the issues that clients often struggle with which affect their poor coping skills in criminal thinking and behavior. Probation is charged with rehabilitating the whole person, which includes addressing unresolved trauma and lived experiences since childhood.

Probation is not solely to ensure compliance, but also ensuring the evidence based practices are used by staff to to help the client resolve longstanding issues to help facilitate healthy and productive growth for themselves, their families and the community. These practices include assisting clients in obtaining services. Assessments for mental health, substance use, counseling, domestic violence, housing assistance, employment.

The list goes on. Like Social Security cards and birth certificates as well. This approach encourages clients through evidence based practices to engage with the court services, all the while creating pathways for success and better client outcomes. As Chief Birkenwald emphasized in his State of the Judiciary address, the judiciary must evolve to meet society's changing needs.

With the addition of these positions, Adult client services branch will be able to distribute caseloads to align with the national standards of community supervision and will afford clients that are in the highest need and risk level to have staff ensuring that individuals have access to services in a way that is accessible, equitable and responsive to their unique challenges.

Judiciary supports the passage of SB 304 with proposed amendments to Section 1 as written in the testimony.

Thanks very much. Thank you. Expired. Go ahead and stay there. I don't have anybody else who signed up for SB 304. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB 304? Okay. Seeing non Members. Questions? You have a question, Senator Gabard.

So you're requesting this funding for 12 full time positions, is that correct?

Yes. The amendments were 8. 8 and I believe 10. Position 8 1 and 2. Yes. So 11. 11. Yes.

11. Okay. How many do you currently have? How many positions do you currently.

Supervise offenders total? 77.

77. And you're asking for this additional 11?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions? Thanks.

I center someone of truth.

Yes, I.

So why isn't this already part of your budget?

The Bill surfaced and it's not a part of that budget because it wasn't accounted for in that budget.

You don't know why?

No.

Okay. Because I just want to know whether or not this was duplicative like it is in the budget. But this is just a fail safe in case it didn't pass. But yeah, it's actually not in the budget. So it sounds like we need to actually pass this. Is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Your test, your testimony was, I believe that there were Certain ratios that would. Yeah. That we're not meeting at the moment. So if, if you get the 11 positions, will the ratios.

Yes, we can better align positions with each within each unit to better service clients in the national. In the way the national standards are proposing.

And so right now does that mean we're not meeting the national standard ratios at the moment? How many, how many cases does an individual. On average. Yeah. Probation officer have? On average. The right word, sorry. Average caseload is 116. Average is 100 average. So that means there's some people with more or less.

So the higher acuity ones somewhat less and the supposedly easier ones more.

Correct.

So what, what's the. What's. So I think it's broken out by how difficult the cases are. So what's the ratio for the. The least difficult case is supposed to be administrative risk.

So that is the least I believe is 200 to 1. Okay.

And what's the, what's the ratio supposed to be for the most acute? The Most acute is 20 to 1. 20 to 1. Okay. Yes. That's not very encouraging numbers. Okay, let me see what else I got here for you. So in your testimony you had different dollar amounts, which I won't read because they're in your testimony.

Just be sure I don't have any other questions. But you're still good with the dollar amounts that you had in your testimony? Yes. So the 12th position that originally was in there, a secretarial position, you feel you don't need that? We feel we don't need that.

It would be better utilized with the position. Okay. Okay, great.

Okay, thanks very much. Members, other questions? If not, we'll move on. Thank you. Next up is SB311 proposing an amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution regarding the freedom of speech. This proposes to provide that freedom of speech protected in the Hawaii state constitution does not include the expenditure of money to influence elections.

First up on SB311 is Michael Older. Morning.

Morning, Senators. Name is Mike Older, testifying for SB311. Citizens United has done damage to our country and our state. The damage done cannot be underestimated. It has shifted focus from elected officials from focusing on their constituents and to now special interests and now the oligarchs who whisper in our President's ear.

So I am very much in support of this Bill and I want to see ensure it lasts and is effective. But I do have some concerns about bill's current language. I think that for instance, the words into influence elections is pretty broad.

Feel like this could fall under either spending money on someone's campaign or it could affect nonprofit voting advocacy groups like Rideshare To Vote, the Progressive Turnout Project, and Resistbot.

And I also feel like in a worst case scenario, a bad interpretation of this argument can be used to by someone to persecute supporters of a grassroots organization instead of millions of dollars spent by a conglomerate.

To be clear, I absolutely do support this Bill, but I want to ensure that there are no hiccups or unforeseen consequences that could lead to its death and Committee or abuse once it becomes law. This could transform how our state runs elections and I don't want to see our democracy fall any more than it already has. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next up is Ted Boland in support. Victor Ramos in opposition. Andrew Crossland in opposition. Stephen Munkelt in support. Vienna Clintock in support. Nanea, Nanea Low in support. Jessica Kuzmeier in support. Jennifer Chiwa in support. Josh Frost in support. Tricia Blair in support. That's all the testimony we have on SB311.

Does anyone, anyone else wish to testify in SB311? Yep. Sure. Come on up. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard and Senator San Buenaventura. Kat Brady testifying on behalf of Community Alliance on Prisons. We're in strong support of this measure. We think money is not free speech and we have seen the evidence of Citizens United and we don't want to see that happen here. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in SB311? Okay. Seeing none. Members, Questions. Don't really have any questions either. Let's. Let's go ahead and move on to the next Bill, which is SB313. This is relating to a wealth asset tax.

This establishes a wealth asset asset tax of 1% of the state net worth of each individual taxpayer who holds $20 million or more in assets in the state. First up on SB313 is Gary Sug, Suganama? Suganuma or Suganama or somebody else on his behalf. Fraud and taxation. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Winston Wong. I'm the Administrative Rules Officer at the Department of Taxation, appearing on behalf of Gary Suganuma, Director of Tax. The Department has submitted its own comments and written testimony with a few key concerns over this Bill.

I'll be available for any questions you may have after.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next is Mark Fukunaga for Coalition to Save Hawaii's Family Business. Good morning.

Good morning.

Businesses. Sorry.

Aloha. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee, I am Mark Fukunaga, Executive Chair of Circo-Pacific. I'm here representing the 112 family businesses that are Members of the Coalition to Save Hawaii's Family Businesses. We respectfully oppose Senate Bill 313 for several reasons.

One is from the family business perspective, it is not easy to value a family business. It is not like a stock portfolio or bank accounts which are easily determined. Valuing a business means retaining valuation experts, means going through the future projections of the company and it's not, and valuing real estate, which also requires appraisals.

So the whole process obviously depends on the size and complexity of business, but can frequently runs in the mid five figures, 50,000 or so a year that you would have to continuously do.

It also requires a lot of time and requires the disclosure of very sensitive company information because you're looking at projections forward in the way of revenues, opportunities, risks, profit margins, et cetera, et cetera. So if that were to somehow be disclosed, that could be very damaging to a family business.

On the substantive impact, because family businesses are not publicly traded, there is no easy way for a shareholder to, to raise funds to pay the tax.

So ultimately this becomes a tax on the family business because that's where the, where the cash will have to come from because a shareholder, family shareholder, does not have a public exchange to easily sell a few shares. So effectively on a family business, you're going to.

Thanks very much. Your time is expired.

Next up is Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii or someone else from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. Good morning.

Okay.

Good morning. This is Jane McMillan on behalf of Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We've submitted some comments on the measure. We will go ahead and stand on our written comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Ted Kefalis, Director of Strategic campaign for Grassroots Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. In opposition, next to Victor Ramos. In opposition, next to Scott Smart. In opposition, next is Michael Older. Good morning again.

Members of the Committee. My name is Mike Older testifying for SB313. I support this Bill. If the rich and affluent want to claim own and own parts of Hawaii, they should pay their fair share or at least part of it. To the. To many, Hawaii is a postcard and a house here is a trophy.

They exploit the island as a symbol of status and wealth. If the people who call this island home have to scrap to just to make ends meet, then, then those who have the means to do so by almost one hundredfold should also at least attempt to.

That way they might finally realize that Hawaii is more than a postcard or a trophy, that it's a home that has been exploited for far too long and deserves better stewards than those to think so shallowly of it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Kione Shizuma in support. That's all the written testimony we have on SB313. Would anyone else like to testify in SB313? Seeing none. Members, questions?

Senator San Buenaventura

Yeah.

No tax. You know what surprised me about your testimony is you did not ask for an appropriation because it seems to me if we implement this, you're going to need forms. I mean it's not like an inheritance tax where there are already probate forms that automatically value, so it's easier to value.

But you know, I have just trying to figure out my own assets. How do you value. I know, I know it's less than 20 million, but then we have inheritance of things that we have never valued before. Don't you think you needed like an appropriation amount to the.

If you're going to implement this and how often are you going to. Like inheritance it's upon death. You know, probate requires evaluation. How do you, I mean, how do you implement this?

Sure. As to your first question, Senator, as to the appropriation, I, I think our testimony articulated there, there are some gaps in this Bill. The scope of it, the actual Administration of it is still a little ambiguous. We've asked for some clarification in order to administer that. I think Administration would depend on ironing that out.

We don't know how much exactly it would cost to administer administer something like this at the moment. Just because those details are a little unclear to your second point as to how this would be administered. I think the Bill lays out that this would be an annual tax.

It says that the wealth tax would be imposed at the same time period as the income tax under Chapter 235. So our expectation is based on the current language of the Bill, this would be assessed every single year.

So every year a taxpayer or an individual would have to evaluate their estate or I guess their, their individual portfolio to see if they meet that $20 million threshold. As to the administration of this tax, just generally, in regards to the inheritance tax and the estate taxes, this would be different from that right.

Estate and inheritance taxes are imposed or assessed at the time you have a death, right? If you have a death or somebody who deceased or passes away, then at that time their estate is valued. This would happen, as mentioned earlier, as a sort of annual, an annual evaluation of somebody's estate even though they haven't passed away.

So this would be an entirely different tax. It would be distinct from the estate tax. It would be imposed at the same time period as the income tax. But I think that we've laid out that this would be different from an income tax because again, the income tax is on realized gains.

If you sell something, then you receive cash in exchange or you receive consideration once you realize that gain when the income tax is assessed.

Whereas at this point, you may have not realized a gain, but it would be incumbent on you, based on this law, to still realize if you had any gains or valuations changes from the prior year.

So I'm sorry, seems to me that the way you said it, if this Bill passes, it's going to be a voluntary assessment of, of your assets annually, just like, I guess, regular taxes. And it'll be part of the N11 form. So you still need to make changes to the N11 form.

And I remember in other bills, whenever you folks make a change in tax forms, you have an appropriation amount. So why don't. If it's going to be voluntary, don't you folks have a standard appropriation, I mean, request.

Well, with this particular. I'm sorry.

Or otherwise you think you guys can do it for free. In which case I'm on.

No, we. I think that, you know, the, the department's ability to administer this with the current funding, it would not suffice plain to say, but there's not enough information about the scope of the law, the exact administrative rules. We would need. The forms that we have. The N11, it would not, it would not apply.

We would not be able to use the N11 as is to impose the wealth tax. The N11 is an income tax form. This would need entirely new forms. We would have wealth tax forms. We would have wealth tax instructions, an entirely new framework to administer this. The runway on this.

I think we noted that it would not be feasible to Impose this in the next year. Just nearly impossible, given the complexities at stake here. Because of those complexities, I'm sorry that we didn't include language requesting an appropriation, but it is almost too early to tell.

We could ask for an unspecified appropriation, in which case you would ask me perhaps, how much do you need? And we don't have that answer. But I can confirm that we would need an appropriation.

But at the time, the Bill is just too ambiguous to really get a grasp of the entire scope of the resources needed to administer it.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Other questions? Senator Gabbard.

How about if it was imposed once every three years, would that be more workable?

It would be less of a burden on, on taxpayers. And I, I think just circling back to Senator San Buenavetura's comment that this is a, a voluntary tax. I hate to admit this in front of everybody, but all of our taxes are voluntary. Almost 95% of our revenues come in through voluntary compliance.

We rely on our taxpayers to fill out their tax returns or information. And we have auditors, we have an enforcement section, but most of that is really just to keep people honest. Taxes are really paid by folks voluntarily complying with their taxes.

So a three year sort of window or period or reassessment every three years would be certainly less burdensome on taxpayers. At the same time, I don't think it would make Administration any less burdensome for the Department because we would still have to implement an entirely new tax that all that would be the same.

It would be entirely separate and distinct from the GET TAT inheritance tax and income taxes. Another thing to note about our current taxes, our income taxes, inheritance taxes, these are pretty complex, right? But they also mirror the feds.

So when we have our income tax and our inheritance tax, we're able to administer them with all of their nooks and crannies, all of their credits and deductions, and all of these random conformities because they have a federal framework that we can look to. Right.

If there's a blank there, we can just look to the federal, to the irc, the federal law, and we can conform to it. In this case, we would be starting from scratch. Right?

The feds don't have a wealth tax currently, so we would have to have a significant runway to really create our own and craft our own wealth tax code. We couldn't just conform to it like we do with the inheritance or the wealth or the, or the income taxes.

Thank you. Okay, other questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Fukunaga, are you still here, I guess. I think, I think your testimony or you testified that you're, you represent 112 families, is that right?

Yes.

In 20, 20 million. Of course, the, the tax as it's set up in this Bill would be 1% of the amount over $20 million. Is that going to affect all 112 families?

I think a good number of them. I mean the reality is any family business that owns real estate is, is going to have a lot of assets right there. So I would say yes, I think it will affect quite a number of them.

I would say in some cases of what I call asset rich, cash poor businesses like farms and ranches, they will probably have to liquidate acreage to pay for this tax. Okay.

Yes, but I mean that, that all depends on how much above $20 million they're worth. I mean if they're. Yes. If they're $21 million, then 1% of 1 million is $10,000.

Yes.

That's a credit card debt for even for someone at my income level.

And I think there are some businesses that are significantly above that. And I would say that that is a significant expense. In, in Servco's case, for example, we dividend out 1% of our estimated value. So this Bill would require to us to double that.

The reason why we only take out 1% as dividends is we reinvest in the business to stay competitive.

But I guess, I mean, I guess for, for 95% of the population, probably 97% of the population, if we read our, if this was a, if this was law and we had a, and we were looking at our tax forms at the end of the year and it said, you know, be aware that there's a wealth tax for those who have more than $20 million in access, act, in assets. 97% of us would be like, oh, let me think. No.

That's probably right.

And that would be it.

But I would say there's some very important businesses here, Kamaka Ukuleles, Food Land, City Mill, Ulupalakua Ranch, Big Island Candies, Sig Zane that are probably above that, that threshold. And, and what is unfair about this is this tax essentially penalizes a business for being locally owned.

So a business, Hawaii business that's owned by someone on the mainland, someone in Asia is not, is not taxed.

It would be a Hawaii state tax. So I mean, I don't know. It's like anything else you pay in Hawaii only.

No, but it's, but the Hawaii business owned by someone on the mainland is exempt from this tax because the mainland resident is not subject to it. As I mentioned, in a private business, the tax really falls on the business itself.

So if you happen to be a Hawaii resident who's a shareholder in a Hawaii business, you're subject to it, but not a mainland owned business or a public company. Companies do not pay this at all.

If you had to file in Hawaii, you'd be subject to it. So it doesn't necessarily mean you're a resident. Any case, I was just curious, how many, how many, how many of the 112 families? I mean, that, that's, that's a lot. That's a lot of money.

I would say it's a significant number. Okay.

All right. Other questions. Okay, thanks very much. We'll move on to the next Bill, SB 361. Permanently is. This Bill permanently establishes and appropriates the Community Outreach Court as a division of the District court of the First Circuit. First up on 361 is Judge Haya, District Court Judge, First Circuit. Did I mispronounce your name?

Oh, no, it's not you anyway. Okay, I'm sorry. Good morning.

Good morning.

Did I mispronounce his name?

Judge Thomas Haya.

Haya. Okay. That's right. Okay, good.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard and Members of the Committee. My name is Tina Ann Alva'a and I'm the Section Administrator for the Specialized Program Services Section, which includes the Community Outreach Court. I'm here today to express the judiciary strong support for Senate Bill 361.

The Community Outreach Court, established in 2017, addresses the legal needs of Hawaii's vulnerable populations, including those experiencing poverty and homelessness. Operating as a mobile court in non-formal community oriented settings, it resolves non violent cases through alternative sentences like community service, while connecting participants with social services to help them regain stability.

We currently hold court in Kaka'ako, Waianae ,Kaneohe. We just started in Waimanalo last year and next month we'll hold our first McCully-Mo'ili'ili Public Library here. The judiciary must evolve to meet society's changing needs.

Community Outreach Court exemplifies this mission by bringing justice directly to the communities where people live, ensuring that individuals have access to the legal system in a way that is accessible, equitable and responsive to their unique challenges.

To date, the CoC has assisted almost 700 participants, cleared nearly 11,000 cases, lifted more than 7,000 driver's license stoppers, and recalled over 900 bench warrants. The Judiciary strongly supports passage of Senate Bill 361. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next up, we have Taryn Tomasa, deputy public defender. Good morning.

Good morning. And good morning, chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I am not Taryn. I'm Hayley Cheng. I'm the First Deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. And we are in strong support of this Bill to permanently establish the community outreach court in the first circuit.

Ultimately, we hope to see an expansion to the neighbor islands. But we just wanted to express and echo the sentiments of the judiciary and also convey firsthand from our office who represents those individuals and actively participates in the outreach court what a tremendous impact it has had on our community Members. District court is truly the people's court.

And as referenced in our testimony and I think in some of the other testimony that was submitted, meeting these people out in their communities, helping them resolve non violent, oftentimes houseless related offenses, has tremendously impacted and improved the efficiency of the system as well as address the underlying needs of these individuals.

So I will be available for any additional questions. But again, we do speak stand in strong support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, before we proceed, I'm not going to call a recess, but I am going to go put my coat jacket on because I'm about to start shivering. Just a moment.

Okay. Next up is Paul Mow for Prosecuting Attorney. I guess a formal of

Thank you.

That's correct. Thank you very much, sir. Department of the Prosecuting Attorney is in support of this Bill.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, is it Mow, did I call you...?

Last year we raised some objections to it and it's primarily because it rescinded Act 55 and Act 55 had a Section 4 that spelled out the process of which how this program is carried out.

You know, one is it had to ensure that the persons that were eligible for this program were non violent, non felony offenders and that the prosecutor's office would have the opportunity to review these individuals that are up for the program, work in cooperation with the Office of the Public Defender to determine, you know, which ones were suitable.

This Bill has some major improvements in that it includes now a Section 5, which was not included in last year's Bill that addresses many of the concerns that our office had last year. So what I would say is there remains one area that needs a little bit of clarification. And I spelled it out in my written testimony.

Prosecuting attorney would review the list of cases for City and County of Honolulu cases to determine defendants eligible for participation in the program. We would further enter into plea negotiations with the public defender for the disposition of those cases that we determined were appropriate. And it's our cases, basically what I'm saying we would handle.

But the question would be what happens in the instance where the case, you know, is one that's brought by the Attorney General's Office, which Judge Haya in a separate discussion had raised. You know, they would like to include those kinds of cases as well.

We're not against that, but we want to make sure that the Attorney General follows a similar process to what we follow. You know, that they'll review their cases and that they will be the ones that will work with the public defender for it.

We don't believe it would be appropriate for the Attorney General to decide our cases or vice versa.

Okay, thank you very much. I'm open for questions.

Your time's expired.

Next up is Alan Johnson, chair of the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, in support. Next is Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii, also in support. That's all the written testimony we have on SB361. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB361? Sure, come on up. Morning.

Good morning, Angela Melody Young testifying in strong support. So on behalf of CARES, Community Advocacy Research Education Services. So CARES provides research and in our generation, you know, we've learned in high school to look up things from library class so we don't have to go to the physical library like the prior generation.

So although I'm not an attorney or anything, I'm here just to present as a Member of the public, an American citizen. I focus on debate and advocacy to affect policy making in Hawaii. So I'm going to read from legitimate websites which everybody can do and our specialty is the way that we present and simplify data points.

So unfortunately I was not able to submit testimony graphics to highlight these data points. So I would just provide a verbal testimony. Okay. So for the common goals of various community outreach programs at the local and national level, I will first go with the scope of work.

[Inaudible]

So it talks about how the goal of the Community Outreach Court is to assist non violent offenders who are charged with offenses that disproportionately impact the homeless community.

And it refers to traffic of criminal infractions that have monetary fines and fees and can be prohibitively expensive and depending for many people, especially when it becomes a vicious cycle of compounding tickets an individual never be able to pay.

So we don't want the court system to be flooded with cases because those people have mental health problems and have a hard time with upward mobility in society to get to common goals. And so resolving these cases with this.

Your time is expired.

Does anyone else want to testify on SB361? See no Members questions. Could I have judiciary backup or did she leave? Oh, there you are. Okay. So do you have an estimate of the number of positions and the salaries that you would need to carry out this Bill?

It asked for two court clerks, one bailiff, another Clerk, three social workers, the DPD paralegal. I believe they asked another Clerk, prosecutor as well.

Was that, was that in your testimony?

No.

No. Okay. Okay. So you needed seven full time equivalents total.

I think that that doesn't include the attorneys and the paralegals.

Okay. Maybe you could figure out what you need and let us let me know. Would that be acceptable?

Absolutely.

Okay. And so that's the, that's the, the personnel side of it. But then is there an oper- or there operating expenses that would be specific to this as well.

We had asked for security, sheriffs.

Can you come up with a figure for that as well?

I will be able to.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah, can I have Mr. Mow up please? Same questions basically. What do you, what do you need in terms of personnel and.

Sure. I believe that actually starting on page eight and as part of Section four, it lists the number in within the Bill proposed for the positions with it, I think it says, you know, for the judiciary as well as us. I'll go to the section I guess that refers to us. Let's see. Okay, so.

Oh, here it's on page 11. It says one full time deputy prosecuting attorney, one paralegal and one legal assistant. However, you know one point that I'd like to make is.

So the question is, is what. What's the dollar amount that you need?

I, I can provide that.

Okay, that's fine. Please do.

One point of reference I'd like to make is the. When we have a funding for a prosecutor, prosecutors are assigned to more than, you know, the Community Outreach Court. They may have other.

I'll let you figure out what you need and please let us know.

That's fine.

Let's see, who else do we need to talk to? Public defender, are you still here? Same question.

And likewise Senator Rhodes, we currently do have one designated public defender who rotates through the Community Outreach Court assignment. Like Mr. Mow referenced, we don't have the ability to designate that individual permanently to CoC. They do do other matters and. But we will definitely work on numbers. We did have a social work position totally designated to CoC.

She recently left to pursue other opportunities. But I can provide that information. I would note for the paralegal position, the Office of the Public Defender currently does not have any paralegals.

So we would have to probably work with the Department of Budget and Finance to discuss the creation of a whole new position and allocate and see what the money monetary amount would be for a salary.

I think currently the Bill says three full time equivalents for public defender.

Yes. So we.

No dollar amount.

No dollar amount. Yeah, absolutely. Figure out.

if you could...

Absolutely.

...figure something on that, that would be great.

Thank you.

Anybody from the sheriff's here? No. Okay.

I have questions.

Okay, hang on just a second. Let me be sure I've got everything done on that. Yeah. Okay, go ahead Senator.

I see Judge Kim here. Could you come on up? And I know it's not for this Bill, but I am concerned that this is only Oahu and you and I are from the Big Island. Do we need a Community Outreach Court over on the Big Island?

Not at this time.

Not at this time.

Only because of the size of the island and the security matters, the amount of sheriffs that we have. It's not that. It can't be. And this is Robert Kim, Chief Court Administrator, Third Circuit Court. It hasn't been. It has been discussed, but our, our difficulties are different. Yes, totally different.

As, as I explain later about the Big Island.

Okay. Yeah. So you, you just need an additional district court. And at this time, we do not have the ability to even implement a pilot program for a community outreach court on the Big Island.

Anything is possible, but we haven't been asked to look at it in, in terms from the Legislature, but discussing among ourselves, we're implementing programs to eliminate excessive fines and fees.

Working right now, Kanani Law back in Hilo basically set up a project where we're getting people who drive without license and we're trying to work with the prosecutors and the public defenders to basically consolidate them all. Have a program through drug court.

So in other words, we don't want to have perpetual people who don't have the funds who are just stuck in the system. So we're trying to implement it that way. And so that's how we're doing it now.

But you know, if we have a statement from the ledge that they're interested or a resolution, we'll look at that too.

Sorry, one on this. Okay, so Judge Kim, I know that you were prior to being circuit court judge and administrative court judge you used to do private practice. And so community outreach is a form of diversion. And we tried back even when I was in the house, a diversionary program within the police judge.

I mean with Police Chief Ferrera, which didn't really go anywhere. And at that time we actually funded as part of Ohana Zone's program like a $300,000 pilot for a diversionary program would.

If I request, and I'm going to probably request a pilot for you folks to look at a study for diversionary programs such as community outreach form, such as Community Outreach Court for 100,000. Is that something that you folks can implement?

We'll work with the Legislature, but I can't comment if that number is sufficient. You have to remember community outreach programs are a lot of intensive work on the prosecutor's office. They're the ones who have to get it, already have to determine the amount.

So we have to bring in Kelden Walgen to basically see if they can do it. And so it's not just a judiciary function.

Okay, okay, then I'll hold on for now. Thank you, Judge. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions on SB 361? Seeing none. Let's go ahead and move on to the next bill. There's SB 428. This increases the fees paid to witnesses in civil and criminal trials, changes the fee paid for travel expenses from 20 cents a mile to the mileage allowance prescribed by the Administrator of General Services.

First up on 428 is Hayley Cheng, public defender.

Thank you. I will stand in support of the written testimony and be available.

Great. Thank you. That's the only person who's signed up to testify on SB428. Anyone else like to testify on SB 428? Okay. Seeing none, Members, questions?

Okay. Hearing none. Let's go ahead and move on to 435. This relates to voting. Requires the Office of Elections to include a notice to voters that a digital and print voter information guide is available. Some requirements about what that would look like. First up on SB 435 is Scott Nago, Chief Election Officer. Good morning.

The office will stand on its written testimony in support, but we like to note that to implement this we would request a $90,000 appropriation.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Janet Mason, the Legal Women Voters of Hawaii in support. That's all the written testimony we have on SB 435. If anyone else like to testify in SB 435. Seeing none. Members, questions? Yeah, Mr. Nago.

So we were trying to find the-- there's a website notification, apparently, that would lead you to this voter guide that we used last around last year, but we couldn't when we were looking for the general election website notification. Where is it in the website?

So on our webpage, there are sliders that pop up that would change every so many seconds. And it was right there on the beginning.

It was on a slider?

Yeah. And there was also another link that was a little harder to get to, but from the home page, it would have been on the slider.

Okay. And there was one available for the primary as well?

Yes.

So if the-- Yeah, okay. So I don't know. We had a hard time finding that and I just don't know. I don't know. I don't know if I need to-- It seemed like it was difficult to find. So the bill proposes making it easy to find on the website and then also just notifying everybody, I believe. Is that-- $90,000 will be enough?

Yeah. So we currently do. We currently have the slider up, which would be equivalent to a banner. We do put it in instructions. So the only thing we don't do in this bill would be that insert that would be included in the envelope and that's what the $90,000 would be for printing and inserting.

Okay. And in terms of being ready for the next election, you'd be able to do that, no problem.

Yeah. So the issue we ran into being this the first time was the translations. Being the second time, there's always things we can do better that we're looking at sooner.

Okay. And the timelines themselves for the 21 days before the primary and 50 before the general. That's doable?

Yeah. So we had it actually up 30 days for the primary and 25 for the general. But like I said, we ran through translation. So this being the second time, we know what to expect, so we can work to get it up sooner.

Other questions, members? If not, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and move on to the next bill, which is SB 526, relating to Women's Court. Establishes a temporary three-year women's court pilot program within the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits. First up on 526 is Judge Kim, Chief Court Administrator. Morning again.

Good morning, Chairman Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, members of the committee. Thank you. As you saw in my testimony and noted by Senator from the Big Island, this is not part of the Judiciary budget. This is a movement by the Legislature because of the success in the First Circuit, and we all saw at opening what success can be achieved.

But what I'm here to tell you is because this is not something from us to the Legislature, the systems out on the outer island are completely different than the systems on Oahu, which has the resources not only in house, but also all of the mental health resources on the Island of Oahu. We don't have that, and so being pragmatic, our position is, it's a good idea.

Women's Court is a good idea, but in order to implement it, you can either have--you can either--we can either have a study done and we can tell you what is needed to get it done, or because Big Island is MacGyver, we can basically go back and look. I mean, my colleague from DOH indicated from their perspective, you need $800,000 for the mental health aspect of what is needed.

In my testimony in speaking to Drug Court, I think that we could try to fashion this program within the Drug Court because we have the structure. It would be a women's court, but there are problems because of the way of our structure. If I could just elaborate, we have two major courts, one in Hilo, one in Kona, and so what would you want?

Would you want it just in Kona or Hilo or would you want both? So that's number one. We need a mental health component. Currently, the drug court program on the Big Island has 25 women. We are not sending a lot of women from the Big Island to prison.

I'm sorry. Your time is expired, but if you could hang around for questions, we can continue the conversation. Thank you. Next up is Behavioral Health Administration for Department of Health. Good morning.

Hi. My name is Dr. Keith--

If you could just pull the mic a little out? Yeah. Or sit in front of it.

Dr. Keith with Department of Health. I'm really glad that Judge Kim went before me. We've met a long time ago. I oversee the forensic programs in Oahu, and I did a budget. We did collaborate with the, with Judiciary on Oahu. It was a pilot project, and they utilized my staff to do the assessments, and I do agree with Judge Kim.

When we do travel to the neighbor islands, it is a different environment and we do have to do things differently. We can't take what we have on Oahu and replicate it in different islands because it's--it's very, very unique, and when I do travel and sit in for Kauai or Maui to fill in for the shortage of staff there, we have to do things a little different. So we call it Women's Court, but it still applies, and when we talked outside, it made sense what Judge Kim was saying.

We still utilize the same treatments, but the courts might be completely different, and I don't know how best explain it, but having traveled to all the different islands to cover for the shortages, even our forms might be different, but the services are more abundant on Oahu than they are in different islands.

And so we do--with the Department of Health, when we do service patients, they do cover the different islands: Maui, Kauai, and the Big Island. So it would be nice to have services sent there, and this would help the Big Island in a diversion program as well, Senator.

Okay, thank you very much. Now next is Hayley Cheng from Office of Public Defender. Hello, again.

Morning again. Our office is in support of this measure to establish Women's Court in the other circuits. We are not at all dismissive of the logistical concerns that Judge Kim and Dr. Pedro have raised, and we share in those concerns because our office is the one that represents the majority of the women who are currently in the First Circuit and will likely do the same in the other circuit.

However, I just want to express our support for the idea of the bill that our office will work with the Judiciary, the Legislature to continue to expand services like this. I personally have petitioned several women in to the current Women's Court Program and I have seen firsthand what an impact these specialized and gender-responsive services have made in the lives of my clients who, ultimately, we hope to divert away from long-term incarceration.

Their needs truly are unique and it has just been a blessing to have it here in the First Circuit and whether it looks identical to what we have established here on Oahu, I'm hoping that in some way, shape, or form we're able to create some sort of gender-responsive specialty court for our women in the criminal legal system. So I will also make myself available for any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Next up is Rebecca Like, Prosecuting Attorney for Kauai, in support. Maui Prosecutor's Office, also in support, Kat Brady, Community Alliance on Prisons. Morning again.

Good morning, Judiciary Committee. Kat Brady, testifying on behalf of Community Alliance on Prisons, in strong support. You know, listening to Judge Kim really resonated because we don't even have enough mental health services on Oahu. So it is a huge problem for the neighbor islands that are really resource-poor and we should--I love the bill because it's been really terrific on Oahu.

It's made a difference in lots of families' lives and I think we should do it, but we need to be careful to make sure that each circuit actually has input into what they actually need to make it work. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next is Alan Johnson for Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, in support, Stephen Munkelt for League of Women Voters, also in support, Lynn Costales Matsuoka, Executive Director for Kapi'olani Sex Abuse Treatment Center, in support, Dara Carlin, in support. That's everybody who signed up for SB 526. Would anyone else like to testify on--please come on up.

Aloha. Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of four CARES. I'm in strong support, so proposed amendment under number one: trauma informs care specialized and tailored for women offenders provided by women professionals.

So this is to create equity in the criminal justice system and to address underlying roots of a system that doesn't have enough services for women offenders for equitable female gender representation. Research reflects that for women with histories of abuse, trauma, poverty, mental illness, substance use disorders, addiction, and unhealthy relationship patterns are perpetuated, and this set of disadvantaged health disparities intersects with women's entry into the criminal justice system.

Women, especially low-income women, are experiencing distribution effect of incarceration and recidivism because of generational trauma of domestic violence that gets passed down from one generation to the next.

Women experiencing racial disparity, Hawaiian women, Pacific Islanders, people of color, and immigrant women are amongst those who suffer the worst from health and wealth disparities. That makes this vulnerable and marginalized women group more susceptible to experiencing cycles of domestic abuse, mental health problems, anxiety disorders, drug addictions, which impact their behavior and offenses in community life. So the enactment of this mandate will set a new standard within the court system for women offenders to provide adequate court programs for women. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 526? Seeing none. Members, questions? Senator Buenaventura.

Judge Kim, come on up. So, as Chair of Health and Human Services, there are promising developments, at least on east side, and I know west side is, we need to catch up, but there are promising developments with Hope Services collaboration with Ohana Health Plans in creating like 15 mental health supportive housing.

And my talks with Dan Brinkman, we're actually increasing more behavioral health beds over on East Side. So my question is this: maybe it's too soon because like community outreach, you folks don't really know how to implement, and if you don't know how to implement, you're not going to be able to fill in the blanks as to how many personnel and how much it's going to cost, but how about a study starting from east side? Okay? Seeing how well it works and a delayed implementation of like 2027.

Even though it's promising, I have concerns after two days ago when there was a freeze on federal grants as to whether or not we can continue on the progress on the east side because they are dependent upon Medicaid payments to continue, but I think, would you be willing to, instead of having blank--having blank amounts on personnel, to just have a study, like a $300,000 study for implementation of a women's court?

That's legislative prerogative.

But will you be able to implement it? I don't like being able to push for an appropriation just like I did eight years ago, and, you know, Chief of Police at that time refused to implement a diversion program. Would you be able to implement it?

We'll do whatever the Legislature finds appropriate. I'm just saying your choices are, because this is coming from outside in, we can do a study and, you know, come up with what we think will work or if--because of the momentum--and that's why I'm here; it's important--we realize the momentum in the Legislature that you have from the Women's Caucus and other groups, because of the success in Oahu, that if we wanted us to--MacGyver will come up with something. If you want to do a study, we'll do that too. You know what I'm saying?

Because the way the bill is written, though, it has blank amounts for social worker positions, blank amounts appropriation, and we're going to need to figure out what those amounts are.

I agree, and--but that's from a Legislator looking in, and what you want is from us from within saying, 'okay, if the mission is to do this, this is what we need.' And I'll tell you, we're looking at it from the standpoint of the mental health. Okay. We have 25 women in Drug Court right now, but a lot of women get turned away because they are high maintenance.

They're dual diagnosis. They have mental health problems, trauma, PTSD, abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse, and they have drug addiction to basically have a painkiller for what they're trying to face, and when we don't have the mental health resources to be able to divert them--everything is on Oahu. The DOH is struggling to try to help us because of the lack of personnel on the Big Island, and so I just want to articulate what we see and where we're going to need the help.

So if we do do a study from the Third Circuit, that's what we'll be pointing to. In my testimony, I indicated contract psychologists, psychiatrists, because we're turning them away because the Probation Department cannot spend that much time with individuals which are high maintenance because we don't have mental health treatment. So we stand ready to do whatever the Legislature feels is appropriate, Chairman.

But you can't tell us the figures to put in here?

Well, this is early on. If you ask us to come up with something, we'll try and, you know, we understand the dynamics and this is an issue, it's a hot button issue, so, you tell us.

Well, I want to make it--you're right. There's a momentum. I mean, on Oahu, we have the YWCA Fernhurst, which is a women's--and we don't have something similar on the Big Island, but you know, the indications for my going around the Big Island and talking to the NGOs there, the like, is we're getting there on the east side, and, and I apologize and I have no idea why we're not doing the same.

I suspect it's a higher cost of living over on the west side as to why we can't get more supportive housing there. It's just we can't even get workforce housing over in the west side, even if we can recruit medical personnel. What I'm trying to say is, I want implementation because of the momentum.

If the implementation is easier and faster with having x amount of dollars for a study, and then next year you'll let us know the kind of personnel and how much, then I would rather do that, rather than forcing it down your throat and saying, 'let us know how many personnel now.'

We could do that. We could, we could do a study and come back.

Which is your preference?

My preference is--

Not to do it at all? I mean, that--that's--

Well, that's a very difficult question. We want to--I know it's a good project, okay, but you have to understand, our judges on the outer islands, they do everything. They do criminal, civil, agency appeals, Environmental Court, Drug Court. We judges are stacked up, and so whatever we try to do, we have to kind of fold it in to the way our system works, and so we could do a study. I just don't want to lose momentum. However, you know, we could do the study and come back next session, if that's, that's your direction.

Thank you.

Good. Members, further questions? If not, I have a couple. So as the bill is drafted, is, it's--is it--okay. Back up. Does it--it doesn't appear to me that it changes. It doesn't appear to me that it would prohibit you from doing anything else, like starting a Women's Division of the Big Island Drug Court, for example. You read it the same way? I--it doesn't prohibit you from doing other things if you can come up with the money and--

Yes. Yes.

That's correct? Okay.

Right, because we have 25 women right now. We can bring more in.

Okay, so you don't think this precludes doing other things if you wanted to?

No, as long as we have the mental health.

So you know, the position counts in the bill, I think, are all blank. Well, no. The position counts are--oh, yeah. I guess they are blank. Okay. So I guess my inclination would be to go ahead and move the bill along and we would--but we would be asking you for position counts and money estimates before it got--if it could serve by the next committee, which is the Ways and Means Committee. So if, is that a, is that a realistic expectation?

I'm sorry. So when is the next Ways and Means?

I mean, it'll be weeks, but I don't know, I don't know when exactly.

If, if requested, we will MacGyver and get your approval.

Yeah, I think that's it. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Yeah. So why don't we do this? Why don't--if we pass it, if the committee agrees with my recommendation, we would make the ask that you trying to come up with the numbers, fill in the blanks, and give us an estimate as soon as you can. Give it to me and then we'll pass it along to the Ways and Means.

If that's the ask, we'll get it done.

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Anything else on SB 526? Thank you very much, Judge. Thanks for being here. Now we'll go and go ahead and move on to SB 598. This establishes a wide Hope Card program within the Department of the Attorney General to issue Hope cards upon request of those holding a long term protective order.

First up on 598 is Philip Higdon, administrator for the HCJDC Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads and Committee Members. My name is Phil Higdon, Administrator of the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center. The department appreciates the bill's intent and has disseminated written testimony and comments. But if I may quickly summarize a few points. If I may.

Yes, please.

The purpose of the bill is to establish the Hawaii Hope Card program. Within the Department to issue cards upon request individuals holding a long term protective order. The card would provide details about a protective order for quick law enforcement references and eliminate the need for protected party to carry a copy of the entire order.

It's important to note due to the complexity of protective orders, condensing all the essential details onto a small card is impractical. Some orders consist of numerous pages, 5 to 70.

It's also the Department's understanding, law enforcement must check agency records or access criminal justice systems to confirm the order's validity and determine if additional terms and extensions have been granted. I appreciate your time and I'll be available.

Thank you. Thanks for hanging around for so long. Next is Director Salaveria from the Department of Budget and Finance with comments. Next is Dar Collin, in support. That's all the written testimony we have on SB 598. Does anyone else wish to testify on SB 598? Seeing none. Members, questions? I do have a question. So just verifying that you--

So the card itself, I understand you can't have the whole protective order on the card, but is it something that at least is a reference point for law enforcement to look up the whatever the current status is?

Well, we, I created a card one of the staff, right. And it's hard to read and not all-- I mean the terms can fluctuate and for a law enforcement officer, I speak as a retired law enforcement officer on the mainland, we need the entire terms to understand the validity and understand where the protection order is.

So you're ask then is for $450,000 to full time equivalents in operating expenses including website and database development. Correct?

Yes. 450 to start up and then approximately 110 thereafter.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I have a question. Yeah, no, I agree with you that if all the terms are stuck in that card then it's like impossible to enforce for them to look at. However for 21st century with the monies, can't you folks do like a QR code that would then go directly to the website?

I mean frankly if, if everyone has the ability to just look at it on the websites, it's pretty fast. I mean I can look up a TRO to see what the terms are. With the money, can't you folks put that technology on the Hope card, a QR code, everybody has a cell phone. And then you'll have the terms right there.

The information may change and to access that through the criminal justice systems has to be protected. I understand what you're saying but there are FBI policies as far as security as looking at something on a cell phone and accessing the Criminal Justice Data Center, the Hawaii criminal justice system of Hawaii. Not just anybody can access that.

But with the money that hopefully you're going to let us know how much, will you be able to at least look into it and see whether or not-- Because otherwise just requiring a Hope card with words on it the size of a 2 font, you're not going to be-- people are not going to be able to implement.

No ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions on this measure? Senator Gabbard.

Budget and finance, they seem to be unconvinced of the program's effectiveness, practicality and financial sustainability. I was wondering if, do you have any examples of other areas where this has been successful?

Not at the top of my head. No, sir. I have not researched that. But I can.

Please. I appreciate it.

Okay. Anything else on SB 598? signal? Thank you very much. Thanks for staying around for so long. We'll move on to SB 722. This is civil asset forfeiture bill. First up is the Attorney General.

Good morning Chair Rhoads. Good morning Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Steve Ramula. The Department of the Attorney General opposes this bill. We've submitted our written testimony in opposition. Asset forfeiture is an important tool in deterring crime.

It allows law enforcement to seize fruits and instrumentalities of crime and prevent their use in future crime. There are safeguards in the program. An interested person can file a claim or a petition for remission or mitigation to contest asset forfeiture.

An innocent owner's property cannot be forfeited and the forfeit property cannot be disproportionate in value to the criminal offense committed. Thank you for the opportunity. Sorry. Thank you for the chance to testify. I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next is Hayley Cheng from the Office of Public Defender who is still here after two hours.

Still here. Good morning again.

We submitted very comprehensive written testimony in support of the bill, so I'll keep my verbal comments brief. We appreciate and can understand the Attorney General's position, but the safeguards that he just referenced, we wholly disagree with.

Good morning again.

As articulated in our written testimony, we do not think there has to be an absolute direct correlation to the instrumentality of the crime. We do not believe the safeguards that he have referenced are readily and easily accessible to everybody. We are particularly concerned with the process that one must go through to challenge it.

Oftentimes people believe that because these things are associated or attached to a criminal charge that the public defender's office or your criminal counsel is able to assist you with that. The public defender's office is prohibited from getting involved in civil litigation of any kind.

So we are not able to assist or direct our clients when they are the subject of the forfeiture. And for all of the reasons that we listed in our written testimony, we are hopeful that we will eventually move away from civil forfeiture altogether.

But in the meantime, we support this bill as it increases the available safeguards and protects our community members from these types of forfeitures, or they have very limited ability and are not oftentimes able to go through the process to get those things back. So thank you and I will remain available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next up is Rebecca Lekei, prosecuting attorney for Kauai. In opposition. Kelden Waltjen for Hawaii County Office of the Prosecutor. He is the prosecutor in Hawaii County. He's in opposition. Mike Lambert for Hawaii Police Department on Zoom perhaps.

They were here earlier, but they're not available anymore.

Okay. Opposition. Maui Prosecutor's Office, also in opposition, Kat Brady for Community Alliance on Prisons. Morning again.

Good morning. You know, in 2015, New Mexico passed, they eliminated civil asset forfeiture. And the sheriffs and police were really upset with that, saying you're opening the door to crime and you'll get less law enforcement from this.

But then a study was done and they found that the median forfeiture averaged $1,276 across 21 states where usable data was obtainable. In Michigan, for example, as said, forfeiture was like for $423 and Pennsylvania, $369.

And it's been determined by the Institute of Justice that one incentive for police to target lower dollar seizures is that it's not worth challenging them. So I'm really worried that it sort of is like the door to corruption.

Okay, thank you very much. Next is Carrie Ann Shirota for the ACLU of Hawaii, in support. Ted Kefalas, Director of Strategic Campaign, testifying for Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Also in support which goes to show this is one of the last bipartisan issues in the world. Alasdair Whitney, legislative counsel for Institute for Justice on Zoom perhaps. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. As you said, my name is Alastair Whitney and I'm legislative counsel at the Institute for Justice. As you know, we are a nonprofit public interest law firm that works to protect people's civil liberties around the country.

And as a part of our work, we are trying to advocate for the abolition of civil asset forfeiture, replacing it with criminal asset forfeiture, and also increasing data transparency around how asset forfeiture proceeds are used. I would like to echo a lot of the comments that have already been made in support of this bill.

And I would also like to note again that, you know, this bill is a welcome step in the right direction. For this state, as the Institute for Justice has noted, and as you are aware, there is a room for a tremendous amount of improvements.

Civil asset forfeiture, while I understand it as well intentioned in law enforcement, I don't ascribe any nefarious sort of intent to just trying to keep the community safe. But oftentimes people are innocent people, low income people, people in marginalized communities are swept up under civil asset forfeiture. They can lose their property without criminal charges.

And to fight those criminal charges oftentimes takes a lot of time, energy and money-- Excuse me, to fight the forfeiture of the property also can take a lot of time, energy and money and sophistication that they may not have.

That's why we see nationwide 4 out of 5 property owner claimants default on civil asset forfeiture judgments, meaning they don't even show up to court. They can't even try to fight it because of the expense of getting an attorney, because of the complications of the legal system.

So again, we strongly encourage the Committee and we thank you, Chair Rhoads, for your leadership on this issue this year and in previous years. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up, I'm sorry, next up is Lynn Matisau in support. Marion K A Kapuniai in opposition, Michael Older in support. Good morning again.

Morning Members of the Committee. Name is Mike Older, testifying for SB 722. I would like to expand on my previously written testimony. As the stated before, civil forfeiture has been known by many as legal theft. While it has been a tool to suppress organized crime, it has a history of being weaponized for corruption with low oversight on how it's used or how those wronged by it can get their property returned or compensated.

So I support this bill as while it doesn't abolish the practice, it will give expanded guidelines and restrictions for its use. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Stephen Munkelt in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 722. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 722? See none. Members, questions? Pretty well known issue at this point. Okay. If that's okay with the Members, we'll go ahead and start voting. Okay, back to the beginning.

The agenda will go to SB 286 first. This makes an appropriation for career criminal prosecutions to the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney of sitting county. Let's go ahead and blank out the appropriation amount. We'll defect the effective date to April 23, 2057. And we'll note the $747,267 appropriation request in the Committee Report. Questions or concerns? Excuse me.

If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Next up is SB 287. This makes an appropriation for the Victim Witness Assistance Program, as a grant and aid to the city and County of Honolulu Prosecuting Attorneys. Recommendation here is to move it ahead.

We'll blank out the appropriation. We'll make it a defective date of April 23, 2057, and we'll note the $736,000—$785,000—appropriation request in the Committee Report. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up is SB 8289. This establishes uniform provisions for the assessment of administrative penalties under $1,000, under the State Ethics Code and Lobbyist Law and Disclosure Law. Recommendation here is to pass it as is. Questions or concerns? On questions or concerns, SB289? Hearing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up is SB 304, which establishes positions and appropriate—appropriates—funds for the adult services probation of the First Circuit Court. The recommendation here just to go ahead and move it along.

We'll add amendments requested by the Judiciary, which would mean there'll be 11 positions and a new total appropriations amount, as set forth by the Judiciary, of $921,248, which $781,248 would be salaries and $140,000 in operating expenses.

So, we'll blank those—we'll blank out those appropriations, put them in the Committee Report, and it'll be 11 positions instead of 12, and it's the Secretary position that we're dropping out. And we'll defect the date April 23, 2057.

And we'll also add a preamble based on the Judiciary's testimony explaining the recommended ratios of, of clients to—I don't know what the exact title is—Examiners of the—or trying to keep bottom line, trying to keep the caseload at levels that are thought to be more useful, and we'll put that in the preamble. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB 311. This proposes an amendment to Hawaii State Constitution to provide that Freedom of Speech Protection. The Hawaii State Constitution does not include the expenditure of money to influence elections. Recommendation is to pass with some amendments.

I recommend amending the text of the ballot question, as suggested by the AD—AG—to include discussion of Buckley v. Valeo, in addition to Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo, which held that limits on expenditures of money to influence elections are protected speech.

So, the question would read, shall the Hawaii State Constitution be amended to state that Freedom of Speech Protections under the Hawaii State Constitution do not include the expenditure of money to influence elections?

The amendment would—would take effect if the United States Supreme Court overturns, Congress overrides, or an amendment to the United States Constitution invalidates the United States Supreme Court's decisions in both Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo, which provide protection, under the U.S. Constitution, to expenditure of money to influence policy.

And we'll amend the preamble to include the discussion of Buckley. A lot to digest all at once. Any questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB 313. This would establish a health—a wealth—asset tax of 1% of the state net worth of each individual taxpayer who holds $20 million or more in assets in the state. This is a work in progress. I would like to try to keep it going for one more round.

So, my suggested amendments would be to impose it only once every three years, start the tax collection—start collecting the tax—for tax years after December 31, 2029. So, it wouldn't go into effect until 2030 and will require DoTax to propose implementing legislation no later than 40 days before the 2027 regular session.

And then we'll add some Committee Report language on the negative—the negative economic effects—of extreme wealth inequality, which are pretty well documented at this point. Questions or concerns? Hang on. Senator Chang, first.

Thank you, Chair. I'll support your recommendation to keep the discussion going, but please do note my reservations on this measure.

Thank you. I'm sorry, and we'll put it on a bad day too. So, April 23, 2057. I'm sorry, Senator Buenaventura.

I'm sorry. I, I, I echo Senator Chang. I support your—I support the premise. I believe there should—there are other ways to do a wealth tax, like having a personal property tax that Florida has imposed. But having a valuation every three years and imposing upon taxpayers more work than necessary, I, I, I can't support that.

So, I'm going to be voting with reservations also.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Next up is SB 361. Permanently establishes and appropriates funds for the Community Outreach Court as a Division of the District Court of the First Circuit. Recommendation here is to defect the date—April 23rd, 2057, and—so, that's it.

We'll just defect the date and we'll hopefully get the numbers that we need before, if and when, WHAM hears it or DMS it. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up is SB 428. This increases the fees paid to witnesses in civil and criminal trials, changes the fees paid for travel expenses from 20 cents a mile to the mileage allowance prescribed by the Administrator of General Services and authorizes reimbursements to witnesses and civil trials for use of common carriers, i.e. the bus.

Recommendation's to pass. as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up is SB 435. This requires the Office of Elections to include a notice to voters that a digital and print voter information guide is available. There was one available this last election that generally got good reviews, but it was hard to find and it was—so, this Bill is really an attempt to make it easier to access.

So, the recommendation is to go ahead and pass with some amendments. We'll insert a blank appropriation to the office—to the Office of Elections. We'll make it effective on April 23, 2057.

And we'll note in the Committee Report that the requested appropriation amount is $90,000. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up is SB 526. This establishes a temporary three-year women's court pilot program with the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits, which is everybody except Oahu. Recommendation here is to pass with amendments. Will defect the date—the usual April 23, 2057.

We've asked for the information about what the courts would need to make this happen and hopefully, we'll be able to get that before Ways and Means hears it. But if you could, if you could send it to this Committee and then we'll, we'll be sure to pass it on. And that's it.

Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up is SB 598. This establishes the Hawaii Hope Card Program within the Department of the Attorney General.

Recommendation here is to go ahead and move it forward, but we'll defect the date to April 23, 2057, and we'll add the Committee Report that the AG's testimony, relating to costs required to operate the program, are $450,000 for the fiscal years '25-'26 and '26-'27 for initial development of the program, including two full-time equivalents and operating expenses, including website and database development and identification card hardware and software, and then, the ongoing operational cost will be $110,000 annually.

So, that's the proposed amendments. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Last, but not least, is SB 722. This restricts civil asset forfeiture to cases involving the commission of felony offenses where the property owner has been convicted of an underlying felony. It does allow still for the seizure of property and the forfeiture of it, eventually, if the person is found guilty of a felony.

Recommendation on SB 22—722—is to pass it unamended. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thanks very much for being here and we'll see you tomorrow.