House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Tuesday, March 11th, 2pm, here in Conference Room 325. We're here for the purposes of considering several measures. Thanks to all the Members who are here and to our testifier. Thank you for being here.

Those who are testifying today, if you could keep your testimony to two minutes, that'd be great. I'll ask you to summarize. If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you provide your testimony, at which point you turn on your video and turn on your mic so we can hear you.

And then when you're finished with your testimony, turn everything off again. That'd be great. If you have technical difficulty, you can use the Zoom chat function and check in with our technical staff here who can assist you if it's possible. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, don't panic. Just rejoin when you can, and we'll try to fit you in.

If there's a power outage here or any sort of network failure and we have to reschedule, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so everyone knows when we're meeting, for what purpose. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. That'll kick us off of YouTube, which we don't want to do. And please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from profanity or any uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. Ta da. Okay, let's go ahead and get started.

First up, Senate Bill 109, Senate Draft 2, relating to the Hawaiian language. Requires that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian, or if the law was originally drafted in English and if the law was subsequently amended, codified, recodified, or reenacted in Hawaiian and meets certain criteria.

Okay, first up, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Thanks for being here. Please proceed.

Aloha, Rep. Tarnas, Vice Chair Mahina Poepoe and Members. I'm Pua Aiu from the Department of Land and Natural Resources. The Department is in support of this Bill. And to summarize it, I think you would be best to say we're supportive with the intent of the Bill. If you have questions, I'm available.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next we have the Judiciary. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas.

Aloha.

Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, aloha nui loa kakou. I am Johanna Chock-Tam on behalf of the Judiciary and I am the Program Administrator for the Judiciary's program. The Judiciary supports this Bill, but we are recommending a few changes.

The version of a law designated as binding should not change if there are no substantive changes to the law. For example codifications, recodifications refer to how a law is organized and numbered within a system of laws and does not involve substantive language changes.

Also, some changes to laws are non-substantive, perhaps a change to section references, changes from male only language to gender neutral language, etc. These non-material amendments should not affect the designation as binding.

Therefore, we recommend removing the requirement that the law must not have been codified or re codified and adding the requirement that the amendment be material.

Thank you very much. Next we have the Attorney General.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. Hokulei Lindsey, Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. The Department of the Attorney General supports the intent of this Bill and we offer comments. Our concern is with a broad amendment that would create uncertainty in the law.

So in the Senate, the Senate Committee on Hawaiian Affairs addressed the uncertainty we were concerned about by amending the version so that Hawaiian would control only as to laws that were originally drafted in Hawaiian and not later amended, codified or recodified or reenacted in English. Senate Draft 2, however, added additional uncertainty.

Under the Senate Draft 2, any change to an English language law in Hawaiian could render the Hawaiian version controlling even if a later Legislature acted to amend the law in English again. So to avoid this added uncertainty, we recommend adopting Senate Draft 1 as passed by the Senate Committee on Hawaiian Affairs.

Alternatively, we think this Committee could make the Hawaiian version control for prospective laws originally drafted in Hawaiian. So this would let the public know precisely which laws would be affected by this Bill, creating a bright line.

So to make this Bill prospective, we would recommend amending page 3, lines 5 to 12 to read as follows, "provided that if the law in question was enacted after January 1, 2025 and originally drafted in Hawaiian and the English version was translated based on the Hawaiian version, the Hawaiian version shall be binding." Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony and opposition from the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies, comments from two individuals, and testimony and support from three individuals. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify In Senate Bill 109 Senate Draft 2? If not, questions. Members always welcome to hear your questions. Please proceed. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you Chair. Question for AG's office. The question is, does this situation come up a lot? Where it's kind of problematic.

Well, currently we don't really have this situation because the way the law reads currently is if there is a vast difference between the two versions, then the English would control.

So to my knowledge, we've not come across a situation where a Bill originally written in Hawaiian was then translated, and then there's a mix of what happens in interpretation. Right.

So I think, looking forward, if we were to amend so that the Hawaiian version were controlling just a broad amendment as it was originally drafted, as this Bill was originally drafted, you might imagine a law drafted in Hawaiian originally and then translated into English and then later amended in English.

So this Bill could take that law that has been translated and amended in English, say the Hawaiian version is controlling, and then you have a patchwork of language in the Bill or language in a law that could be uncertain in its interpretation and application. And that's our concern.

Okay. When I asked the question, I heard you say that you haven't come across this situation of the original Hawaiian being translated into English and having some kind of conflict. So if you haven't encountered this situation. It just makes me wonder, why would we even need to have this Bill if you're not encountering the problem?

Well, I think what this Bill seeks to do is to make the Hawaiian version controlling. Currently, the English version controls. So this would kind of, in certain circumstances, flip the script.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any other questions, Members? Yes, Representative Belatti.

And I'll try to make this fast, but this is so fascinating. This is, like, really interesting. You're not saying that there's any laws before we were a state that are drafted in Hawaiian that we would look back to and have those laws be controlling.

So I think, although I don't have the exact answer to how many still exist, I think that it's safe to say there are aspects that exist today. Right.

And then my second question is with the amendment that you're proposing, what you're essentially saying, though, is that no laws until those laws passed after July 1, 2025 if they happen to be in Hawaiian, will then have Hawaiian controlling. Right?

Okay. So that actually cuts out this whole other interesting area where there might be Hawaiian law that could be controlling.

Right. But it also creates a bright line.

Very bright, very bright line. And I would say I have seen colleagues introduce bills that were fully in Hawaiian first. So it is a situation that could occur. And that's what you guys might be planning for with this additional amended link.

Thank you, Chair.

Exactly.

Sure. And just to continue with that, if that, that was the alternative recommendation from the Attorney General was to do that enacted after July 1, 2025. Your, your primary recommendation is just to go back to the Senate Draft One.

Yes. But that being said, the alternative makes things much simpler.

Well, yes. Not nearly as rich. Please.

So Judiciary has a suggested amendment, I believe, which says about materially amended and then drops out codified and recodified. Do you have a problem with those amendments?

So the concern is similar in terms of what is material. Right. I mean, I can only imagine fact patterns where an argument could be about, you know, a change in the law and what is material and what is not material and what version would apply in a certain case.

I also imagine trying to do the legislative history to figure out what each Legislature intended the amendment and what they intended the translation of that amendment to mean.

And thirdly, I think if a Legislature were to take a law drafted in Hawaiian and reenact it in English, then that's a conscious decision by that legislative body to do that. And in that case, if we said the Hawaiian version was controlling because that's the original, that totally undoes that legislative decision.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Sure. Very interesting. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Thank you very much. Let's move on. Senate Bill 121, proposing an amendment to Article 6, Section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution to allow the Senate more time to confirm judicial appointments.

This proposes an amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution to extend the amount of time allowed by the Senate to consider an act on the appointments of justices and judges from 30 to 60 days for appointments made between April 1 and December 31, when the Senate is not in regular session or is about to adjourn the regular session.

First up, we have the Judiciary with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 121? If not, we'll move on since the courts is not here. But I refer you to written testimony from Mr. Maile. Next, Senate Bill 262, Senate Draft 1, relating to prospective jurors.

This measure authorizes the Judiciary to determine the format of the juror qualification form and the means of its delivery and return. It authorizes the Judiciary to use more than one method of delivery and attempt to contact any one juror more than once. And it also removes the requirement that the form be mailed. First up, we have Office of the Public Defender. Everyone wants to see you on TV. And if you want to tell us the highlights of your testimony, please.

Can you repeat the bill number, Chair? I'm getting ready for the next one.

Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Ganaden.

Senate Bill 262.

Senate Bill 262. This is regarding prospective jurors.

Oh, well, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Sonny Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender. If you notice our testimony, we just believe that this should expedite the process and allow the form to be mailed. So we support the Judiciary's testimony in supporting that process.

Wait, so you're supporting the Judiciary's testimony? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, maybe mixed up, but I believe so, yeah.

Okay, thank you. Okay, next, the Judiciary. He supports your testimony.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Acosta. I'm Deputy Chief Court Administrator for the First Circuit. I'm here on behalf of the Judiciary. This is a Judiciary package bill, and it seeks to amend the statute that requires the Judiciary to mail out the jury qualification form and then also receive it via mail.

So what this bill is requesting to amend that statute to allow for a different format or other methods to deliver the questionnaire to members of the public and also receive it another formats other than just mail. We have received and acknowledged stakeholders who have previously voiced concerns, including the Office of Public Defender.

So we are open to delaying the implementation of this bill if needed to allow for more discussions and a thoughtful implementation of the amendment of the bill. It is part of the Judiciary's modernization of the jury system, and we're committed to modernizing the that system. But open to, of course, feedback from stakeholders. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we received on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 262, Senate Draft 1? Seeing none. Questions, Members? Please, go ahead.

So I actually share the concern about individuals who may have been notified before by mail. How are you going to balance that? Because I would imagine, and I understand the need to have other delivery methods, especially if we can do it more cheaply by email. But is there a way that in the system where you're going to balance the notifications?

The notification, we're actually not in this process, not looking to send out the jury qualification form via email. One of the methods in which the other states have been using is sending out a postcard with a QR code or a website so that people can log into that website and answer their jury qualifications in that manner. So we're not intending to use email as the initial way of communicating or sending out the qualification form.

So what if in the uptake of people using the QR code and for someone in a rural area who might not have good access or may not have access to a phone. I mean, it's very possible. Like how are you going to accommodate for that kind of lack of access to technology?

Right. So this is where we're still in the process of modernizing and looking at the different methods. And it could be that we're sending out the questionnaire with the QR code and so they can use either the questionnaire or the QR code. Or they can call in and we still need to, of course, work out the details and call in and have some assistance in completing their form.

I think that's really important because I think that, you know, we want a diverse pool of folks, and there are going to be folks who just cannot, for whatever reasons, you know, access to technology or Wi-Fi. They're not going to be able to respond. So yes, anything that you can do to think about that, that would be. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Other questions Members? If not, thank you very much. We'll continue on to the next measure. Senate Bill 304. Senate Draft 1 relating to the Judiciary. This measure establishes positions and appropriates funds for adult services probation of the First Circuit Court. First up, we have the judiciary in support.

Aloha. Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and the Members of Committee. My name is Saifullah Agnon. I'm the Probation Administrator for Adult Client Services Branch. We respectfully support the intent of this bill. Just recently last year the American Probation and Parole Association published national standards to supervise a diverse caseload from intensive case management to administrative low risk clients.

And currently our system has diverse case load spread throughout all of our probation officers. So this bill would help in establishing more positions so that we can further diversify our our staffing so that we can meet those standards. I'm available for any questions. This does not supplant any other measures that the judiciary has.

Thank you. Thanks very much. That's all the testimony we received on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 304? Senate Draft 1 if not questions, Members seeing none, we'll move on. This is a Bill that we did consider before so I appreciate the testifiers to provide this information.

Let's go ahead now to the next measure. Senate Bill 361 Senate Draft 2 relating to the community Outreach Court. This measure permanently establishes and appropriates funds for the Community Outreach Court as a division of the District Court of the First Circuit. First Circuit. First up we have Office of the Public Defender.

Again, Chair, Vice Chair, a little bit more prepared for this one.

During crossover I had thanks for pitch. Hitting on the earlier one. No problem.

During crossover, I had an opportunity to check in with Tom Christensen. He's the attorney who's currently assigned working with the this court program. So we modified our testimony after the first time it came around. We are requesting a deletion of Section 4, paragraphs 2 and paragraph 4, point 2 and point 4.

The reason being this is an excellent program we're absolutely in support of is an alternative to probation. It's an opportunity for defendants who are charged with minor crimes to consolidate their various cases, get ahead of their payment schedules, clear everything up, and then work with service providers to get them back on their feet.

If you put too many things on it, like check in with mental health services, do substance abuse treatment, force compliance, these people will just opt to go to regular probation. And it kind of frustrates the whole purpose of the program. So for those reasons, we are suggesting an amendment where we delete these two sections. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Next we have the Department of Human Services in writing and support, Department of Law Enforcement, written testimony and support, and then the Judiciary in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Tina N. Alva'a. I'm the section administrator for the Community Outreach Court. I'm here today to express the Judiciary's strong support of Senate Bill 360.

Since its establishment in 2017, Community Outreach Court has provided so many individuals with the opportunity to resolve their legal challenges, access critical services, and make real progress toward achieving stability.

By clearing cases, lifting driver's license stoppers, and recalling bench warrants, CoC has helped hundreds of participants improve their access to employment, housing, transportation, and essential documents like Social Security cards and birth certificates, which ultimately improving their well being and contributing positively to the community.

The success of the Community Outreach Court demonstrates the importance of the specialized court in addressing the needs of this vulnerable population. Making Community Outreach Court permanent will ensure continued support for those working toward a second chance.

We strongly urge the passage of this measure to ensure that Community Outreach Court continues to be a vital resource for those in need and sustain its positive impact on our communities. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for this.

Thank you very much. Yeah. And we've received written testimony and support from State Council on Mental Health, Waikiki Neighborhood Board, Opportunity for Youth Action, Hawaii Institute for Human Services, Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, and two individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 361, Senate draft two if not questions Member?

I have a question.

Yes. Please representative Belatti.

For Mr. Ganaden. I am quite frankly shocked by the Office of the Public Defender's testimony to strike out mental health services and substance abuse treatment. And I strongly would urge the Office of the Public Defender to reconsider that because in other places you folks have testified that we need more connections to reentry services and these types of programs.

So it really confuses me why you would want to strike this portion out of this program when we in fact need to be connecting these individuals to these kinds of services so that they can actually succeed.

Well, Representative, I don't want to ask a question.

Yes. So can you comment on that? I just don't understand this.

I think the differentiation is in the charge and in the way that individuals are sent to this community outreach court. So usually these are traffic violations or fees and fines which we're gonna be addressing fairly soon with another Bill. These are not the kinds of things where individuals need or will be seeking mental health treatment.

These are the kinds of standard indigent clients that the Office of the Public Defender handles on a day to day manner. The current success doesn't have this mental health burden and we would like to keep it like that.

Well, again, so just to follow up, when I look at this law and again I just, I'm shocked because we know these people who are cycling in and out in this system, some of them do need access to mental health services and substance abuse treatment.

And all this is saying is, is that this is in some ways authorizing the judge to be able to consider these things. So again I would just ask and maybe if you can communicate this to your office.

It is very just mind boggling to me why the office of the Public Defender would be saying not to have this as an alternative for judges to seek. Thank you, Mr. Gannadin.

If I may, Representative, they can always go through ordinary probation. So you can always go through the standard court form and judicial court and get processed through that way. This is a specialty court. Thank you. Thank you.

Other questions, Members, if not, may I have the judiciary come up, please? Have you had a chance to take a look at the testimony from the public defender? What are your thoughts on their suggested amendment?

It's something that we would have to go back to. The stakeholders are, but you know, like Rep. Balati had indicated that this is, it's a, it's a helpful segue to give them the assistance they need if they want it, if they need, you know, it's voluntary.

Sure, sure. My understanding is that your office, public defenders, prosecutors, were all working together to try to come up with some agreed upon language as reflected in this Bill. Is that accurate?

Yes. But this was never.

No, I mean, this was new information coming out. Public defenders. That's what I thought. Okay, just checking. Thank you very much. Other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. The testifiers. Let's move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 428 relating to witness fees.

This measure increases the fees paid to witnesses in civil and criminal trials and changes the fees paid for travel expenses from 20 cents a mile to the mileage allowance prescribed by the Administrator of General Services. And finally, it authorizes reimbursement to witnesses in civil trials for use of common carriers.

First up, we have the Department of Budget and Finance with written comments. Next we have the Office of Public Defender written comments and support. And next we have Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County Honolulu. Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. I'm Daniel Hugo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office and in strong support of this bill. $40 is just an. It's a nominal recognition of what witnesses do.

Our office could not accomplish its mission at all without witnesses and oftentimes witnesses in a criminal trial, a felony trial may be looking at having their lives disrupted for years. A conviction in a murder trial can take seven years from the original indictment to the verdict. And during that time we are sending out subpoenas to witnesses.

Witnesses are canceling important family obligations, work obligations, and they are showing up in order to do their civic duty to testify. $40 is just a small way to say thank you for that time. It does not at all begin to pay on the debt that our community owes to these brave people. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo. And then written testimony and support was received from the League of Women Voters of Hawaii. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 428,8 if not questions Members seeing none. Thank you very much. The testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1316.

Senate Draft 1, relating to court ordered payments. This measure requires the Judiciary to contract with a collection agency or licensed attorney to collect delinquent court ordered fees, fines, sanctions, and court costs. Repeals the authority of the Judiciary to contract with a collection agency or licensed attorney to collect delinquent restitution. Expressly allows courts to specify a period of time or installments for payment of fees and restitution.

Requires district courts to hold payment compliance hearings once per year or as soon as practicable until all fees, fines, and restitution are fully paid. And requires a defendant in district court to appear and show cause if the defendant fails to pay in full within a time specified by the court or fails to pay three consecutive installments. And finally, it makes corresponding amendments to related statutes. First up, we have the Judiciary with comments. Next, we have testimony in support from the Attorney General. Ms. Nakamatsu, welcome. Good to see you.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Tricia Nakamatsu on behalf of the Department. We are in strong support of this bill, and we thank you, Chair, for hearing it. This bill is intended to address a Hawaii Supreme Court case that came out in 2024, State v. Fay, which essentially upended a longstanding practice, at least in district court, of having proof of compliance hearings to ensure that people are paying the fines, fees, and restitution that are ordered in criminal cases.

Now this, and I should note that that particular case also turned on interpretation, a very plain language interpretation of statute HRS 706-644, which does comprise the bulk of the statute, starting on page two. That's 706-644. Basically, what's supposed to happen if somebody doesn't pay their fines or at least one mechanism. So in the grand scheme of things, once this case went into effect, it has left the court with no mechanism to ensure that people are paying their court ordered fees, fines, and restitution.

And in criminal cases. And in fact, there's no follow up procedure or requirement essentially for people or to even check if people are paying their fees, fines, and restitution. So this bill attempts to provide those mechanisms. One, and we understand that the Judiciary has some recommended amendments, which we agree with would further the general layout of things. One is that if it's only fees or fines, I believe they would go to collections, which is typically done in traffic cases already, but not yet done in criminal cases.

And the other is that if the court does order restitution, if that's along with fees, fines, or whatnot, the restitution involved sentences would have to be set for proof compliance hearings if they are to be paid over time. This also makes sense because other statutes give parties the opportunity or courts the opportunity to allow defendants to pay their fees, fines, and restitution over time because not everyone's going to be able to pay them all at once.

So if you're going to give people that opportunity to pay it over time, this simply provides a reasonable means of making sure that they're following through. Thank you very much. Available for questions. Oh, I'm sorry. We did have one small amendment. Just moving three words noted at the end of our testimony. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair. Sonny Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender. The House version of this bill was deferred for good reason. We'd like the Members of the Committee to just read the Fay case. It has some pretty, I guess, elucidating language.

It says that financial obligations were not meant to prolong criminal justice oversight, creating a type of shadow control that surpassed the original sentence. It also says specifically court monitoring of freestanding restitution orders unnecessarily burdens defendants and wastes judicial resources. We believe the, respectfully, the Office of the Attorney General has a misreading of 706-644.

Courts can bring a defendant back upon default, which is noted in the Fay case. Also, victims of criminal misconduct can sue, and they often do, using the evidence that has come forward in the criminal case. For that reason, we think that the Legislature should support the Judiciary in no longer having this practice of bringing individuals back who have not yet defaulted on their payments.

Thank you very much. Next, we have the Crime Victim Compensation Commission in support, and we have Dennis Dunn in support. It's all the testimony we've received on Senate Bill 1316, Senate Draft 1. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members? A quick question for the Judiciary. Thank you for coming up. Your testimony expresses the concern about the burden this would place on the courts. And are your suggested amendments a way to deal with that potential burden?

Yes, that is. So we don't take...

An emergency has been reported in this building. Please cease operations and leave the building utilizing the nearest exit or fire exit stairway. Do not use elevators. Repeat. Do not use elevators.

Let's just wait.

Attention, attention. An emergency has been reported in this building. Please cease operations and leave the building utilizing the nearest exit or fire exit stairway. Do not use elevators. Repeat. Do not use elevators. Attention.

Okay, I'm going to need to recess. Recess.

Reconvening our House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs for our 2pm hearing. Before we were interrupted by the public address system, I was asking Judiciary if the proposed amendments address their concern about this measure overburdening the courts.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And our amendments would. We don't take a position on the policy determinations in the measure, but we do note that as currently drafted for district court court, the requirement for a proof of compliance hearing for all of the district court criminal matters when monetary assessments are ordered would be, would be burdensome.

So in lieu of that, our amendments would allow for. Would allow for a. Okay, there we go. Would allow it to split the operational burdens. So for cases that otherwise wouldn't have been set for proof of compliance, we have folks who can take care and set those matters.

And then for other matters when restitution is not ordered, they'd be able to be sent to collections and that's a process that we have to still build out. We don't typically send non traffic criminal matters to collection. So it's still going to be operationally something we have to navigate.

But we have systems in place to effectuate that if the intent is to move forward on this legislation.

Okay. If we were to decide to move forward, does this need a delay in implementation date for you to be able to get your systems in order? Something for you to consider if this Committee decides to move it on. It still has to go to finance.

So you might want to consider if it does have a life, then this measure may need to be further amended to give a delayed implementation date to accommodate the development of systems you need to implement it.

Okay, we can take that back and we'll, we'll follow up on that.

Okay. And then one final thing. I know you have really smart attorneys at the judiciary and there's really smart attorneys at the Attorney General and there's really smart attorneys of the public defenders. Clearly you disagree on some things related to State v. Fa.

I'm not going to get in the middle of that and maybe my esteemed Member here would want to get in the middle of it, but I'm not.

So, you know, I would urge you to have that lively discussion with, you know, the public defenders because it would be good for those of us non attorneys out here that would if we could get some consensus. But maybe we never will. But see what you can do.

Absolutely will.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 264, Senate Draft 1, relating to the examination of criminal defendants. This measure 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 and appropriates funds. First up, we have the Judiciary in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My apologize for not being there in person.

That's okay. Thanks for joining us by Zoom.

So the Judiciary strongly... Sorry, my name is Jennifer Awong. I'm the staff attorney for the Criminal Divisions of the First Circuit Court. The Judiciary strongly supports this measure, as it was part of our Judiciary package. As outlined in our written testimony, this measure will specifically codify the rate of pay for doctors who are appointed by the court to conduct the fitness, penal responsibility, and dangerousness examinations required under Chapter 704 and will specify that those fees are going to be paid by the Judiciary.

Just so you know, the rate has not been increased since 2008 and statewide we are experiencing a shortage in the available doctors certified to conduct these examinations. Over the last 15 years, we've seen a significant drop in doctors willing to make themselves available for these examinations, which has in turn caused significant delays in the timing of the evaluations.

Here in the First Circuit alone, our available examiners have gone from 15 to 6, while the amount of requested examinations has more than doubled in that time period. Examinations that used to be completed in six to eight weeks are now taking three to six months.

Currently, our six examiners have been ordered to conduct over nine examinations per month, each of them, over the last six months. Because of this, some of them have have asked the court to cap their monthly appointments at a certain number per month, which is then increasing the burden on the others.

And others are requesting significant extensions of time so that they complete their examinations and reports. So unless we can get some more doctors on these lists, the courts will be unable to meet our obligations as required by the Hawaii Revised Statute and the state and federal Constitution. Further, these defendants are likely awaiting these examinations either in Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or Department of Health custody.

These delays thus increase the census at the Hawaii State Hospital and cause the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to retain custody of defendants who have serious mental health issues and who would be far better served in the custody of the Director of Health.

Therefore, the Judiciary respectfully requests that this measure be passed, that the appropriation of 975,000 be included in Section 3 of the proposed legislation, and that any appropriations for this bill not supplant the Judiciary's existing funding and current budgetary requests. I will be available to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony in support from the Hawaii State Department of Health on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. I'm Brenda Bauer-Smith, a psychologist from the Department of Health representing the Department of Health today. The DOH stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. It's much needed an increase to attract and retain examiners for that very important job of providing an opinion to the court. I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony in support from the Hawaii Psychological Association on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Alex Lichton. I'm the Legislative Chair of the Hawaii Psychological Association. I'm also a forensic psychologist. I have performed about 2,000 Chapter 704 evaluations over the last 17 years. I can tell you from personal experience how bad the examiner shortage is.

As Judiciary testified, there's only six private examiners available to do about 900 evaluations per year. Delays are now three to six months. For exams that used to, that should take six weeks. This causes people, examinees to wait in the jail, which runs up costs and risks a potential lawsuit.

I can also tell you that the examiners currently are mostly in their 60s and 70s. And that's because younger psychologists are not willing to work at such low fees, which are lower than psychologists in Hawaii are paid for other assessments, such as workers comp, civil tort litigation, child custody evaluations.

The current fee is well below the national average. It's also less than half what psychologists in Hawaii are paid for doing psychotherapy. And nationally, forensic psychologists earn more than psychologists doing therapy. The shortage of examiners also is dangerous in the sense that other solutions have been proposed.

There is pending legislation to lower the standards and the quality of these examinations, which would cause many problems, including making it easier for malingerers to be found unfit to proceed or not penally responsible and committed to the State Hospital, thus adding to the overcrowding and compromising the care of the patients who truly need the care at the hospital. So I strongly urge you to pass this measure, SB 264, which is long overdue and very badly needed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Some additional comments, if you'd like. Come on up, introduce yourself and please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee. My name is Layla Kratovic. I'm here on behalf of the Hawaii Psychological Association strongly in support of this measure. This is my first time testifying, and we...

I want to give you practice. So please go ahead.

Sure. Thank you. And we would like to strongly echo what the Judiciary said, and hopefully this bill helps address the critical shortage of qualified psychologists to conduct these fitness evaluations. And I'm available for any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And we have testimony in support from an individual, Marvin Acklin. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 264, Senate Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Anyone have a question for our member from the Psychological Association? Please, Representative Belatti.

Sorry, you're off the hook with me. I have a question for the Judiciary. Or yes, Judiciary. I really appreciate the numbers that you provided on the First Circuit, but are we seeing similar numbers like this in the other circuits, and can you speak to that?

Sorry, Respectfully, yes, we are. I just don't have those figures because I work exclusively with the criminal divisions of the First Circuit. However, I have spoken to the deputy chief judges on the outer islands, and they are experiencing the same delays and the same problems. And in fact, I believe some of them have now been hiring some, or, I'm sorry, appointing some of the doctors from other islands to fly in in order to do their evaluations for them.

Follow up. So knowing that you're having the same delays on the neighbor islands, and this program is going to be addressing statewide, correct? The appropriation would be for statewide?

Yes. Yes, statewide.

Okay. And then, you know, this bill is really interesting to me because of the impact both on the State Hospital as well as current census numbers, even in our prisons and jails. There's other bills moving this legislative session that's looking to try to create a kind of pilot program so that we can... Because of these delays in access to some of these examinations and appointments, is there a way and a place, is there some way that we could speed up these evaluations so that there is not this kind of pressure on keeping people either in the State Hospital unnecessarily long or in the in the prisons and jails?

Respectfully, personally, I believe that the best way for us to speed up these evaluations is for us to get more evaluators certified on the list. We haven't really had any new certified doctors added to the list. What Dr. Lichton was saying is correct. The vast majority of our examiners are, you know, older individuals.

We do not have any younger individuals that are doing it. We are unique in terms of the ability to have a three panel examination. And I really believe that there is value in that three panel examination. So some of the other suggestions that have come up in this legislative session I personally would not agree with. But there are other options that I believe. And I really can't emphasize this enough.

The penal code review is being conducted right now, and there are stakeholder members on the subcommittee for 704, and there are other ideas being brought up in that subject subcommittee to address certain other aspects of the census and DCR's ability to assist these people with serious mental illness. And, and I think providing time, with respect to those other bills, providing time for the penal code review would be the best thing because I think under 404 is not necessarily the best way to do it. We can do it under certain other divisions.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Sure, sure. Other questions Members? If not, thank you very much. The testifiers looks like you'll have to come back again. We'll ask you questions next time. Okay. Let's move on to Senate Bill 336 relating to the defense of state employees.

This measure requires the state to defend professionally licensed or certified state employees from civil actions or pursuits proceedings under certain circumstances. It clarifies that the employee may employ their own attorney at the employee's own expense. And it establishes a process for the Attorney General to transfer or withdraw representation if the Attorney General declines to defend the employee.

First up, we have Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. Next we have Hawaii State AFL CIO in support. Next we have Hawaii Government Employees Association in support. There you are.

Good afternoon. Chair, Members of the Committee, Representative Shimizu, Representative Poepoe, Representative Belatti. Good to see you a second time today. Chair, Members, this, this has been, this is a bill that's been in its creation for about three years now. What this would do is it just, it's a simple Bill to close a loophole.

It sets up the procedure working with the Attorney General over the last couple years.

It would if, if for a professional employee, certified professional employee, if the Attorney General was not going to represent them in their official capacity and was and wanted to withdraw, they would go to court and the judge would make that decision in an in camera hearing. Just as simple.

So that just sets the procedure for the non representational withdrawal by the Attorney General. Attorney we have no opposition. There's been no opposition to this bill. I think you've heard it many times over the years and you're hearing again and we appreciate that. We just hope this is the year that it passes.

I'll be available for any questions. Thanks Chair Thanks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tevis. And we received written Testimony and support from Evan Oye with the Hawaii Association for Justice. Is he on zoom? Nope. Okay. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 336? If not questions? Members seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 116, Senate Draft 2 relating to discrimination. This measure establishes provisions relating to civil remedies for discriminatory reporting to a law enforcement officer.

It provides that any person who contacts a law enforcement officer to contact a person on the basis of the person's actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity with the specific intent to infringe upon the person. Certain rights shall be civilly liable for resulting damages.

It requires the Department of Law Enforcement, in consultation with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, to provide guidance to the public on the enactment of this act. First up, we have the Hawaii State. We have written testimony from the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission, written testimony and support from the Department of Law Enforcement.

And we have Zoom testimony from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Heather McVeigh not present. Next, we have written testimony from the Democratic Party of Hawaii, Sarah Simmons. Next, we have testimony on Zoom from Michael Goliath with the Pride at Work Hawaii Aloha.

Good afternoon. Michael Golaw Jr., President of Prior Work Hawaii. Pronouns he, him. We do want to thank you for hearing this bill. I know the description seemed kind of long, but basically what this does is make sure that the public cannot weaponize the police force against minority groups. People say this isn't happening here.

Unfortunately, what we're seeing on the continent bleeds over here to Hawaii and that we definitely need these kind of protections to at least to help encourage people not to use the police force to call the cops when they see somebody they don't like. We did ask in our testimony that it be amended to include gender expression.

And that would put it in line with the rest of the non discrimination laws when it comes for the State of Hawaii. So we encourage you to pass this bill. We do ask for that amendment and I believe, if I'm not mistaken, so did the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission asked for that amendment as well.

Again, thank you for hearing this bill and we hope that you move it forward. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony and opposition from Hawaii Patriot Republicans, written testimony and support from the Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, testimony and support from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Welcome.

Hi. Yasmeen Cheney for the Commission on the Status of Women. I stand on my written testimony and. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, going back to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Heather McVeigh or her representative on Zoom.

Hi, Chair. Vice Chair Heather McVeigh with the Civil Rights Commission. Stand on our written testimony. We're available for questioning. Thank you.

Could you summarize why this is such a good bill that you're testifying in support?

Well, I'll just stand on our testimony for that purpose, but I'll take any questions you might have. I'm sorry. I just jumped on quickly here.

Okay, thanks very much. I won't put you on the spot. Okay.

That's all right. Thanks.

It's okay. Okay. Next, we have written testimony and support from numerous individuals and. zero, we have someone here. Carolyn Martinez Golou on Zoom. Nope. In support. In total, we've got 20 testimonies in support, 39 in opposition. And is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Senate Bill 116, Senate Draft 2. If not questions.

Members seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you very much. To the testifiers. Next Measure, Senate Bill 1319, Senate Draft 1 relating to identification processing.

This measure requires that the Attorney General's identification system include criminal cases initiated via citations that resulted in conviction, deferred acceptance of guilty or nolo contender plea or conditional discharge, and that a court order identification processing in such cases. Cases. First up, we have testimony from the Attorney General in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Eli Sueyama for the Department. The Department strongly supports this measure. What it will do is just allow for identification processing on citation based cases. So it makes a small change.

And it would be the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data center that would be maintaining and updating this information. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Department of Law Enforcement in support. Next, we have the Honolulu Police Department in support. Carlene Lau on Zoom. Not present. Not in person. And then finally, we have testimony support from the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon again. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We support this bill. Identification processing would also allow for citations to be used more effectively. Citations, Basically, in cases where we can avoid an unnecessary arrest, we should.

It causes a strain on law enforcement resources, and it also can compromise the rights of defendants if they're subject to arrests and unnecessary cases. However, we also have many laws that have recently passed that place recidivist penalties for people who repeatedly commit offenses.

And it's important to have a uniform and reliable record of prior offenses in order to establish effective prosecution of those recidivist offenders. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 1319? Senate Draft 1. If not. Questions, Members? I have a question for the Attorney General. Elise Oyama, I'm just curious, would you be able to comment on whether the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center would be able to do this?

Yes, we did. And we did consult with ACJDC for this measure.

And so they're okay with this?

Yes.

Okay. Because I know they're working hard and sometimes we ask them to do some things that they're not able to. And I was just wanting to make sure that they said they could do this one.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members?

Yes.

If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on. Senate Bill 1149, Senate Draft 1, relating to hate crimes. This measure defines reported hate crime, requires reporting of all possible reported hate crimes to appropriate authorities, including consistent documentation and analysis of such incidents.

It requires law enforcement officers to receive annual training to identify, investigate, and document hate crimes and possible hate crimes, and requires the Attorney General to establish or update guidelines, protocols, and training materials for the reporting and investigation of hate crimes and possible hate crimes.

So first up, we have testimony and support from the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission on Zoom. Nope. Comments, Testimony, comments from the Attorney General. Mr. Tom, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department provides comments on Senate Bill 1149 SD1. Some of our testimony has already been placed into the Committee report from the last committees. But Department would just re emphasize that Department is currently transitioning to the National Incident Based Reporting system.

Previously we were with the Federal Bureau of Investigation nationwide Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Now this new system which is they call it nibrs, essentially it's a more robust type system. It collects more data and part of that data also includes hate hate crime data, which essentially is what this Bill is trying to encompass.

So the Department would just note to the Committee just concerns of making maybe doubling up on the same job because we are transitioning already to collect that hate crime data.

Additionally, in the Committee report, I think it also cited to us mentioning that we are creating a public dashboard and and that should be at least completed by around September, October of 2025. It should provide some more transparency, more accessibility to the public. Lastly, for this the Department is very concerned regarding the mandated training.

I know a number, if not all law enforcement agencies provide some type of hate crime training or bias based training. I know of at least Honolulu Police Department here do training for hate crime with all officers.

And without the specificity of what type of training we're looking at and without the funding, very concerned we might not be able to satisfy that requirement. It is a shall I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony and support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Hi Chair, Vice Chair, Heather McVeigh again Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. And you know, we just noted that there is underreporting of hate crimes. And that was also pursuant to a report we did in 2021 addressing racism in Hawaii. Looking back during the COVID 19 pandemic and moving forward is the title of that.

So it recommended in part that enforcement agencies and the Attorney General to migrate to police level hate crime data reporting. And it's got some other information about the findings there. So we would support it. And having more information and data would also give us ways to identify where to intervene and to add in prevention resources.

And part of our mission at the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission is also education and outreach. So getting information out to the public would be led by that data. So we support it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have written testimony, support from the Democratic Party of Hawaii testimony and support from Pride at Work Hawaii. Mr. Golia, please proceed.

Good afternoon again. Michael Golaw Jr,. President of Pride at Work, he/him pronouns. Our hate crimes law turns 24 this summer. I am, given what I'm seeing here, I'm one of the only people that was here back then that testified in support and fought for the hate crimes law.

We do not have the data that we need because currently under our hate crime statute, the only time it's actually counted is if a hate crime is A reported B, they catch the perp, C, that goes to trial, and D, if they use the enhanced sentencing, if anywhere along the line there's maybe a deal made and deal brokered.

We, we don't actually capture that data. As somebody who has been the subject of several hate crimes knowing that that data is never caught so that this Bill is looking to be able. We don't know how big the problem is until we actually have these numbers. And that is the impetus behind this.

Well, I'm glad to hear the Attorney General's Office is concerned about the ambiguity in the training piece, but I was concerned about the ambiguity in the AG not knowing what kind of training is done from county to county. So we def. That's the reason we're asking for training.

So it's across the board that we're ensuring, Mike, if you need to make an amendment, that the AG is not required to do the training, but just ensuring that training is done from county to county. They said in previous hearings that they were relying on the FBI for their training.

We have grave concerns about that given the when I'm sure there's going to be an FBI around this time next year given what was transpiracy transpiring at the national level, especially who's in charge of the FBI.

And when it comes to training from the FBI, the FBI does not have the same protected classes that we do here in the State of Hawaii that under our current hate crime statutes. So we have, we are looking forward to. We definitely need the data. I'm glad to hear about this dashboard.

This has been something we've been talking about for years and that we definitely need this data. We need. Without it, without this enactment of law, we will never get this data because they won't be able to capture it at the street level. And so thank you. We encourage you to pass this Bill and mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next Rainbow Family 808 on Zoom and support. Next person said they wish to testify is from Quaves County Q Waves Media. Dean Jamer in support on Zoom. And next person said they want to testify as Mary Healy on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi. Thank you for hearing my testimony. I'm in Opposition and I stand with the Attorney General's Office.

And just to note what a previous testifier said, I completely and I'm confident in our FBI and the training that Cash Patel is going to be doing with the FBI and the reform that's going to be happening, which is greatly needed. I'd just like to give a personal example.

One time I was walking across Kalakaua and an individual came up to me and called me a stupid fat howly and spit in my hair. Luckily, a police officer was there from HPV who as the Attorney General's Office has stated, already has the training on this kind of incident.

He asked me if I wanted to press assault charges and I said no because this personally wanted to go wash my hair at that time.

But what you're saying with this Bill is that I would also have to say that his First Amendment free speech is wrong and that he doesn't have a right to say that to me. And while the individual was definitely inebriated in some way or maybe having some kind of mental health issue, I'm not really 100% sure.

The point of the matter is he's protected under the Constitution to say those things to me, even if it hurt my feelings. And that's why I stand in opposition of this bill. And thank you all for hearing my testimony.

Thank you very much. So in total, we've received 33 testimonies in support, 38 testimonies in opposition, and two with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1149? Senate Draft 1, if not, questions? Members. Any questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

We'll move on now to the last bill on our agenda, Senate Bill 117, Senate Draft 1 relating to defamation. This measure protects individuals who make claims of sexual misconduct from defamation lawsuits unless the claims were proven to be made with malice. First up, we have two testimonies in writing, one in opposition, one in support.

Is there anyone here wishing to testify in Senate Bill 117? Senate Draft 1. Seeing none, no one to question. So let's go to decision making. Okay, to the top of the agenda. Senate Bill 109, Senate Draft 2.

I recommend that we revert to that, that we make amendments to this measure that inserts the original language in Senate Bill 109. Senate Draft 1, which is almost exactly the same as the version of House Bill 304 that we passed out January 31st.

So that's my recommendation is, is to remove the amendments that were made in Senate Draft 2 and go back to Senate Draft 1. Questions or concerns measure Members? Yes. Represent Belatti.

Are we going to defect the date or move it forward?

That's such a good idea.

It is.

Let's defect it to. What is it? July. What are we doing? July 1st, 3000. Thanks. July 1st, 3000. Good. Recommendation defect the date. Revert to Senate Bill 109. Senate draft one language, other questions or concerns measured Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 109 SD2 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next bill, Senate Bill 121. I think this makes sense. I'd like to move this forward as is. We'll keep the clean date and let Finance decide. If they're happy with it, they can move it on straight away if they are. So my recommendation is to move it out as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not.

Yes. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair. I have concerns that were expressed by. Judiciary and I'm gonna vote no on this.

Okay, thank you. Other comments or concerns? If not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 121 as is. [ Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 262, Senate Draft 1 relating to prospective jurors. I think I'll take the Judiciary's offer. Excuse me. Take.

Take up the Judiciary's offer to delay this bill so that they could work with the public defenders and other stakeholders to make sure that the plan they have to move forward to modernize the juror qualification form and its delivery and return is done in a way that makes sure that they don't disenfranchise somebody who could otherwise be a great Member of a jury, but they don't have a smart smartphone, they don't have connectivity, but they're great people.

So I recommend we Defer Senate Bill 262, Senate Draft 1, and encourage Judiciary to work with public defenders and others to come up with the system questions or concerns Members. If not, let's move on. Senate Bill 304. On this measure, I would like to change.

Just make an amendment that we did in the version that we had before us, HB114, where we change the words that are in there referring to the adult services, probation of the First Circuit Court and we'll change it to Adult Client Services Branch of the First Circuit Court. Their proper name and that would be the only change.

Questions or concerns Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 304 SD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next Measure, Senate Bill 361. Senate Draft 2 relating to the Community Outreach Court. With all due respect to the public defenders, it was very much in sort of a last. It was a surprise to get the recommendation to remove some language that I thought everyone had agreed to.

So I would like to move this forward only with technical amendments to improve clarity, consistency and style and move it on to finance. And it has a defective date.

If the prosecutors and the judiciary and the public defenders want to and the Attorney General wants to talk about their suggested language and come back if there's a consensus, great. But otherwise I just want to move it forward with just technical amendments. This is an important function.

I think the Community Outreach Court, I'd like it to continue and make it permanent. So that's what this measure does. Questions or concerns Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 361 SD2 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations?

Reservations.

Reservations for Representative Shimizu hearing no others. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 428 relating to witness fees. I'm comfortable with this and so I recommend we move this forward as is with the clean date and send it to finance and they can decide what they would like to do with it. Questions or concerns Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 428 as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Next measure. Senate Bill 1316. Senate Draft 1 relating to court ordered payments. I would like to recommend we move this forward with technical amendments for clarity, concern, consistency and style. I'd also like to adopt the amendments recommended by the Judiciary and the amendments recommended by the Attorney General and move this forward.

Questions or concerns Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 1316 SD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 264, Senate Draft 1 relating to the examination of criminal defendants. This increase in fees from $1,000 to $2,000 for these private sector examiners is long overdue.

I would like to move this forward as is and put into the Standing Committee report the request for the appropriation of 975,000 to carry out the provisions in this measure. Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 264, SD1 as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 336 relating to the defense of State employees. It's a good Bill. Clean date. Let's move it forward. As is. Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 336 as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any notes or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Okay, next Bill. Senate Bill 116. On this measure, I would like to make a couple of amendments. I would like to include place of birth and list it as a protected class under Section 3681.

On page 2, line 3, I would like to add the words or expression after the word gender identity so it would match the language under Section 3681. And then on page 3, lines 8 to 12, I'd like this guidance mandated as ongoing and therefore it should be codified in Hawaii Revised Statutes. Those are my recommendations.

Questions or concerns, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I understand the intent of this Bill. I disagree with the need for it. I feel like we. We should just be able to get along. And I'm going to be voting no.

I sure wish we could be just getting along. Thank you. I appreciate your your wish. Other comments or concerns, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 116 SD2 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Noting the no vote of Representative Shimizu. Are there any additional no's or reservations? No. Vote for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1319. I recommend we move this out as is with a clean date. It's a good Bill. Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 1319, SD1 as is. Representative Cochrane is excused. Are there any no's or reservations? No vote. A no vote for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure. Senate Bill 1149. This is an important matter, but I don't think this is ready yet. There's too many things happening right at this time that I'd like to see play out. Such as was described in the Attorney General's testimony.

The hate crime reporting from the FBI's, the improvement that they're making in their data from the National Incident Based Reporting System Program. Their plan by October this year to provide a user friendly public dashboard that would be able to display hate crime data.

I'd like to see this, this data be made public and so that people would and everyone interested in this would be able to have access to it. And so I want to delay this measure in order to let that happen. I've also got concerns about how best to carry out the mandate for training.

I think training is needed. FBI does provide some, but we also have this new organization that's just been stood up, the Law Enforcement Standards Board that I think should also pay attention to this. This may be another area where there could be some sort of standardization across all of the county police departments statewide.

And I'd like to give them the opportunity to weigh in on this so that next session we'll have all of that information so we can decide how best to move forward.

We do need to get as much data as possible and if there's gaps, let's identify it based on after we take a look at the data that's been, that will have been presented at that time and hopefully Law Enforcement Standards Board can let us know what they think about standardizing training across all the law enforcement organizations on this important matter.

So my recommendation is to Defer Senate Bill 1149. Senate Draft 1, Questions or Concerns Members. If not, thank you. Last Measure, Senate Bill 117, Senate Draft 1. This is a challenging bill as well. I recommend we defer the measure. I need to do more research on this.

There seems to be some very strong legal opinions about how this could have serious inadvertent effects that may actually be opposite what we're hoping to achieve. So I and the whole idea about how to prove malice, I'm not comfortable moving this forward. So my recommendation is to defer and open to your questions and concerns.

And any of you want to help me figure this out going forward, I'd welcome that. That too. Questions or concerns, Members on Senate Bill 117 SD1. Okay, so we will defer that measure. There being no further business before us today. We are adjourned.