House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, March 12, 2025, 2:00pm in Conference Room 325 here at the State Capitol. We're here for considering numerous measures. Appreciate everyone being here to testify. If you're testifying, please limit your testimony to just a couple of minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point.

If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And then after your testimony is complete as well, use the Zoom chat function if you need to chat with our technical staff with technical issues only. If you are disconnected, don't panic.

Just join us as soon as you can rejoin us and then I'll try to fit you in if possible. If the power goes off here in the building and we have to reschedule the meeting, we'll make sure to post appropriate notice and hopefully the fire alarm's not going to go off.

If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. That kicks us off of YouTube, which is not good because we want the public to see what's going on here. Please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. That's my wish.

So first up, let's just so everyone knows, we're going to take the first measure for testimony and then I'm going to take two other measures out of order.

We're going to move Senate Bill 1337 SD1 Stadium Authority up to number two position and then we'll take Senate Bill 289 relating to ethics administrative fines to the number three position. So first up, Senate Bill 176 Senate Draft 1 relating to recounts.

This measure allows for ballots designated by the county clerks for inclusion to be included in the initial tabulation, prohibits ballots that the county clerks and initially determine are deficient or need additional time to be corrected or verified from being included in the initial tabulation and the bill increases the minimum threshold required to trigger an automatic recount.

First up, we have Scott Nago, State of Hawaii Office of Elections welcome sir.

Thank you. Chair Vice Chair of Members of the Committee. Scott Nago, Office of Elections. I'm. Going to stand on my written testimony, just state that this bill would allow or would set would clarify that the recounts are triggered off of the initial election day results rather than an arbitrary 6am next day time limit.

So for example, in 20 in the 2022 General election we recounted Senate District 22, but if we follow the strict sense of the law at 6am the next day, it wouldn't have been in the threshold to recombinant.

It was only after all the ballots were added in that were received on election day and validated that it became in the trigger for an automatic recon. So we're asking that you just allow us the trigger to be on the final report on election day rather than the six o' clock report.

So you like the bill? Yes. Great. Thank you very much. We've received a total of three testimonies in support, 42 in opposition and one with comments. There's only one other person that said that they wish to testify and that's Mary Healey on zoom not present.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 176 and at draft 1? If not questions Members? Nope. We're all set. Thank you Director. Let's move on to the number two which is the last item on our agenda. We're moving it up out of deference to busy folks who are here for this measure.

Senate Bill 1337 Senate Draft 1 relating to the stadium authority. This measure clarifies requirements to establish a quorum to do business and validate acts the stadium authority. And on this we have Mr. Chris Sarayasu, DBED Stadium Authority. Welcome.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair and Representative Shimizu. Appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of this administrative bill. Appreciate that the Senate passes cross this over and appreciate you hearing this. And we stand our testimony support. Thank you. Could you highlight why this bill is important to you? You've been trying for three years now. Yes, thank you.

Why is this so important? So we have nine voting Members of our board and then eight seated right now. And we also have two ex-officio non-voting Members. So the non specificity in the statute it has been interpreted that a quorum of the entire membership which is 11 total with the non voting is now 6.

But with just on the voting as the change of this bill proposes, it'll be the quorum five based on the nine. And that's important because to carry out. Business oftentimes we struggle to have quorum make of the voting Members. Great, thank you.

Trying to make sure everyone understands why this bill is important. Thank you very much, Mr. Sasu. Thank you. We've also received written testimony from the Director of Department of Business and Economic Development Tourism. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1337? Senate Draft 1 if not questions Members seeing none. Thank you. Very much.

Let's now move to ethics. Senate Bill 289 relating to ethics administrative fines. This measure establishes uniform provisions for the assessment of administrative penalties under the state ethics code and lobbyist law. First up, we have the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, Mr. Robert Harris.

Good afternoon. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Representative Shimizu, thank you so much for taking this bill out of order. I'll try to be brief. This is similar to the House Bill that also passed out of the House and went to the Senate.

The intent here is to essentially allow sort of small issues with enforcement that where the facts and law may not be in dispute to allow them to be resolved quicker.

The idea is we're preserving the exact same due process rights, but we're just allowing it for both respondent and for the state the ability to move through these things a little bit faster, which hopefully will save time and effort by everybody. So we think it's a great bill and fully support it. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Is Mr. Moussakian online? Not present. He also sent in testimony and support. If he does join us, let me know. Offer him an opportunity to testify. Anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 289? If not questions? Members? Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you very much. Could you tell me if Mr.

Morrissey from LRB is on Zoom? No. Okay, so we will wait on that. When he does join, if you could let me know. Thanks. Okay, let's go back to the top of the agenda. Number two bill on the agenda, Senate Bill 311. Senate Draft 1. Proposing an amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution regarding the freedom of speech.

This measure proposes an amendment to the Hawaii State constitution to provide that freedom of speech protected under the Hawaii State Constitution does not include the expenditure of money to influence elections. First up, we have written testimony from Pride at Work Hawaii and from League of Women Voters of Hawaii. And we have Ms.

Kat Brady here in person from Community Alliance on Prisons in support. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. That was loud. Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair. It won't bite. I'm Kat Brady testifying in strong support of this measure for Community Alliance on Prisons. You know, I think we've all seen the damage that too much money does to elections. It really subverts the public voice.

And this bill is really, really important, especially at this time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Brady. Next person who said they wish to testify is Greg Masakian. Is he online? No. So he sent comments. And Mary Healy on Zoom? No, not present. She testified in opposition. There's a total of 14 testimonies in support, 35 in opposition, one with comments.

Is there anyone else who wishes to testify In Senate Bill 311, Senate Draft 1? Yes, please. You could come up and if you submitted testimony, I just didn't know you were going to be here. So please introduce yourself.

My name is Margaret Mejia. I'm from Hawaii Christian Coalition. I did not submit written testimony, but I would still like to give testimony. Okay. I represent 35,000 Members, approximately 130,000 people on all islands. And the reason why we oppose SB311. Is I think it's a very serious thing to change any Constitution. Any change the Constitution, period.

Our United States Constitution has been around over 230 years. They haven't made any changes to it. I think instead you could propose a bill or, you know, some other legislation. But to change the Constitution is a serious thing. So we are opposed to SB311.

Okay, thank you. And if you could please provide your name and organization to our dedicated staff Member here, Charlotte, that'd be great. Great. If you'd like to testify next, please, if you could introduce yourself and proceed. And Terry Armbruster.

Chair Tarnas and Committee Members, I oppose Senate Bill 311 because just like the other person testifier said, amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. And I think there should be a separate bill regarding the funding or trying to influence elections by with money because that would.

We should not change the Constitution for something like that. The Constitution is placed to protect a lot of freedoms, but this one relating to the funding or trying to put money on influencing elections should not be in the Constitution. That should be a separate bill. So again, I request that you would.

Vote no to this constitutional amendment and. Preserve our Constitution the way it is right now. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Brett Colbus on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas and Committee Members. My name is Brett Colbus, 26 year Navy veteran, live in Ewa Beach. I strongly oppose SB311. While the intent to address concerns about money and politics is understandable, this bill raises serious constitutional issues and will have unintended consequences. This bill will put Hawaii's Constitution at odds with the U.S.

constitution and established federal precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that political spending is a form of protective speech. This amendment will lead to legal challenges. Restricting political spending as proposed could limit the ability of individuals and groups to participate in our constitutional republic process.

It may disproportionately affect grassroots organizations and smaller campaigns that rely on pooled resources to get their message out. This constitutional amendment is overly broad and will have far reaching implications beyond its intended scope and restrict legitimate forms of political expression and advocacy infringing on fundamental First Amendment Rights.

For these reasons, I urge you to vote no on SB311.

Thank you very much. Dave Mullinix on Zoom. Please go ahead.

Hi. Dave Mullinix. On our Revolution Hawaii, representing our 5,000 Members statewide, we stay in strong support of this. Money in politics has been a huge problem. We actually have amended the Constitution many times to update it to reflect what's really happening in the world at the current moment. And getting money out of politics is essential. It's.

We can look at just the White House right now who's in office. It's because billionaires bought the presidency, so getting money out of pox is essential. Thank you so much. Please support this bill.

Thank. Thank you very much. Michael Golojuch.

Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch Jr., President of Pride at Work Hawaii. He/him pronouns. We stand in strong support of this measure because money is not speech. Being able to go out and buy airway and influence elections just says that as long as you have $1.0 billion, you can do whatever you want.

It's not fair to the little people. And the intended consequences of this bill is to ensure that we can't have billionaires swoop in and buy elections as we've seen happen. So we encourage you to pass this out, let the people decide, and amend our constitution to reflect the will of the people. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. And John Morrissey on Zoom. Do you wish to testify on this measure? Okay. Okay. No. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Ah, yes. Come on up. Please introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Committee Members, Cameron Hurt, State Director for Common Cause Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this measure. We know that money in politics is something that our founding fathers fought against. Had they not, they would have selected an oligarch or a king to rule them. We know that we fight every day.

To make sure that it's one voice, one vote, not $11 vote. If we don't take proactive measures, we. Could be on a slippery slope to. Oligarchy in all reality. So it's for that reason and many. More that Common Cause Hawaii is of. Course, in strong support of this measure. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hurt. One more try. Mary Healy on Zoom. No. Anyone else wishing to testify? Yes. Please come on up and introduce yourself.

Great. Yes. Evan Weber with R Hawaii. I also Just wanted to add a few comments in strong support of this measure. Wanted to say that in addition to the great points that Cameron made, our Constitution here in Hawaii has been changed many times and in fact has been around since the 1800s.

And when it was created, they actually built in processes to evaluate whether it should be changed every 10 years. So there was an acknowledgement that Constitutions are things that need to change with the times and respond to new political moments like, like Citizens United decision from the U.S.

Supreme Court and just the influence of big money in politics in General. So, you know, constitutions change. And also the US Constitution has been changed for many notable reasons, including the three fifths clause, which legalized slavery in the United States. So constitutions absolutely do need to change, and this is a great reason to change ours.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure on Zoom or in person, if not questions. Members, Representative Shimizu, please proceed.

Thank you. Chair. I'm disappointed that we don't have any legal representation since this is regarding the Constitution. And I'd like to hear them weigh in on the legality of this bill because as I understand it, it's a federal jurisdiction with the Citizens United case. And don't get me wrong, I am all for campaign reform.

I campaigned on that and am for total public funding of campaigns. I just don't see, besides making a statement, this bill really making a difference except introducing more legal interpretation conflict. So I. I asked.

There's no one to ask a question.

No. No one to ask but you raising your hand, ma' am. No, no, it's you.

You.

Okay.

I am from the Attorney General's Office. You are? I can take a question back for you if that's what you okay asking. I'm sorry, my. I'm Candace Park, Deputy Attorney General.

Okay. Okay. So I'm so thankful that you are a person there and being here. My question is for the Attorney General to weigh in on any legal aspects of this bill and any problems that it may introduce or present for us.

Thank you.

Okay. She'll follow up. She said she'll take it back to the AG and get back to you.

Okay, I didn't catch that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sorry. Okay, so generally, if we do find problems in any of the bills, then we would be submitting testimony to that regard. This bill was assigned to me and it's only going to take have an effect if the Buckley case and the Citizens United case cases are overturned.

Even if those cases are overturned, we wouldn't need the our constitution to be amended in order to reap the benefit of the decision to overturn those cases. So for that reason, we did not submit testimony. Does that make sense?

Yeah. What I'm hearing is unless those two cases get overturned, it's not going to make a difference. And if they do get overturned, then we don't have to do anything because it it will. The overturning of those cases will set the course and guidelines. Correct. Thank you. Understood. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? If not, thanks very much to the testifier that was on the spot legal opinion. Thank you very much, Ms. Park.

I'm gonna get in trouble for that.

All right, if there's no other questions, thanks. We will move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 780, relating to elections. This measure specifies that election ballots issued by the Chief Election Officer or County Clerk shall exclude any candidate who is disqualified by a constitutional or statutory provision.

It provides for a process for challenging an inclusion or exclusion of a candidate from a ballot and includes a candidate's disqualification as grounds for an election contest complaint. It specifies that electors of presidential and vice presidential candidates shall not be individuals who are disqualified by a constitutional or statutory provision.

First up, we have—first person said they wish to testify is Brett Kulbis on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Members. Again, Brett Kulbis, 26, Navy veteran, living in Eva Beach. I strongly oppose SB 780. This is just a repackaged version of SB 2392 from last year, which this Committee did not give a hearing. It raises the same concerns as it did last year.

It undermines the fundamental election principle that voters should decide who is fit for office. It enables the exclusion of candidates based on arbitrary disqualification determinations that limit voter choice. It places unnecessary burdens on Hawaii's courts and election officials, potentially delaying election results and eroding public confidence in the electoral process.

It opens the door for misuse where disqualification challenges could be weaponized against political opponents, further polarizing widespread landscape, and undermining fair competition. The criteria for disqualification are broad, including reference to constitutional provisions such as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Without clear definitions or safeguards, it will lead to inconsistent application and confusion among voters.

I urge you, this Committee, to, again, reject 7—SB 780—like you did last, last year with SB 2392. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. And the next person that said they wish to testify is Mary Healy on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 780? Yes, please come on up.

Aloha. My name is Margaret Mejia. I'm representing Hawaii Christian Coalition. We represent, we have 35,000 Members and represent about 130,000 people on all islands.

We are in opposition to this Bill because we believe that voters should be able to decide who to vote for with no obstacles. And I don't know if this is the correct procedure, but I would like to add the testimony of Brett Colbus as our own.

Oh, yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

You must listen to us on the floor when we do that. Yeah, yeah. But I appreciate the sentiment And I'm sure Mr. Colbus appreciates the deference there. Affirmation of his testimony. Okay, anyone else wishing to testify on 780? If not, questions, Members?

Question.

Yes, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, I have a question for my AG friend over there. My understanding is the Federal Government has sole authority over qualifications of candidates for federal office. So this measure would apply only to state offices. Would that be correct?

I'm sorry, this Bill was not assigned to me, so I can take a question back for you, but I cannot answer your question at this point.

Right, right. So even if it was wasn't assigned to you, you don't have that answer in your library. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Do you want me to follow up, though?

Yeah, please.

Okay. So if you could just repeat the question again.

My understanding is the Federal Government has sole authority over qualifications of candidates for federal office. So therefore, this measure would apply only to state. Our state, I guess, and county also. And I just wanted to confirm if that's a correct understanding.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Should I reply to...

Thank you. Chair.

You can send it to me and then I can provide it to the Members.

Thank you.

Yeah, sure. Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much.

Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1030, Senate Draft 2 relating to elections. This measure specifies that the practice of election fraud intimidation includes carrying an unconcealed firearm or dangerous instrument at or within 200ft of a voter service center, place of deposit, or polling place.

First up, we have Michael Golojuch.

I got Michael Golojuch Jr., President of Pride at Work Hawaii. He/him pronouns. We stand in strong support of this measure. There's no reason that anybody needs to bring a gun with them or any kind of lethal weapon when going to vote or doing or dropping off a ballot at one of the departments deposits.

So we encourage you to pass this Bill. Intimidation has no place in our electoral process and we need to make sure that people are able to Vote freely and securely without. Without threat of violence. So we ask you to pass this Bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Michael Rice on Zoom.

Aloha Chair. Michael Rice testifying on behalf of myself. Frankly, this Bill is unnecessary. It's. Brandishing weapons, any, even firearms, openly is currently against the law, no matter where you are. This also would have some unintended consequences with the recent laws that changed regarding deadly weapons, like, for, or even just other weapons.

Like, I carry a baton for self defense pretty much whenever I leave my yard. If, you know, if I go within 200ft of a polling station. And even though I usually keep this concealed, it doesn't conceal very well with my body frame. So would I be threatening someone if I'm just going past a dropbox with this?

It's simple possession. There's no intent. And I believe there's a fatal flaw in this as well. With this Bill, it doesn't exempt police officers or security guards, who really are the only people who can walk around legally and openly with firearms, nor should I think it should exclude them.

Because, you know what stops an HPD officer from putting on a MAGA hat, standing in front of a dropbox, and, yes, just standing there with his gun, you know, saying that he's just on duty. All right, I believe that's it for my testimony. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next we have Michael Older on Zoom. Not present. Testimony in support. Next person is Mary Healy on Zoom. Not present. Testifying in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? We've received a total of 12 testifiers - testimony in support - 39 in opposition.

Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1030 Senate Draft 2? Yes, please.

Thank you very much. My name is Margaret Mejia. I'm representing Hawaii Christian Coalition. I think you already know the numbers. Okay, so, yes, we're in opposition to SB 1030. We believe it's not a threat, but it's just a simple possession. We support the Second Amendment. Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, if not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's go ahead to the next measure.

Senate Bill 1225, proposing an amendment to Article 17, Section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution to specify that the standard for voter approval of a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature is a majority of all the votes tallied upon question, and that would not include blank, spoiled, and overvotes in determining whether a majority was reached on this measure.

We have testimony from the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission on Zoom. Kathleen Odell in support, not present. Next we have Michael Golouli.

Aloha. Again, Michael Golouli Jr. President of Pride at Work. He/him pronouns. We stand in strong support of this measure because as we, as we just saw last year, the confusion of a blank vote being counted as no vote doesn't make any sense.

And it was hard to explain that to voters, that if you didn't want to have an opinion on it, you should be allowed to not have an opinion. And that should not impact whether an amendment passes or not. It should require a. And an overvote. Counting as a no vote just makes no sense at all either.

So we encourage you to clear this up for once and for all so people know that a yes vote means a yes, a no vote means a no. And if you want to take a pass, you're not impacting the outcome of it either way.

And so because it just, it was so hard, it was such a difficult lift. And it has always been that difficult lift. And anybody who's ever ran a campaign for a Con am knows that.

And so we encourage you, especially when, let me rephrase, especially when you have a question that has ambiguity in it or a double negative, people will sometimes pass on that. And so therefore, that is not them actually making a decision, yes or no. And so we encourage you to pass this measure, clean this up, make it clear.

Yes means yes, no means no. And if you don't want to vote, it doesn't go to yeses, it doesn't go to nos. It just is taken out of the equation altogether. So again, we encourage you to pass this and to send it to the people to decide. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next on zoom, we have Abby Simmons, Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, not present. Testified in support. Next we have Terry Armbruster in person.

Hello, I'm Terry Armbruster and Chair Tarnas and Committee Members. Thank you for allowing me to testify. And I am strong opposition to SB 1225 because I don't. We should not amend the Constitution and lower the threshold for amendment ratification. All votes matter, including blank votes, because there are many reasons why there's a blank vote.

Sometimes the wording in the amendment is vague and unclear, and other times they may agree with one portion of the bill, one portion of the amendment, and disagree with another portion. So they cannot give a definitive yes or no. And also, also some of them, it's unclear about what the real intent or consequences of the amendment.

So that's why they want to abstain. And I strongly propose that it still remain a blank vote. Remain no. And the reason for that is that you can revisit the amendment when you would have a clear.

Be clear and concise so there's no doubt or confusion what the true intent of the amendment is and the real consequences for making that amendment that would make it better so people could give a definitive yes or no. So right now I propose that you vote no against this and vote no on SB 1225.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And finally, Mary Healy on Zoom. Not present. Testifying in opposition. We have received a total of 12 testimonies in support, 40 in opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure first, please go ahead. First Ma' am.

Aloha. My name is Margaret Mejia and I'm representing Hawaii Christian Coalition and we strongly oppose SB 1225. It's a serious thing to change the Hawaii state constitution. Our United States Constitution has been around for over 230 years with no changes to it. Please don't make any changes to our constitution.

You can introduce bills and make laws, but please do not touch our Hawaii state constitution. Also last week we spoke to a group in Wahiawa and they were very confused about blank votes. We got lots of questions on these constitutional amendments. Yes, lots of them do have double negatives.

Right there is very confusing, but we'd like to ask that you still keep blank votes as a no because that's not as confusing for people. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cameron Hurt. [Unintelligible].

Thank you, sir. I submitted my testimony, but I submitted at like noon. So maybe it's later, but just want to make sure you guys have the written part. We're in strong support of this bill having worked on a constitutional amendment. Yes has a specific meaning. No has a specific meaning. Me not checking either has a specific meeting.

Sometimes people abstain from these votes because they feel like they may affect a community that they're not a part of, disproportionately that it will themselves and their own. Therefore, they're leaving it up to their citizens who are more informed and it's going to be more impactful for them. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

But while we're taking a blank vote and saying that blank vote now means no, we're changing, we're assuming the intent of that voter to mean no rather than the ambiguity that they left it in. Leave the voter's decision in the voters hands. If they want to put no, they will put no.

They want to put yes, they'll put yes. But it is extremely confusing when doing a campaign from an organizing standpoint and a public standpoint. This was something a lot of feedback we got back that leaving it blank. Some would have preferred to leave it blank and not have it count anyway.

So again, we're just asking that their voice and their choice to not check either be respected. Thank you guys.

Thank you very much. I. It's not listed as the one that we received. If you could just make sure that you do have it. We got it. Okay. We got it. Hold on just a second. Let me just see if it's in this list here. Okay. And I. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1225?

Yes, please.

Yes. I'm Terry Armbruster and again, I oppose SB 1225. And specifically this seems to be a very contentious thing about the blank votes. And I think it should be incumbent upon the people that are trying to amend the Constitution to make sure the wording is clear, clear, concise, the true intent of the amendment is made clear.

So there's no doubt, no confusion, and they know the real consequences for making this amendment. So I think it's more incumbent to do that rather than just keeping the yes or no. You should be incumbent upon the amenders to be clear and concise in their wording. So there will be a definitive yes and no. So thanks again.

I just wanted to make sure we emphasize that.

Thank you very much, Ms. Armbruster. Anyone else wishing to testify? Senate Bill 1225. Brett. Brett Colbus.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't intending to testify on this one, but having hearing some of the conversation and testimony, I. I felt the need to. I. I'm neither for. Against this resolution because I understand that while it may pass out of the Legislature, it still has to go to the people to be approved.

And the no vote, the blank votes would be still considered no votes until it gets approved. I would also like to add that, you know, we do the same thing for elected office. Blank votes, spoiled votes, overvotes are not counted towards the elected office. So. So I don't think it should be.

My personal opinion is it shouldn't be a majority of all the votes. It should be a 2/3 majority of all the votes in the affirmative. Just like it is for the US Constitution where 2/3 of the states have to ratify any amendments to the US Constitution.

I yield. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? If not. Questions? Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Mike Golkovich. I'm sorry.

Sorry. We're getting it, Michael. Sorry, Golou.

Thank you. Thank you, Michael, for allowing me to mispronounce your name. I'm very sorry. There's people who've known me for decades, they still mispronounce it. I'll call you Mike. But anyway, thank you for your work. We may disagree on things, but I understand inclusion is very important.

So the question that I have is, would you say that the people who left it blank or. Well, let's just say the people left it blank. That they were maybe undecided to. To vote whether yes or no and that was the reason?

Yeah, they. Some people didn't understand the question, so they left it blank. They didn't want. They didn't realize that by leaving it blank they were actually voting no and they didn't understand the question. In some cases, we people don't turn the ballot over and they don't see the questions, and so they don't even realize that those questions.

Sorry, Mike, I want to interrupt you because I've pointed questions and I want to get to the point. So basically, if it is blank, it is a possibility that the voter was undecided, he didn't know whether to vote yes or no, and he left it blank on purpose. Would that be a fair statement for some people?

Yes.

I'm glad we can agree on that. So if we discard these blank votes overvotes spoiled votes, People who went to the poll, they registered to vote, they made the effort to go to the polling place or mail in their ballot. They're an important person. And as your organization tries to represent each person, they had a vote.

And for whatever reason, it wasn't a specific yes or it wasn't a specific no. So if we discard these people, are we discounting them and this disenfranchising them by just totally ignoring them?

Absolutely not. We're not. We're not just enfranchising anybody. They had their opportunity to vote the way they wanted to. They chose to leave it blank. And when we go to in with this measure passes, it will be just like what an elected official. They don't count the.

No, they don't count a blank vote against either one of you. Any. Either you or your opponent, it's just not counted. The same thing with our constitutional amendments. If they don't choose not to be part of this for whatever reason, we should. We don't want to ignore their choice not to be part of it.

And that's what you'd be doing by forcing Them by counting the blank vote as a no, you're forcing them to make a decision that they may not, may not choose to make. And I don't think that's the government's responsibility or wherewithal to make that happen.

Last question, Chair. So based on that, I agree with you. We shouldn't read into their thoughts. So maybe what we could do. Would you be open to creating a third undecided vote?

It's not the bill.

That's left for better minds than mine, but yeah, I think more options the better if that's something. Okay, thank you. And I thank the Chair's indulgence.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate your questions. I have a quick question.

Yes, Ms. Major Missha, I have a question. So one thing I really appreciated about mail in voting is the opportunity to spend time with the ballot and to really scrutinize the questions and do research and do homework. And I'm wondering, you know, I think I hear your objections about lack of certainty and confusion.

Yes.

And I think, you know, as a former teacher, I think that it is important that people come to clarity about their decisions.

But it does seem to me that if we are getting our ballots two weeks, usually about two weeks before they need to be deposited, do you not think that that's adequate time to do research on the question and do your due diligence as a voter?

Because I think of voting as like, you know, this context of rights and responsibilities. So for me it's about asking the voters then to uphold their responsibilities. So I'm wondering if you, if you think that, that two weeks is not enough for people to understand.

And, and I'm wondering if you do think that, then why for me, two.

Weeks is fine for the average person, probably not because they're working, they're doing all different kinds of things. On the day of election, my phone is just ringing off the hook and my text is just blowing up because people have questions and most of the time, nine times out of 10, they're about the questions regarding constitutional amendments.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thanks. We're going to move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 1515, Senate Draft One relating to elections. This allows an on-call circuit judge in the relevant circuit to perform the duties of the Board of Registration for purposes of hearing elections disputes. If the Board of Registration lacks full membership.

it requires the judiciary to designate one or more on call circuit court judges in each circuit to perform the duties of the Board of registration for purposes of hearing elections disputes. First up, we have the judiciary in opposition and written testimony.

And we have one individual in support with written testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1515? If not, no one to ask questions of. So we'll move on to the next measure.

Yeah, they didn't show up. Sorry. So you can read their testimony.

Senate Bill 1202 relating to campaign finance. This measure allows campaign funds to be used for a candidate's childcare and vital household dependent care costs under certain conditions. In this measure, we have Campaign Spending Commission in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Kristin Izumi-Nitao, Executive Director, Campaign Spending Commission. We are in support of this Bill, although we maintain that such use of campaign funds would be permitted under 11-381 as costs appear to be directly related to their campaign.

We did issue two advisory opinions which would support this language and therefore we support this Bill and are available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Next person who wishes to testify is Anne Frederick. Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. Not present.

Yes? Oh, you don't get to do that. Come on up to the rostrum, introduce yourself and your organization and give me the highlights of your testimony.

Aloha Chair Tarnes, Vice Chair Poepoe. My name is Aria Juliet Castillo. I am the Reclaiming Democracy Program Coordinator for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. I'm here representing HAPA. We stand on our testimony for 1030- SB 1032. Taking public. What is it taking? I'm so sorry. Taking foreign influence out of campaign money.

So we're on child care. So you're not testifying on...

I'm so sorry I did not submit testimony for this.

Okay, any? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Camron. Camron, you're listed here.

Yeah, we got you listed on this one.

I would. I would like to stand on my written testimony, but I'll just summarize it Chair. As you know, we just think that if people are raising their campaign funds and this is an expenditure that they're going to incur while campaigning, let them use it.

We know that we want a diverse candidate pool to be able to choose from people with different experiences from all walks of life. This Bill stands to disproportionately benefit women.

But I also personally also want to say something for the single fathers out there who also this Bill could stand to help, as well as aunties and uncles and grandmothers and alike who all step up into care for. So be that as it may, we feel like a kid should never be a handicap.

And again, if they can raise the money for it. Let the people be able to pay for child care. Thank you guys.

Thank you very much. We received total of 9 testimonies in support, 0 in opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1202? If not, questions, Members? Nope. Seeing none. We'll move on. Thanks very much.

Senate Bill 345 relating to public financing. This is the Senate's version of a partial public financing Bill.

Increases the maximum amount—substantially more of an increase than the House version. So, first up, we have Campaign Spending Commission, Kristin Izumi-Nitao.

Good afternoon. Thank you again, Chair, Members. Well, Kristin Izumi-Nitao, Executive Director, Campaign Spending Commission. We support the intent of the Bill but have concerns regarding the funding.

Of course, we prefer our Bill, House Bill 370, but this Bill increases the amount of funds available to qualified candidates participating in the Partial Public Funding Program by increasing the expenditure limit by 20% and raising the maximum amount of public funds available from 10% or 15% of the expenditure limit to 67% of the expenditure limit.

It also increases the Matching Fund ratio from 2 to 1. So, under this Bill, I think we tried to set forth an example of a qualified candidate.

Just so you guys know that what this Bill would do would provide up to $10,298,546 in the Primary and the same amount of money in the General Election, therefore aggregating a $20,597,092 total amount, which I'd like you guys to know is even more than Senate Bill 51, which is also to be discussed on this at this meeting, this hearing, which addresses comprehensive public funding.

So, this is a Partial Public Funding Program that exceeds the Comprehensive Public Funding Program. And I guess I need to let you know that there's only 2.1—2 million—in the Trust Fund. So, we don't have the money for this.

And we'd ask that you reinsert the appropriation amounts to include the positions that we need for this kind of program to be able to be successful. I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, try again, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. House Bill 3—or Senate Bill 345.

I'm ready now. Thank you. Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. My name is Aria Juliet Castillo. I'm the Reclaiming Democracy Program Director for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action and the Co-Founder of Kalian Academy, a leadership development program that encourages people to run for public office.

HAPA strongly supports SB 345, which strengthens and expands the state's public partial—partial public—campaign financing system, increasing the match and the funds for the program. At Kalian Academy, our goal is to inspire everyday working people to serve as elected officials. One of the biggest challenges they face is paying for their campaign.

We constantly hear the same concerns, how much is this going to cost? How do people afford to do this? And the truth is that most can't. Unless they're independently wealthy or have corporate backing and the support of current elected leaders, they'll have to work really hard to fundraise.

And since the average House race in Hawaii is close to $40,000, that's a price tag that puts the even idea of serving out of public reach for many. Partial public funding is one way to level the playing field, but in Hawaii, the program hasn't been meaningfully updated in over 20 years.

Costs have gone up, but the current expenditure limit for a House race is still under $24,000. It's not impossible. Rep. Poepoe is an example of someone that has won on that, but it's far from realistic. While there have been few successful candidates have used the program, it's not the norm.

In 2024-'25, candidates initially signed up to seek matching funds, but only 10 ended up using the program. That was six for county council, two for OHA, and just two for the house, but we can do better than that. SB 345 is a critical step towards making public financing a viable option for more candidates.

Please pass this Bill and take meaningful action to strengthen our democracy. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Evan Weber.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Evan Weber. I am here on behalf of our Hawaii and our Members and supporters across the islands and also, we're a part of The Clean Elections Hawaii Coalition which represents 40 different organizations, both of which are supportive of this Bill and measure.

Stand on our written testimony but wanted to add emphasize a couple of comments and figures which are included in that testimony.

The main takeaway that I want to make sure that legislators understand about what is critical about this piece of legislation and why in our opinion it is stronger and superior to House Bill 370, which previously passed out of the House, is that it raises the expenditure limit for candidates. To build off of Aria's point just now, when we talk to candidates for office or even elected officials who considered the current partial public financing program but didn't end up using it, the reason that they normally don't use it is because by opting in to try to do what they want to do, which is rely less on private donations, they are immediately handicapping themselves by having to run using less funds than what they would be able—what is, on average, necessary to win in a Primary or the General Election.

So, we tallied up the numbers from 2024 elections, and the average figure was that a House primary winner took—spent—$37,000 in the primary.

And the median, which might be a more realistic figure, is $31,000. The average House seat for the 2026 election, under HB 370 and the current program, would only allot about $23,000 per House district. So, SB 345 raises this to $28,000, which gets a little bit closer to that $31,000 median figure, and that's why we think this will enable more candidates to run.

If the intent of the House is to expand partial public financing this year, whatever mechanism you use, I strongly encourage you to raise the expenditure limit so that this actually becomes a viable program that fulfills our duties under the Hawaii Constitution.

And if you are concerned about cost, raise that expenditure limit, but you could also consider lowering the cap. And if you were to lower it to around 35%—sorry, lowering the match. So, that's what's driving up a lot of the cost in this Bill.

And if you were to lower that match, you could create a program that would cost significantly less, and the figures for that are in our testimony and I'm happy to answer more questions because we have looked quite detailed at the numbers.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, Joell Edwards, on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Joell Edwards. I live in Wainiha on the island of Kauai. I'm here as a community advocate. I also am the Chair of the Kauai Democratic Party. But today, I'm speaking to you as a Campaign Manager on some campaigns that I worked on.

And I stand behind my written testimony, but I really felt it was important to give oral testimony as well today. As a Campaign Manager for two grassroots campaigns here on Kauai, we couldn't have made progress that we did without the matching funds.

With this Bill, we will open up a new pool of candidates, most of whom are strong community advocates doing the hard work already, but the daunting task of securing funds to compete against big money is contributing to most people just not running at all or giving up.

This Bill is a significant step forward in reducing the influence of big money in our election process and I really appreciate the time today. I appreciate both of your offices, Chair and Vice Chair, as I reached out late this morning to get in on Zoom. So, thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we have Keani Rawlins-Fernandez, on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and honorable Committee Members. I'm Maui County Council Member, Keani Rawlins-Fernandez. Mahalo for this opportunity to provide testimony in strong support of SB 345. Increasing matching fundament and amending the ratio to a 2 to 1 match are important ways to encourage others to run for office.

For elections to be meaningful, the electorate must not only vote, but they must be given an opportunity to vote for candidates that are qualified and whose values and priorities align with the communities. Too many races' candidates run unopposed and that doesn't contribute to a healthy democracy.

After Citizens United radically undermined the campaign finance system to give power to corporations and folks with billions of dollars that outweigh the voice of our people, less community members are willing to run for office. The "corrupt system" cited in the opposition testimony is caused by Citizens United.

Citizens United is how candidates can receive millions of dollars of untraceable support to their campaign. In looking through the testimony, it seems that there is a misunderstanding that public funding would enable candidates to not be obligated to the influence of big money interests who fund their campaigns.

Having a robust funding program enables—a public funding program enables—candidates to be independent, to be obligated to their voters instead of their donors. So I urge you to support SB 345. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. And finally, Mary Healy, on Zoom. Not present. We have a total of 89 testimonies in support, 42 in opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Cameron.

I should be in there again. Cameron Hurt, State Director, Common Cause Hawaii. We'll stand on our written testimony. And in summary, truly, there's nothing I can say that you guys haven't heard before. You guys have been with this issue of campaign public financing since some of you—since the genesis of your career and in service in this capacity.

We're trying. We're trying. We're giving you multiple variations of campaign financing bills. Please, candidly, give us something. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not—yes. Come on up, please.

Hello, I'm Terry Armbruster and I oppose SB 345 because I know public financing, that means you're taking our tax dollars, for—what if it's for candidates that we don't want? So, why are you using our tax dollars to pay for candidates?

I understand it's hard to run for office, but that's part of the obligation is getting their own financing, things like that. No, I don't think you should be using our tax dollars for candidates that we may not want to vote for.

So, that's why I oppose it and ask you to reconsider what, what, how you're going to do this financing and look for other avenues and can be voluntary and other things, but not automatically use our tax dollars for this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes, please, come on up.

Aloha. My name is Margaret Mejia from Hawaii Christian Coalition and we oppose SB345. I don't have a written testimony right here in front of me. Someone's working on it right now, so I can have it emailed to all of you. I don't know how long they're going to take, but hopefully in the next five minutes.

But yeah, we oppose SB345. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Michael Golouli.

There we go. Thank you. Michael Golouli Jr. President of Pride at Work. He/him pronouns. We stand in strong support of this measure. I wasn't going to testify on this, but we use tax dollars for things I don't agree with all the time or other people don't agree with all the time.

And this is the reason we definitely do need public financing has already been well, well eloquently put out. There you go. That's a good way eloquently put out there. More than I could do right this moment. But we definitely do need this. So we encourage you to pass this.

Help us help and let's give everybody a chance that wants to, that can meet those thresholds, be able to run for office. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, if not. Questions, Members? Yes. Representative.

For Ms. Mejia, sorry I'm not trying to pick on you, but I'm, I'm genuinely curious. You, you mentioned that you are in opposition, but you didn't explain why.

Yeah, I don't have an explanation right now other than, well, I guess I could say, yeah, we're against taxpayer dollars paying for any campaign. Yeah. Guess that would be the main reason. But there's other reasons too.

Okay. I look forward to reading your testimony.

Okay, thanks.

Chair. Yes, I have a question for Campaign Spending Commission for Executive Director Zum. I should know the answer to this question, but I don't, so I'll ask it. Does our constitution require that for the partial public financing we have to find fund all of the offices identified in the statute.

It just provides that there must be a partial public funding program. And of course it's subject to there being funds. So we have a program for it. And our bill, House Bill 370, which fortunately due to your committee is still alive, is in our opinion, a humble opinion, more affordable than this type of programming.

We have no, we are totally in support of partial public funding. It's a program that we must run. But this one, in our, in our opinion, is very expensive. And my apologies to the commit I'm sorry, Can I have a follow up question? Yeah.

Okay. So my follow up question is, Ms. Castillo Thiel provided testimony that in the last cycle only 12 people, there are 14 people availed themselves of the partial public financing in the previous election cycle. How many [unintelligible] candidates availed themselves of the partial financing?

That's a great question. I don't have that data in front of me right now. It is all available on our website. As far as how many people applied for it, how many qualified and who won. But of course, you probably know a historic number was Governor Ige received public funding, partial public funding, and won that election.

And he also would explain how it was a very difficult process and program for him to navigate as well. Okay, thank you.

I'm just curious because I think if we have the data that shows that some of these offices are actually not taking advantage of it in a way that we could maybe not fund those and be more generous so that we can fund and in fact build up a pipeline of candidates at the other levels of elected office.

That's just my comment. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you. Just a question for you, Ms. Izumi Nitao. The $2.2 million that's in the fund, where did that money come from?

That's a trust fund. That part of the money comes from the $3 or $6 tax check. Off. And again, we also have on our website have data as to how much we receive every year. And it comes from escheats, which are statutorily. Statutorily mandated remedies based on some violations, for instance, escheats.

There are also some candidates who just escheat their balance because they want to terminate their committees. So it's a compilation of different sources, but at the end of the day, it's a trust fund that is grouped with other trust funds and the investment return comes back to the trust fund. But it's not a large amount of.

Money at this time, though. There's no General Tax Fund. No. That's in that trust fund. No General. There's no general appropriations that go into.

That trust fund and no tax benefit.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Represent Perruso.

Question for our Hawaii. So I really appreciated the data analysis that you folks did. And for Members of the public who are not looking at what we're looking at, essentially what you did is you looked at SB345 and you did two kinds of scenarios. One was at a 20% increase in expenditure limits and up to 60%. 7. 67% match.

And then the second was 30% increase in expenditure limits and up To 35% match. And then you looked at how that would affect the overall cost and you broke it down by office, which was very nice. Thank you so much. But I'm wondering, was this data and this possible set of scenarios also offered to the Senate?

Did they have a chance to deliberate on this possibility?

This data was not so. This data was created in response to the observation that the Campaign Spending Commission made about their projected costs. We were curious about what was driving that and wanted to look into it more.

So we modeled it out and our numbers match their estimates pretty closely and we're happy to share them with the committee for, you know, for further deliberation should some bill move forward. But so we didn't, we did not share it with the Senate.

And so that did not factor into the way that they passed it out, if that answers your question.

Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Representative Todd.

Thank you. Very briefly for the director for campaign spending. Good. I'll just swallow it down.

Any other questions or attempts at asking questions? Nope.

I learned my lesson.

Ask early. Ask early. Okay, thank you. Thank you to the Members for their questions and thank you to the testifiers for your testimony. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1032, Senate Draft 2, relating to campaign finance.

This prohibits foreign entities and foreign-influenced business entities from making contributions, expenditures, electioneering, communications, or donations for election purposes. And it goes on, but that's the essence of it. First up, we have—one moment—Candace Park, Attorney General. The whole reason you came here.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. There are—this Bill requires two certifications to be made under penalty of perjury. However, a false certification in either of those events would not meet the requirements of the offense of perjury. So, we have provided language which would correct both of those problems, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. We received, oh, I don't know. Kristin Izumi-Nitao from Campaign Spending Commission, in support, but she's not available. Next, we have Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, in support.

Aloha, again. Aria Juliet Castillo, Reclaiming Democracy Program Director for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. HAPA strongly supports SB 1030, a Bill that protects Hawaii's elections from foreign influence. Our democracy should be shaped by the people of Hawaii, not outside of forces trying to control it.

This Bill strengthens existing laws by stopping foreign owners' business from making campaign contributions and requires businesses to certify that no foreign ownership is there, before donating. And I think the most important part of this Bill ensures that political ads clearly disclose the top contributors and the sources of their funding. Please support this important measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've also received late written testimony from Matson. Are they here? No. With comments. So, we received a total 89 testimony in support, one in opposition, and two with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Yes, please, Cameron. Come on up.

And this one I know I submitted, too. So, yeah. We love this Bill, so, we support it, of course. More than anything, we're going to stand on our written testimony. Listen, the oldest democracy in the modern world has a right to protect and safeguard its privileges for its citizens.

What makes us the oldest democracy in the world is the ability to vote and protecting that and making sure that's safeguarded and protected for the right of all citizens and that we get to have the loudest voice in our elections is critical and vital.

So, for that reason, of course, everything we wrote down, we strongly support this measure. Thank you, guys.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1032? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you. We will move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 51, Senate Draft 1, relating to public financing for candidates to elected office.

This measure establishes a comprehensive system of public financing for all candidates seeking election to state and county public offices in the state of Hawaii to begin the 2028 General Election Year. First up, we have testimony from the Campaign Spending Commission. Not present. Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action.

Aloha. Aria Juliet Castillo, the Reclaiming Democracy Program Director for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. Thank you. We stand in strong support of SB 51, establishing publicly funded elections in Hawaii. On August 11th, 2024, we woke up to a headline that become all too familiar. Hawaii saw the worst voter turnout on Saturday of any Primary since statehood.

This is the norm. Hawaii has a low voter turnout, and it's created a cycle of political apathy that we have the power to break. When the same candidates run unopposed year after year, people lose faith and that their vote even matters or will make a difference.

And when the voter turnout stays low, new candidates look at the numbers and ask, why even try? The cycle of disengagement is so bad for democracy. A healthy democracy thrives on competition. When the voters have real choices, it leads for better debates, new ideas, and elected officials who are more accountable to their communities.

But right now, that's not happening. This year, 28 House incumbents had no primary challengers and 15 races had no general opponent. This is not a competitive democracy. That is a broken system. One of the biggest reasons new candidates don't step up is money. Running for office is very expensive.

And without personal wealth or big donors, too many qualified people, especially working class, cannot afford to do so. And that means that we miss out on having teachers, small business owners, firefighters, nurses, bringing real life experience into the government.

If we want a democracy that works for everyone, we need to make sure that we all have a fair shot at running for office. Publicly funded elections would help break down these barriers, strengthen voter participation, and ensure a government truly represents the people. Please support SB 51. Let's give voters a choice and restore the faith in democracy.

Thank you. Mr. Evan Weber.

Aloha again today and also, this is my third time in the last three years testifying on this Bill. So, some of you have already heard our spiel on this before, but we are in strong support of SB 51.

We think comprehensive public financing is the way to go in terms of achieving the twin goals of more equal representation in our democracy and helping to lessen the influence of private money on our elections and thus, our politics. When this Bill was deferred last year, there were a number of questions that were raised.

And while we support the Bill as it stands, we tried to address some of those questions and concerns that we heard during that hearing and in the years since then, and so, I just want to highlight those for your consideration. Many of the concerns around SB 51, as were raised about SB 345, relate to cost.

And one of those concerns that also come up in the testimony that was shared is how this Bill relates to the county elections and the counties.

In the conversations that we've had in the Clean Elections Hawaii Coalition in the last year, we think that if cost is a concern, removing the county races from the inclusion in this program would be one way to address costs while not diminishing the overall impact of public financing in our systems, given that Kauai County and Maui County Council races are at large and those people do have competitive funds from our current program.

Another thing, as Rep. Bellati raised, is that the key driver in these programs generally is the top of the ticket races. So, if legislators are looking to reduce the cost of this, they could remove the Governor, or Lieutenant Governor races, or even some of the mayor or Prosecuting Attorney Races.

Third concern that has been raised in the past is around revenue. And one easy solution for that, that wouldn't do anything to infringe on people's taxpayer contributions that they're not interested in making, is to switch our current way that we fund the election fund from an opt-in system to an opt-out system.

Our calculations is that this would provide around $2.5 million of consistent revenue to the Campaign Fund, assuming about an 85% participation rate, which is conservative.

And then, last but not least, Rep. Tarnas, you actually raised what I thought was a thoughtful question about—I think it was you—about the way that the qualifying contributions are apportioned in this legislation and they are more arbitrary than our current partial public financing system, which is based off of registered voters in a district.

So, you could consider using that as a metric if that really is a concern to legislators, and using about 1% of that number would roughly match up with the current apportionments that are in there. So, hope that we've provided some options to address your concerns.

And there also is draft amendment language, should you choose to keep this Bill alive and move it forward in our testimony. Mahalo nui.

Thanks very much. Dave Mulinix, on Zoom.

Aloha. Dave Mulinix, representing Revolution Hawaii's 5,000 members and supporters statewide. Thank the Committee for hearing this legislation and I know this is an excellent Committee to hear this because you all understand this very, very well.

Since City United, decision funding by special interests for political candidates has skyrocketed. Studies show that 90% of candidates who spend the most money win their elections. According to Pew Study, 90% of legislation passed in Congress is exactly what corporations support. Only 10% of congressional legislation that is passed currently is in the best interest of the majority of our electorate.

In the most recent election, we had a battle between Donald Trump's billionaires versus Kamala Harris's billionaires, on who would end up being our next president.

We don't have to look much further than the White House Oval Office where billionaires sit—where billionaires sit next to President of the United States, advising him to see how big money is having undue influence on our democracy. Currently there's little chance of a fairly addressing this problem in Congress.

So, it falls on the state legislatures to ensure we have fair elections and if we're to ensure we have a government of, by and for the people, then, it is essential to prevent big money having...influence on our elections, and passing this legislation be very important. Thank you so much for your time. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Next, Brett Kulbis, on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Committee Members. I strongly oppose this Bill. Implementing a full public funding system requires significant financial resources from taxpayers and not everyone may agree with their tax money supporting political candidates, especially if they disagree with the candidates or the parties being funded.

Managing a public funding can be a complex bureaucratic nightmare. It requires a well-designed system to ensure fairness and prevent misuse of the funds which can be challenging and—to implement effectively. We already know the Campaign Spending Commission does not have the power—the manpower—currently demanded, to really use the partial funding we have already.

Even if public funding outside spending, even with public funding, outside spending by independent groups can still dominate the political landscape, potentially undermining the benefits of public funding. With these with these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote "No" on SB 51.

Thank you very much. Keani Rawlins-Fernandez on Zoom.

Aloha again, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and honorable Committee Members. I'm Maui County Council Member, Keani Rawlins-Fernandez. Mahalo for this opportunity to provide testimony in strong support of SB 51, establishing a publicly funded campaign program.

When asking folks frustrated with their elected officials if they would run, most folks won't choose to run as many are intimidated by the sheer amount of funds candidates backed by big money get. I could ask someone off the street if they donated to candidates' campaigns and more likely than not, they didn't. Most people who voted for me did not donate to my campaign. 27,172 people voted for me.

A fraction of those donated to my campaign. Donating to campaigns is just not something that folks generally do. So, what does this lead to? Big money who fully understand the potential of controlling government by paying for the campaigns of candidates that will pass laws in their favor.

Less people are willing to run, particularly grassroots candidates committed to people willing to stand against big money hurting the working-class people, and it continues to erode the faith and confidence the public has in government. We must establish systems that encourage more community members to participate in government.

This would provide funding to candidates that I both support and don't support. And that is how democracy works. I support a system that enables the community to have the ability to vote for as robust a candidate pool as possible. So, I urge you to pass SB 51. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. And finally, Mary Healy, on Zoom. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 51? Yes. Please come on up.

Aloha. My name is Margaret Mejia and I'm representing Hawaii Christian Coalition. We have 35,000 members and I represent about 130,000 people. We are against this Bill. We strongly oppose this Bill because it would raise partisan concerns, also misuse of funds and—sorry, I got some notes here—taxpayer dollars would fund all political campaigns, and private donations would be banned. So, we're against the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members? No, nope. Any questions? Nope. Okay. Thank you very much for the testimony.

Let's move on to the last measure for testimony, and that is Senate Bill 1508, Senate Draft 1, relating to statutory revision, amending or repealing various provisions of the Hawaii Revised Statutes or the session laws of Hawaii for the purposes of correcting errors and references, clarifying language, or deleting obsolete or unnecessary provisions.

And we have with us, from the Legislative Reference Bureau, Mr. John Morrissey on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair. John Morrissey, Legislative Reference Bureau. This is our annual statutory revision bill where we address errors in the law, obsolete language, omissions, etc. The bureau stands on our written testimony and support, and I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, if not questions? I have one question, John. Did you happen to find out if there were any. If you looked over this with a fine tooth comb, made sure that it's no mistakes?

You know, I did.

Okay. Just verifying that. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it very much.

Oh, yes, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, chair. I understand you did a lot of good work and you went over it with a really good combination. I'm just curious, does. Besides LRB, does anyone else do a subsequent review to confirm the changes are all in order?

Yes. So before we get introduced, we actually send it over to the Department of the Attorney General and they get back to us if they have any concerns. And on this one, they didn't have any concerns.

That's awesome. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Thank you. It's very, very detailed work that you got to do. So any other questions? If not, thank you very much, John. Appreciate your work. Okay. That's all the testimony. We just so everyone knows, if you weren't here at the very beginning, we had the testimony.

We heard the testimony on Senate Bill 1337 related to Stadium Authority and we also received the testimony on Senate Bill 289 relating to ethics, administrative fines. We, we heard those at the very top of the agenda. And there's written test--the written testimony is in your packets after those two measures. Okay.

Let's go to the top of the agenda for decision-making. Okay. Senate Bill 1767 Senate Draft 1, relating to recounts. On this, I would like to defect the effective date and then move this along for Conference Committee discussions. Any questions or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 176 SD1 with amendments. [Roll Call].

With reservations, please.

With reservations for Representative Shimizu. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure: Senate Bill 311, Senate Draft 1, proposing an amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution regarding the freedom of speech. On this, I would propose that we move this forward with the defective date. I want to defect the effective date.

I would recommend that on page four, lines four to 11, I want to make sure that the ballot question is just the ballot question, not the context around it. So I would propose deleting language from the ballot question specifying that the constitutional amendment would take effect if the Supreme Court of the U.S. overturns, Congress overrides, or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution invalidates Citizens United versus Federal Elections Commission and Buckley versus Valeo.

This language is not actually reflected in the amendment and I think it would be better suited to put it into the voter information guide so that the voters would understand why you're voting on this and when it would come into effect. And then I'd like to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. So defect the date, make the changes that I just suggested, and technical amendments. Questions or concerns, members? Representative Shimizu.

Chair, I have concerns and I'm going to be voting no.

Sure. Appreciate that. Any other comments or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 311 SD1 with amendments, noting Representatives Hashem, Kahaloa, and Garcia as now present and Representative Cochran as excused. Are there any noes or reservations? I got Representative Shimizu's no. Any additional--okay. No vote for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The next measure, Senate Bill 780, relating to elections, I think that there's some challenges with this bill. The bill's proposal to establish time limits for the disposition of Judicial proceedings is very likely unconstitutional in violation of Article Six, Section One of the Hawaii State Constitution, so I'm concerned about that.

There is already a process to challenge the inclusion or exclusion of candidates that's in our statutes right now, and so I don't think that this is a bill that I would like to advance. So my recommendation is to defer Senate Bill 780. Questions or concerns, members? If not, thank you. Move on to the next measure: Senate Bill 1030.

On this measure, I would like to defect the effective date and move this forward to Conference. Questions or concerns, members? Just to defect the date. If no questions, vice chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 1030 SD 2 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations?

No vote.

Okay, no for Representative Garcia.

Reservations.

Reservations for Representative Shimizu. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure: Senate Bill 1225, proposing an amendment to Article 17, Section Three of the Hawaii Constitution to specify that the standard for voter approval of a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature is a majority of all the votes tallied upon the question, and that means that would not include blank, spoiled, and overvotes in determining whether a majority was reached.

Personally, I've always thought that we should just vote. It should just be yes or no and those are the ones that counted, so I would like to move this forward, but I realize that not everyone thinks the same way I do so I'm going to propose that we defect the effective date, and we need to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and I'd like to reword the ballot question so it doesn't include all the background information that's more suited for the voter information guide.

So the proposed ballot question would read as follows: quote, 'under the existing language of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, amendments to the Constitution of the State of Hawaii that are proposed by the Legislature are only effective if approved at a general election by a majority of all votes tallied upon the question, this majority constituting at least 50% of the total vote cast at the election shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to change that standard for voter approval of constitutional amendments that are proposed by the Legislature by removing the requirement that the majority of all votes tallied upon the question must constitute at least 50% of the total vote cast at the election.'

That's what I would propose to have in there. So we'd also make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Clear as mud, right? Okay. Defect the date, technical amendments, and ballot question as I've just described, and move this on to Finance. Questions or concerns, members?

Chair?

Yes.

Thank you, chair. I will be voting no on this. Hawaii has a low voter turnout. It's been historical that way. This last election it did increase, which is a good thing. My concern is that even amongst those who do decide to vote, which is often below 40% of our actual electorate, many of them leave blank ballots or votes on the questions for ConAms, and so we're going to be allowing potentially 15 to 20% of Hawaii's population to amend the State Constitution. I just don't think that's a good thing, so I'll be voting no. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Representative Shimizu.

I have concerns also and I'll be voting no.

Okay. Anyone else? If not, vice chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 1225 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused, noting the no votes of Representative Garcia and Shimizu. Are there any additional noes or reservations? Hearing none, recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Let's move on to the next measure: Senate Bill 1515, Senate Draft 1. If you read the testimony from the Judiciary, they respectfully oppose this measure, and I think it's compelling testimony and so I recommend we defer Senate Bill 1515, Senate Draft 1. Questions or concerns, members? If not, we'll move on.

Senate Bill 1202; I'd like to move this forward. It's already allowed if anyone asks for the Campaign Spending Commission to say this, but they said it'd be good to have it in statute, so let's do it. So I recommend we move this forward as is. Clean date onto Finance. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 1202 as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations?

No vote.

No vote, please.

Okay. No votes for Representative Garcia and Shimizu. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure: Senate Bill 345, Senate Draft 1. I agree with the the Campaign Spending Commission that the Campaign Spending Commission's bill, House Bill 370, which we approved in the House as House Draft 2, is the preferable vehicle for this. It is in our Constitution to have a partial public financing.

I would like to better fund that, and I think their recommendations to do so are the best ones for us to proceed. Even in these times where I expect that it's going to--right now, the Council on Revenues is having their debate and I wouldn't be surprised if they come back and suggest that the projected tax estimates are going to be lower, so we won't be able to fund all the appropriation bills that we've moved on in addition to the budget.

So I would like to stick with what we had previously recommended and we were able to move through Finance and send to the Senate. So I would propose that we insert the language from House Bill 370 HD 2 into this measure and move it on as a House Draft 1 to Finance. Questions or concerns, members? Yes.

So just to confirm, though, our position in the House bill doesn't raise the expenditure limit?

That's correct.

It does not?

It was not, it was not suggested by Campaign Spending Commission nor was any of this brought up in any of the testimony when we heard the bill earlier. I appreciate that it was brought up now, but--in this testimony--but I want to go with the House position that we had previously passed, and if this moves through Finance, we can take it to Conference and we can perhaps address some of those issues then. So I want to just stick with the House position that we had previously passed.

Okay. But I think acknowledging that, I mean, I think what we heard in the testimony is that we, the expenditure--raising the expenditure limit actually doesn't necessarily affect the--it could affect the bottom line, but it does make it a stronger and more robust program.

And that--I guess, Chair, would it be safe to say because we've heard it here, even though we're passing the House position, it is something that could be the topic of discussion in Conference?

Well, I mean it's, it's relevant to bring up in testimony before Finance. Because that's--this bill goes to Finance next.

Okay.

I'm curious about something.

No. Is that--any other questions or comments?

So I guess just in, in past practice of the, of the way bills have moved, because it's been raised in the discussions now, but even though we don't adopt it is, it is in kind of the milieu of the options that we could consider, even though we don't adopt it here in this, in this--

Yeah. I mean it's, we received it in testimony today. I don't want to include it in the Standing Committee Report, but I think it certainly should be brought up by the advocates in Finance and that it could be considered then, and I think that's very, that's very appropriate.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Sure. Represent Perruso.

And I'm sorry, I just haven't been simultaneously tracking effectively enough, and I'm wondering if the Senate will have similar feelings about our House Bill 370, if they will also seek to replace our content with theirs. Is that--have you had those conversations yet or is it premature?

I don't know. The Senator and I spoke and we've talked about this even before session started and he, he was going to propose his bills and we were going to move with a bill that I thought the House could support and, and then we would take it as far as we can take it because we're all--I mean, I think both the Senate Judiciary and the House Judiciary would like to see an improvement on our partial public financing.

And I--since we got support from House Finance to move forward with House Bill 370 HD 2 before the change in Council on Revenues projections, I want to stick with that.

Okay.

And see if we can take this all the way to the finish line in Conference Committee. Question--other questions or concerns? Representative Shimizu.

Chair, thank you, chair. I feel that promoting candidates and taking the money out of the influence--out of the equation is important, and I agree that there is concerns that taxpayers will be paying for maybe an opposition candidate, but hopefully that would equal itself out, so I think the benefit of promoting candidates and taking money out of the equation is, in my opinion, a greater cause, and I will be voting yes, but with reservations.

Thank you. Other comments or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote. This is Senate Bill 345 SD 1. We're going to do an HD 1, inserting the language from House Bill 370 HD 2 into this measure. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 345 SD 1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused, noting with reservations vote from Representative Shimizu. Are there any noes or reservations additional? No vote for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1032, Senate Draft 2, relating to campaign finance. This is the one that prohibits foreign entities and foreign influence business entities from making contributions, expenditures, electioneering, communications, or donations for election purposes. It's already in state law that foreign nationals are not allowed to make political contributions.

This expands this to foreign entities and foreign-influenced business entities. I'd like to move this bill forward and make some changes to it, so House Draft 1. I'd like to defect the effective date. I would like to make a correction on page five, line one.

The word two should be changed to six since that is when there would be a situation where no foreign investor has 1% and is covered under paragraph one. So that's more of a technical correction. I'd also have to make some other technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

I'd like to adopt the amendments from the Attorney General testimony and also the amendments from the Campaign Spending Commission's testimony and move this forward. Questions or concerns, members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, chair. I think we are in a global, multinational economy at this point, and this will be hard to define and interpret and maybe even enforce, so I will be voting no.

Thank you. Any other comments or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1032 SD 2 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. A no vote for Representative Shimizu. Are there any additional noes or reservations? Hearing none, recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure: Senate Bill 51, Senate Draft 1. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the advocates who continue to work on this and Senator Rhoads who keeps on advocating for this. We are advancing our partial public financing measure in Senate Bill 345, Senate Draft 1, and we had previously moved it out in House Bill 370, House Draft 2.

That's to strengthen what's already required under our Hawaii State Constitution. I'd like to get that first and then try to get that to be something that more people participate in and we increase the amounts.

And so I would propose that we are not at a point where we would be able to move forward with Senate Bill 51, Senate Draft 1 in part due to cost and also because I would like to succeed in the partial public financing measure that we're advancing and not move forward two measures that are really competing. So my recommendation is to defer Senate Bill 51, Senate Draft 1. I'm open to comments or concerns from members if they want to speak up. Please go ahead.

I'll speak up. So this is a measure that I actually think has the opportunity to change fundamentally and transformatively politics because of the huge influence of and the huge negative influence of corporate funds. I was actually an advocate for this measure long before I came to the Legislature and actually when I was almost straight out of college and so I've been an advocate of clean elections for over 28 years when I was first introduced into politics as a campaign spending commissioner.

So I understand what you're doing, chair, and I do understand the money aspect of it. I would just say--and make one last comment--this is the kind of bill that I would stick around and continue to run for office, make sure this gets enacted. So for anyone who doesn't want me in office, let's pass this bill, let's pass this bill, but otherwise, on that note of levity, I understand what you're doing, chair.

I just, again, as a supporter of over 28 years for this measure, this is, again, the kind of reform that is innovative and truly transformative and so I understand where we're going now and I do really hope that we can pass a very robust partial public financing system because that can also be a game changer as we've seen candidates come in through that, some very excellent candidates coming through that system. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Other comments or concerns? Anybody else? I do want to note for the members that we did move out a very strong bill to prevent--prohibit any state or county contractors or grantees, their principals, and their immediate family members from making contributions as a way to try to address that issue that you spoke to.

So we are moving that forward because I agree we need to address that. Other comments or concerns on my recommendation to defer Senate Bill 51, Senate Draft 1? Now is the time if you want to make any statements. Okay, thank you. Let's move on. Senate Bill 289, relating to ethics, administrative fines. This is a clean bill. I think we should advance it as is. Questions or concerns? Members? If not, vice chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 289 as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1508, Senate Draft 1. This is the annual revision bill that we need to do. The Legislative Reference Bureau has prepared this and gone over it with a fine tooth comb. John Morrissey has worked, worked hard on this with his team, and I recommend we move this out as is. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 1508 SD 1 as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none, recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Last bill: Senate Bill 1337, Senate Draft 1, relating to the Stadium Authority. We need to make one correction. On page eight, line seven, the word, quote 'nonvoting,' end quote, should not be underlined because this is already existing language in the statute and we--I would like to amend the effective date to be upon approval.

So this would be a clean bill and we'd move this along. They've been trying to get this through for three years now, so let's see if we can make this happen. So correct that one: nonvoting should not be underlined--page eight, line seven--and then change effective date to be upon approval. With that, HD 1, questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 1337 SD 1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations?

No vote.

No vote for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thanks. There being no further business before us today, we are adjourned.