Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right, welcome, everyone, to the Judiciary.

Our First Judiciary Committee hearing of the session. My name is Karl Rhoads. I'm Chair of the Committee. This, this in person Zoom meeting and YouTube live stream event will include the following agenda, our just 1:10 PM agenda.

Since it's our first session, I'll go ahead and request that members introduce themselves down here on the left, my left, with Senator Chang.

Stanley Chang.

Okay, there you go.

Mike Gabard, representing District 21, West Oahu.

And Joyce San Buenaventura representing District 2, the Big Island...

Thank you very much. As noted, this hearing is being live streamed on YouTube. You can find links to viewing options for all Senate hearings and meetings on the live and on demand video page of the Legislature's website, which is www.capital.hawaii.gov. and in the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to major technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Tuesday, February 6th at 9:00 AM, here in 016, and a public notice will be posted.

For the people testifying remotely, all testifier audio will be muted and video disabled until it's your turn to testify.

For the committee's practice, there is a two minute time limit on testimony, although members often have questions. So, if you can hang, if you can hang around, that would be great, for possible questions. If there's any temporary technical glitches during your turn to testify, we may have to move on to the next person.

We'll try to come back if time allows and I think that'll do it. Let's go. The first bill on the agenda today is Senate Bill 2056. I'm sorry, 2055. Requires the Civil Rights Commission to establish a helpline for individuals to submit reports of harms from federal deployments in the state.

Requires the Civil Rights Commission to compile an annual report and hold an annual public hearing on data obtained through the helpline. First up on 2055 is Heather McVey, Deputy Director for the Y Civil Rights Commission.

Hi, good morning. Chair, Vice Chair Heather McVeigh, Deputy Executive Director with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Well, we had some ideas to implement the this bill that would also increase the opportunity to capture work that is covered by our jurisdiction as we're concerned that as it's written, the report of activity by federal agencies would not be covered by our jurisdiction.

So the idea is that we would use the existing infrastructure with Hawaii's 211 and an MOU with Aloha United Way to execute the call line itself. And then we would also recommend that we open it up to reports of civil rights violations as well as human rights violations which are historically underreported.

And then we would need support to implement the outcome of that here with our agency. So we provided some edits and comments on that and happy to answer any questions you have. But we think it's a great idea because people don't report these kinds of things.

And making it known that it's being reported to the Civil Rights Commission, I think would have an opportunity to have more folks report that.

And thus we could use the information to direct resources for outreach and education and a lot of other uses and as well as adding it to the Attorney General's report on hate crimes, which I know is already on the book. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. Next up is Stephen Munt for League of Women Voters in support. Chris COFIELD, President for EMU alliance, whose name I consistently mispronounced for like 20 years. I think it's Cofield. Anyway, he's in support too. Michael Gou senior in support. Victor Ramos in opposition. Anybody's here online, jump in please.

Lorna Holmes and support. Brent Coldis in opposition. Don Wakukawa in support. Sam Guenheimer in support. Elena Araga in support. Lauren Fau in support. Elizabeth Welton in support. Jody Wiedman in support. Roger Hamada in support. Christy Gund in support. Noel Lindeman in support. Janet Tiare in support. Natasha Lum in support. Vivian Tolner in support. Tim Hke in support.

Amber Kane Haua. In support. Shana Kino in support. Cheryl Bellamy in support. Nancy Moser and support. And everyone else is in support too. 12345678910111213141516 more individuals in support. If anybody's here that would like to testify online, please say so now. Okay, Members, questions?

Yes, Senator San Buenaventura. Go ahead.

Boy Civil Rights Commission. Yes, hello. So. At my Committee.

Sorry, maybe you better pull your mic.

So at my Committee we heard a similar bill for warm line and basically my question is you had estimated. Well really it's more like a guesstimate of 300 to 500,000 and 70,000 to 225,000. My understand and I like what you've written that basically let's use the infrastructure there for 211.

But it seems to me like the hearing I had regarding the warm line there needs to be a handoff to somebody who is 24 hours with some legal knowledge.

Would the 200 with a 300 to $500,000 be that handoff is that what you're, you're looking at where maybe you could get volunteer attorneys to be there, because that's what I foresee this as. You know, Ayes agent comes in, they want somebody to call right away to find out what their rights are and what they should do.

I see. Thank you, Senator. Okay. Well.

Yeah, so I guess what we had in mind is, you know, looking at what our jurisdiction covers and what we're able to do under our existing, you know, structure is that the majority of these federal agency reports would not be covered under our jurisdiction and we're further constrained by confidentiality under 3684.

So I think what we had in mind is that the reports would come in and be handled by 211 who I understand is open from 7am to 10pm currently as they, as they work there is ability to leave messages after hours.

But my thought, I guess the thought of the commission, I should say because this is our commission's position, is that this would be a reporting mechanism and then callers would be, would be referred to legal resources the way that 211 will recommend resources in the community according to the partnerships they have with a long list of different agencies.

So it wouldn't be like a legal hotline where you could get legal advice per se, but we could have it so that we would refer folks to whatever legal entity that they could seek legal advice for their issue.

But if it were covered by our jurisdiction under housing, employment, public accommodations and access to state funded services, then we could, we would take and do an intake and then go through our regular investigation process. And we would perceive that this would increase our number of intakes and the number of reports that we have.

And then also if it doesn't arise to the point of us taking action one way or another, we're still receiving and categorizing the information that comes in about reports of say hate crimes or other civil rights violations that maybe don't rise to that level.

But it's information that we can use to track and navigate and direct resources as a result of that. I hope that answers your question.

No. Well, yes. May I? So, so. Okay. I'm just reading like the first paragraph. Okay. Which is not a 7am to 2pm reporting. It refers to a 24 hour access to assist who have been harmed, whose immediate or extended immediate family have been harmed or witness harm. So it sounds like to me it's an immediate request.

It's a warm line for an immediate request for advice. So shouldn't this then be because of your Limited scope. Shouldn't the 24 hour warm line then just be, shouldn't we just have like a resolution maybe funding HSBA to have this warm line for.

To give immediate advice and then give you folks the reports from that warm line because you have the limited scope?

Well, I think that the idea we had to really give meaning to this was that we would receive the reports of information and then that would be provided for use by the Legislature in a report.

Not so much a legal hotline where people are getting legal advice on, you know, immediately when they call in, but more of a report that could then be used for other purposes.

But I mean, certainly if HSBA had a 24 hour hotline with attorneys that would volunteer to give advice and, and take action on things, no doubt that would be helpful and timely right now. But we're taking what was proposed here and trying to broaden it a little bit so that it could also meet our mission.

Yeah. If you have anybody else other than HSBA like the legal clinic or Naloyo and I, I, it seems to me that's probably more appropriate. Do you have any other potential suggestions?

Well, we think it's a great idea, I think, you know, based on the fact that there's so much underreporting. And I think the thing is that folks don't want to approach law enforcement to make, you know, or other governmental agencies to make these kinds of reports.

So I think having it land with HCRC, although we're very busy, I think it will, we would be able to put that to use in a lot of ways to fulfill our mission. And also, you know, it's directed in the same direction.

But I can appreciate where you're coming from as far as, you know, wanting to get people immediate help at the time that they need it when they call. Right. And I don't know if I misspoke, but the AUW takes calls from 7am to 10pm and then thereafter there is a voicemail that would be addressed.

So part of what we perceived is that we would interface with them and receive that information, digest it, take it if it's jurisdictional for us, investigate it, etc, otherwise all of that would be put together in a report as directed. So I hope that answers your question. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Members other questions? I do have a couple more for you. So the 24/7. So the, the 24/7 helpline that you were envisioning was not, I guess I sort of, maybe I misunderstood it. I thought it was live all night. But you're saying no, it's not. It's only live until 10 o'clock.

Well, and I guess the thing is that that's something that could be negotiated, but as I'm looking at the infrastructure that's already there for 211 that they're open with a live person answering the phones from 7am to 10pm and you can call with a number of concerns. Right.

So after that it would be a voicemail addressed the next day as far as I understand, but perhaps that could be addressed.

I'm sorry, but the cost estimates that you have in your testimony, that was envisioning 7 to 10, not 24. 7.

Correct.

Okay. Question about your current. Well, my reading anyway. Our reading is that this Bill doesn't really try to change the jurisdiction of HCRC about in terms of what they can adjudicate. Is that correct?

Correct.

So at this point, do you have any jurisdiction over federal employees in the course of their duties? I mean, I think you would have some if they were not, you know, if they're acting as individuals. But, but I don't know. I'm sorry, I'll ask a question.

Do, do you have any jurisdiction over federal employees in the scope of their employment at this point?

No, sir.

No. And you do have jurisdiction over them as individuals?

Yes, we would. In the realm of employment, Real estate transactions, public accommodations and access to state funded services. Okay.

Okay, Members, other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for being here. We'll move on to the second and last bill of our agenda today. And this is SB 2152 proposing an amendment to Article 6, Section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for state justices and judges.

First up, we have Judge Kim. Robert DS Kim, testifying for the Judiciary. Good morning. Thanks for coming up.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee. I'm here to voice the strong support of the judiciary for this measure. This raises the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75. Why is that important? When you're a judge, it takes time to understand the process of being a judge.

And through experience, just like the practice of law, as time goes on, you become a better judge because you understand the role that you play. And by limiting the amount of time that people can be a judge, you're going to have a brain drain.

You're going to have people who have great experience over decades that will have to hit the wall and leave. Raising the age also assists with administrative stability. When a judge leaves, they have to go through an entire process to find another Judge I am a poster child for that wall. When I reach 70.

And that was July 2024, I had to step down and could no longer be a judge or a per diem judge. Before I retired as being a judge, I notified the Judicial Selection Committee one year before that date so that they could prepare to have a smooth transition for my replacement.

Judge Kaua Jackson, who was my successor, was sworn in on June 2, 2025. That was almost a year through the process. And what happened during that time period, District court judge would have to come up.

There may be questions for you, but. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thanks for. Haley Chang, Assistant Deputy. I'm sorry. Assistant Public Defender. Good morning.

Morning. Good morning. Chair Rose, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender. My name is Haley Chang. I, the first Deputy, also known as the Assistant Public Defender.

Our office is a statewide agency and we appear in front of the judiciary at every court level across the state, from district, family, circuit and appellate. As indicated in our written testimony, we are in strong support of this measure.

Too often we see our really experienced judges that have a lot of institutional knowledge and have really, really settled into the calendars retire before their time. We believe that there are appropriate safeguards in place to make sure that any concerns addressed with the age of the judges are adequately addressed.

And we also want to highlight that we want people to apply for judicial positions who have had the experience of a robust legal career. We want people to sit on the bench who have practiced for a very long time and who have a lot of experience before they are appointed to be a judge.

And we believe this would create a mechanism to allow people a longer practitioner career before they apply, knowing that they have five more years on the back end to serve as a judge if they are selected. So we'll stand on our written testimony. And thank you for allowing me to offer additional comments and support.

I would normally remain for questions, but I apologize, I need to attend another hearing on the fourth floor. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Drew Hara, project attorney for Earth Justice on Zoom. Morning.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Senators Drew Hara. I'm an attorney with Earth Justice, and we stand on our written testimony and would just emphasize our support for this measure. So mahalo.

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

Good morning and happy New Year. Happy New Year. Pat Brady testifying on behalf of Community Alliance on Prisons, on behalf of the 3,668 people currently incarcerated, 799 of whom are serving their men are serving their sentences in Arizona, a contract prison. At this point, 16 states have no retirement age.

One state has advanced retirement age 90, and that's Vermont. Eight states have 75 years as retirement stage age. 19 have 70 as the retirement age. And six states have retirement ages between 71 and 74. Some of them have even, even if a judge reaches that age, he's allowed to finish or she's allowed to finish her term.

And that would have been nice with CJ Rechtenwald, but he had to retire in September. Age shouldn't really be the marker. It should be competence, somebody who is actually a competent judge who knows how, who has a long legal career and who knows how to navigate the system and help people understand.

So we are in strong support of this measure and I thank you so much for introducing it.

Thank you. Next up is Don Balmuina, State of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, Organization of Police Officers in support. Next we have Kamakana Kaimuloa, Government affairs for United Public Workers. Also in support, Bernard Lee, American Judicature Society. Not her. Okay. With comments next to stephen.

Stephen Mun, legislative Committee for League women voters and support Christian west of ilw local 142. In support, Angela Young testifying for cares on zoom. Go ahead. Morning.

Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES in strong support of Senator Rose's legislation. And. Yeah, so raising the age is a strategy to prevent seasoned judges from being forced off the bench or to avoid shifts in ideologies in the court system. If the court is going in that direction, then everything goes in that direction, right?

Verdict, rulings, overturns and interpretations. And it results in stability in the court systems when everything goes in one direction under the judge. So keeping experienced judges in office avoids the costs associated with training new judges and paying retirement benefits sooner than needed.

Judges are often cognitively sharp and physically capable of performing their duties well beyond age 70, allowing the judiciary to retain valuable experience.

So, you know, I gotten to a lot of, I gotten to know a lot of attorney friends and I get to hear about the trainings and the workshops and their lifestyles from the also from judges in the court system employees and you know, they have lots of fun friends and I get to know like other attorneys and what he or she practices between the obligations of like century work, high stress situations and I think, you know, the lifestyle results in judges being able to work in the system until 75.

I think raising the age helps reduce the high volume vacancies in state courts. And ensures stability and particularly when veteran judges are needed to manage heavy caseloads. So, you know, I don't know what it's like being around court guards and scared criminals all the time, but all the attorneys I've gotten to know seems like we can.

Seems to be like we can be like incredibly good friends. So, yeah, you know, mayor is 80, congressman is 73. I think mayor can still have a run in Congress. So.

Thank you, Ms. Young. Thank you very much. Your time has expired. Next up is Michael Senior in support. James Waldron Lindlad in support. Susan Paola Davis in support. Barbara Service in support. Carla Ellison, Allison in support. Carolyn Eaton in support. Heather McVeigh in support. And Tom Heinrich. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB2152 seeing none.

Members questions?

Yeah, I. I do. I guess. Earth justice, are you still on? No. Judge Kim, why don't you come on up? Are they still on?

Earth justice, you still there? Yeah, I'm still here. Okay. Senator San Juan Ventura has some questions for you.

Okay. So Earth justice, it seems to me from the people who testify, you folks probably have the loudest voice with your as a coalition because ILW didn't show up here. My question is this. Every session chair submits and introduces a Bill to increase mandatory retirement age for judges.

And it almost always passes both houses and it always dies at the voting block. Okay. Voters do not like increasing the mandatory retirement age. So my question is, if we pass this, are we going to get support from you folks or any other coalition to try to get the voters educated so that we can pass this?

And it just doesn't die. Right? It just doesn't die at the voting block.

Yeah, I appreciate the question, and I think that's something that we can definitely look into. I don't want to commit us as an organization, but certainly I do think it's something and it's in our written testimony that I think serves the public interests.

And I think as the Judge Kim testified, the issue with judicial recruitment has been amplified in recent years. And I think this retirement age is part of that factor. And so I think changing conditions, you know, it comes up every year.

But I feel like this issue has really amplified in the last few years with the extended vacancies that we see, not just for the Chief justice position, but for judicial vacancies across all of our judicial circuits.

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir here. Okay. We pass it every single session and it always dies at the ballot. So I, I guess I'm get trying to get commitments that we're just not wasting our time because the organizations like ilw, like you folks, all are in support of it.

But I don't see any kind of ads or try to get support from your Members to at least vote for this on the ballot so that we're not wasting our time.

Yeah.

And can you at least commit to us that you will bring it back to your leadership and ask for their Members to vote for this on the ballot, should we pass it?

I will, of course, Senator. I will bring it back. And just as a distinction, we are not a Member organization. We are a law firm. So we represent clients in the community. But it's not our prerogative, typically, to impose sort of our political will on our, on our clients. We have robust community partnerships.

And so we, we will certainly be out there having those conversations. So I, I appreciate the question.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Awa.

So I understand. To the judge, please. Okay. I mean, it's. To anybody who wants to answer it in general, if we're having a conversation here, which I guess they would have to have, is what you're asking. I voted no on this before, but, like, for dialogue purposes, while in reality I understand why the increase is needed.

We, you know, we need the judges. Fundamentally, it doesn't make sense. And I'll relate this to football. Like, like Nick Saban. Nick SABAN FORMER ALABAMA COACH we saw this past college football playoffs. Four of the coaches that were under him were, were in the, the Final Four coaching their own teams.

Why don't we have that kind of system here? What is stopping. Because this is more like a band aid. Like, this is a, the last resort we need to extend it. Why aren't we fixing. So we have a judge's tree. So, you know, so everybody has that knowledge of how to be successful at the highest level.

That's, that's what I want to address in discussion because that, you know, that, that's what keeps me from supporting, extending it.

You mean like a mentor system? Or when you say a tree, something.

Like, in my office, in my office, if I'm not here next year, somebody needs to know what I know so that they can take over. And it's a, it's a, it's a flow so that my community doesn't get disrupted by the leadership that it has. Same thing with the, with you guys.

Like, I, I don't know whose responsibility is, but that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. It's like, how do we fix that issue where, if we don't have people with this experience or knowledge. How do we correct that?

I'm sure that now that you voice this concern that the judiciary will take a look at that. That's not the way the system works, though. And I think that your comments resonate. I think that we should have a mentor system or a system in which the knowledge is passed off.

The judiciary does have periodic meetings to go over with training issues that appear and the like. And at those trainings, judges talk among themselves. So we basically gravitate to those judges that have experience, and they're more than happy to talk with us, share their thoughts and the like. But what happens.

A lot of times I can only speak for 3rd Circuit because that's where I'm familiar. The distance between the last day of the judge and the selection of the new judge could be up to a year. And so there's no real pass off on that. And so I'm not clear what the best answer would be, sir.

Okay. I mean, that's the discussion that I think, relating to Senator San Buenaventura's concern with, you know, if this goes to the public, what's the point? Because a lot of people might look at it that way.

Yeah. I think the point is that when judges have experience and time and years of experience, they become just more worldly judges and understanding what their role is, which helps the attorneys. When you have a new judge, the attorneys know they're new.

When you have seasoned judges, when they talk to the litigants and the like in settlement conferences or from the bench, there's an ability of those attorneys to listen. And when a judge says, you know, I don't know about this case, that's. That means a lot.

When I was a law Clerk, Philip Chun, who I was working for at the time, said, just remember, when you become a trial attorney, when a judge says something, close your mouth and listen, because they're trying to tell you something. And so the more experience the judges have, the easier it is for them to navigate through litigation.

And so that's. That's the point of keeping judges. The other point I wanted to make was when you lose a judge, you have to start all over again. You have to go to the Judicial Selection Committee. You have to.

So the more time that we have, we can lessen the amount of pressure on the Judicial Selection Committee, on the CJ or the Governor if they're the appointing authority and the Senate, because you got to keep, you know, scheduling all of those confirmation hearings. So if I could, since I. I'M not on the time limit.

Chair, can I just make one comment? I have one follow.

I mean, just to, I mean just to make my point and then you can rebuttal it real quick.

Like from the, I get that that's a professional standpoint, but from the public standpoint, and since I'm in a unique position of being the youngest over here, I'll speak for the younger generation, to which, you know, a couple generations down, I don't even.

They view the world right now like people want to be judged by their peers, not their grand peers. So you got to kind of weigh that when, when you're trying to get it passed. Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Members, other questions, if you could stay there. I do have a couple. So in terms of the, the concern about judges just being too old to be on the any. Basically this applies to anybody in any job.

But you know, since we're talking about regarding the concern that some people on the bench might be getting old over the hill and not being able to actually do the job anymore. So I just want to confirm that the Judicial Selection Commission retention hearings still occur. Right.

No matter if you, if you have a six year term and you turn 73 at the end of the six year term, the normal process for retention is in place, correct? Yes. And so if they, if the, and, and the, and the Judicial Selection Committee does sometimes not retain people, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. And do they look at, is one of the things they look at is the ability to be able to do the job?

Yes. However, even before the retention, as stated in the testimony, the Commission on Judicial Conduct is empowered. Thank you.

That was my next question. Go ahead.

To make. If there are complaints about physical or mental disability or, you know, losing edge and the like, they can, they can investigate. And so you don't have to wait till retention.

Right. And they can investigate. Investigate. And then what's, what's the process?

If they, if they, if their report comes back and says, you know, it's really sad, but this guy used to be a great judge, but whatever, he's developed Parkinson's disease and can't do the job anymore, can they, can they actually kick him off the bench or is it, is that left to the chief justice?

There are processes I'm not specifically familiar with what happens after they investigate? And I can get back to you on that. Okay.

All right, that's fine. Members, other questions. Okay. If not, if it's okay with membership, we'll just go and roll into decision making. Is that.

Just walked Out. Bummer. I don't chase her down. What to do about that.

I think she had another meeting, so-- we have quorum, so it's okay. So, on the first bill, SB 2055, recommendation is to go ahead and move it forward with a number of amendments. I'd like to adopt the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission's recommendations.

We'll insert several appropriations of blank amounts for a contract with Aloha United Way for the 24-hour intake. I think, maybe, I'll actually specify that it is 24-hour a live line as opposed to-- that's what I felt they were talking about initially, so let's say that.

Website and database development costs, that's another blank appropriation for that. They'll need additional staff. We'll put in a blank appropriation for that and we'll state in the committee report the amounts that-- requested by HCRC, but note that the number for the 24-hour intake may not be accurate since we weren't necessarily talking about the same thing.

We'll insert the positions, a number of which will be left blank in the bill, and request in the committee report four full-time positions--two civil rights investigators, one data analyst, and one program manager--clarify that HCRC will investigate reports of civil rights over which HCRC already has jurisdiction, and will specify in the requested report that HCRC will make recommendations for policy and training improvements pertaining only to HCRC's jurisdiction. And will remove the requirements report on arrests.

In addition, I'd like to add a definition of harm and a definition of federal troop deployments. And as well, we'll require monthly preliminary reports to the Legislature and post it on the HCRC's website and specify that these reports use aggregated, anonymized data, include a methodology/disclaimer describing verification limits. And finally, we'll put a bad date on, make it effective on March 22, 2075. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation's to pass SB 2055 with amendments. [Roll call]. The measure passes.

Okay, thank you. The last bill for this agenda is SB 2152. This proposes an amendment to Article 6, Section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for State Justices and Judges. Recommendation is to pass it with only a technical amendment. Questions or concerns?

Concern?

Sure.

Yeah. So just lastly, I'm open to being able to support something like this, but not until we can kind of fix the issue. I don't know what that fix is, but for now, I'm going to be voting no.

Okay. Understood.

Can I say something? As noted, the-- I would be in favor of joining the 16 states that have no retirement age. I noticed that in 2014, here in Hawaii, we tried to raise it to 80 years old and it was defeated by the 72% margin, so we got a long ways to go.

So I agree with Senator San Buenaventura, and that is, we need more of a public educational campaign, you know, so the churches, the businesses, everybody's just-- so they understand what the issue is. They're not just looking at, okay I just vote no. So anyway, I'll be voting in favor of this measure, but again, I would be in favor of just removing the retirement age altogether.

Understood, thanks.

Yeah.

Any other comments? If not, Vice Chair for the roll.

[Roll call]. Measure passes.

All right. Thanks very much. Thanks, everyone, for being here. That concludes our hearing.