Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee hearing on this Tuesday morning, February 3rd. My name is Karl Rhoades. I'm the chair. To my left is Vice Chair Mike Gabbard. As noted, this hearing is being streamed on live 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, www.capital.hawaii.gov. in the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to major technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene, discuss any outstanding business on...

Actually, let's just go to Thursday, February 5th at 9:35. Is that Good? Okay, February 5th at 9:35 here in this room 016. And a public notice will be posted. For all the people testifying remotely. All testifier audio will be muted and video disabled until it's your turn to testify.

And the normal practice in this Committee is 2 minute time limit per testifier. But often Members have questions. So if you can stick around, that would be great. If there are any temporary technical glitches during your turn to testify, we may have to move on to the next person due to time constraints.

But we will try to come back to you if we can. The Committee has already received your written testimony. Okay, I think that's it. First up today... I'm Sorry, there are two agendas today. One at 9 O'Clock that's JDC only. And then we have a 10 O'clock agenda at 10 in the same room here but for the Transportation Comittee.

At 10 in the same room here, but with the Transportation Committee. Okay, so we'll do the JDC, the Judiciary Committee bills only first. First up is SB 2149. This establishes an exemption for mediation and paternity proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse. Clarifies the exemption from mediation and divorce proceedings as it relates to domestic abuse.

First up on SB 2149 is Judge Dyan Medeiros in support. She's here. Next is Aaron Torres or Julio Herrera. Deputy Attorney Generals. Good morning.

Good morning.

And you're. You're not on Zoom. You're here. Cool. Okay.

Good morning. Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Deputy Attorney General Julio, on behalf of the Department of Attorney General. I'm here to provide comments on SB 2149. We would just like to highlight two things. One is the Bill Mentions Chapter 584 in the last legislative section in Act 298. Legislature repealed 584 and adopted 584A.

So we ask that any references to 584 be changed to 584A. The second thing that we'd like to highlight is that the provisions regarding attendance of supporting persons at mediations differ from the Uniform Mediation Act. And so there's two ways to address that.

The difference being that under this Bill, a person who alleges having been a victim, if they opt to bring someone with them, only then can the perpetrator bring a person with them. Whereas in the Uniform Mediation act, it allows for any party to bring a supportive person with them.

So what we're suggesting to address this is either to delete the provision as mentioned in our testimony, which should preserve the applicability of the Uniform Mediation Act.

Alternatively, if the Committee decides to keep this paragraph, is to keep wording that's basically analogous or similar to the Uniform Mediation act, which is basically that an attorney or other individual designated by a party may accompany the party to and participate in a mediation pursuant to 658 H-10.

These changes would provide some clarity and uniformity and we suggest that those changes be implemented. Thank you for your time. Here to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Angie Mercado for Hawaii State Coalition's Domestic Violence. Good morning.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, I'm Angie Mercado, Executive Director, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Our mission is to unite Hawaii to end all forms of domestic violence. And on behalf of our 20 Member programs, we're here in strong support of this measure.

We've been working on this for a couple of years now and it does the things that we've wanted it to do.

We want to make sure that survivors are engaging with mediators who are trained in the dynamics of domestic abuse, that that survivors have choice , and that mediation options are available to them so they're not forced to engage in mediation.

We do recommend, similar to the attorney generals and judiciary, that the language just mirrors what we see in HRS 658 H-10, so that there is any avoidance of doubt. So there aren't any ways that people can perhaps poke pukas into this legislation.

So that's the substance of our recommendations and we are available for any questions you may have.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Elizabeth Kent testifying for Commission to Promote Uniform Laws, with comments Christine L. Andrews, J.D. in support. Maya Maxine, also in support. That's everyone who signed up for SB2149. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2149? Seeing none. Members questions? I do have a question for actually. Maybe Mr. Herrera and Ms. Mercado could both come up.

I am not quite understanding the concern about.... See if I can find the actual language here. The extra person or the additional people being in the mediation. But you're in agreement on that? Let me just find... Hang on.

Okay, so the Bill reads, currently the alleged victim may have a supporting person of the alleged victim's choice, including but not limited to an attorney or other individual designated by the victim pursuant to Section 658 H-10. So that to me says, it's like you have 658 H-10 rights, but then you can add on an additional person.

Is that not what you want? I'm sorry, this page... Page 2.

Yeah. So we're looking at page four. Lines 15, where it says, provided that if the alleged victim elects this option, meaning to bring somebody with them, that the other party may have a supporting person.

So it kind of implies that that only gets triggered if the person chooses to bring somebody with them versus, the Uniform Mediation act just says any party can bring.

So even if the perpetrator decides to bring somebody with them and the alleged victim doesn't, that's allowed under the Uniform Mediation act, whereas this wording seems to imply that that can't happen unless the alleged victim first opts to bring somebody in.

So what, you're okay with that?

I'm okay with that. Because ultimately, you know, the. The survivor still has the option to bring a supportive person in mediation. And it's not restricted to be one type of party or another, like an advocate or an attorney. The actual stature is pretty flexible when it comes to that.

Okay, so then what we'd be accepting, basically, is just saying that ...just reference 658 H- 10, and that's what you can do.

Yes. And then we have, in prior, in another Bill, we did actually include the actual language of 658 H-10 is pretty sure. But I think for avoidance of doubt, to make sure people, anybody who's looking back at this act, if it gets passed, will know that that is what is the intent and allowable.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

I have a question. Stay. Stay. Okay. My question is, you know, I've been practicing family law before I became a legislator, and I have never heard of a judge actually requiring mediation when domestic violence, actually requiring mediation at all. Because the rules are the parties need to both agree. So that's, that's why I don't mind this.

That says shall not require, because my understanding is the judge doesn't require it anyway, unless both parties agree. My concern okay. Because like I said, I've been practicing family law, and, and I appreciate the changes you folks have done here compared to the prior ones. Okay.

Is that the more, the more hoops the parties are required to try to mediate, like divorces and the like, the higher the likelihood that the parties end up losing everything to attorneys fees. Because then the attorneys are going to be required to do all of the negotiation. And the mediation. Is there... Is there...

So I don't mind having the third party in. Is there? What I'm trying to say is, is there any avenue where I guess some form of mediation can occur? To expedite divorces and custody disputes? Because arbitration, I'm just going to tell you, arbitration is very expensive.

And that's why the default for family law attorneys, especially for middle class and beyond, is mediation. Because you can always usually find, like, volunteer mediators. But default folks foresee, like, hopefully in the future to figure out a way to expedite these disputes, because to me, the longer it is, the worse financially the parties get.

I think that can be explored.

Absolutely.

In the family court and stakeholders, you know, the family law.

I just want you guys to be open to that, okay? And that's one of the reasons usually that I put, like, stumbling blocks over this, because I have disputed custody cases all the way to Supreme Court, and the parties cannot afford that. Yeah.

Thank you for. Thank you for offering that. And we will definitely bring it up with our Member programs and our advocates and survivors, as well as the judiciary and see what other methodologies might be available.

Yes. Okay. And I just want to let you folks also know that I was the author of the automatic restraining orders because I wanted it to be expedited. Right? Instead of attorney. Because this gets super expensive for families. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Members. Senator Gabbard, any questions? Okay, thank you very much. We're going to move on to the next Bill, which is SB2203, establishes the offensive use of a mask or personal disguise by a law enforcement officer. First up on 2203 is Haley Chang. Sorry, I don't know. I can't remember how.

Pronounce your last name, Chang or Chang. Okay. With the office, public defender, birth deputy.

And good morning, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee, Haley Chang, the first deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted testimony in very strong support of this measure. Also just noting that in our experience representing these clients who interact with police, transparency and identification is critical.

The lack of identification can often lead to escalation that compromises the safety of law enforcement as well as our clients. We would also ask the Committee to consider adding something that would require law enforcement agencies to come up with internal policies for appropriate use of any coverings, shields, anything of the like.

So other than that, we will submit in our written testimony, and I will remain available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Jared Redulla for Department of Law Enforcement.

Morning. Good morning, sir. Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Jared Redulla. I'm the Deputy Director for DLE. We'll stand on our testimony offering comments to the Committee.

Okay, thank you. Next is Daniel Hugo for Department of Prosecuting Attorney, City County. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabard, Senator San Buenaventura. Our Department is just offering. Oh, I'm sorry. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Our Department is just offering comments on this measure because we would be the agency that is charged with proving these cases in court.

We do note that if this is primarily directed as it appears to be at the at federal enforcement, there are issues with the Supremacy clause, and currently California is the only state that has actually enacted this ban and is currently not enforcing it because there's a temporary injunction in place. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you. Next is Manuel Hernandez for Honolulu Police Department on zoom.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Major Emmanuel Hernandez, HPD District 3 Patrol Division. To echo what Prosecutor Hugo was saying, we have concerns with the Bill regarding Supremacy Clause and enforcing state law with the federal agencies.

Our other concern is, while we appreciate that the Bill allows for undercover use for masks, such as an operation such as narcotics, gambling, morals, etc. Our concerns are regarding the auxiliary and support units that are assigned to these types of operations where it is vital to protect their identity. They may not be considered undercover at that time.

And that's where our concern lines with that Bill. Also, in addition, HPD policy prohibits the use of masks or disguises except for those type of operations. So for those reasons that we oppose the Bill, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Kat Brady for Community alliance and Prisons in support, Barbara Tom, Waipahu Safe Haven Immigrant Migrant Resource Center in support, Kris Coffield, Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus in support, Christina Sablan for the Legal Clinic. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes and Members of the Committee. My name is Tina Sablan, Community and Policy Advocate with the Legal Clinic, a nonprofit that works for justice for immigrants and migrants in Hawaii through legal services, community education and policy advocacy.

We're part of the steering Committee for the Campaign for Immigrant justice alongside Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant rights and the ACLU of Hawaii. We're here in support of Senate Bill 2203.

This Bill promotes transparency, accountability and public trust by requiring law enforcement officers to be identifiable and their faces when interacting with the public while still allowing for reasonable exceptions for public safety and officer safety in specialized operations.

Clear identification is a fundamental principle of policing in a Democratic society and is essential to due process and public trust for the communities the legal clinic serves, including asylum seekers, survivors of crime, and individuals with limited English proficiency. The ability to identify law enforcement officers is critical to safety.

Officers who obscure their faces and identities without clear necessity can create fear, confusion and hesitation to seek help.

In addition to restricting extreme or unnecessary masking, TLC respectfully recommends the Committee consider strengthening this measure by incorporating additional elements of transparent and responsible policing, such as requiring written publicly available agency policies, as has been recommended by the public Defender's office, and clear, visible officer identification, including badges or name markings.

Senate Bill 2203 strikes an important balance between officer safety and public accountability, and we urge the committee's support. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next up is Mandy Fernandez for ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair Senator Sam Buenaventura. Mandy Fernandez, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, we, we do support this measure. I know that there's our many no secret police bills before you this session. I'll note that this one only prohibits the use of extreme masking, but does not require visible identification.

So we'll echo the sentiment shared by Ms. Sablan at the legal clinic and ask that it be amended to, at a minimum, require visible identification of officers and ask agencies to adopt and post publicly available policies on masking and identification. We, I think all of these measures, though, we would like to see this move forward.

And what all these measures are doing is begging the question of if some random man walked up to you on the street and you couldn't see who he was and he didn't have visibly displayed identification, that he was actually police and started yelling at you or brandishing a weapon, you would probably assume that you were being attacked and you would respond accordingly.

So asking people, asking citizens, asking civilians to be calm in these scenarios is probably pretty unlikely or unreasonable. And this, this can only enhance community safety. So we do ask that you move this measure forward and incorporate some of the other protections that we've seen other measures introduced this year.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Amelia Sophos for College Democrats of Hawaii in support, Veronica Mendoza, Maui Roots Reborn also in support, Lily Troy, MD Maui Indivisible Member in support, Irwin Jang in support, Nadita Sharma, Nandita Sharma in support, Miley Nakano on Zoom perhaps. Okay. Also in support. After that we have. Pages and pages of support.

1, 2, 3 pages of individuals and support. See any opposition and then another 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in support at the end. Let's see if I can give you the total number here. 114 in support, three opposed with two comments. So at this point, anyone else wish to testify in SB2203, 2203 seeing none Members questions?

I do have questions for law enforcement if you don't mind. Do a so a difficult situation because obviously we need law enforcement in society. But when you have situation that's going on on the mainland or on the continent going on, it's the, the mud splatters all over the place.

So I guess I want to try to get the balance and it's a balance. I want to try to get it right. The question I had that came to mind from your testimony was so I think the Bill already exempts officers undercover.

But then your argument is that there are like a category of people who aren't yet undercover. Or can you just describe in like what that. Yes. Category looks like?

Yeah, sure. So the Honolulu Police Department's testimony touched upon this, that there are auxiliary units or support units that when we have, for example, a big undercover bust, we have to bring these other people there to help us too. In my agency, for example, the narcotics unit, I have 10 detectives there.

And when we have to make a bust, I have to bring others there. You know, in addition, we're an older crowd here at the office. I'm the youngest. At the time I was the chief narcotics investigator for the state, I was the youngest person in the unit.

And so what that forces me to have to do is to look elsewhere in the agency for people who in the future I might need to tap in order to conduct our business.

And so in order to preserve those people who I might need in the future, we might say, hey, we're going to go on an operation today. Cover your face because I may not need you today on an undercover assignment, but I may need you in a few months, a year from now.

And so it's important that we protect people who we may need in the future. Because we don't have a big pool of candidates or employees to draw from. And so I think perhaps the balance may be that a supervisor can authorize additional masking for those who are not manifestly on an undercover operation or the undercover officer.

I mean, I guess the problem I see with that it's such a big. I mean, that means that any agency can just say, okay, everybody that's going out for this bust today, we're all going to have to be undercover for the next three months because we may need. We may need you later for something else.

I mean, it's a huge loophole, understandably. I wish that we could find perhaps a more narrow balance there. But again, we also have other covert teams. Our fugitive unit, for example, and our teams of detectives who go out on operations who we want to make sure keep the lowest profile that they can.

And during an enforcement where like, hey, we're going to jump out of a van and grab somebody real quick, you know, we may need to.

But you're not talking about the mask part of it there. You're talking about just not being in regular civilian clothes.

Well, and also, we kind of don't want their pictures taken. You can become famous very quickly. Just get on Hungry Hungry Hawaiian or stolen stuff, and you'll be famous in seconds. And so, you know, if somebody takes that picture and posted there, you know, our officers could end up being compromised even though they're not the undercover officer.

And so, you know, again, because of the narrow pool of employees that we have, we take a lot of effort in order to try to keep as low a profile as we can.

Okay, I forget who was here from HPD Major. The HPD Major, are you still here?

Yes, Senator, I'm here, sir.

So does that refer to what Deputy Director Radula just described, that sound accurate to you? I mean, you're a bigger Department? So I'm curious what your perspective is.

I echo the sentiments of DLE, sir. Basically, when I back to my testimony about auxiliary units, we do have our undercover operations, but then we have personnel that have to come in for. And we've seen it just on the news. Anytime there's a game room bust, you'll see personnel wearing masks.

However, they'll be in either identifiable with their badge and ID or they'll be in a uniform. With Honolulu Police and the patch and such, our concerns with the way the Bill was worded was the mask, because we're on. Just like Dr. Redulla saying, we're on Hawaii Hunger, Hungry Hawaiian, we're on Facebook for me, for our Department.

The concerns are going to be actual scene operations there, especially dealing with like narcotics kind of big ticket items there. Our patrol units, I know the concerns are for masking and identification. Our patrol units address exactly like I am. Our policy prohibits mask use for anything except for those aforementioned covert operations such as the narcotics or morals.

And speaking from our own personal experience, as a short time in our morals undercover unit, there were times that I was going to the scene and I was not the undercover. But it was important to protect my identity so I could be used for future operations.

But I was assigned to the unit and when we did our enforcement portion of those operations, we were readily identifiable, sir.

Good. Okay. Other questions?

Yes, for both of you folks. You know those auxiliary units that you may need to tap, do they have actual contact with the public or are they just there for support?

There are instances where they're going to have contact with the public. We may have to, for example, hold the perimeter and keep people away. That means there'll be interaction with the public and asking them to stay away.

We may have to contact property owners of a building, if it's a game room, contact the landlord or neighbors and those kinds of things.

Will they have body cameras on them?

So it's dependent on the operation at the time they could have. And there may be instances where the camera may be authorized to be turned off because again, there are undercover operatives who are around that we don't want captured by the body-worn camera. So it's very situation-dependent.

And same with you. I'm sorry, I can't see your name underneath there. Same questions. Do they have actual contact with the public and do they have body cameras?

Yes, Senator. The echo DLE, it is situational. They are going to have interaction with the public depending on scene security, escorting individuals in that facility or game room, for example, in and out arrestee interactions and such. And dependent on the units that assist outside because we will have, you know, we'll have uniform support if needed.

Depending on the scope of the operation, the size, there may be units with body worn cameras on scene.

So the concerns I hear about the reason for the mask is one like what Mandy said, it's difficult to ensure that they are in fact law enforcement if they don't have unless they are with a group of other law enforcement. Right. Otherwise, I mean just even a separate.

And apart from the ICE protesters, we also had those Minnesota shootings. Right. Where what person had a yeah.

Senator I think it's important for the Committee to understand that when we operationalize our enforcement actions, we are required to wear, you know, our body armor has police markings on it. We have our badges out.

Often we are announcing ourselves, announcing our office when we're doing these things, so that the public does know, you know, it's not, you know, unless something happens spontaneously. It's, it's not, you know, where we're jumping out with just a mask on and grabbing people.

You know, we're marked up when we do these things, not only for recognition, but also for our own safety. Otherwise, you look like a masked guy running down the street with a gun.

Right. We're in the exact same boat, Senator. We have response units, even though they may be wearing a mask, that they are easily and fully identifiable as HPD officers for those exact reasons, we don't even want our own personnel to confuse them as just random gentlemen jumping out of a van.

So we, when we do our enforcement actions, we are easily identifiable as HPD.

One last. My suggestion is, because I think this is going to move forward, and you've heard the Governor say that he wants to fast forward a number of, of these anti-ICE brutality type bills is that you folks provide us with an amendment to protect those auxiliary people.

Because I fully understand, okay, because we have, in the county of Hawaii, we have shortages of personnel. But I also understand the other side. We want to make sure that those who have no, you know, who faces the public and uses abuses their power needs to be identifiable. Right. That, that's my request.

Okay.

That's it.

Senator Gabbard?

Yes, Deputy Director Redulla. The two previous testifiers talked about having badges that identify the uniform that you have on that is the official uniform for DLE. Is that correct?

Yes, Senator.

And so does each officer have their name like you do on their pocket right there?

Yes, Senator.

And in addition, on the badge, is there any identification on the badge?

Yes, it says Department of Law Enforcement and has my rank on it and badge number.

And badge number. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Oh, thank you very much. Maybe could I have ACLU back up? Well, before you leave, let me just comment. You know, I think this Bill and others are almost assuredly going to move. You saw the amount of support for him and the, and the visceral anger against what's happening in Minnesota right now.

I think you know, we're going to have to deal with this one way or the other. So I'm just. So, if you don't mind. You and Major Hernandez, if we can contact your office about details about how we might be able to limit it, but something's going to move.

Okay, thank you. Can we talk about just, you know, what they're describing is their operational concerns. I'd like just to hear what your opinion is about that. I mean, it seems to me like it's a legitimate problem and, you know, we need to do no harm here, too, if we can. If we can.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, and you might want to pull the mic a little closer.

Sure, I think. I mean, like you said, Chair, it's a balancing act. Right. We really need to balance public trust against, like, the operational feasibility of how they currently, how they currently do things in their departments. They might have to change. Right.

And that's kind of the cost of making sure that our communities are safe. But as ACLU, we're. We are supportive and open to different ways that this could work. We're not saying that this needs to be an absolute ban. Like, even in our model act, we have exemptions to protect the safety of the officers.

We know they have a hard job. And we're just trying to make sure that we're balancing feasibility with impact. We really need to. This does need to move through. It is a real problem.

And so even if we fully trust our local police departments that they're doing this the right way, we know that's not the case with our federal agents. And so we really, we need to come to some sort of solution. ACLU is totally open to different language that could accomplish that.

Okay. All right, thank you. All right, Members, any other questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you very much all for being here.

We'll go ahead and move on to the next bill, which is SB 2251, making an appropriations for the Victim Witness Assistance Program. Appropriates a grant and aid to the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu for the Victim Witness Assistance Program. First up on this one is...

Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. Morning again.

Good morning again. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabard and Senator Sam Bonaventura. The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney strongly supports this bill. This appropriation would be needed to make. Up for shortfalls in federal funding. Traditionally, federal funding came from fines and. Forfeitures and the revenue from that has decreased. And so our Department would need this as supplemental funding.

Funding. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, is Angela Young testifying for Kapalama Neighborhood Security Watch on Zoom? Not on Zoom. Okay. She's in support. Dennis Dunn also in support. That's everybody who signed up to testify in SB2251. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2251?

I am here, Chair.

Yes, I see you. Go ahead. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard. Members of the Committee, I am testifying a support, full support of this measure, having worked at that program for 44 years, having been Director up until my retirement.

The problem with the reduction in federal funding is very significant and the ability to provide services as well as informing victims of their rights is essential. And without this funding, it's hard to imagine that they can continue to provide the kind of quality services victims deserve. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2251? Seeing on Members questions, I have a question for Mr. Hugo. The bill doesn't have any kind of reporting requirement. Do you guys object to an a simple report? No. Okay, great. Thank you very much.

If there are no other questions, we'll go ahead and move on to the next bill which is SB2311. 2311 is relating to claims against the state. Second, let me get there. This prohibits claims for refunds, reimbursements or other payments.

Payments authorization for which is sought from the Legislature that exceed the time limitations of section hrs 4068 requires the Attorney General to include in the Attorney General's annual report of claims recommended for approval a total dollar amount of possible judgments against the state that have not yet settled.

Requires the Attorney General's report to the Legislature, describe the claims against the state to include additional information and mostly on follow up to why there was a claim in the first place. First up on 2311 is Skyler Cruz, Deputy Attorney General. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senator San Buenaventura, Skyler Cruz, Deputy Attorney General. On behalf of the Department of the Attorney General, we've submitted written testimony providing comments on this bill.

In our written testimony, we've highlighted a few concerns with the proposed language in the bill and we've also included recommendations as to how we think those concerns can best be addressed. I'd happy be happy to I'll be available for any questions that the many may have.

Okay. I want you to stay right there. I don't think anyone else is here to testify SB 2311 and would anyone else like to testify on Zoom or here? Okay.

If not Members questions I have a couple does the AG currently recommend a time frame to departments, you know, after there's a claim made, they've lost a lawsuit or a settlement's been made, you guys typically give them advice about what to do to avoid that that same sort of liability again.

Do you give them a timeline now, like, hey, you need to have this done by, you know, 18 months from now or something like that?

Senator no, that's not, that's not the practice. So that's typically not provided I understand that from the language in, in the bill, the proposed language, that that's something that would be added if this bill was adopted. And I think that there are and we highlight this in our testimony.

I think there would be several challenges in creating a timeline and timeline and expecting a Department to able to follow that timeline.

What we have proposed is that in the annual report we could simply add a status and let the Legislature know, you know, whether the implement implementations have been actually completed and if not, what the status is, what the holdups are, when you know, how it might be eventually implemented or if it, if it can't be state that we think that that might be more useful to provide that information as opposed to creating a timeline that would be difficult to estimate and probably difficult to, you know, evaluate the timeliness.

So do you get, I mean once you've given the, is there any follow up after the advice has been given, do you check back two years later and say okay, yeah, that's, that's fixed.

Or Senator, not, not formally. We do typically follow up within the first year to see what's happened because we do have to provide our report after that it's more informal. We, you know, if, if claims do arise, we will look into it. If they don't, you assume that things are working as they should be. Okay.

Because it seems like, it just seems like the same types I've been judiciary chair for. This is my, if you include the House, I guess this would be the 11th year and it just seems like the same departments have the same kind of problems that we as taxpayers pay out over and over and over again.

So that's why I'm interested in this topic.

So I understand sender and I think that, you know, to some extent there's a variety of reasons for that. Some are, are not within anyone's control and some could be. You know, one example is I think staffing shortages leads to a lot of these claims.

And if, and if, you know, these problem departments, so to speak, had increased appropriations or budgets for staffing and they could fill those positions, assuming that there are people applying, I think that would be one way to help address some of those concerns.

All right, thank you. Other Members. Questions? Okay, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and move on to the next bill, which is SB 2315. This proposes an amendment to Article 17.

Section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution is specified that the standard for voter approval of a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature is a majority of all the votes tallied. Instead of there's this distinction between tallied and cast that's confusing. First up on 2315 is Janet Mason, League of Women Voters on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senator San Buenaventura, thanks for hearing this bill. The league does support the change because it makes the instructions for voters easier to understand. I'm adding that we realize this bill is going to make it easier to, to pass a constitutional amendment.

That's not a problem per se, as long as every proposed constitutional amendment is accompanied by robust voter education. We've made progress in the past few years with the wording of the constitutional amendments, but nevertheless, the subjects or the topics are often very complicated.

So we expect that a pro and con analysis of the constitutional amendments should be provided to voters through the Office of Elections digital voter guide. And we're going to request an appropriation to this effect. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Susan Jarorowski in support, Josh Frost in opposition, Ross Isokane in support, Kevin Stover in support, and Nicholas Zaire in opposition. That's all we have for people who have signed up for SB 2315. Does anyone else wish to testify on SB 2315? Sing non Members Questions?

Yes.

Go ahead to Janet League of Women Voters. Yes. Hi. So no, I, I agree with you that basically you need voter education, but don't you think we need voter education prior to passing this bill? Because there's a lot of us.

Okay.

And I'm going to count myself as one of those people who just assume that if I don't it's inertia. We want things to remain the same unless we do something to actually vote. And so there is that mentality that. If I don't vote, it's an automatic. No because I want things to stay the same.

So shouldn't, shouldn't you, shouldn't we put some money aside to do this kind of voter education that they need to actively vote because otherwise the people who are able to rally people to the voting, to the voting ballots, I mean, will end up winning regardless of the silent majority.

It's hard to say truthfully right now. I think voters are completely confused about the instructions, never mind the content of the proposed con Ams. Voter education about this proposal, that'd be great. The sooner the better.

But we're not opposed to clarify getting rid of the confusing instructions as long as the meat of the proposed constitutional amendment is analyzed so that voters can make an informed vote. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Let's see. Do I. Let me. Well, so Ms. Mason, so other states have explicit, higher. They have super majority requirements when you're passing a constitutional amendment. How are you familiar with how high those. How Many? Is it 60% or 2/3? Or is it very.

I mean, I'm sure it varies from state to state, but can you give us an idea of what it is in other states?

I'm sorry, I don't know that I could find out. I think.

Oh, we could do. I just wondered if you. If you knew.

No, I don't know. And your question is a good one because our Constitution is basically a good one. It's modern compared to most states and we're, we're more than anything, we're hoping for voter education. On what is usually a fairly complex question.

Let me ask you one other related question. So a lot of states have referendum and initiative and we don't, which in some ways makes changing the Constitution harder because there's only really two paths. You can have a Constitutional Convention or you can get a con Am put on through the ledge.

Right.

So I mean, I guess, I guess my feeling would be that argues in favor of having not having a super majority vote because it's already really hard to get a constitutional amendment. I guess there's no question there. If you care to comment on that analysis of the way our system works here in Hawaii.

Well, right now our system is conservative in that it's pretty difficult to get a constitutional amendment passed. This is a hard question. We, we don't oppose amending our Constitution. We just think it should be done carefully. That voters should understand the instructions and that they should also be afforded some type of education about the topic.

Okay, thank you very much. Other questions, Members? Okay, thank you very much. M. We'll move on to the next bill, which is SB2380. Another con. Am. Establishes a continuous legislative session. Legislature beginning on in January 2031. Defines each regular session to be two calendar years.

Requires a Legislature to convene on the first and third weeks of each month, except for two months before general or primary. Repeals language regarding special sessions, adjournments and recesses because they'll basically be irrelevant. Establishes procedures for the carryover of bills from the first to the second year of a regular session.

And what makes a very major change to the way we would do business. First up on SB2380 is Anne Frederick for Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action. Next is Chris Coppell, President, Emua alliance and Supreme. So both those are in support. Winston Welsh for the Outdoor Circle. In Support Michael Cobb Jr. In opposition, Lila Maurer.

In support Ellen Awai. In support Ken Stover. In support Keone Shimuja. I'm sorry, Shizuma. And support. That's everybody who signed up on SB2380. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2380? Seeing none, there's no one to ask questions of. So we will move on. Next up is SB 2438 relating to civil interference with constitutional and statutory rights.

Establishes a civil cause of action for interference with constitutional statutory rights through threats, intimidation or coercion. First up on 2438 is David Matsumiya, Deputy Attorney General. On Zoom or in person? In person. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard and Senators and Buenaventura. Excuse me. My name is David Matsmi. I'm a Deputy Attorney General. I'm here to provide the Attorney General's comments on Senate Bill 2438. The Department of Attorney General believes that this bill would benefit from adding some definitions for the terms threat, intimidation and coercion.

Those proposed definitions are noted in our testimony and I'm here for any further questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Alfonso Bragg or Heather McVay for the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. On Zoom, maybe.

Aloha, Chair. Vice Chair. I'm so sorry. I had a meltdown with technology just a moment ago. Are we on?

Yep, we're good.

2438. 438.

Yes.

Yes. Which we support and we provided comments. I just want to make one correction for the record. And the position that's provided is the Staff recommendation, which has not yet been. We have not been given authority as of yet, but we will be meeting with our commission this afternoon, highly confident that they will support the measure.

But I'm sorry, was there a question that I just jumped back?

No, that's fine. Thank you very much. Next up is Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara. For Fujiwara and Rosenbaum. Good morning. You're still muted. Sorry, you're. You're. We can't hear you. You're muted.

Can you hear me now?

There you go. Yep. Go ahead.

Good morning, Senator Rhoads and Members of the Committee. Senator Rhoads, we first want to thank you for drafting this bill and introducing it. As Ann Freed from the Women's Caucus has said, this might be one of the most important bills this legislative session. Right now I'd like to address two amendments that are being offered by...

Just to be sure we're on the same page, I didn't introduce... This is... This is SB 23.

2438.

Oh, yes, I did. Okay. I'm sorry. I don't know my own bills.

No worries.

My apology.

I just want to at this point address two amendments that are being proposed. First, the Attorney General's one. I totally agree with their wish to have definitions for the three different words, the threats, intimidation, and coercion.

However, as far as whether or not we should put in reasonable person, I would suggest that it be both reasonable woman and reasonable man. The reason for that is, in Hawaii law right now, we use the concept of reasonable woman because women have different perceptions than men.

And this is in the civil rights regulations, especially when it comes to harassment, which basically intimidation, coercion, and threats are about. So I would ask that we expand that to reasonable woman and reasonable man rather than reasonable person. And as far as ACLU, in their testimony, they're suggesting to get rid of immunity for the actors, the perpetrators.

I agree with this. At first glance, you might think, oh, we should give folks qualified immunity. But the problem with that, that I've had in court and other civil rights attorneys have had, is that it's a very, very high standard, actually. I'll give you an example. I'm born and raised in New Orleans.

So when Katrina happened, that was devastating. So I was going to fly to New Orleans and go Pro Hac Vice and help lawyers there sue FEMA. So I was always set to go, all packed, and then I was told, forget about it. We can't sue them because of qualified immunity, as horrible as everything FEMA did.

And I think I'm sort of playing it by ear because I stole several of your seconds by questioning, which we're on, but your time is expired at this point. So thank you very much. And if you can stay around for questions, that would be great.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Next up is Kat Brady for Community Alliance on Prisons in support. AAUW Hawaii. I'm sorry, American Association of University Women, also in support. Christina Sablan for The Legal Clinic in support. Okay, Honolulu Hawaii NAACP, also in support. Liza Ryan Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, in support. Lia Cook for Roots Reborn Maui in support.

Mandy Fernandes, ACLU, stand on support. Okay, then we've got Mei-Lynn E Nakano on Zoom per chance. It doesn't appear to be there. She's in support too. And then we have everybody else in support of page, 8 page plus of individuals in support. So 44 in support, zero opposing, one comment.

And that brings us to questions for Members. Any questions? Okay, let me see here. For the AG, I guess. If this did become law, do you anticipate additional cost to the AG for defending cases?

It's not 100% certain at this time because of the fact that we're not exactly sure what kind of effect it's going to have on some, like, frivolous claims. There is some concerns that there's going to be some frivolous claims, and if those do tend to come up, then we may need to get more funding.

Okay. But it's sort of just you just don't know at this...

We just don't know at this time.

Okay. All right, thank you very much. All right, Members, any other questions? Thank you. If not, let's go and move on to the next bill. Let's see. What time is it? 9:55. We're at 10. Right?

Next up is SB2442 relating to purchase of service contracts by the judiciary beginning January 1, 2027 requires contracts or services awarded to community based organizations by the judiciary in support of fulfilling its statut mandate to individuals, families and communities in the state to include certain protections against inflation.

First up on SB2442 is Brandon Kimura, Administrative Director of Judiciary. Comments. Next has been Naki, Executive Vice President for Parents and Children Together in support. Oh, good. Cat Brady for Community alliance on Prisons also in support, Sean Kanai for Parents in Development Foundation in support, Michael Marsh for Responsible Caregivers of Hawaii.

In support, Venus Rosette Materos, President and CEO of Ali Kipa in support, Alan Johnson for Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition also in support, Jody Robinson for Hawaii alliance of Nonprofit Organizations in support Lori Turchiki for Domestic Violence Action Center in support. Hey. Greg Japkis for Coalition for Drug Free Hawaii.

In support Brian Baker, President and CEO for Hina Malka in support Tina Andrade, President and CEO for Catholic Chariots Hawaii in support Michelle Bartel for Aloha United Way. In support, Lisa Darcy testifying for High True Cost Hawaii True Cost in support, Sonia Blackistan, Hawaii Youth Services Network in support Hannah Lesiak for True Cost Coalition.

In support Julie Mitchell for Kahi Mediation Center in support, Hannah Preston Pita for Big Island Substance Abuse Council in support Ellie Tsuchiya for True Cross Coalition in support Amanda Puff for Child and Family Service on Zoom. Good morning, Amanda. Oh yeah, there you are. Go ahead. Good morning.

Well, that's Angela. I'm sorry, I'm looking for Amanda.

Oh Chair, I am Brad. I'm speaking on behalf of Amanda Pump for today for Child and Family Service.

Okay, go ahead. Good morning.

Perfect. So thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Brad Ishimaru from Child and Family Service, a statewide nonprofit that served over 117,000 individuals last year through prevention, intervention and treatment programs.

We respectfully urge your support for SB2442 which helps ensure the judiciary contract reflects true costs of delivering essential community based services. Operational costs have risen sharply, especially for workforce compliance and liability insurance which has tripled. At the same time, contract funding has remained largely stagnant.

This gap threatens program stability and service quality at a time when demand continues to grow. Excuse me. For example, our developing Options to Violence TOV program is a clear example of impact stake. We've served over 250 individuals annually and this achieves a 12.7 recidivism rate far lower than the state, state and national average.

And this saves state estimated $1.5 million a year. But results like these are only possible when funding aligns with real costs. One family we serve went from homelessness to stable housing, full time work and reunification with their children all within a year.

Thanks to consistent home visits and community based support, SB2442 will help ensure that outcomes like this remain possible. We urge its passage to protect vital services, supporting working families and strengthening Hawaii's communities. Mahalo for your time and commitment to our Keiki and Ohana. We appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Okay, we have a. I'm going to go ahead and pause. Going to recess the JDC only hearing. We have a 10 o' clock with our colleagues from the Transportation Committee. So we will pause.

We will go into recess on the nine o'clock agenda. Okay.

Okay. Welcome to the 10:00 agenda with the Judiciary and Transportation Committees. Welcome, Chair Inouye and the Transportation Committee. We have one bill on our agenda today. It's SB 2146. It's established as a traffic fines task force that will examine the Finnish--as in the country of Finland--tiered traffic fine system.

Basically, they charge wealthier people more for traffic tickets than they do poor people, and this would just establish a tennis horse to try to figure out whether that makes any sense here. First up on SB 2146 is Tiffany Chang or Stuart Fujioka, Deputy Attorney Generals. So you-- yep. Come on up, or unless you just want to stand on your comments. Whatever. Okay, go ahead.

Good morning. Tiffany Chang, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General.

Hold the mic closer because-- yeah.

Okay. Good morning. Tiffany Chang, Deputy Attorney General. We would just like to offer a few comments to suggest some changes to the membership of the task force, specifically to substitute the Department of the Attorney General for representations from the County Prosecutors, as they do handle most of our traffic offense prosecution, as well as adding members of representation from the Departments of Health and Transportation, as our current by-in structure does impose surcharges that go to special funds for programs run by those departments. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Just a question, please, Chair? Just a short question. So you're saying, have the members of the counties involved, because it's more counties than all prosecutors are in each county?

Yeah. That is correct.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Next up is Abbey Seitz, Director of Trans Equity for the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice, in support, Eduardo Hernandez for Hawaii Bicycling League, also in support, Janet Tiare, in support, and Megan Blaszak with comments. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2146. Would anyone else like to testify on this measure? Seeing none.

Yeah.

Members, questions? Any questions? Okay. Yeah.

Just to add that I agree adding DOT to it as well.

I didn't realize that maybe DOH, but that's fine with me as well.

Okay.

Yeah. So the task force does have the ability to add additional people, so we can add deputy prosecutors, and, I mean, a prosecutor or a designee in Department of Transportation and designee or a designee--

On all islands.

On all the islands.

Yes. I mean everybody, right? This is not less than-- over more than 500,000?

No, no.

Okay. So it's everybody, then?

So you want somebody-- you want somebody from the prosecutor from each island and from--

Or the designee.

Okay, that's fine.

Yeah. Yeah. And this is interesting subject, so maybe we can all go to Finland and check it out. Okay.

Let Stanley figure it out. Logistics. It's not that bad.

It's all right.

Okay. So the recommendation is to go ahead and move it forward with some amendments. We'll add one of-- a county prosecutor from each of the four counties or their designee, and then we'll also add someone from the State Department of Transportation or their designee.

DOT, yes. Or designee.

And then, we're going to leave the AG on there just for the, sort of, overview perspective. Not the AG, but his or her designee. And the task force does have the ability to add additional people on their own if they want to. And we'll blank out the appropriation, which we had at $10,000, and we'll put that on the committee report.

Okay. That's right.

Okay, great.

Ready for the vote.

Any questions or concerns? Senator JC, members? If not, Senator Gabbard for the vote.

On SB 2146, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll call]. The measure passes.

For the Committee on Transportation, Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 2146 with amendments. Any discussions, members of the Transportation Committee? Seeing none, hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Chair's recommendation's to pass SB 2146 with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll call]. Madam Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good doing business with you. We're adjourned

Yes.

Okay, going back in on the our 9 o'clock agenda, we were on SB2442 relating to purchase of service contracts by the judiciary beginning January 1, 2027 require contracts or services awarded by communities organizations by the judiciary to include certain protections against inflation. We had gotten. Our last testifier was from the Child and Family Service.

And then we also had. Oh, maybe that was Brad. Brad Ishimaru, was that you that already testified on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom anymore Chair.

Okay. Shannon Olivado in support, Sharon Worthington in support, Sarah Fairchild in support, Judith Clark in support, Lisa Rap in support, Deborah Spencer Chun for Adult Friends for Youth in support. And Rona Fukumoto for Lanakila Pacific, also in support. And I believe we had one more testifier on Zoom. Angela. Ricky, is she here?

She is present, Chair, but she is not unmuting. Oh, there she is.

Okay, go ahead.

Hello. This is for the Victim Assistance Program.

Sorry, go ahead.

Oh, can you share?

Oh, two. We're on SB2442.

This is for the Victim's Assistance Program.

No, no, no.

I'm going to testify for the Victim's Assistance Program.

Okay, this isn't it. Okay. Let's see members, any questions on SB2442? Oh, do you want to testify? Yeah, come on up. I'm sorry.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Cory Tanita for the True Cost Coalition. You have our written testimony and we heard from many of via the written testimony. Just wanted to highlight here that it's really not an increase per se for the contracts.

I know Senator San Buenaventura also knows this is also an ongoing issue for the Human Services Department as well. It's really just bringing it up to ground zero and making sure our community based organizations are able to continue serving the most vulnerable in our community. And so if you have any questions here to answer them. Thank you very much.

Great, thank you. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2442? Ah, good morning.

Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee. Thank you so much. My name is Kayla Keehu-Alexander here from Aloha United Way, Member of the True Cost Coalition. And as many of our partners have shared, we really appreciate the opportunity to emphasize the importance of supporting community based organizations at this moment in time.

CBOs provide countless services to many Members of our community every single day. And when they do not have adequate resources or protections against things like inflation, those services are interrupted. Sometimes they end completely and we really can't afford that right now, so those, you know, those services are critical.

They are not going to just exist on their own. So we really appreciate your support in this. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2442 here or in on Zoom? I see none. So Angela, are you still there?

Still present there waiting on her.

Which, which Bill did you want? That was the last Bill on the agenda. Which Bill did you want to testify on?

I wanted to testify for the Victim's Assistance Program.

What Bill was that?

2251.

Okay, go ahead. We'll just take you out of order. But we've, we've already. Go ahead, go ahead and testify.

Yeah, thank you. So the Victim's Assistance Program helps with crisis counseling and assistance with the process of filing complaints and case status information and orientation to such procedures. And so, you know, I've been supporting this Bill for the last two years. This is my third year supporting this Bill.

Of course, I'm always a fan of the prosecuting attorney's office. And you know, a lot of crimes involves sexual assaults, child abuse, partner abuse, puna abuse, and victim or witnesses will be provided crisis counseling. And so this helps with those who are not familiar with navigating the justice system to have a resource to assist them.

And you know, I'm the chair of the Hawaii Children and Youth Summit where many of our kids from low income neighborhoods raise awareness about gang violence and a lot of crimes that happen in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

And the federal level, they have the Witness Assistance Program to help with school safety, stopping bullying, preventing bullying amongst youths, and addressing domestic violence, cybercrimes, and to address child victims of drug crimes.

So, so I think the goal for me as an adult supervisor and someone who's just very like much of a fan of preventing crime and addressing justice, I think this is a really good legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, any questions? Okay.

Corey.

Oh, okay. Yes, we'll go back. Okay, sorry. Just so everybody's clear where we are going, back to SB2442. Senator San Buenaventura, go ahead.

Thank you. Knowing the current federal climate, would you be opposed to amending this Bill specifically on page two to include funds, necess funds to reimburse community based organizations who have lost federal funds which were formerly granted?

No, I don't think we'd have an issue with that. But you know, obviously we just want to just make clear that it is separate issue, right? The federal funding versus the long standing issue of underfunded state contracts. The federal funding issue has just, it didn't create the problem. Right.

It just exacerbated it and, and really exposed it. But, you know, any funding, I think for community-based organizations at this time because of all that's going on right now, would be most welcome. Thank you.

Other questions, Members?

No, that's it.

Okay, I believe we're ready to vote. Then go back to the top of the agenda. SB 2149 relating to family. Establishes an exemption from mediation and attorney proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse. Clarifies exemption from mediation and divorce proceedings as it relates to domestic abuse.

So recommendations to pass with amendments per the judiciary's testimony will conform everything to Chapter 584A instead of the old chapter, which was 584, also per the judiciary. Let's clarify that the court can only order. That the court can. Sorry. That the court can only order mediation where domestic abuse is alleged if the victim authorizes it.

Right now it sort of makes it sound like it's the mediator who has that authority. So it's really the court that has it. And then on the Section 658H10 issue that was raised, we'll accept the will use the 658H10 process as opposed to the one that's currently in the bill. Questions or concerns if not.

Senator Gabbard on SB 2149, Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Senator San Buenaventura.

I'm voting with reservations simply because I did not know about the amendment and I supported it using the terms of the bill. So reservations agree with the council.

Senator Awa. The measure is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up is SB2203 relating to law enforcement. This establishes the offensive use of mask or personal disguise by a law enforcement officer. I on this one, I'm just going to defer it until Thursday. Thursday at sort of time. 9:35. 9:30. Did we have a. Although that was the. Okay. 9:30.

9:30 on Thursday in this room. 016. And that's the 5th of February for the introducer of the bill. The question was raised from law enforcement about how to draw the exceptions. And I want a little more time to try to work that out. Okay.

But I do intend to pass the Bill forward if, if we all, you know, we have the votes to do it. Next up is SB2251 making an appropriation for the Victim Witness Assistance program. It's a $500,000 General Fund grant in aid to the Department of Prosecuting attorney, city and county Recommendation here is to pass with amendments.

We'll just add a reporting requirement. A simple reporting requirement. Any questions or concerns if not Senator Gabbard.

On SB 2251 Charge recommendations to pass an amendments and Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB2311 relating to claims against the state as prohibits claims for refunds, reimbursements or other payments authorization for which is sought from the Legislature that exceed the time limitations of hrs Section 4068 and require some additional reporting by the Attorney General about the claims against the state.

About claims against the state Recommendation here is to pass with amendments. So the the attorney General objected to the required information about the total value of possible judgments against the state that have not yet been settled being public.

So we going to make that a a confidential report to instead and let's see what's the other part of this instead of part of the claim. Yeah. So it won't be part of the claims against the state bill.

It will just be a separate report but it will be due at the same time that the claims against the state bill is due which is very close to the beginning of our session. Then we'd have some technical amendments and then we'll change the reporting dates from 20 days to 40 days before the session.

And then instead of in, in the con. Instead of in this conf. In the report that we just made confidential instead of a asking for real specific dollar amounts, we'll just say that a good faith estimate of future claims would go into the confidential report because there are some.

When you, when you haven't settled something yet, it's fair to say that you don't know for sure what it's going to be. So just a good faith estimate for our purpose planning purposes here at the Legislature and that's it I think.

Yeah. Okay.

Questions or concerns? If not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 2311 with amendments. The Members present are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB 2315 proposing an amendment to Article 17 Section 3 of the State constitution.

This is the, this would make it so that only vote votes that were yeses or nos would count on the constitutional when, when you're counting the, the, the votes for the constitutional amendment right now you have to have both a majority of the ones who actually have a clean vote and then blank votes and overvotes count as no's so the recommendation is to pass it with us.

A slightly different question so the. To try to make it clear. Under the current language of the constitution, the state of Hawaii, there are two requirements to approve a constitutional amendment and the language that I would like to ad.

First, a majority of voters must vote yes on the proposed amendment based on the majority of all the votes tallied requirement. Second, this majority must. Must also represent the majority of all votes cast, including blank votes, spoiled votes, and overvotes. So that would be the. The new description of how the. The the ballot question is set up.

Then the ballot question itself would be, shall the constitution of the state of Hawaii be amended to change the standard for voter approval of constitutional amendments that are proposed by the Legislature to require solely that a majority of the votes tallied approve of the amendment and that only ballots that indicate a no vote be counted as no?

So we leave out a phrase there we think is superfluous to delete the additional requirement. They're being approved by a majority of the votes cast. So. But that's what would be left out. Clear as mud. Yes. Which the. Yes.

So both parts that I read would be on the ballot, but the first part is just a setup as to how things are. Now, the second part would be the actual question of what you're voting on.

Can you repeat that one more time?

I can if you like.

Thank you.

Okay. Under the current language of the constitution, in the state of Hawaii, there are two requirements to approve a constitutional amendment. And this would be the language that I'd like to. This would be a substitute language.

So to approve a constitutional amendment, first, a majority of the voters must vote yes on the proposed amendment based on the majority of all the votes tallied requirement. Second, this majority must be also represent a majority of all votes cast, including blank votes, spoiler votes and overvotes. So that's the description of the way it is.

Now, here's what we would. Here's what the question would be.

Shall the constitution of the state of Hawaii be amended to change the standard for voter approval of constitutional amendments that are proposed by the Legislature to require solely that a majority of the votes tallied approved of the amendment and that only votes that indicate a no vote be counted as no.

Mahalo for that. Comment.

Sure.

I mean, after that, we got our colleagues up in education saying that, you know, our education system is failing and we expect people who. Coming out of that system to be able to understand, you know, what. What they're voting on.

And so I. I have a problem with that this is one of those bills, in my opinion now that, that causes people to lose trust in the election process because like you mentioned, there are those two fences. This bill knocks one of those fences down if you're silent on the question or on, on voting on that matter.

And, and so I don't think this, this one should go on the ballot just because of what it would do with how the public views us in our positions. This, this to me, doesn't put people over special interests. It is my bill.

My. The point of it is to make it simpler so that people do understand what they're voting on, because most times you vote, you're just voting yes or no. And there's not like these implicit two things that have to happen. This would make it so it's just, you just vote yes or no. That's it.

So that's the, that's the idea. Yeah. And I think, I think while I was watching on closed captioning, because I was in another Committee, I think Senator Sembuen Ventura was talking about the education part of it. I could be wrong. I was just reading the closed captioning.

But I just don't see how we bridge that gap of educating people just at this point right now with, with voting on constitutional amendments. And then, and then the, the bigger scope of it.

If we can't, if the, if us as lawmakers want to pass something or special interest groups want to pass something, they, they get it on, on there.

If we can't even get 50% of the people who vote, that, that, that's not even a majority of the people because we know that a lot of people don't vote to begin with.

And so really advancing, I see where you want to do, but we're really advancing and I think we're leaving out a lot of people in this process.

Well, I mean, that's, I mean, that's true nationwide. I mean, something like a third of people don't vote. I mean, the ones who are eligible. On the education part of it, I think that. Well, I think that as the League of Women Voters testified, it is getting better.

I had a county I'm on last year on how judges are chosen, which was very technical, and I thought that it would be hard to explain and I was worried that it would pass just because everybody would just roll their eyes.

But I think the explanation that was given as part of the new voter registration guide and help people see what it was. So I agree on the education side and I think that we have done better and that this, this this will in the end make things simpler. Good.

So my comment is I am going to also vote no. I believe the Constitution that we have now is a good Constitution. I believe amendments should be difficult to be to pass. And we all know because we've gone through these elections that there are voters who do vote for candidates but leave a number of black votes too.

So even and a lot of those people who we talk to, basically they're happy with the way things are. So why change it kind of mentality right now. So for those reasons, until you get the education piece out there that you're going to make this huge change, I'm going to be voting though.

Okay. Other questions or concerns. If not, let's go ahead and vote as is right. Oh no.

Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 2315 with amendments.[Roll Call]. No measures adopted.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next one. It's SB 2380 proposing amendment to the Hawaii state constitution to establish continuous legislative session recognition.

Let's go ahead and pass it out as is we last year I kind of held up the, I did hold up the the discussion on a continuous legislative session because my understanding was that there was a study done and we were waiting on the study and I wanted to see what that said but it didn't end up being all that useful.

So like to move it forward just for further discussion purposes and with no amendments, questions or concerns.

Special amendment on page four lines 18 through 19 to 20 that the meeting shall be held in every district in the state instead of the capital.

My concern has always been, and it was also put out is that when we isolate legislators in this building then we are going to be subject to the lobbyists and advocates will only come to metro Oahu and that the legislators will not know what is happening in rural Oahu or in every district.

And that's the reason why I've always been against a continuous legislator because it keeps the rest of us in our communities grounded so that we know how our people feel and affected by traffic or affected by more common. More common things that we hear. And the legislator in this box is isolated from. For. For those.

Unless you make that amendment, I am going to be voting.

Well, if I do make the amendment, will you vote?

Yes, with reservations.

I'm sorry, where was it? What? What?

Page four.

Page four to 20.

All meetings right now shall be held in the capital. So that's Netro Oahu. So we're isolating it. We're isolating the legislators from the rest of Hawaii. So my, my request is that it be held in every district.

So how, how, I mean, we're talking about the whole Legislature.

Yes, that's it.

So how, where would we meet?

My constituents have a difficult time.

I understand the problem. I'm just saying where, where in Puna? What, what building would hold us?

There's usually a governmental building somewhere. It could be in East Hawaii. There's a state building there.

Every house district or every Senate district.

We can make it any, every Senate district to make it easier.

Okay with it.

You know, Mr. Chair, I, first of all, I would disagree with the premise of the proposed amendment. The current legislative session has us stuck in this building from January through May. It's very hard to escape this building. If this measure were to pass, we would only hold a couple sessions per month like the county councils do.

So actually the great majority, we would be able to go back to our districts and spend significant time in our districts every month and even every week. So I think this, the purpose of this constitutional amendment is actually to enable people to spend more time year round in their districts.

Secondly, as you also know, the county councils, all four of the county councils meet year round. Maui County in particular is a multi island county council and they do not feel the need to hold their meetings in every, you know, council district of their county.

And finally, I'd just like to add that since the pandemic testament testimony at the council, at the Legislature has never been easier from anywhere across the state because people are now able to testify remotely via Zoom from anywhere in the state or really anywhere in the country.

So I'd like to point out that county council of the Big island actually do have council meetings on the west side as well as on the east side because we know about the geographical limitations that the people have in wanting to be able to meet with their legislators or with their county council people.

So it's not far fetched to ask for meetings to be held in every, at least on every island and on the, on the Big island on the east and the west side.

So why don't we do this? I've never done this before, so, you know, it's my last year. So we'll get to try new things. If you would like to make a formal amendment proposal and we'll just go through the regular amendment like with, if you want to. You've, you've proposed your amendment.

If you have a second move forward on it.

So, so basically I would move that on page four, lines 18 to 20 be amended to reflect that meeting shall be held in every district, every Senate district of the state. And the second line be well and basically. And the rest of it be. Be amended to reflect that sentiment.

Okay. Is the amendment understood? Adequately. Okay. Do you have a second? Is there a second? Second. One person who likes it. Just. Do you second. Do you want a second amendment? I'll second that. Okay. That's an interesting idea. Any discussion, Any further discussion? Yeah. Okay, go ahead.

Stanley. I love this bill. The, the thing I don't like about we should be doing this around the year. The thing I don't like it about it is the salaries. I don't want to see the salary commission.

And now that you guys are working a year, that's been my, my hold up with a year round Legislature is not the work that it's going to require us to do, it's that they're going to bump our salaries up, maybe double even more. And so if we can re. If we can somehow stop that from happening.

We're already getting raises after this election. If we can stop that from happening, I'd be all for it.

I had a question to clarify. Sure. Senator Joy, when you're talking about having it in each Senate. We're, we're having our sessions in each Senate district.

Yeah.

We're on a rotation.

On a rotation.

Okay. Okay.

Interesting concept. Any other discussion? What are the salary. Is there anything we do about the salary part? This doesn't have anything to do.

No, that's a separate track. But yes. I mean, I do think my, my personal opinion is that I'm not going to benefit from it. But you're.

If you guys win this next, whoever's up this next time, we'll, we'll have a, a salary that almost looks like a full time salary as opposed to what it was when I came in, which was 2007. We made. They had just gotten a raise and it was $35,000 a year and that wasn't really a.

A year long salary. Okay, so we'll vote first on the amendment to have a rotating. Have, have the Legislature meet. It'll still be continuous, but meet in each in rotation on 25 Senate districts. So all in favor of that one? I'm a no, no, no. Okay, so we're back to the base question. And if there's any.

If there's no further discussion, we'll go ahead and vote on the bill as is. Okay, go ahead, Senator Gabbard.

On SB 2380 Chair's recommendations to pass unamended. Are there any. No votes or reservations? [Roll Call] The measures adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, relating to civil interference with Constitution and constitutional and statutory rights. This establishes a civil cause of action for interference with constitutional and statutory rights through threats, intimidation or coercion. Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments.

I'd like to clarify the scope of covered defendants and immunity will specify that a person means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company or other private legal entity and that a person does not include the state, any county or Department, agency, board, commission, officer, employee of the state or any county acting within the scope of official duties except to the extent that immunity is expressly waived by other law.

Okay. Then we'll I'd like to add definitions or limiting language for threats, intimidation and coercion and clarify that section 2B to avoid converting every underlying constitutional statutory violation into per se liability.

So a threat would mean a communicated intent to inflict physical harm, unlawful restraint or unlawful damage to property that would cause a reasonable person to fear that the harm will occur.

Intimidation would mean conduct or communication that would place a reasonable person in fear of physical harm or unlawful restraint and is undertaken for the purpose of causing the person to restrain from exercising a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or the state. And coercion.

Coercion would mean the use of threats or intimidation or the misuse of authority to compel or induce a person to do or refrain from doing an act the person has a legal right to do or refrain from doing. And then we'll add a statute of limitations and a liability standard.

So the person would have to intentionally or knowingly engage in the threats, intimidation or co coercion and you know, pleading a complaint brought on its actual state with particular facts. The particularity the facts establishing the specific right at issue, the threats, intimidation, coercion used and attempted and facts supporting the defendant's required state of mind.

And that is it. So I had so my my comment is I had reservations about this because it would apply both ways for constitutional amendments that I have my doubts about, like the Second Amendment. And it also applies to ones that I like, like the First Amendment. So. Yeah, keep that in mind. It does.

It does cut both ways. Other other comments or concerns if not.

Senator Gabbard for the vote. Chair's Recommendation on the SB 2438 is to pass with amendments of the Members present. Any no votes or reservations. Hearing none. The measure is adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Next up is SB2442 relating to purchase of service contracts by the judiciary. This would, beginning January 12027 require contracts for services awarded to community based organizations by the judiciary in support of fulfilling its statutory mandate to individuals, families and communities in the state to include certain protections against inflation. See recommendation.

We might have a better, a clearer definition of community based organization in the covered categories of services. And we'll add language making the CPI-based adjustments and multi-year obligations subject to available appropriations and consistent with applicable procurement law. You know what? No, I'm sorry. I'm gonna. I'm gonna put this one off until Thursday.

There was still some questions we had, so I will put this up till Thursday at 9:30. It's February 5th. Sorry about that. That's it. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thanks for being here.