Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee meeting this Friday morning, February 6th here in 016. This person and Zoom meeting and YouTube live stream event will include the following agenda. Our 9am agenda. As noted, the hearing is being lived 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, www.capital.hawaii.gov.

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 and a public notice will be posted on the legislator's website and will reconvene on Tuesday, February 10th at 9:30 in this room 116.

For all the people testifying remotely, all testifier audio will be muted and video disabled until it's your turn to testify. And we do have a two minute time limit for everyone zoom and in person.

And if there are any technical glitches during your turn to testify, we may have to skip over but we try to come back and also many times Members have questions. So if you can hang around after you've testified, that would be great. Okay. First up on our 9 o' clock agenda is Senate Bill 2444.

This increases the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution, which has not been increased for decades. First up on this is Ruth O, Deputy Attorney General on Zoom. Oh, in person. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee. My name is Ruth O, Deputy Attorney General with the Department of the Attorney General.

I can just barely hear you. Better pull it. Just pull if it'll move. Pull up. Yeah. Okay, go ahead.

Pardon me. Is that better?

Yeah.

Is that better? Thank you.

Just move the whole. Yeah, there you go. Perfect.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbert. My name is Ruth O, Deputy Attorney General with the Department of the Attorney General. The Department appreciates the opportunity to testify and the Department's testimony includes comments identifying legal concerns.

Section 3 of the bill includes a deemed amended clause that applies the increased exemption amounts to claims made before January 1,2027.

The clause includes a proviso that seeks to limit the application of the increase so that it applies only, quote, to the extent that the increase does not impair or defeat the rights of any creditor who has executed upon the real property before 1-1-2027, end quote.

However, the Department is concerned the wording is too vague to provide predictable guidance or to prevent litigation. Also. Examples are provided in the testimony. And further, the Department is concerned that the proposed changes may trigger legal challenges based on retroactive impairment of creditor enforcement rights. And we have cited authorities.

So the Department recommends not amending the deemed amendment. Cause, pardon me, the deemed amended clause on page three, lines 20 through page four, line six, and I'm available for questions.

Great, thank you very much. Next up, we have Mihoko Ito or Tiffany Jima for Hawaii Bankers association on Zoom, maybe.

Not President on Zoom.

Chair with comments. Next is Bill Plum, Collection Law section of the Hawaii State Bar Association. In opposition, Linda Nakamura for Mortgage Bankers Association Association of Hawaii. Also in opposition, Marvin Dang for Hawaii Financial Services association with comments, Randy Panal, staff attorney for the. zero, I'm sorry, that's the next one. That's everyone. We have signed up for SB2444.

Does anyone else wish to testify in SP2444? Seeing none. Can I just have the eight? Oh, I'm sorry. Any questions? Can I have the eight? Mizo, back up again. Do you happen to know when the last time this was? Oh, wait, maybe it's in the. No, it's actually in.

Bill, I'm sorry, I want wanted to know when the last time the this was adjusted for inflation, so it looks like it's 1978. Is that your. Your.

That's my understanding. Okay.

All right, thank you.

It's been 50 years.

Yeah, it's been a while. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and move on to the next bill, which is. SB2446 relating to the Judiciary, would increase the number of associate judges on the Intermediate Court of appeals from six to seven. First up on 2446 is Randy Panal, staff attorney for the ICA. Good morning.

Morning.

Vice Chair Gabbard. I'm Randy Panal. I'm the supervising staff attorney at the ICA. And thank you for allowing me to testify today. The judiciary and myself personally, we can't express enough the Judiciary's gratitude to this chair and this Committee for being so instrumental in adding the last the sixth associate judge to the ICA back in 2022.

And really for all the support this Committee has shown the ICA over the years. Chair Rhodes, Chief Judge Nakasone specifically asked me to tell you that she's especially sad that you're retiring, but she's grateful and inspired by your service. Thanks.

So, with respect to this bill, the Judiciary supports the intent of the current bill, but the sixth associate judge was added in 2022. And since then, the ICA has operated at full capacity with six associate judges and one chief judge for only seven months.

And despite not being at full strength for most of that time, despite an increase in the number of appeals filed, despite an increase in the number of motions filed, we still managed to terminate more cases last year than we have in the previous 10 years.

And that's because in January of 2024, we reallocated our resources internally and implemented some temporary operational changes that Chief Judge Nakasone has made permanent. So we expect our case termination numbers will increase exponentially when we fill the current vacancy, which we hope will happen during this legislative session.

And while we're thankful for the current bill, we think it would be prudent to wait and see what that landscape looks like before adding another judge to the court. And I do have one minor technical correction to the written testimony, a typo.

At the last sentence on page one, it should read that the ICA terminated 599 primary cases, while 503 new cases were filed in fiscal year 2425. Thank you. And I'll remain available for questions.

Thank you. Next up is Haley Chang for Public Defender. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes. Vice Chair Gabbard. Haley Chang, First Deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. We had submitted testimony in support of the measure, and that's. Our support is grounded in the fact that we would like to, of course, see more promptly resolution of the appellate matters for both the defendants as well as the victims.

Cases pending for lengthy periods of time do not provide the finality that all parties need. And obviously, oftentimes the cases go to the next step, from the ICA to the Supreme Court, which is another additional delay in the appellate process.

I would just like to supplement my testimony after hearing the remarks of the staff attorney from the ica. We are incredibly deferential and know that they would know the operations best. We have recently been encouraged by some of the changes as has been been outlined.

So we would also have no opposition to either deferring or taking the temperature of how things have improved over some time and revisiting if that would maybe be the more appropriate course. But we just want to emphasize that we, of course, appreciate and do desire swifter resolutions of our appellate matters.

So thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will remain available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next is Victor Ramos and opposition. And that's everybody who signed up on SB2446. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2446? Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair, Questions. I have a question for staff attorney. Yeah. So this was My first volunteer job in Hawaii 30 years ago at the ICA for former Judge Watanabe.

We were, we, you know, it wasn't really my Kuleana was pretty limited, but I don't know, we were three or four years behind. What can you, can you tell us what the current stats are? How, how, what's your oldest case at this point? Yes.

Or if you have the oldest in average would be helpful if you have it. I don't have the average, but I do have the oldest and I can tell you that.

And this is a result of the restructuring in January 2024, after our chief judge went to the Supreme Court and we went back down to six judges, we had 270 pending cases that had been assigned to a merit panel for two or more years. Today we have six.

And four of those six, I understand, are in bankruptcy court. So their state. We can't do anything with those cases if we wanted to. So all of that happened when we were short a judge. And it's largely because of the changes that we implemented.

I don't have the average age of the pending cases, but we have made a significant effort, concerted effort to clear the backlog of the oldest cases.

So when Judge Nak, Judge Nakasone was confirmed, she felt that they, that you could get to, realistically could get to a two year delay. Does that sound about right? I don't want, you know, that's a very difficult.

You don't have to answer that question and you don't have to contradict your boss that, that she told us two years from someone who worked there, that sounded great compared to where we were in 1995. But in the modern world, two years is a really long time.

And ideally, or maybe not ideally, but just sort of realistically, we should be able to turn out appellate decisions in six months, nine months, something like that. And I don't, I haven't heard anybody say that that's a realistic possibility under the current structure.

Well, I, I can tell you that's not a realistic possibility on the current structure simply because the way the rules determine prescribed deadlines, it's at least 225 days before a case can go to the merit panel. And that's assuming nobody asked for an extension of time for anything.

Trial court clerks request extensions of time to file records on appeal. Court reporters request extensions of time for transcripts. Parties request extensions of time for briefs to criminal defendants on appeal. They want a new attorney. It has to be temporary, temporarily remanded for assignment of a new counsel.

The judgment or the order from which the appeal is taken is defective, it has to go back down. So the rules allow for those flexibilities, but it's inherently built in at least 225 days. Now, from that point, that may be what Chief Judge Nakasone was talking about. Two years from panel assignment.

And I think that's entirely realistic with the current structure.

Yes, I guess I feel like the goal should be way, way shorter than that. So that's why I'm interested in this bill. Any case, thank you for your testimony and we'll Vice Chair some questions. We'll go ahead and move on. Good. All right, thank you. Thanks for being here. Next up, we have SB2450.

This would establish a presidential preference primary for the during for the 2028 election cycle. First up, we have Scott Nago, Chief Election Officer. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments, but we just like to note that the cost of a presidential professional primary would be about $4 million. However, if you were to hold it in conjunction with the primary, that price would be a lot less. Okay. And I'll be happy to answer any question.

Great, thank you.

Next up, we have Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands. Hawaiian Islands Republican women on zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes, Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard and Members of the Committee. Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican women. The current presidential preference primaries are threatened by SB2450 with layers of bureaucratic control and governance. Thank you for allowing me to testify in strong opposition of SB2450 for the following reasons.

Number one, it's a threat to the current practice of party run presidential preference primaries. Currently, these primaries are organized and managed successfully by political parties. By introducing additional layers of bureaucratic control and government oversight as proposed in this Bill, the autonomy of political parties in conducting their own primaries is undermined.

SB2450 gives control to the chief elections officer and county clerks. Again, government overreach and bureaucracy. Number two, it increases costs for taxpayers. Currently, to run the presidential primaries is $0. SB 2450 is requesting an appropriation of what I thought was 3.5 million, but Mr. Nagle just said 4 million from the General revenues. This is unacceptable.

Number three, majority and plurality voting practice undermines the value of each voter. If not this, you know, this practice runs rounds of counting of the votes. It is simply complicated. And so for those reasons, we recommend against this Bill, we have solutions and Recommendations keep the current practice of the presidential primaries.

And I would like to remind the Committee that Article 1 of the State constitution is all political power of this state is inherent in the people and the responsibility for the exercise thereof rests with the people. All government is founded on this authority. For these reasons, please vote no on SB2450. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have pride at work. Michael Golo I think yeah. Good morning.

Good morning. Happy Aloha Friday. Michael Golo Jr. He him pronouns President of Pride at Work Hawaii prior to work Hawaii does oppose this Bill, but for many different reasons than the previous speaker. We feel that it's not just $4 million. A Bill like this went through the Legislature.

When we heard from the different counties, the best estimate that we were able to ascertain is going to be closer to $6 million when you add in the cost from the counties that we feel that there's better use for that. As we've just heard that the it sounds like the Republicans will not be using this.

The results from this. They're not. There's nothing in this Bill that require political parties to use these results. The Libertarians have already been on record saying they will not use them.

So while we appreciate the intent of getting more people to be involved in the electoral process at this point, spending $6 million for something that does not benefit the entire electorate does not is not a good use of taxpayer dollars.

On another note, those monies could be better well spent on taking care of our homeless, unaccompanied minors, our veterans, and dealing with the myriad of problems that are going to be facing you all this legislative session. So we encourage you to look at other methods.

But we do agree with it's not that we don't think that Scott Nalgo and his amazing team at the Office of Elections could handle it. We know they could.

But we do think we would not be opposed if you guys were to move this to with the regular primary and so therefore the cost so that but that would require moving our state primaries to at least may to make sure that the results of this are be able to used by the political parties that would use them.

So on that note, we encourage you to hold this Bill and Committee. Thank you for your time and have a great day.

Thank you very much. Next up is Aubrey Green, secretary of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii in opposition, John Bickle in support, Mary Smart in opposition. Anybody's here, please come on up. Jacob Weineck Weinschik in opposition, Rita Kama Kimura in Opposition. Corinne Solomon, in opposition. And Teresa Armbruster, in opposition. That's everyone who signed up on SB2450.

Does anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Okay. See? None. Question, Chair, any questions?

Yeah, I got questions for Mr. Nago. So, Mr. Nago, do, do the counties have the staffing and the infrastructure needed to implement this new election by 2028? What is your assessment of that?

So they would. My assessment, I, I believe they would have the, the, the ability to staff if this were to pass. I think they would have, I believe they would have the ability to staff the voter service centers and do all that. Yes.

Without it affecting their other election responsibilities?

No, because this would be a lot closer to. It would be a different time period.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks.

I have a question for you, too. So my understanding is that we're one of the very few states that still has caucuses, maybe Iowa and us and a couple more. Do you happen to know how many states have presidential preference primaries at this point?

I do not. But my understanding is like yours that we are one of the last states to have a caucus. Do you, do you know what, why that is? That? I do not know why that is. I, I, well, okay, I take that back. Because we used to have primaries in September.

We could not have, wouldn't be in time for the, the, what do you call the conventions. So that's why they would, the parties would do it themselves.

Okay, so. But at this point, well, we still don't have our primary until August. So, yeah, things are pretty much over at the presidential level by then. All right, but in case your understanding is, the vast majority of states have, and this Bill, your understanding on this Bill is that it doesn't. No one's required to use it.

If libertarians don't want to use it, who they send to their convention is up to them. And this Bill wouldn't change it. This would just say, here's what the people who voted in your primary think. You can ignore it if you want to.

That's my understanding. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to the next Bill, which is. SB 2453. Requires the Office of Elections to include a notice to voters that a digital printer print voter information guide is available. Requires the notice to be in 32.0 font and enclosed as a separate insert with each ballot. First up on 2453 is Mr. Nago again, who wisely didn't go back to his seat.

I was going to stay here, but I didn't want to be self choice. Thank you for providing. Thank you for allowing us to provide testimony providing comments. We estimate it will cost $90,000 to include this insert.

However, we do ask that the effective date be January 1, 2027 because we would be well underway with the mailing house services for the primary election prior to this Bill being enacted in July. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, great. Next we have Christine Pagano, Acting Executive Director for Disability Communications Access Board and support Natianga Monaus Legislative Committee for the Hawaii League of Women Voters of Hawaii. Also in support James Gal for the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii in support of Lila Ma in support. And that's everyone who signed up on SB2453.

Would anyone else like to testify in SB2453? See none. Mr. Senator Gabber, any questions? Let's see. Okay, we'll move on. Thank you. Next up is 2461 relating to voter information. This requires the Office of Elections to prepare a questionnaire on certain issues to which candidates may respond.

Requires the Office of Elections to publish any responses provided by a candidate on its website and in a digital digital voter information guide no later than 18 days before primary. First up on 2461 is Chief Election Officer Nago. Morning again.

Good morning. Thank you for allowing us to provide testimony with comments. We just want to note that we don't feel we would be the appropriate agency to determine the questions because it kind of gets into campaigning or we don't feel we have the expertise to shape a campaign with the questions to inform the voters to allow the voters to make an informed choice for their decisions and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you.

Next is Natianga Manaus, coordinator for League of Women Voters of Hawaii. And support. Lila Ma and support. And that's everyone who signed up on this Bill. Any. Anyone else like to testify? SB 2461. Okay. Seeing none center gab. Any questions? Mr. Nago?

So if, if we, I mean I, I share your concern about your office having to come up with the questions, but if we specific. If we specified in statute what the questions were to be, is that something that technically you can do?

Yeah, we don't have a problem with that.

Okay. Because you're already, you're already. There's already a candidate statement that they're allowed to make. Correct.

A digital voter guide. And that's one of the reasons why it's just limited by the words and not prompted by our questions is we didn't want to. We didn't want to be accused of steering the questions in a certain way. Understood?

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll go and move on to the next Bill, which is SB2457. This amends forfeiture laws to require the owner of property seized in relation to crime to be convicted of the covered offense before the property may be forfeited.

First up on 2457 is Dean Soma or Guru Allen or Chad Al to be Attorney Generals.

Good morning. Morning. Good morning. Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard. My name is Gurudev Allin, Deputy Attorney General here to testify on this Bill on behalf of the State of Hawaii Department of the Attorney General. As set forth in our written testimony, we do oppose this Bill.

As noted in the Bill, Act 288 last year made substantial reforms to the asset forfeiture program. And we have noted a notable decrease in the administrative petitions for forfeiture after that Bill.

As we anticipated, we're adding the requirement, in addition to already it's required that the owner be arrested or charged with a covered offense within one year of seizure. Adding the requirement that they also be convicted of a covered offense runs the risk of substantially prolonging the period of time before determination can be made as to the forfeiture.

And this would add uncertainty to the program and also costs associated with storing, you know, and maintaining property that's been seized for forfeiture for longer periods of time. For that reason, we ask that the Committee defer this Bill. And again.

We're concerned that this Bill will render the program non functional and take away from the law enforcement use of this mechanism to take away the instrumentalities from crime as noted in our testimony. I'm available for questions.

Great, thank you. Next up is Haley Chang for Public Defender. Welcome. Morning again.

Good morning again. Haley Chang on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender. And we strongly support this measure. We appreciate the recent changes to the forfeiture bills, I mean to the forfeiture law. But our position very clearly is that forfeiture of property should be directly linked to convictions.

Some of the opposition may highlight the opportunity to challenge forfeiture. I would note, as I believe we have noted in previous years, that you are not entitled to counsel navigating that system as a pro se litigant against the other agencies that you would be challenging that against. You can imagine what an unfair fight that is.

Additionally, it deincentivizes law enforcement for, from policing for profit. So we have several concerns, as we've always had with the civil forfeiture issue. And we believe that this is the only next natural step to make Things more fair. So I will remain available for questions. And thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thanks very much. Next up is Jerome Picaro for Honolulu Police Department on zoom perhaps. Good morning.

This is Major Jerome Pacarro with the Honolulu Police Department's Narcotics Vice Division. We've submitted our testimony. We stand on our testimony similar to the points that was made by the Department of Attorney General. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Daniel Hugo for Prosecuting Attorney, City County. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhoads, Vice Vice Chair Gabbard. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we oppose this Bill. But I should note first of all the things that we don't oppose, we don't oppose transparency, we don't oppose accountability in asset forfeiture, and we don't oppose due process either.

If the Legislature wants to provide a right to counsel, we have no objection to that. And we believe that these money should be reinvested into the communities that are plagued by crime and compensate victims. But we point to three serious problems with making conviction. The standard and the first, of course, is that some people flee.

And in those cases, we don't have trials in absentia in the United States. And so we are not going to convict people who are out of the jurisdiction who are not available for extradition. So that's the first problem. The second problem is that some people die before conviction.

We pointed to the Misky case, but we can point to more salient historical examples. The Romans had a similar property forfeiture regime. And Tacitus reports that Pomponius Labeo and his wife Paxea committed suicide when they were facing charges of maladministration.

And the motive that he gives them is that they wanted to keep their states safe from Tiberius, and the state would not like to see those sort of outcomes occur. And then finally, of course, you know, many organized crime enterprises structure the ownership of property so that even.

Even though you can tie it not just maybe by preponderance of evidence, but maybe even beyond reasonable doubt to criminal activity, the identity of the precise owner and whether or not they're being prosecuted may not be the case if it's, for example, stored in a shell company. So it's those concerns that motivate our opposition.

But we share the committee's concerns about seeing that asset forfeiture is implemented in a way that serves the ends of justice. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Maui Prosecutor's office in opposition. Next is Cat Brady for Community alliance and Prisons in support, Ted Kafalas, Director of Strategic Campaign Grassroots Institute of Hawaii also in support, Josh Frost for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii in support, Nikos L. for Drug Policy Form of Hawaii.

In support, John Bickle in support, Netianga Monaus in support, Barbara Polk with comments. And that's everyone who signed up on SB2457. Anyone else wish to testify in SB2457? Okay, seeing none. Members questions. I do have a question for Mr. Hugo. Just on the mechanics of.

So if the person were to flee and he never found them, I mean, you know, they like really fled fled and went to another jurisdiction where we never got him back.

What, what happens to the property in that situation where there's, where under this Bill it would not be, there'd be no conviction, but there would be no one to give it to either because the, you know, the putative owner would have been, would be gone.

Well, so does it go to the state or does what happens to it? It depends on the type of property.

So if, for example, we're seizing tangible assets that are inside a game room, that would probably ultimately be settled by an interpleeter action where it would be abandoned property and then the rightful owner could come and claim it.

So you know, if someone fled to China, say, and we weren't able to extradite them, maybe you know, there would just be a longer process until that property was abandoned.

It's a little more difficult in cases like bank accounts where they will still even overseas be able to exercise ownership and control unless there's a basis to actually seize the property.

So okay, but so, but in, under the current situation, if you don't know who the pro. The property belongs to, if it's seized as part of a criminal enterprise, the current statute is you can take it even though you don't know who it belongs to.

Right? So that's, that's the third example. So for example, if we seize cash in a game room and nobody comes to claim it.

Cause they're not going to claim it, right?

Because, so we actually put out a notice and say come and collect your winnings, but nobody, nobody ever steps forward for these things. That's funny. But you know, if somebody did want to step forward and claim that.

So then what happens to it? Because you don't, you don't really at that point really know who owns it, right?

Well, at, at that point, then the forfeiture action defaults.

You can, you can take it even though no one, even though you don't know the owner. Even though you don't know.

We still have to prove that it's tied to criminal activity though.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll go and move on. Thank you. Next up is SP2462 relating to income tax state income tax liability.

This increases the designated income checkoff amount for the Hawaii Election campaign Fund to $6 for taxpayers filing individual returns with $6 or more state income tax liability and for spouses filing joint returns with 12 or more. Okay, I'm getting some liquids. Premium six. Okay. So this would double the amount that you could check off.

First up on 2462 is Kristen Izumi Natal or Christy Chang or campaign spinning. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard and Members of the Committee. Christy Chang on behalf of the campaign spending Commission. The commission supports this Bill. The Hawaii Partial Public Financing Program is a state mandated, I mean constitution mandated program and this checkoff helps Fund that program.

Right now we currently have $2.4 million in the Fund which is enough to run just the primary election and not enough for a General. And so increasing this by doubling the checkoff option would help increase that Fund and make it a more viable program. I'm available for questions.

Great, thanks. Next up is Gary Suguma, Director Taxation for his designee. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabard, Member of the Committee. My name is Robert Aila. On behalf of do Tax. We stand on our written testimony providing comments and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Bepi Shapiro, Legislative Committee for Legal Women voters in support and Frederick, Executive Director for Y Alliance for Progressive Action also in support. Tanya sorry, Inasazian, I believe Hulipac in support and Tom Yamachika for Tax foundation of Hawaii on zoom.

Maybe not present on zoom Chair.

Okay, with comments. Susan Roberts, Emory co chair, Green Party of Hawaii and support. Evan Weber test testifying for our Hawaii in support. Regular Ms. Askian on Zoom. Perhaps maybe not present on Zoom Chair also in support, William Coron also in support. And then a bunch of people in support. Yeah, let's see.

Let me give you the final 38 and support and 22 comments. Okay, anyone else? Would anyone else like to testify in SP2462? Okay, any questions? Members? I have a question for Ms. Chang. How much do you get a year from the current checkoff? Do you have that information?

When I left it seems like. So all of this information is all on our website. We have a button that's data, but I can definitely send that to you. For last year for the Checkoff, we had $82,512. In 2024, we had 91,806. And so it's been decreasing over time.

I think at the highest point was in 2011, where we had $223,380 through the checkout.

So if you don't have sufficient funds in the blanking on the technical name for it, the candy.

Yes, the Hawaii election campaign.

That's it. What happens then?

There isn't enough. It would be basically first in and first out. So if people apply to the program, they would be the first to get that qualify.

The first one to qualify gets whatever. And if they run out, you run out. We don't run out. Have you requested a direct appropriations for the Fund before.

Chair? I've only been there six months at the commission, to my knowledge, I don't think so, but I can definitely check on that.

Again, kept curious whether. Because I mean, it's not. It's not a ton of money in the broad scheme. Yes.

Yes.

Okay, Members, other questions. If not, thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to the next Bill, which is SB 2313 establishes a comprehensive system of public financing for all candidates seeking election to state and county public office to begin in 2028. First up is campaign spinning commission. Morning again.

Good morning again. Chair, vice chair and Members of the Committee. We obviously, we really support this Bill and the intent of the Bill. We provided some comments and some data in our in our testimony that sort of explains in order to qualify and then how much would be available.

And I just want to point out right now, if one candidate for each office qualified and received the comprehensive public Fund for 2028, the program will pay out 15,110,000 in public financing. But under the current system, it would be 2.9 or $8 million under that program.

And as I mentioned earlier, we currently have 2.4 million in the Fund. And in order to do this program, you've appropriated 30.2 million, which we think would be sufficient.

Okay, thank you. Next is Be Shapiro, Legislative Committee for the League of Women Voters of Hawaii. In support, Marlene Tom for Indivisible Hawaii on zoom.

Maybe not present chair.

Also in support next is Tanya. Or Chamber of Sustainable Commerce. In support, Jeanette Guru Women Organizing for Change in Agricultural Natural Resource Management. Also in support, Susan Roberts Emory for Green Party Hawaii and support and Frederick Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action.

In support, Cedric Duarte for Kali Palama Hawaiian Civic Club in support Evan Weber for our Hawaii and support Jin Kagiwata, Hawaii County Council Member In support April Lee on zoom maybe not present Chair and support Kyoni Shizuma in support Nancy Moser and support Tim Haiki and support and then many, many others in support see 72 support, 3 opposed 72 in support, 3 opposed.

Would anyone else like to testify in SB2313 see none Members any questions?

No question for. So if the Legislature doesn't appropriate sufficient funds in a given year, would the statute prohibit the program from operating or would it allow for partial implementation?

Just to clarify your question, Vice Chair, are you asking if this Bill passes and there isn't sufficient funds? I think how I would read that I would have to go back and check.

But I think how I would read that would be similar to, you know, the money in the first one comes out and whoever applies and qualifies because there is a qualifying amount, $5 right. For each set office. And so I think we would treat it as similar to how we do our partial public funding.

I do want to point out if this does pass, because our partial public funding is mandated by our state constitution, we would have to run both programs at the same time.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Members, any other questions? If not, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and move on to SB2528. This is the Campaign Spending Commission's partial public financing Bill, increases the expenditure limit in the amount of partial public campaign financing available for all elective offices. First up on 2528 is Ms. Chang. Hello again.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair Christy Chang on behalf of the Campaign Spinning Commission. This is our commission's Bill in hopes to try to boost our partial public financing program. And sort of what we did was an analysis about where we're at, what we need.

And so what this Bill attempts to do is to increase the expenditure limit for all elected offices by 20%. We also do like a downward adjustment for those to be able to qualify and do an adjustment for oha because OHA actually is a statewide race instead of similar to all statewide races.

So they get additional money for that. And as I mentioned previously, we have $2.4 million. And we feel that by doing it this way we would be able to get enough for or I think we're asking in this Bill. Sorry, all these bills are running together for me. Yeah. That we would have. I know.

I was like, I don't know how you do. It's like. But anyway, like I mentioned we have 2.4 million in our Fund and that's enough to Fund one election and not enough for the General. So we ask that this Bill be passed and available for questions.

Thank you. Next up is Pepe Shapiro of the Legislative Committee for Legal Women Voters. In support, Marlene Tom for Indivisible Hawaii Statewide Network on Zoom.

Maybe not present on Zoom. Chair.

She is in support as well. Chris Caulfield, Emua Alliance. In support, Tanya Ani N for Huli Pack. Also in support, Evan Weber for our Hawaiian support, Judith Mills Wong. Good morning.

Vice Chair Gabbard and Members. The League of Women Voters is concentrate believes in participatory democracy and we believe that public funding does go to that end. While in an ideal world we'd like to have full public financing of elections, we recognize that there are limitations to that.

And as we work towards that goal, we support the changes that are suggested by the Campaign Spending Commission. We feel this brings it up to date, brings our partial public financing program up to date, makes it possible for people who might otherwise not be able to participate in our democracy as candidates, makes it available for them.

Thank you very much. Next up is Gregory Maian on Zoom.

Thank you.

Maybe not present chair.

Chair in support. And then we have quite a few people, 58 in support, no opposition. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2528? Okay, see non Members questions. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on. Next up, we have SB 2532. So I'm going to take a. I'm not going to stop the video.

I'm going to take a brief recess to get my jacket because I'm freezing. Just a moment. I'll be right there. Okay, SB2532, various sections of Hawaii's campaign spending laws by requiring designated campaign finance forms to be submitted electronically. First up on 2532 is Ms. Chang.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Christy Chang from Campaign Spending Commission last year. We really appreciate the support of this Committee by allowing us to get $2.2 million to upgrade our electronic filing system, which we hope to be rolling out after this election cycle.

In that process, we realize that there's certain sections in our statute that needs to conform to that electronic filing. So this is basically housekeeping measure. And we'd ask that this Committee pass this Bill. And I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Gabriella Schneider for Legal Women Voters in support. And that is everyone who signed up for SB2532? Anyone else wish to testify in SP2532? Seeing non Members questions, Ms. Chang do you mind just explaining what what will become what? What's not electronic? It doesn't have to be electronically filed. Now that would be included.

I'm sorry, what was your question?

So there this requires that certain forms be filed electronically.

So the for.

Oh, I see. So you're just conforming to what we already did.

Yeah. So right now if we when we switch over to a full electronic, they're going to still the statute will require them to still manually provide us the document. So what we're saying is to have them do it electronically into our system through that build out process.

Understood. Thank you. Other questions, seeing none. We'll go and move on. Thank you. SB 2571 is next. Relating to jury duty increases. The amount of each juror or prospective juror is paid for each day of actual attendance at court. First up on 2571 is Dean Haraki, Force Judiciary. Deputy Chief Court Administrator of the Third Circuit. Morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads.

Thanks for coming all the way from the Third Circuit.

Yes, was early morning. My name is Dean Hiraki, as you mentioned. I'm Deputy Chief Court Administrator for Third Circuit. I'm here on behalf of the Hawaii State Judiciary for Senate Bill 2571, which is part of the Judiciary's legislative package. What we're seeking is increasing the jury pay from 30 to 50 per day. The last increase was 1989.

I think I just graduated from high school at that time, so it's been a while. And this increase will not replace lost income from jurors. But we feel like it's a, I don't want to use the word token, but a token of appreciation for the important role that jurors play in our jury in our judicial system.

And we'll also be seeking $684,385 for the increase. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'll be here for any questions.

Great. Thanks very much. Next up is Hayley Cheng for the Public Defender. Morning again.

Good morning again, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard and Senator Chang. The Office of the Public Defender strongly supports this measure, recognizing that the increase of $50 is nominal and may be characterized as the prior testifier set. As a token, however, a $20 increase can make a significant difference, even financially.

One of the things that is critical to the Administration of justice is that we get a robust jury pool and one that is representative of the community jury service, especially for longer cases, are often limited to people who are financially able or in a financial position to serve.

And I think this measure is an appropriate step to trying to end any disproportionality with our jurors. And also noting the length of time that it's been since it last increased. I think this is long overdue. So thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will remain available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Daniel Hugo for prosecuting attorney City County. Morning again.

Good morning. Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard and Senator Chang. Daniel Hugo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we are in support of this Bill. Jurors are some of the most important participants in our legal system.

They're the ones who ensure that our legal system keeps its promise that it is a democratic one and that ultimately we are the executioners of our own laws. And jurors are just great people to meet. They're a wide cross-section of the community.

They give you a sense of whether or not the case that you are prosecuting actually resonates with the community. The increase here is symbolic, but courts often do have symbols and those symbols can still be powerful. We all stand for jurors when they come in. That's symbolism, but it's powerful symbolism about how important they are.

At minimum, this aligns with the federal standard and that's the least that the Committee can do to, to recognize the service that so many jurors do conscientiously unwell in Hawaii. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Glenn Kagamida in support. And that's everyone who signed up for SB2571. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB2571? Seeing none. Members, questions? I think for Mr. Hugo, I do have a quick question. So, you said this aligns us with the, the federal system. So they pay $50 a day or is it just.

Yes. So my understanding is that the U.S. District Court of Hawaii for a federal trial, they would pay $50 a day.

Do these, do these numbers for us in the, in the state system? Is that for grant grand juries as well as petite juries?

You know, I don't know. It would be great if it is for grand juries because those. That is a very long commitment. That's a year of service, hearing at least dozens of different cases and making the first critical decision as to whether or not the state has enough to charge so.

But they are compensated?

I believe so, but I don't know the Exact. Or whether that's the same. Okay. Yeah.

All right. Thank you. Actually, maybe for administrator. Yes. So I guess the same questions. Are grand juries compensated on the same schedule or is it a different schedule?

I would have to double check on that, but my belief is that they are. It's like across the board. But let me double check before I.

But at the state level, we call people in for a year. Is that.

Yes. Grand jury.

I knew that the federal ones are really long, and I didn't realize ours for quite so long. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Senator Gabbard. Go ahead.

Yes, how does this compare with the other states? I noticed that Mississippi, they pay $5 a day. Texas $6. And they pay the least. Yes. That rank at the top of the somewhat.

I could research. If we do increase it to 50. We will be at the highest level as of right now, with I think it was like five other states that pay $50 a day.

I see. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

Thanks. Any other questions? If not. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll go and move on to SB2678. This establishes a working group within the judiciary to improve family court proceedings, including access to legal representation for youth in the child welfare system. First up on 2678 is Derek Peterson, Deputy Attorney General. On zoom, maybe. zero, no.

In person. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabard, Senator Chang. I'm Deputy Attorney General Derek Peterson. The Department appreciates the intent of this Bill and respectfully recommends two minor technical amendments to ensure clarity as outlined in our written testimony.

Those amendments are first in Section 2, subsection C, subsection 8, to provide for an alternate selection of the two Malama Ohana working group representatives since that group was dissolved at the end of the 2025 legislative session, and the co chairs would have no obligation to carry out the intent of the Bill.

Second, to clarify the language in Section 2, subsection C, subsection 10, regarding experts and those with expertise in navigating the state child welfare system, the Bill does not make clear what constitutes an expert. Our written testimony contains specific suggestions for possible amended language.

And I will note that those recommendations do appear to have been adopted by the House Committee on Human Services and Homelessness with regard to the companion Bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Great, thanks. Next up is Judge Madero, senior Judge for the Judiciary, in support. I'm sorry, Deputy Chief Chief Judge. That's where I'm. That's what I was missing. Okay. Still in support. Office of Wellness and Resilience. Good morning.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Senator Chang, my name is Naomi Leipold. I'm with the Office of Wellness and Resilience. We stand on our testimony in support. Thank you for hearing this measure and. I'm here for any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next is Patricia Chin, manager for Epic Ohana Hawaii Hopes Initiative. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Chang, my name is Patricia Chin. I serve as a High Hopes Initiative Manager at Epic Ohana. Our statewide initiative works with young people ages 14 to 26 who experience foster care, ensuring that they have the resources, relationships and opportunities that they need to thrive.

I'm here today in strong support of Senate Bill 2678 because legal representation truly changes outcomes in states that have already provided counsel for youth. Young people are 40% more likely to exit foster care within six months, 45% more likely to reunify with their family, and experience far fewer placement and school wounds. Those numbers truly represent something deeper.

It represents stability, healing, and hope. I also want to note that House Bill 1565, the companion Bill in the House, passed its Committee hearing on Tuesday with amendments. And one of those amendments was to remove the guardian ad litem from the list of designated working group Members.

While we understand the Judiciary's concern about the potential conflicts of interest for active GS, we believe that the working group would be strengthened from the inclusion of a former gal, a former G could offer critical insight into how representation currently functions, where gaps exist and how the system can evolve to better support youth rights, their voice and well being.

For this reason, we are advocating that if amendments are made, that the working group membership should include a former gao. Most powerful evidence comes from our young people themselves who would like to testify today but are unable to due to school, work and family responsibilities. Our young people often say that they feel lost, not represented.

Another feels that if they had a lawyer, they would have avoided four grueling years of placement that wasn't right for them. And another young person who is currently 17, shared that important decisions were made about their future without their full understanding.

High Hopes Initiative stands firmly in our support of this Bill as it's a necessary step moving forward to ensure that Hawaii's young people in the foster care system have the opportunity they need to thrive and have a real voice to shape the decisions of their lives. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you very much. Next, we have a number of testifiers from Epic Ohana High Hopes Initiative. I would just, I guess at this point, if any of you are here from Epic Ohana High Hopes initiative, either on Zoom or in person, you can come up and testify now.

Otherwise, I will note that there are quite a number of them. And we'll go to the next testifier, which is Venus K. Rosetti, Maderos President and CEO Poly Kipa. Also in support, Dana Matsunami, attorney for national center for Youth Law. And support, Nicole Wu, Hawaii Children Action Network speaks on Zoom. Maybe Yes. Good morning.

Aloha Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabber, then Senator Chang, thank you for hearing this Bill. As you said, I'm with Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks, and I can't speak better than Patty just did about the importance of this Bill and the importance to youth to be represented.

But to let you know, Mari organization coordinates the Hawaii children's policy agenda. We're in our 11th year of it. It brings together dozens of organizations and individuals who care about our keiki and have a very broad view of what we need to ensure that they thrive here.

When we heard about this Bill last year from Dana, who you had just called, we were surprised to hear that Hawaii is one of only 13 states that does not guarantee foster youth the right to legal representation in their court proceedings.

And because of that and hearing from smart people like Dana and Patty, we voted it into our agenda last year and this year. So, yeah, it seems like this is a really important thing.

We know our child welfare system has a lot of problems, and this might be one way to ensure the safety of our foster care youth. So please pass this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Natalie Washington, Policy Policy Council for National Association of Council for Children. In support, Melissa Mayo or Mayo on Zoom, maybe.

Vice Chair Gabard and Senator Chang. My name is Melissa Mayo. I'm a former foster youth and proud former Member of the Lamohan Working Group and a youth Advocate with over 8 years of experience working alongside young people impacted by the child welfare system. I'm here today in strong support of this Bill.

In my work, I've had the privilege of listening to many young people here in Hawaii. I want to acknowledge that many of them want to be here to share their own experiences, but because of the demands of work, school and family responsibilities, that makes that difficult.

I'm here today carrying their perspectives and their hope that a system will finally listen to them. I often say that Hawaii's child welfare system operates as a system of luck.

I was fortunate to have adults in my life who listened to me and advocated for me while I was in foster care, many young people do not have this privilege. Too often youth are left out of conversations about their own lives and expected to accept decisions that they do not understand or have a voice in.

During my work on the Mlamahona working group and in my advocacy roles, I consistently heard you sing, stop making decisions about our lives without even hearing from us. That statement has stayed with me today.

This Bill is an important step towards changing that reality by establishing a working group focused on improving family court processes and access to legal representation for youth. This Bill helps to ensure that young people have someone whose role is to listen to them, protect their rights and advocate for their voices in court.

No young person's future should depend on luck. So I please ask you to support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Lila Maurer and support. Judith Clark in support. Steve Lane and support. And that's everyone who signed up for SB2678. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2678? Seeing non Members questions, I don't have any either.

Let's go ahead and move on to the next Bill which is SB2529 and the Last Bill of this agenda.

This amends section 11364 to provide that an excess contribution of more than $100 in cash in the aggregate from a single person during an election period to a candidate, candid Committee or non candidate Committee shall escape to the Hawaii Election campaign Fund if not returned to the contributor within 30 days.

First up is Ms. Chang from Campaign Spending Commission. Hello again.

Good morning again Chair, Vice Chair and Senator Chang, Christy Chang from the Campaign Spending Commission. This is a campaign spending commission Bill and obviously we support that Bill. This is a housekeeping measure because in 2023 the law was changed to prohibit candidates from collecting cash in the aggregate of more than a hundred dollars. But the, the.

The law doesn't say what happens to that money. So this Bill is to say that you have 30 days to return it. Otherwise it would issue to our campaign Fund. I'm available for any questions.

Great, thank you. Next up is Gabriella Schneider, Legislative Committee for Legal Women Voters. Also in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB2529. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB2529? Seeing on Members any questions? I don't have any either. On objection. We can just go ahead and roll and do decision making. Is that okay?

Back to the top of the agenda. SB 2444 relating to attachment and execution. Our recommendation is to pass with amendments. We'll accept the Attorney General's recommendation. Take out the retroactivity language, which is the last paragraph of Section three. And I believe that's it. Said it. Any questions or concerns? If not Vice chair,

Chair's recommendation on SB2444 is to pass with amendments... Measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB2446. This would increase the number of associate judges on the Intermediate Court of appeals from 6 to 7. Recommendation is to go ahead and pass it. But what we'll do. Oops, I'm sorry. What I would suggest that we do is take out all the money and just authorize the positions. And.

I think that the judiciaries should be shooting for a much quicker turnaround on ICA decisions. And I think they probably can't get there without another judge. So I would ask that we just move ahead for the authorization only. Let me see if there's any other in that regard. And put in the.

And we'll put in the Committee report that a target should be a year. And I'm going to add some stats on what it is currently. So just, just the position, not the money. And I think we're going to need a judge sooner than later. Questions or concerns? The second 2446 on the extra judge.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that's fine.

Okay. Any questions or concerns?

If not 2446. No questions. Sorry.

G's recommendation on SB2446 is to pass with amendments. Chair Rose. Aye. Vice Chair Woodside. Senator Chang. Aye. Senator San Buenaventura. Aye. Senator Oah. Aye. Measures adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB2450. This would establish a presidential preference primary for the 2028 election cycle. Considering that. Considering that both the Republicans and the Democrats and the Libertarians don't want it, I think that we are missing an opportunity for improve. Well, people want to vote for President, so I think that.

That we're missing an opportunity. But I don't see the. I don't see it happening. So I'm just going to defer it. Next up is SB 2453 relating to voting. Requires the Office of Elections to include a notice to voters that a digital and print voter information guide is available.

Recommendation here is is to amend to defect the effective data and blank out the appropriations. But noting in the Committee report the amount of the requested appropriation is $90,000 for 26-27. And. We'Ll make the the bad date will be March 222075. Questions or concerns if not vice chair.

Recommendation on SB2453 is to pass with amendments with all Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Next up is SB2461. Requires the office of Elections to prepare a questionnaire on certain issues to which candidates may respond. Require the Office of Elections to any response provided by a candidate on its website and in digital voter information and will make it would be effective on January 4, 2027.

So it wouldn't go into effect until, well, elections after that Recommendation is to go ahead and pass it. I agree with Mr. Nago about the the, the difficulty of them asking neutral questions.

So what I'm going to suggest is that we designate the questions and there'd be three and I've made them as neutral as I could think of or we could think of. So the questions would be what are your three highest legislative priorities?

What committees would you like to be on if elected for the for offices where that is a, that's relevant and what is your vision for Hawaii 10 years from now? And we'd limit each answer to 100 words or less and it would be optional.

You wouldn't have to fill them out if you didn't feel like it if you were a candidate. So that's the, that's the suggestion. I think it's useful and it's a place where you can get information. But it's very you know, it's really easy to ask partisan questions and I think these are as generic as you can get.

Questions or concerns if not. Senator Gabbard

Chair's recommendation on SB2461 is to pass with amendments. Any no votes or reservations hearing None. The measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB2457. This amends forfeiture laws to require the owner of property seized in relation to crime to be convicted of the covered offense before the property can be forfeited. So remember, there's a distinction between seized and forfeited. Seized. You can grab it forfeited means you sell it and keep the money. Recommendation is to pass as is. questions or concerns if not vice chair.

Vice chair on SB2457. Chair's recommendation to pass unamended. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing None. The measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB2462. This increases the designated income checkoff amounts for the Hawaii election campaign Fund. Currently it's $3 for a single an individual taxpayer and 6 for a couple. We this would raise it to 6 and 12. Recommendation is to pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not Vice chair

On SB2462. The chair's recommendation to pass as is. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing None. The measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2313. This would establish a comprehensive system for public financing for all candidates seeking election to state and county public office. To begin with the 2028 General election.

This one, this one I'm going to defer for until Thursday, February 12th at 9:30am not because of anything having to do with that but having to do with the next Bill, which is SB2528 relating Oh, I'm sorry, that will be in 016 this room here. The next Bill is SB2528.

This is the Campaign Spending Commission's partial public financing. I do have some amendments that I want to recommend on that one, but they're not ready yet. So I'm going to defer that to the Same time Thursday, February 12th at 9:30am in this room 016 and we'll vote on them together. Okay. Next is SB2532.

This amends various sections of Oi's campaign spending laws by requiring designated campaign finance forms to be submitted electronically through the Campaign Spending Commission's upgraded electronic filing system. Recommendation here is to pass as is. Questions or concerns Seeing none vice chair.

On SB2532 chair's recommendations to pass unamended Are there any no votes or reservations hearing none of the measure passes.

Thank you. Next up is SB2571 increasing the this increases the amount each juror or prospective juror is paid for each day of actual attendance at court. Recommendations that pass with amendments will take out blank the appropriation and put in a bad date March 222075 and note in the Committee report that the appropriation request is 684,385.

I'm sorry, I think I missed the important part. It raises the jury pay from $30 a day, which hasn't been raised since 1989, to $50 a day, which would make it the same as the federal system. Questions or concerns if not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2571 is to pass with amendments of the Members present. Any no votes or reservations hearing None. The measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB2678. This establishes a working group within the judiciary to improve family court processes, including access to legal representation for youth in the child welfare system. This is another one that I'm not quite ready to go on. So let's go ahead and def.

And defer this until Thursday, February 12th at 9:30am in this room. 016. That brings us to the last one, which is SB2529.

Same in section 11364 HRS to provide that an excess contribution of more than 100 in cash in the aggregate from a single person during an election period to a candidate Committee, candidate or Non Candidate Committee, shall escape to the state if not returned to the contributor within 30 days.

So it's already illegal to take more than 100 in cash. There's. But there's no process if, if someone were to do that. Questions or concerns. If not Vice chair

With amendments?

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not make a recommendation? Okay, I'm exc. I'm sorry. I'm not making a recommendation. I'm going to defer at the House. We're going to wait for the House Bill. Okay, thanks very much. We. Our business is concluded. Thanks for coming.