House Standing Committee on Human Services & Homelessness

All right, we are opening the hearing for the Committee on Human services and homelessness. Tuesday, February 10, 2026,9:30am in conference room 329. Aloha. Amahalo noka. And our first measure, HB2083, relating to the promotion of controlled substances, we have. Okay, sorry. Already had a hearing, a joint hearing. Okay.

So first up, we have the state Health Planning and Development Agency. In support, we have Jack Boone.

Nope.

Next up, we have the office of the public Defender in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Haley Chang. I'm the first deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. We outlined some of our opposition. We understand the intent and spirit of the bill.

We do just want to highlight one specific thing as part of our testimony, which is that oftentimes homeless facilities are not readily identifiable by the General public. And we understand why that is.

A lot of communities, especially in the commercial areas, do not want to advertise or do not want to advertise that there may be a shelter or a facility. And we do believe that this may cause a notice issue, particularly with the provision that requires the distance of 750ft.

So we've outlined some of them or some additional details in our written submission. That is really our main concern with adding this provision to the measure. So thank you for the opportunity to comment. I'll remain available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Department of the Prosecuting attorney, City, county, honor. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Christine Dent. I'm special counsel to the prosecuting attorney. And we are testifying in strong support. This is a bill which is part of our legislative package.

It actually came up from a meeting. I'm on the homelessness task force for the mayor, representing our office, and we hear from service providers.

So this came up with Connie Mitchell from IHS, where she finally, like, she works with people, she gets them into her door, she gets them through detox, they get detox, and then they look out the door and there's the drug dealers. And it just becomes so overwhelming for them.

So she asked us if we would consider putting in a bill to add homeless shelters to the safe zones. Other than that, we will submit on the rest of our testimony. Thank you very much. Next up, we have the drug policy forum of I and support.

Sorry, we are in opposition, but I'll get off.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I missed. I missed. I misdirected my cursor yesterday. Aloha, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nicolas Leverage of the Drug Policy Form of Hawaii. We oppose HB 2883 extending instead of expanding the criminalization of poverty, behavioral health issues and drug use or some combination thereof.

The state should instead look to whether the current drug free zone law, which implements a location based mandatory minimum of at least 2 years and up to 10 years, is utilized and operating as intended.

Each county prosecutor should be able to readily identify the number of defendants who have been penalized under the current court vote section over the past decade so the Legislature can determine its ongoing efficacy and utility.

Drug free zone laws were the subject of the 2018 resolution from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative policy group funded by large corporations and others that had successfully advanced various measures in state houses that have included, among other measures, right to work laws and stand your ground laws.

As noted in the preamble of the resolution, most drug free zone laws were established decades ago but have not been reformed despite evidence that drug free zones are arbitrary and often unnecessarily broad, are ineffective at deterring drug related crime and create significant unintended consequences including unwarranted disparate impacts on minority defendants.

Importantly, the resolution observes that states that have studied drug free zones have been unable to identify any empirical basis for their size or scope. It goes on in practice.

Drug free zone laws have created a number of serious issues in the criminal justice system by frequently imposing incessant penalties and by subjecting urban poor and minority populations to harsher penalties than others for drug offensive.

So it's really highly curious that the prosecutor here is is looking to have this state position itself to the right of ALEC in states like Indiana, Kentucky and U HAUL that have reformed their drug free zone laws. That's really kind of the heart of my testimony today. So mahalo for the opportunity to provide opposition to this bill.

Next up we have IHS Institute of Human Services and support Just in writing. Members, are there any questions for our testifiers.

Chair? I have a question. Thank you Prosecutor's Office. We heard testimony from the Public Defender's office in regards to concerns regarding notice issue. Does the Prosecutor's office have any comment or response to that concern? No, not at this moment but we will do some additional research and we'll come back.

Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll move on to our next measure, HB 2087 relating to the abuse of family or household Members. And first up we have the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney.

Good morning. So yes, this is another bill that's a part of our package. We have been working with the current pilot program.

What has been working is the petty misdemeanors. I wasn't at the office when the pilot came up, but I came back in 2023. And the one thing that deferrals have not done what the intent of the deferrals were.

And I believe that when the pilot came up it was to get rid of some of the backlog that was in the trial courts at the time and to encourage more clinical pleas. And that doesn't, hasn't really happened.

We would prefer that we go back to the original statute and in our deferral statutes it does specifically state and it has been law for a long time that deferrals did not apply to abuse of family and household Member charges. So we wish that that would go back to the way it was and keep the petty misdemeanors.

Next up, we have the county, in person, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado, Executive Director of Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And we represent 20 member programs statewide who are the service providers of survivors of domestic violence and actually those who cause harm.

And so while we, while we respect and appreciate the intent of this measure, we agree that we need to extend the pilot program for another five years and specifically really to take a look at what the deferred acceptance of a guilty plea is doing. How do we make it work?

What impact is it actually having on survivors and those who cause harm? And we are available for any questions you may have and appreciate this opportunity to testify. Aloha.

And we also had written testimony in support of part of the bill from the County of Hawaii and the County of Maui. County of Hawaii was writing on behalf of also the County of Kauai. Is there anyone else wishing to testify this measure? Seeing none, members are there any questions? Oh, please come up.

I apologize. Hayley Cheng from the Public Defender's Office. I thought we had submitted written testimony by Darcia Forester.

If it's not in, I will make sure that a copy is provided to the Committee. But again, my name is Haley Chang. I'm the first deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. We are strongly oppositional to this measure and agree with the last testifier that the pilot program should be extended another five years.

I think sometimes, and what we hope to convey to this Committee, is that a deferral which does give someone the opportunity to keep their criminal record clean is not a freebie. It is not a gift. You have to earn it. And the mechanism for allowing people to do this is multi tiered. Domestic violence cases are extremely emotional.

Oftentimes these families are not going to break up. The relationships do not end. And either forcing cases to trial because there's no other resolution, sometimes it's not the best option. We disagree with the sentiment of the Prosecutor's Office that it has done nothing to deal with the backlog of the cases currently on the eighth floor or statewide.

These cases are highly litigious, just by its very nature, and we disagree with the sentiment. So if more information needs to be brought towards the Committee with statistics talking to the judiciary about how many cases there are, a lot of the backlog as well.

When the pilot project was first passed, was in 2021 when there was a halt to jury trials and there was a significant backlog of cases, civil and criminal, in all areas statewide. So we think it is way too soon to do that. I think there are incredible benefits to allowing these cases to resolve.

So we're not involving children, victims, defendants in a litigious court process. So we are strongly oppositional. We are also offering support on the next measure which does extend it. So I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? I have a question for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office.

So it seems that all of the other counties and, you know, the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, they agree that they want to extend, maintain the petty misdemeanor offense, but they don't want to repeal the deferred acceptance of guilty plea.

Why are we the outlier?

Or do you. Do you dis. You know. Yeah, why do you disagree with that or do you still disagree with that? Their rationale is that there is some flexibility and that they have seen that used as a tool to bring about change in behavior.

Right after attending, you know, anger management, whatever types of educational programs they provide, going through therapy, they have found it to be a carrot for good results.

So I'm going to answer that question in two ways. I'm going to answer it from the perspective of me when I was a DV prosecutor back in the...

When was I a prosecuter? 2001 or 2. When we had a zero tolerance policy. Where every case was charged regardless. And that was really difficult. And we would like amend it to an assault third so a person could get a deferral. I believe, I agree with all of that. I agree that there are deferrals, are there for that purpose.

Right? For that one chance. When I came back, I was a little excited to see that we could give deferrals. And I'm just speaking very candidly and honestly. However, domestic violence, what I've also seen is give a deferral, then that same person comes back and back and back.

So some of the cases, not all of them, but some of them, we have people who come in and out, in and out, in and out on the eighth floor. It doesn't seem to take. So our position is that we would like to go back to abuse of a family and household member.

We're saying we're making a position, breaking a statement that we want to protect our families, we want to protect our children. And this is one of those crimes that you don't get that freebie. And I know that Public Defender's Office didn't describe it as a freebie, but it's a one chance opportunity to keep your record clean.

However, in reality, what I've seen in our cases, that we do have people who get that and then they come back and back and back. We also have the bulk of the cases. Right? So out of respect for my fellow colleagues on the outer islands, their caseload is much smaller, our caseloads are much bigger.

So we've got a lot more that we're dealing with. So that's my answer.

And are they able to repeatedly get that deferral?

No, you can only get it once.

Okay, so then coming back, wouldn't they be receiving different types of penalties?

Yes, but then it goes back to why should we allow it in the first place?

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We'll move on to our next measure. HB 2096, relating to aggregate circumstances and child protecting proceedings. And first up, we have the Judiciary in support.

Good morning, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds. My name... And Members of the Committee. My name is Jessi Hall. I'm a judge with the Family Court. We are in support of this bill. It is actually one of our package bills. I'm not going to go through reading our testimony.

But I do want to be able to state that we have been in consultation with the Attorney General's Office prior to this hearing coming up. And we are in support of the recommended amendments as set out in the Attorney General's written testimony. And I will be available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good morning, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, and Members of the Committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Derek Peterson and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. The Department of the Attorney General offers comments on this bill after working closely with the Judiciary on proposed amendments.

At its core, this bill corrects a troubling gap in the Child Protective Act. Under current law, the Family Court is limited to making a finding of aggravated circumstances at the return hearing, which typically occurs at very early on in a child protective case.

As a practical matter, that limitation often prevents the Family Court from making such findings in the most serious and egregious cases of child abuse, precisely where findings of aggravated circumstances are most needed because the evidence supporting those findings, such as a child autopsy report, is often not available or does not emerge until well after the return hearing due to various factors, such as ongoing criminal investigations and delayed reporting by children.

This bill addresses that problem by allowing the Family Court to find aggravated circumstances at any time prior to the termination of parental rights, rather than restricting those findings to the outset of the case.

After collaborating closely with the Judiciary, the department is recommending additional amendments to strengthen this bill and to provide the Family Court with greater flexibility in cases involving aggravated circumstances. In particular, our proposed wording would expressly allow the Family Court to consolidate aggravated circumstances hearings with termination of parental rights hearings at any time.

This is important because consolidation reduces the likelihood of multiple appeals, which can delay permanency for children in these already tragic cases. Our written testimony includes a complete revised version of the statute that the Judiciary supports.

We welcome the opportunity to continue working with the Judiciary and others on any changes that may be needed to best effectuate the intent of the bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Next, we had written testimony in support from the Hawaii State Chapter of Children's Justice Centers and one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Are you wishing to testify on 2096?

Yes.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Austin Martin. I am the Libertarian Party of Hawaii Chair. I also sit on the Libertarian National Committee as a member for Region 1. This, we're touching on a problem that if we empower state solutions here, we're going to compound even worse problems.

And I will happily invoke the name of cases like Ariel Sellers and others to show that the department and the Judiciary is untrustworthy and incompetent to handle these powers without the checks that our legal system provides to parents.

Oftentimes these kinds of things arise from frivolous or silly things and get blown up into a massive life altering legal battle that can have, you know, generational consequences. And I think it's very easy to forget just how much damage this can do by cutting off the ability of parents to fight this out before the department moves.

Let me just give you an example, a personal example. None of this is on the record because the people who did this to our family are facing justice now, thank God. But it's possible for CPS to nab a kid and then put the gun to the parent's head and say, plea to this crime or you're never going to see your kid again. That happened to us.

The Judiciary will happily rubber stamp that behavior. We've seen it. Right? This is a real problem. We cannot just expand the powers to allow for separations or to protect, preempt the necessary steps to get to the finding that we need.

And besides, even if they do identify serious cases of child abuse, the odds are really high that the state's involvement will make things worse, not better. Honestly, this whole program needs an overhaul, and expanding existing powers and fixing it. According to the lawyers who, no offense, you guys, but they're not on the ground. They're looking at this from a perspective of legal checkboxes and elements.

They're not looking at it from a perspective of humanity. And the reality is is that our families are falling apart due to this kind of social policy. We need to have a way of balancing the interests of accused people, and measures like this take that away. So I oppose this measure. The Libertarian Party opposes this. And we want to see more robust checks on the states in family affairs because it is devastating.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions? Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Questions for the Judiciary. Hi. Thank you for being here, Judge Hall. I'm looking at the amended language that is proposed, and I just wanted some clarification so I can better understand of this bill. Under aggravated circumstances of the definition under four, it mentions that family court or another court of competent jurisdiction. And I was just wondering, what is the, what is another court of competent jurisdiction?

Any of our criminal courts.

Thank you. And then also, I also wanted to clarify that, as written, this would mean that a parent who has been charged for the offense of torture, that that would be sufficient for family court or criminal court to find, to make a finding of an aggravated circumstance that exists. Am I correct in understanding that?

It would not necessarily be the criminal court making that decision on the aggravated circumstances, but it would suffice for family court.

Okay, so again, to be clear, that means as long as they're charged. They don't have to be found guilty, the family court can make a finding?

After a full hearing. There would have to be a hearing. It wouldn't be something they're charged, we automatically do it. They would have a hearing and they would have a right to put on a defense.

Okay, thank you.

Members have any other questions? Seeing then we'll move on to our next measure, which is HB 1959 relating to domestic violence. Again, talking about the same issue that we discussed in. Okay, first up, we have the Crime Victim Compensation Commission support. Okay. We have the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence in support.

Vice Chair, Committee Members, Angie Mercado. Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence representing 20 member programs. And we are in strong support of this measure. Unlike HB 2087, this actually does extend not only the pilot program, but also maintains the deferred acceptance of the guilty plea.

We spoke with some of our partners in the community and really found that we didn't do a good enough job tracking how well this is working or not working. And so that's the primary reason for the extension.

But also that we suspect that, you know, do we need to do or create in the community an actual diversion program, which is this could kind of look like it's a diversion program, but isn't really structured fully. So that gives us enough time to be able to do that.

And as the public defenders mentioned in the last testimony, the reality is we are addressing the fact that there are survivors for whom this relationship is not going to end. We often hear from survivors that they really just want the violence to end. And is the domestic violence intervention programming a pathway to that?

Also for those who want those relationships to end, they may still have children in common, and child support and financial assistance is still something that gets then dealt with perhaps in divorce court or, you know, child custody payments later on in family court. So we want to make sure that there's a path that I do.

Two potential technical suggestions that my apologies, did not make into the testimony.

Just want to make sure that the way that this bill is drafted, ensuring that the judiciary is still going to be able to provide data on these cases because I think Section 1 of Act 19 specifically states in the purpose that the judge judiciary will provide data. But I don't see it anywhere else in the measure.

But we didn't extend that to 2031. And then there is a section. That. I want to make sure that we are also Hawaii Revised statute section 853 dash 4 is currently drafted that it will be repealed June 302026.

And I want to make sure that that actually stays does not get repealed or that it'll extend to 2031 so that we can maintain the deferred acceptance of a guilty plea. I'm reading that correctly. That's all. Appreciate this opportunity.

Next up, we have the Hawaii State Commission on Status.

Morning. Yasmine Cheney for the Commission on the Status of Women. I stand on my written testimony in support of this extension. Thank you very much.

Officer, Prosecuting attorney, Maui Department of Prosecuting attorney and one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

My apologies again. This, this testimony didn't mean to come into the Committee and I apologize again. Haley Chang from the Office of the Public Defender. Just asking the record to reflect our strong support of this measure.

And it's for, I think the reasons that I think the commission Committee is familiar with the benefit to extending it and doing more research is important and so I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to testify this question see none. Members, any questions? We'll move on to our next project which is HB 1565 relating to the penal part.

It expands to definitely of terroristic threatening to improve electronic communications including social media posts and it specifies that terroristic threatening against public infrastructure including schools, veterans agencies, elderly persons over 62, children under the age of 18 or disabled persons in a class B felony. And first up to testify. We're going to back up.

We'll finish this one and then we'll go back. Vice chair, thanks for keeping me holding. Okay, so again we're on 1665 and first up in support is the y State Department of Education not present Judiciary with comments.

Good morning, chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Awong. I'm the staff attorney for the criminal divisions of the First Circuit Court. We just, we take no position on the bill itself. We just had comments regarding Section 4. It requires rules in order to effectuate. These statutes and generally there's an explanation in there.

We don't generally promulgate rules to effectuate offend offenses. We would advise, properly advise the jury if it went to a jury trial. But we don't promulgate rules for that. So I'll be here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have the office of Public Defender in public position.

And good morning again. Haley Chang from the Office of the Public Defenders. So we understand, I think the spirit of this bill which is to expand the nature of the protected classes that received that there are elevated penalties for.

I do just want to frame however how significant this measure is all of the articulated behavior under terroristic threatening in the first degree is a class D felony. So it is a felony conviction. It is at least a minimum four years of probation up to five years in prison.

And there are just the impact on the system is significant. This is seeking to increase that to a class B felony which makes the maximum penalty 10 years. And there are a lot of other consequences that come with that.

We also wanted to highlight in our testimony three specific provisions that we think the Committee might want to look like. Look at if you're committed to passing the Bill for first of all is the expansion to electronic communications and social media.

Social media, which we know is a very prominent part of our community and is definitely infiltrating the criminal system.

However, when it comes to the criminal system improving things beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the mandate of the charging agencies, the nature of a potential threat and the veracity of that threat sometimes can be questionable when it's done through electronic communication and social media. And it can really expose the behavior to legal challenges.

Secondly, the overbroad and vague use of the term public in infrastructure that's outlined in the bill. We did in the footnote to our testimony outline the other ways the Hawaii Revised Statute refers to infrastructure. And I'm not sure if the bill is basically meaning to say any public building or space.

I don't know if that would withstand judicial scrutiny based on the vague nature of the language and when you compare it to the other wording in other sections of the statute is much more specific and much more defined and that is for a purpose.

And then finally we'd ask the Committee to be mindful of any age based enhancements. We understand the need to protect either the youth or the elderly kupuna in our community. However, one unintended consequence, at least we see as an unintended consequence is that there's no, I guess, consideration of the age of the offender.

So we have other laws or criminal statutes in place where sometimes our client or the defendant is older than the elderly victim, but they will use this as a mechanism to charge because of the elevated penalties.

Likewise with children, this statute, if a 16 year old threatens a 17 year old, then the 16 year old will be exposed to the increased penalty because of the nature of the statute. And we do experience that in real life practice where these age based enhancements there's no designation or consideration for the age of the offender.

So we just bring those things to the Committee for consideration in either tweaking or moving the bill forward. And just Some potential legal issues that we see. Thank you. And I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Office of the Attorney General.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tong for the Department. Department just provides comments for House Bill 1665. Specifically, Department appreciates the intent for creating broader protections for these types of offenses.

However, the current language in terms of parsley threatening the first appears to cover the situations that this bill is intended to do, which is including written or electronic communication. So the Department would just Suggest Deleting Section 2. Specifically, the Department is also suggesting deleting section G and H and utilizing current statutes that we already have.

Section 7101010 already covers a obstructing government operations. We provided some language to incorporate what we believe the Committee tried to intend when it said including schools to protect government functions when it's involving an educational worker or within the schools.

We also would just suggest including in terms of the protected classes as placed in this bill and utilizing some form of strict liability language when it's involving age of the protected class, 62 or older or younger than 18 years to allow for effective prosecution in these types of cases.

Last is just more clarification on the data collection that's included in this bill by the Attorney General as well as the judiciary. Just pointed out what rules are to be promulgated by the judiciary, what specific behavior the Committee intends for that to be. I will be here for any questions.

Thank you very much.

We also had written testimony and support from HGEA Local 152 and one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Go ahead.

Aloha. Austin Martin. I'm with the Libertarian Party of Hawaii. I also sit on the LNC as a member for Region 11. I'm here today to oppose this bill, and I'd like to speak a little bit to the intent of this bill and existing statute. Right now, there is no problem that this bill actually solves.

The prosecutors are simply declining actual prosecutor. There's no good reason for this except for structural, systemic issues. So it's these laws get selected.

Austin, your sound is coming in and out.

Sorry, can you hear me a little better now? Is that better?

Yeah, go ahead. Maybe lean closer.

Yeah, sure thing. These laws are already being selectively enforced. We do not need to expand this. The reason I think that this is being sought is so that First Amendment protected activity can be characterized as terroristic and threatening when it is extremely critical of the government. When they say, hey, this is illegal.

You guys should be in prison. We have actually had government apparatchiks come back and say that's terroristic threatening. We've had police officers and others complain that people calling out illegal conduct from government employees constitutes illegal threatening. And this idea of strengthening this online would make it a lot easier to go after dissent.

It would also make it a lot easier to continue the pattern of selective enforcement, which is not about justice. If the judiciary and the prosecutors really want to do something about this problem, they only need exercise their discretion appropriately. Under the Constitution, written statements are not that hard.

Prosecute statements online are fairly easy to track down and charge, but they don't want to. That's the real problem. They want to make it more bang for the buck. They want to expand the power. I think this is absolutely useless. It is not going to help or prevent any actual crime.

It is only going to be used to police speech and police online behavior and make that a lot more harder to defend against.

So I'm opposed to this and I really think that we need to address some of the structural issues that are resulting in selective enforcement because there's a lot of terroristic threatening that we see online that they don't investigate, that they don't charge, they don't follow up on.

And it's not because they don't have the tools, but simply because they choose not to. We also have a problem with having yes, ma'. Am. Without enough lawyers, it just seems silly to add more consequences. I yield.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, are there any questions for our test buyers? I have a question for the office of the Attorney General.

First of all, I really appreciate the work you put in to proposed amendments on the issue of when we look at the age, you know, age specific ones. In my opinion, my personal opinion, I don't care the age of the perpetrator.

If somebody is elderly, the damage to a person who is elderly and the inability to bounce back is unchanged. But when you have two minors. Involved. Then I do think that is a different situation. Minors don't always make good choices and they definitely can be taught.

Is there language that we could put in that adjusts the statute in the case of the perpetrator against another minor? Also being a minor, there's definitely always.

Potential to add language to craft language to what the Committee wishes to do? I do not have that language in front of me.

Is that something that you could help me with so that I can include that in my amendment?

If the Committee wishes to try that language.

We can try. I say my intent is to add language clarifying that this higher penalty does not apply when it is another minor that was a perpetrator against a minor. That. Is that something you could help me draft?

That's definitely something the Department can help the Committee and chair draft, if that's possible.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, then we'll move on. We'll go backwards to the one that I skipped. My apologies. So HB 1963 relating to image based sexual abuse. And on this one we have first up. This is the public defender with comments.

And good morning again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. This is the last time that I will be up here this morning. We are just submitting comments on the measure. We absolutely understand the behavior that the Committee is attempting to address and we don't take a position on that.

What we did want to highlight in our testimony is two main areas that we think could open up the statute to some problems. The first is the definition of intimate image, specifically the term state of undress. We do believe that needs further specificity.

For example, if someone is in a bathing suit wearing a pareo and takes it off, is that a state of undress? If somebody is finishing a workout and takes off socks and shoes, is that a state of undress? So I think there just needs to be some clarity on the use of that definition.

There is another measure not before this Committee that hasn't had a hearing yet, but they do offer a definition of intimate image that we think might be helpful. And that's HB 1681 just for reference. The definition of intimate image is much more defined. So if that would be at all helpful to this Committee.

The second comment that we had was related to the enhanced sentencing provision which is the term resulted in the death of minor or vulnerable adult. We absolutely understand the behavior and the outcome that the Committee is intending to address. But again, that language we believe creates a lot of issues in terms of the proximate link.

Is it something more attenuated? Is it direct causation? All of these things, and I think we've outlined some of the details and some more specificity about our concern in our written testimony. So thank you. Those are the main two comments that we had and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next up we have the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney in the court.

We'll just stand on our testimony in support thank you.

Thank you very much. We have the Crime Victim Compensation Commission. The Sex Abuse Treatment Center in support.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Martins, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee on Human Services and Homelessness. My name is Lynn Costales. I am the Executive Director of the Sex Abuse Treatment center and we stand in strong support of this measure.

You know, I just want to say that, you know, image based abuse has become increasingly prevalent in our community as more people spend time on their phones and more time searching and searching and searching and being on the Internet. Non consensual disclosure of intimate images is a form of image based abuse.

It is more commonly known in other jurisdictions as sextortion. The bill purposely doesn't identify it as sextortion because what we have learned is that sex is not always the motivating factor behind this particular offense.

What we are seeing is that blackmail efforts, tactics used by predators are often motivated by power and control over their victim to force that victim to meet the demands of the predator. What often starts as an innocent relationship online, predators groom their victims in order to disclose more intimate details of their own personal life.

And through that, they feign a sense of support, of care, sometimes feigning love, in order to get that victim to start sharing more details about themselves. And ultimately a sharing of intimate images between the predator and that victim. Naturally, that victim doesn't realize that it's a predator on the other end.

They often perpetrate with anonymity because nobody really knows who they are. Once they are able to do that, it's a form of grooming that these predators engage in with that victim online and then that ultimately results once they get that intimate image, is to exploit that image, to exploit that victim in an effort to use those images as leverages to, as leverage to meet the demands of the predator.

Those demands can be anything from finances, Amazon gift cards, to more nude photos to images of sexual acts. And it can also result in images of self harm, which is what we are seeing more prevalent on the Internet. For those of us who work in the sex assault field, we are very taken by this issue of grooming.

For those who are in the domestic domestic violence field, this issue of power and control resonate with them. And if you are involved in this field of sex trafficking, exploitation is something that is commonly used. But the reason I point that out is just to demonstrate just how intense this crime can be for victims who are online.

It is more prevalent than what most people know and it is more devastating than we realize. And for that reason, we stand in strong support of this measure. Thank you very much.

Thank you for testimony. Next up, we have The Hawaii Women's Coalition in support.

Hi, I have a couple hats today. Llasmin Chaine, Co-Chair of the Women's Coalition. We stand in support and on our written testimony. Thank you.

Okay. And also the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women covering that, please.

Hi, Llasmin Chaine, I stand on written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you very much.

We also had written testimony, all in support from the Hawaii State Chapter of Children's Justice Centers, AAUW of Hawaii, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and three individuals. Does anyone else wish to testify on this measure?

If I may, Chair?

Yes, you may.

Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii, LNC Member of Region One. I'm not necessarily in opposition or support. I would like to share a concern. I actually appreciate this bill. There is a legitimate problem. There are entire organizations, terroristic organizations that target children for extortion online and it's actually mind blowingly dark.

So there is a real problem here that needs to be addressed. So again, I want to thank everyone who is trying to address this problem and, and just kind of nod that we appreciate that because there are some really bad folks out there.

However, and this is a big however, existing law already covers all of this. The reason these people go uncharged is once again systemic failure in our justice system. A failure to charge criminals, failure to take victims seriously, a failure to accurately assess the situation and recognize a claim when it occurs.

But that would take work for the prosecutors, more work than say, you know, prosecuting a pot ticket or a drug charge or you know, when a couple gets in an argument, one calls the cops to win. There's domestic violence inferred and nothing really happened but an argument and somebody used the government to get an advantage.

Those are all really easy to prosecute, right? Those are things that make them money and don't take a lot of effort. This takes investigation, effort, actually catching bad guys. And so unfortunately they're very reticent to do that. So this is an issue that I, I'm not sure that we truly need a new law to deal with it.

Maybe we do. Maybe there's some nuance that I'm just not understanding. But as far as I can tell, the groups that are operating and causing these kinds of problems, especially, you know, we had a leader of one arrested here in Hawaii and there's no way this guy wasn't on state prosecutors radars. There's just no way.

But they chose not to do anything. So I just want to point out that this is a problem that has been created or allowed to persist rather by government inaction and by mismanagement and not necessarily something that we would need an entirely new law for. Though if this helps address the problem, maybe it's just what we need.

I don't want to testify against it, and I just have a hesitation in saying, hey, yeah, this is a good idea, because part of the problem is the fox starting in the in house.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? Okay. Seeing none. We're going to move on to our next measure, which is HB 2233, relating to SNAP-Ed, to fund it after federal funding cuts. And first up, we have the Department of Health in support.

Good morning, Chair Marten. I'm sorry, we switched to Zoom. We had to this morning. We had a conflict. But good morning, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, and Members of the Committee. I'm Heidi Hansen Smith with the Department of Health. And the department stands on our written testimony in support and are happy to answer questions if there are any. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And next up, we have the Hawaii Institute of Public Health in support.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee. Nate Hix, Hawaii Public Health Institute, in support. As we know, one in three families are facing food insecurity every year. One in 10 will need SNAP. We need to do what we can to get those numbers to zero. While we haven't been able to do that yet, it is important that we provide support to those families who are experiencing food insecurity.

We found that SNAP-Ed has helped to alleviate some of these issues. Food insecurity has gone down for those who participate in the program. Healthier choices increases for those that participate in the program. So continuing to support them is very important as we work to end poverty and food insecurity for everybody. Mahalo.

Thank you very much for being here. Next up, we have University of Hawaii with comments.

Members of the Committee. Phyllis Shimabukuro-Geiser on behalf of Dean Parwinder Grewal. He apologizes. He was called away at the last minute. He had intended to stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. Mahalo. Thanks for being cares on his behalf. Next up, we have on Zoom in support the Hawaii Food Industry Association. Not present. The Catholic Charities of Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities. We thank you for hearing this bill. We strongly support it. We feel that there are many young families who may be starting to prepare food and buy food for the first time. They've grown up on fast food.

So this is an excellent program to help, not only these young families, but everyone to learn better habits, to actually learn about healthy food, and to expand their ability to access food. We are truly thankful to the UH and the Department of Health for picking up this program since it was cut out of the federal budget.

We feel it's been a long term proven program and it can really bring a win win situation not only to the families and the individuals in SNAP, but also to the state with lower health costs, better health care, and more security for food for its residents. Thank you for allowing us to testify.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have... Do we have an individual on Zoom, Doug Matsuoka? Not present, but in support. We also had written testimony, all in support, from the Executive Office on Early Learning, Executive Office on Aging, Life of the Land, Hawaii Family Caregiver Coalition, Hawaii Appleseed, Hawaii Farm Bureau, and another dozen individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Yes, Chair Marten.

Oh, can I... I have some people here in the room that I'll have go first.

Good morning, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, and Members of the Human Services and Homelessness Committee. It's an honor to be here before you today. My name is Nicholas Kikuta, and I'm a first year medical student at JABSOM, advocating in strong support of House Bill number 2233.

This bill will protect the SNAP-Ed program in our state that's set to expire at the end of this fiscal year as a result of the Big Beautiful Bill. Poor diet is now recognized as the leading cause of death and health care costs in the United States. It drives chronic disease like heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and even some cancers.

And it's considered one of the most modifiable risk factors we have. Speaking as someone who's recently spent time working in Senator Hirono's office as a Health Fellow, one clear solution I saw to this chronic disease epidemic that consistently had bipartisan support was nutrition education.

Nutrition education is not just the supportive care that we're so used to with chronic disease now. It actually has the power to significantly improve health outcomes for our population. It shouldn't be up to patients to learn that their diseases were preventable by the time they reach their end stages.

And although many of us think of eating healthy and exercising as common sense and maybe daily practice, I can assure you that my experience caring for patients has shown that for many, it's not something they've even been taught or ever maybe had the resources to do.

Over the past eight months working at Queen Emma Clinics and JABSOM's home clinic with under resourced and underserved communities, I've seen patients' priorities understandably lie with finding shelter, finding employment, and finding calories, rather than making sure that their diets are healthy.

It's heartbreaking seeing so many young adults come in every day with chronic diseases that could have been prevented if the importance of nutrition had been stressed to them earlier or if they had access to healthy foods.

The SNAP-Ed program is shown to be successful, especially in these underserved communities, at increasing food security and sustainability and improving diets, which in turn improve health outcomes.

As future physicians for the state of Hawaii, my classmates and I today showed up to demonstrate the importance of programs like SNAP-Ed and the importance of nutrition education when it comes to healthcare.

I recognize that federal cuts have created real uncertainty across many state programs, but even so, I urge you to vote in favor of House Bill 2233 to ensure that nutrition education and support through SNAP-Ed are not left behind.

This is a modest investment now that can prevent far more costly disease and suffering in the future and will make our jobs as physicians much easier. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today, and I hope you consider my request.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify? Thank you all for coming to show your support. Now going back to Zoom, please go ahead with your testimony.

Thank you, Chair Marten. My name is Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii, LNC member, Region 1. I'd like to add an interesting kind of perspective on this. As a libertarian, I'm against entitlement programs because they don't actually fight the war on poverty. They make it worse.

Remember, if we're going to feed people and we're going to do it through the government, we have to give a bunch of money to the government in order to fund that and fund all of those people. And that creates a lot of waste in the process. Unfortunately, it's just the reality.

That said, I love the idea of feeding people a lot more than wasting it on work projects or on unnecessary bureaucracy or public unions or whatever else. So what I would love to see, and one way to get libertarian support for bills like this that normally we would never support is if you feed other government waste into the hopper in order to fund this, right.

Then you could get guys like me who normally would be opposed to any kind of entitlement program to say, yeah, let's do this, because it's a better use of our funds than a lot of other things that we're putting money towards. Right. I mean we all have projects that are super controversial on the table.

There are things that we could be feeding our people instead. So I applaud that and I appreciate that big time, even though I'm opposed to the idea of making people more dependent on government handouts. After all, this has to come out of productive society.

So every dollar that we're taking away from the economy is money that could have been in people's pockets to grow that economy and further circulate wealth in the islands. Right. By interceding and taking that, we actually waste quite a bit and it takes it out of the people's hands and increases dependency. Right. So we want to avoid...

Wrap up your comments, please.

Yes, ma'am. We try to avoid making people more dependent, and that's really the key. So I have no problem funding this. I just hope that you guys can find sources of funding that don't keep drawing from productive pockets.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing... Does anyone have any questions for our testifiers? Go ahead.

Thanks. I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this is for DOH or for UH. It's a funding question. Whoever would be more appropriate to answer. I just wanted to check. Appleseed had listed 1.6 million as the amount for the federal program. And I just wanted to confirm that was the amount by one of the agencies overseeing the program.

I can get you exact numbers. The funding is approximately that amount. I think it varies year to year. The funding comes from the US Department of Agriculture, goes to the Department of Human Services, and then it has been in the past divided between the UH CTAHR and the Department of Health for implementation.

Okay, thank you. That'd be helpful when we were looking at it in the subsequent committees. And also I guess maybe some idea if that amount is sufficient according to what you guys are doing, or is that the amount you're gonna be asking for? If this is a one for one replacement of the federal program or if there's need to expand or kind of what you guys are looking to do with it would be helpful, I guess, moving forward.

Okay, great. Sure. We can get together with the University of Hawaii and maybe send you numbers from a couple of years and let you know what our needs would be moving forward. Appreciate you. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a follow up question the same time, same lines that I just need for the committee report. We have blank appropriations separately for Department of Health and for CTAHR. And so I wanted to have recommended numbers to put in the committee report broken down for each of those entities. And so, yeah, if we could just have a budget for each of them, that would be great. And, you know, within the next day so we can include it in our committee report.

Okay. Is it okay if we submit that to you in the next?

Yeah, like, if the next day so. You could just email it. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for our testifiers? No, seeing none. We'll move on to our next measure, HB 2237 relating to public assistance. This allows services during a Governor declared state of emergency. And first up, we have DCCA, Insurance Division, in opposition.

Aloha and good morning, Chair Martin, Vice Chair Olds and Members of the Committee. Jerry Bump testifying on behalf of the Insurance Division. We respectfully oppose this measure as it relates to the funding mechanism for this bill.

While we understand and support the goal of providing assistance during emergencies, the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund or HHRF was created for one narrow and critical purpose, to function as an insurance mechanism, not as a general emergency funding source. As you may be aware, State has been suffering from an ongoing insurance crisis in the condo space.

As such, the HHRF began issuing policies in June of 2025. The funds in the HHRF are used to support those insurance policies. Diverting HHRF funds for non insurance purposes, even temporarily, creates serious financial and actuarial risk.

It could negatively affect their insurance, reinsurance costs for the HHRF, reduce the capacity of how many policies the HHRF could issue and ultimately lead to higher hurricane insurance premiums for residents. Insurance solvency for the HHRF depends on funds being available when claims occur, not on the possibility of reimbursement later.

A hurricane could occur before any reimbursement is received, putting policyholders in the state at risk. For these reasons, the Department believes the Bill undermines the long term stability of the HHRF and we respectfully oppose the measure. Thank you and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming. Next up we have the office of the Attorney General with comments.

Good morning Chair, Members of the Committee. The Department of Attorney General's Office. The Department provides comments on Section 2 of the bill and also the conclusion that the name might create because it's similar to our state funded program. Thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up we have on Zoom, the Hawaii Food Industry Association in support but not present. And then we also have written testimony in opposition from Hawaii Insurers Council. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none.

Members, are there any questions?

Yes, I have a question

Oh, go ahead.

For insurance DCCA. Thank you for being here. You mentioned in your testimony, you know this is a very narrow focus, very bright line of understanding on how these funds can be used. How, how does that, and I think you mentioned it, but I was just more curious on how it, how the market reacts when we start to tinker with a fund that has a very defined purpose.

So if you're referring to. Yeah, like diverting the HHRF. Well, part of what I mentioned was, you mentioned market reinsurance contracts. So HHRF is not covering the full value of these policies. They have to go out and buy insurance.

And the market would not like it if there was a mechanism to where the funding in the HHRF could be taken at any given time. So that would have a very negative impact. The broader insurance market also relies upon the HHRF to be solvent, in other words, to be able to pay its claims.

Because if HHRF can't pay its claims, it now has to assess the insurers in the market who then have to pass that on across to all of the policyholders.

Great, thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions, Members?

All right, seeing none. We'll move on to our next measure which is HB 2132 relating to voting. It authorizes, it makes voter registration opt out out rather than opt in. Basically when people are getting driver's licenses, etc. First up to testify we have the office. Oh, they're not in person. Start with in person.

The Office of the Attorney General are they on zoom?

Right here.

They're in person. Okay.

Vice Chair Members Committee. My name is Charles Jung Min Lee, Deputy Attorney General. We submitted our written comments to better help implement or any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. We also had testimony in support from Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action, in person.

Aloha everybody. My name is Aria Juliet Castillo. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action in strong support of HB 2132. This bill makes Hawaii's automatic voter registration system stronger by switching from an opt in to an opt out process during regular DMV visits, allowing information to be regularly updated.

This bill also allows the Office of Elections to designate other state agencies that collect and verify this information used to determine eligibility such as proofs of citizenship. This approach makes voting more accessible while maintaining strong safeguards and oversight. This bill does not change who can vote and it does not register non citizens.

We are often encouraging young people to take part in democracy. This bill helps by removing unnecessary barriers making it easier for everybody to participate. This method has proven results. The report from the center for American Progress found that ABR in Oregon had added over 116,000 new voters who would probably would not registered otherwise.

Of those, 40% were under the age of 30 compared to only 13% that had traditionally registered. This also makes voter rules more accurate. It lowers administrative work and increases participation without risking any integrity. Please support this bill moving forward.

Thank you very much. Is Tara Gregory or Tara Gregory here? In person, in opposition.

Hi, yes, I'm in opposition. Aloha, Chair and Members. My name is Tara Malia Gregory. I'm a US Citizen and registered voter and I regularly attend the Elections Commission's meetings since 2024 and I've reviewed Commission materials and observed repeated procedural and transparency deficiencies in election administration. I strongly oppose this bill, HB 2132 as it's written.

I do propose some amendments because in both wording and intent this bill does conflict with constitutional voter qualifications and in the spirit of election integrity and also the last person, I definitely agree that we should be looking at sections one.

If you look at lines one and twelve if it could be amended, instead of it just saying every eligible person, if you could replace it with each United States Citizen at least 18 years of age and otherwise eligible to vote under federal and Hawaii law. Eligibility is not discretionary federal law, including 52 USC 20511.

It makes it a federal crime for non citizens to vote. So we just want to ensure that the languaging does support that. In Section 1, line 12 we must limit the population of new voters to state that same legally eligible group. This bill also assumes administrative capacity that has not been demonstrated recently. Section 7 compounds that risk.

If you would turn to Section 7. By mandating automatic voter registration through motor vehicle transactions. This system is not designed to verify voter eligibility or intent as it is.

While presuming the Chief Elections Officer can execute these expanded duties, despite unresolved audit failures and accountability gaps, expanding automatic voter registration under these conditions is not reform, it's compounding the current failures. HB 2132 should not move forward unless amended accordingly. Mahalo for the time to speak.

Thank you very much. We also had comments from the Office of Elections, written testimony in opposition from Libertarian Party and support from the Green Party, Opposition Hawaii Island's Republican Women, support from IMUA Alliance and then over a dozen individuals tested ,submitted written testimony in opposition and over a dozen in support.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Yes. Chair.

Cameron Hurt, Program Director for Common Cause Hawaii. We submitted our comments and a financial study at about 7:30 today. So that should be able for you guys to go and recall. We are going to stand on that testimony. I will point out some key things. One, we already have automatic voter registration right now.

It is an opt in system. What we are asking for is an opt out system. The exact same system that is already used to automatically register young men for selective services. You can be registered for war but you can't be registered to vote.

We've also worked with people across the entire political ideology spectrum which is why this bill is written the way it is. The DMV is the only agency right now that can go and be parallel with qualifications to voting right now. It leaves it open for other agencies to be added in later on should they meet those qualifications.

But right now it is only the DMV and it's only changing the question from an opt in to an opt out.

I went and talked to high schoolers this past week, many of them seniors who had their license, said they weren't registered to vote or to their knowledge weren't registered to vote and didn't know that they could opt in right then.

One of the also the biggest key points of this bill that I thought was fascinating was we've been conducting financial research into how much this is going to cost the state because it does need to be fiscally effective. What we found was implementation in the first year will cost State about $314,000.

However, what we see in a non presidential election after it's implemented is a net saving of $1.3 million. We also have it to where we're also trying to expand voting access centers and one of the things that they have been giving us feedback on is it's too much. We don't have enough people.

There's a lot of things to do. When Common Cause audited the in person voting on the day of, we saw a lot of people registering to vote on the day of, which carried over to a longer line.

Now if these people's registration is automatically updated when they go and they renew their license or they go and they update their address because they're moving their elderly parents in with them, we're now cutting down on timing and polling in day of person voting.

So these are some of the reasons among many why I urge you all to please vote yes on this measure and please know that we are doing our due diligence to make sure that this is fair, accurate, and American through and through. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Yes. Chair, if I may.

Sorry, we have someone in person. Go ahead.

My name is Ronelle Oku. I'm testifying against this measure. I also attend the election commission meetings and I think the problem is we actually have over inflated voter rolls. People that have moved or people that don't say they're not no longer in way or dead or other people.

I mean we have too many people on the voter roads. I think this actually compounds the problem when we just automatically have somebody on the rolls when they're not saying they're going to vote. And it also makes it look like less people as a percentage are voting because some people are registered that didn't even want to register. So I feel like this is not solving the problem and it's encouraging clients.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure in person? Seeing none. Let's go to Zoom. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Austin Martin. I'm the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, State chairman. I'm a LNC Member for Region 1. I also served as an election observer in 2022 and was threatened with arrest without cause from the counting center because I tried to violent. Since then.

Austin, we can't, we can't hear you, but we understand you're in opposition. Thank you for testifying.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Thank you. Chair, I do stand on my written remarks, but I need to add something. In 2022, I was an election observer and I was threatened with arrest and wrongfully removed from duty for trying to file an incident report.

Since then, I've been in the election integrity movement on the front lines and I can tell you that Hawaii has a five alarm problem. I want everybody to be able to vote. And it's really frustrating for me to hear other testifiers lying about this initiative, claiming that they've worked across all sides of the political spectrum.

Libertarians make up most of your unregistered voters. I would actually theoretically stand to benefit the most strategically from this as a party. So, you know, opting these people in, if they were really going to go to the polls, that would be great, but it violates their consent and muddles up the election.

When you send a bunch of ballots out through universal mail in voting to a bunch of people who didn't ask for them, each one is an outstanding liability that we cannot verify, we cannot track. We have at least 19,000 unaccounted ballots on Big Island, a significant portion of the entire voting block. Right?

We have all kinds of irregularities, lack of chain of custody, all kinds of problems that we are not addressing. Instead, we're trying to open the floodgates for a bunch of ballots to enter the system that are going to be very hard to track and no way to really keep accountability on where these things.

This is why we have voter rolls, is because if you just send out ballots to everybody, fraud becomes very easy. And we already have a problem with a lack of trust in Hawaii's elections. This will make it worse. This violates consent. This muddies the water. The only reason to do this is to enable cheating.

I know you guys don't want libertarians taking your seats next year. I know that you don't really want these populists saying, hey, we're done with the corruption. Let's vote you out. We don't buy that nobody from Maui got voted out of their position after the worst response US natural disaster in history. That's ridiculous.

Can you please Ref.

It's not believable.

Austin.

So I'd like the same amount of time as Common Cause, if I may. I think that it's important to uphold trust.

And we don't do that by handing out ballots like candy in the mail and saying you can't see the receipts for how we come up with these numbers, where they go, how they're tracked, and whether or not they can even be verified.

We have a national and state crisis unfolding in the election commissions and I know you all know about it. So we need to do something about this. And motor voter registration is not the answer. Radically changing our elections every session is absurd. We need to go back to the way it always has been.

And we need to have a verifiable, controllable, accountable election or else you're going to have real problems coming down. And I'm not usually on the same side as the Federal Government, but our party passed a resolution in support of the DOJ suit against Hawaii. They're not trying to take anyone's data that they don't have.

They're trying to verify whether or not you guys are cheating. And this would be an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of all of those efforts. So we will be noting the voting record on this and noting those who are lying about how well it's been represented and worked across the political spectrum. You want to register voters, go out and do the hard work.

Thank you for your testimony in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? CNN Members, are there any questions of our testifiers.

Question, Chair?

Go ahead.

For AG. Thanks for being here. In your testimony on page two, you mentioned that the bill could possibly, or there could be a preemption risk under the National Voter Registration Act. Could you please elaborate on that?

Right. So National Voter Registration Acts, a federal law that sets baseline rules for how states register votes for federal elections. And so what this, what this bill is trying to do is have an, have a requirement that is over that baseline. And so if that happens, there's a chance that there's a preemption, constitutional preemption issue.

So what would that requirement that the bill is stating what would that be, that's over the baseline?

Requiring citizenship proof.

So required citizenship is over the baseline of the federal law?

Right. So the federal law currently has an attestation method where you can just say you are a citizen, but it's under perjury of law. And so that baseline, we believe, is lower than actually requiring the proof of citizenship.

So you folks. So you want it to be amended to remove the requirements of showing proof of citizenship.

Correct.

Interesting. Okay, thank you.

Anybody else with any questions? Seeing none. We're going to move on to our last measure. This is something that this committee heard twice last session, so it should be familiar. HB 1962, relating to family. It establishes an exemption from mediation of parentage proceedings for allegations of domestic abuse when there's allegations of domestic abuse. And we have first up in support, the Judiciary.

Good morning again, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, Members of the Committee. I am Jessi Hall, family court judge. We are in support of this version. As you're all aware, there are a number of versions of this type of bill that are going to the session, going through this session. We are in support of this particular bill.

It does have one significant difference, which a lot from the other versions that allows a waiver of participation given before the mediation may be rescinded. So it does allow for a change of mind depending on how the case goes. And we will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Hawaii Commission on the Status of Women.

Good morning, Committee Members. Llasmin Chaine for the Commission on the Status of Women. I will stand on my written testimony in support.

Next up, we have the Hawaii Women's Coalition.

Good morning. Llasmin Chaine, Co-Chair for the Women's Coalition. This measure was actually part of our bill package. We will stand on our testimony in strong support.

Next up, we have the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado, Executive Director, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Our mission is to unite all of Hawaii to end all forms of domestic violence. And you're right, third time's a charm hopefully. We stand in strong support of this measure.

We hopefully learned our lesson from last sessions and we actually worked with the Judiciary. We worked with the Mediation Center of the Pacific and we worked with the Commission on Uniform Laws to make sure that this addressed all of the concerns that various parties have articulated in testimony in previous sessions.

And in particular, we wanted to articulate to the committee that one of the changes that we included here is not just referencing HRS 658 H-10 that talks about who can come to mediation and support parties. But we actually restated it in this statute. The concern raised by the Attorney General's last year was at which point, what triggers when somebody can bring a support person and is it equitable for all parties involved in mediation.

And so we wanted to make sure that, yes, the intent of this measure is specifically targeted to survivors of domestic violence who may be engaging in mediation, but that anybody involved in mediation may have access to these. It's already written in statute as well.

We are available for any questions you may have. And again, really appreciate the opportunity to testify in this matter and we appreciate you all listening, bringing it up for hearing again. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We had written testimony in support from Hawaii Children's Action Network and two individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We will move to decision making. And first we'll do decision making on today's agenda and then we do have one bill from last week that we.

Will vote on as well. So first up we have HB 2083, which was relating to the promotion of controlled substances, talking about not being able to sell illegal drugs in your homeless facilities. And for this one I recommend just defecting the date and passing this out. Members, are there any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2083. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next measure that we heard was HB 2087. I'm going to defer this, as in I'll use as a vehicle for this the measure that comes up later in the agenda. Next up we have HB 2096, circumstances in child protective proceedings.

And for this one, I'd like to just technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Defect the date. And then also in line with the AG recommendations agreed to by the Judiciary to better achieve the intent of the bill, I'd like to repeal the existing aggravated circumstances provisions from Section 587A-28E4 on page 3, line 15, to page 4, line 18. And move the bill's proposed additions page 4, line 19, to page 5, line 11, from the return hearing section and add them along with other amendments into a new section, as suggested below.

So eliminate the mandatory 21 day filing deadline. Authorize the family court to consolidate aggravated circumstances hearings with termination and parental rights hearings at any time to reduce the likelihood of separate appeals and require parties to notify the family court within a reasonable time upon receipt of evidence of aggravated circumstances. With that, Members, are there any comments or questions? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on HB 2096. Chair's recommendation is pass with amendments. Noting all Members present. Any Members voting with reservations? Thank you. Any Members voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have HB 1959, related to domestic violence. This is the one that we will use as a vehicle for the other one that was deferred. And for this one, I would just like to defect the date, but note in the committee report that the effective date must be June 29, 2026, since this measure needs to go into effect one day before the repeal and reenactment provisions of Act 19 and Act 238.

Also, I wanted to put in the committee report that for our next committee to look at the provision for the Judiciary to continue to provide data until 2031, as was brought up in testimony today. But I didn't have time to, the testimony did not give me time to look at the language of the bill. And with that, Members, are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on HB 1959. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting all Members present. Any Members voting with reservations? Thank you. Any Members voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB 1963, related to image based sexual abuse. And for this one, I wanted to just make technical amendments, defect the date. And then in the committee report, ask the next committee to look into the need for a better definition of state of undress, as brought up in testimony today. Members, are there any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on HB 1963. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting all Members present. Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up, HB 1665, relating to the penal code. This is expanding and increasing penalties for terroristic threatening of certain groups and locations. So for this one, there are significant amendments coming from both the Judiciary and the Attorney General's Office I'd like to adopt. So defect the date. And then per the Judiciary, completely delete Section 4 on page 5, lines 10 through 12, which requires them to promulgate rules, since this is not a function of theirs.

Then also note in the committee report that a definition for disabled person is needed that defines the specific protected individuals intended by this measure. And also that we need to clarify what the equity review and demographic data analysis of the convictions entails, so that the Attorney General can appropriately include it in their future reports that are required.

Also note, okay. And then delete paragraphs G and H, per the recommendation of the Attorney General, from the amendment section on page 4, line 13 and 14. And instead replace those with an amendment to 710-1010, which covers, already covers obstructing government operations by adding a 1d, the performance of a governmental function by an educational worker as defined in 707-711e.

Acting under the color of the educational workers official authority. So that addresses the issue with teachers. And then adding Section 4, which says notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any offense under subsection A or D shall be a class B felony. And section A refers to all public servants. So that replaces both things that were deleted on the other section.

And also to clarify that the perpetrator does not need to know the age of the victim for the penalties to apply. Adding that to 702-206. And that the requisite state of mind for subsection in number 31I or 1J for this offense shall not be applicable to the fact that the person who was threatened was 62 years of age or older was under the age of 18. So it doesn't matter if somebody knows their age or not, it still applies.

Person is strictly liable with respect to the attendant circumstance that the person who was threatened was 62 or under 18. And then also, I will wait for a proposed amendment from the AG's office on how to address the fact that the stiffer penalty would also apply to minors committing an alleged crime against other minors, which I would like that that stiffer penalty not to apply. So we will add that when we get that language in. So any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1665. Chair's recommendation is to pass amendments. Noting all Members present. Any Members voting with reservations? Any voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB 2233, which is funding SNAP-Ed. And for this one, I'd just like to defect the date and add to the committee report the proposed appropriation amounts for CTAHR and Department of Health. Members, are there any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair, voting on HB 2233. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Next up is HB 2237, which would allow the Department of Human Services to provide public assistance using during the using the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund. And I'm gonna defer this measure, due to some of the concerns raised in testimony.

Next up, we have HB 2132, relating to voting, which is the opt out rather than opt in. And for this one, I recommend defecting the date and amend as it relates to HRS 11-15.7 to reference requesting an electronic ballot rather than a large print ballot. This is requested the Elections Office. As this change aligns with existing statutory requirements and current processes. Other technical amendments.

And then per the AG's office and testimony, remove the bill's documentary proof condition for the DOT transmission and instead rely on the existing attestation based process which is federally required coupled with a negative screen that prevents transmission only when the applicant presents documentation demonstrating a lack of US citizenship.

And then replace the documentation demonstrating US citizenship with attestation of US citizenship and no presentation of documentation demonstrating a lack of US citizenship. Again, on page 6, lines 1 through 2. And then on page 11, lines 3, starting with line 3 for section K, delete unless an ineligible applicant willfully and knowingly takes affirmative steps to register or pre-register to vote.

Delete that and just leave it. It's saying that if the applicant is not not eligible to vote or pre-register to vote, then it's the record and signature will not constitute a completed voter registration. With that, Members, are there any questions or comments?

Question, Chair. Can you please clarify your amendment? So you're changing it to where there will be no need to show proof of citizenship, correct?

That is correct. And the reason for that, even though in our state we might wish to do that, the reason for that is to be consistent with federal law.

Sorry, Chair. Just a comment. First, I'd like to appreciate all of the testimony that was provided today, and I appreciate the amendments. However, I do believe there needs to be further discussions regarding this bill, even as amended. So I'm going to be voting with reservations. Thank you, Chair.

Any other comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2132. Chair's recommendation is pass with amendments. Noting all Members present. Noting Member Hartsfield's with reservations vote. Any other Members voting with reservations? Other voting reservations, Chair? Any Members voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB 1962, relating to family with exemption from mediation in parentage proceedings. And for this one, I would like to defect the date. And then also change references to Chapter 584 instead to replace that with Chapter 584a, since we repealed 584 last year, and 5848 was added as a current uniform chart. Members, any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on HB 1962. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. All Members present. Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. So we are done with decision making for this morning's hearing, and we are now... Do I need to restart for the 9:30 agenda? Can I just keep going?

Okay, so now we're moving to our 9:30am agenda, which is to do decision making on a single measure, HB 1546, which was the one relating to health insurance. So I have made some very large amendments to this bill, which I will not read out loud. It's a couple pages.

But basically, the gist is that in the Senate this measure was amended to, instead of having subsidies to purchase a catastrophic or bronze, you know, high deductible plan and also to provide $1,000 to meet early preventive primary care towards the during, you know, which otherwise it would be out of pocket for the deductible.

That was amended to just the thousand dollars for preventive care. And people will have to get the bronze or high deductible plan on their own. So I am keeping that as one option in this newly established state three year health coverage continuity pilot program. So that will be one option. But there will also be another option for people that qualify for the federal advanced premium tax credits to enroll in the federal insurance marketplace plan with a silver level.

Basically, there are some people we want to maximize our federal subsidies coming into our state. And there are some people who will qualify for those, and they could be on regular health insurance with low deductibles. And so there will be two options depending on what the individuals who lose Medicaid do or do not qualify for.

So there are... So that is the major change to the bill, those two changes. Amending the not subsidizing the high deductible plan, and then adding in a state funded premium assistance program, which actually expands the existing state funded premium assistance program that's already given to immigrants. With that, are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on HB 1546. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. All Members present. Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

With that, we are adjourned.