Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee meeting hearing this morning on Tuesday 10th February. This in person Zoom meeting and YouTube live stream event will include just one agenda. The our 915 agenda. As noted, this hearing is being streamed live on YouTube.

You can find links to viewing options for all Senate hearings and meetings on the Live and on Demand video page.

The legislature's website capital.hawaii.gov in the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to major technical difficulties, the committees will reconvene the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on February 12th at 9am here in room 016 and public notice will be posted for all the people testifying remotely.

All testifier audio will be muted and video disabled until it's your turn to testify. We do have a two minute time limit for both in person and on Zoom, but many times Members have questions. So if you can hang around after you testify that would be great.

If there are any temporary technical glitches during your turn to testify, we may have to move on to the next testifier, but we'll try to come back to you. And that's it for the introductory stuff.

First up on our 915 agenda is SB2248 expands the scope of persons who are required to file financial disclosures to include certain gubernatorial nominees subject to Senate confirmation. First up is Robert Harris, Executive Director for the Ethics Commission. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha. My name is Robert Harris, behalf of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony. We are in support of this measure. The main focus here is to ensure that financial disclosures are filed prior to the Senate affirming or going through the confirmation process.

That ensures that the public has an opportunity to have access to that information. That if there's any interested parties that have information relevant to it that they're also able to comment and provide the Senate with that information before they go through the confirmation.

There are other changes there in this Bill as well which help ensure, you know, broader transparency and accuracy through the financial disclosure process. I'll be here to answer any questions you have. Appreciate again the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next up is Susan Roberts Emory testifying for the Green Party of Hawaii. In support and after that I have number of individuals. All but one is in support and that one is with comments. So the the total count is 22 in support, zero opposed and one comment.

Would anyone else or anybody on that list would like to testify? 22 on 2248 or anyone else? Okay, seeing non Members, questions on SD 2248 foreign. I don't really either. Let's go ahead and move on to SB 2530 relating to campaign contributions.

Prohibit state or county contractors, officers and any officers immediate family with contracts of $100,000 or more for goods or services or $250,000 or more for construction from contributing to candidate or Non Candidate Committee candidates, non candidate committees, candidates or any person for any political purposes for the duration of the contract.

First up on 2530 is Christy Chang, Chief Counsel for Infinity Spinning Commission. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbert and Senator Chang, Christy Chang, on behalf of the campaign spending, the commission. The commission supports this bill. This is actually our bill.

What this bill does is to extend or expand the ban, the contractor ban to the contractors, officers and immediate family Members, as well as extending it to the grantees and their officers and immediate family members with the threshold amount for grant contracts for 100,000 or more and for goods and services and 250,000 or more for construction to follow the SPO guidelines.

And I'm available for any questions or comments.

Great, thank you. Next is Bonnie Kaha Kui Administrator, State Procurement Office with comments. Next is Marlene Tom for Indivisible Hawaii Statewide Network. In support, Depp Shapiro for Legal Women Voters. In support, Jody Robinson for Hawaii alliance of Nonprofit Organizations with comments, Susan Roberts Emory for Green Party for Hawaii.

And support Chris Caufield for EMUA Alliance also in in support. Okay, then we have a bunch of individuals in support. Nobody in opposition. Okay, but 30 in support, nobody opposed. And two comments. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2530? 2530. Okay, seeing now Members questions. I do. Have a couple questions for CSC and this one. Here.

So are the conforming amendments to specify calendar days in hrs 11364? Is that a change from current practice?

Which section are you looking at, Senator?

Hrs 11364. You know.

Sorry, I don't have that with me.

Okay, section three of the Bill starting on page seven.

Zero, that's for. Yeah, right now that's how we're treating it already is 30 calendar days. It's just inserting that so it's clear.

Okay. All right. So I thought. Just want to check. So in the savings clause, how is this, how's this Bill intended to work for contracts and grants that were executed. Prior to November 42026 which is when the Bill would go into effect, but they haven't been completed yet, right?

I think it wouldn't apply I think it would be going forward for new contracts. Going for perspective. Yes.

Okay. And then the existing statutory language prohibits a contractor from knowingly soliciting any contribution from any person for any purpose during any period. How does, how does CSC apply that? Has anyone ever been charged for violating that provision?

Not at this time. But that language was already copied from the part that's applied to just the contractor. So sort of using that same language is what we were hoping to do.

So it's already, it's already legal for a contractor to solicit any contribution then as well?

Yeah, they just can't make the contribution directly or indirectly during the life of that contract. Knowingly solicit. Right, so. Right. During that period.

So they can't solicit either. They can't. Right. And that's current law.

That's current law for the contractors and it's applying that same standard for their officers and immediate family Members.

Okay. All right, thank you very much. Members. Other questions? If not, we'll go ahead and move on. Okay. Next up is SB 2732 relating to pre trial release requires certain factors to be considered when determining a defendant's financial ability to afford bail. First up on 2732 is McKenna Woodward for the Office of Line Affairs.

In support, Kristen Johnson, Coordinator for W. Cord Correctional System Foresight Commission. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kristin Johnson and I'm the Oversight Coordinator of the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. The commission stands in support of this measure.

One of the biggest reasons is that when you're setting bail without considering somebody's ability to afford bail, it's creating unequal outcomes based on wealth rather than actual risk to society or public safety.

The only other piece that I wanted to point out is that cash bail, especially when not considering somebody's ability to pay cash bail, really contributes to overcrowding within our jail system, specifically at HCCC in Hilo on the Big Island.

And overcrowding strains correctional staff, reduces access to rehabilitative programming, increases operational costs, also worsens the health and safety conditions for both incarcerated individuals and staff. So for all those reasons, we support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is John Ikinaga, Office of Public Defender. Good morning.

Good morning. Apologies. Haley Chang is not available. So you get the second team right now. Good morning, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, Committee Members. So the. The Office of the Public Defender supports Senate Bill 2732. And this bill does two things, right?

First thing is it kind of clarifies that in considering the amount that person can pay, the court should not consider income derived from public benefits. And that's kind of common sense because you know, those are usually are always funds that people need for survival. So for medical, for food, things like that, rent.

The second part of the bill further clarifies that if a person income exceeds 150% of the poverty level, that the court shall consider what that person can pay within 40 hours, reasonably pay within 40 hours.

So this bill is very important because again it clarified for the courts, although the courts probably should be aware of this, that bail was never meant to be a means to incarcerate people or to hold them excessively.

It was a means to ensure that they would get to court on time and to provide sufficient surety to like make sure that they would do so. So and as Ms. Johnson stated, this bail has to be affordable. It can't be, it can't be something beyond the means of a person.

Sometimes our clients, I mean what, what would seem to be like very small amounts of bail is very daunting to them.

And if the court doesn't consider the particular circumstances of the client, including the fact that, you know, they may be receiving public assistance, bail can be set at amounts that although small in the big picture and to normal citizens, is unaffordable for them. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Kelvin Walton, Prosecuting Attorney for County of Hawaii. On Zoom per chance, perhaps.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

In opposition. Next is Susan Roberts, Emory Green Party of Hawaii in support. Next is Josh Frost, ACLU, Hawaii. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Committee. My name is Josh Frost. I'm a policy advocate at the ACLU of Hawaii. We are here in strong support of this bill. The state is in desperate need of, of bail reform. This isn't the first bill that has come up on this and I doubt it'll be the last. You have our testimony.

And I just wanted to point out a couple things. As of the end of January, just at OCCC, there were approximately 690 people held pretrial at a cost of $307 a day. That works out to about $77 million a year. Hopefully we can agree that there's better uses for that money.

There's also data that shows holding folks pretrial doesn't necessarily improve the likelihood of, well, it guarantees likelihood of showing up in court, but releasing them doesn't necessarily mean they won't show up at court. And data shows that there are more efficient, cheaper, modern ways to ensure they show up in court.

I Also wanted to point out that even a few days spent in jail can have life changing effects to those folks. Again, having not been convicted of anything, they can lose. There's a potential to lose jobs, there's potential to lose housing, parental rights, even benefits.

So for all these reasons, we hope that you'll move the bill and I'm here for any questions. Thanks.

Thanks very much. Next up is Chris Caulfield for EMU Alliance and support. And then there's a number of individuals all in support. The total count is 18 in support, one opposed and no comments. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 2732? 2732. Okay, seeing on Members questions, let's see I guess from Mr. Inkinaga.

So, well first a question about when we were debating whether the 40 hour should start at arrest or whether it should start at the initial appearance. Do you have an opinion on that question? I mean there is a, there is a bail set at arrest, if I remember correctly. Correct.

But that's of course, you know, you don't have much time from.

Yeah, I, I think the, Well I, I think it should run from the time of the initial appearance. Give them additional time because sometimes people I think in custody don't have the ability to easily reach out to, you know, access funds, things like that.

So, so, so in practice, what does that mean? So the initial appearance is usually what, a couple days later? Yeah, 48 hours, I believe. Has, has to be with. Yeah.

Except if they're arrested like on a Friday or a weekend. Right. Yeah.

Okay. So then, then at some point many of them would come to your office, you go in there with them and you say what to the judge at that point?

So we, we usually ask that they be held without bail or release on their own recognizance. Again, the court considers factors as a bail report that's submitted, I believe from the probation office,

They actually get the bail report that quickly.

They're supposed to, they're supposed to be able to have that in front of them to consider that.

So they can. Because the factors, yeah, the factors that they need to consider should be in the bail report.

Add initial appearance.

Yeah.

Okay. All right. So then the other question I had was 150% federal poverty level benchmark. Is that what's my, what's, what am I, what am I want, what do I want to ask here?

Is that going to be hard to figure out in terms of, I mean like if you were representing somebody and you needed to show the court that they were 150% or less of a federal poverty level benchmark. What would you show the judge?

So generally when we have the clients fill out applications, we're just going off of what they put down on their application. We don't necessarily always require income verification at that point.

The times that we usually require income verification of pay stubs, things like that, or tax forms are when we have some question usually about whether they in fact do or do not qualify for our office. So. But initially, well, you know, we're just going to take their word for it, basically.

Do the judges take their word for it too?

I, you know, that's a qu. I'm not sure because I don't appear for bail matters. So I can get back to you on that though.

Okay, well, I guess the, I guess the follow up question would be then if it turns out that they lied about, if, if somebody lies about that, then the judge can revoke the bail at that point or.

Correct. I mean there's factors where the judge can revoke bail. I'm not sure if that's specified. You know, that if they misrepresent something.

Certainly doesn't help their cause.

Yeah, correct. Correct. Okay. Generally my understanding is that once the, once bail is set, the judge imposes conditions and the reasons for usually revoking bill are violation of those conditions. I'm not sure about the initial application part of it because I don't know if that's right now a part of the setting of bail.

Whether they lie, you know, whether they accurately reported their income, the verification.

It seems like it would fall into a whole bunch of categories where if you lie to the judge, you're going to get in trouble if you get caught.

Correct. It could be contempt or you know, something.

Yeah. Okay. All right, thank you Members, other questions. Okay, thanks very much. We'll go and move on to the next bill.

Which is SB Senate Bill 2871 relating to discrimination. Prohibits discrimination based on the perception. Second, based on the perception that a person possesses certain characteristics.

The perception that a person is associated with a person who possesses or is perceived to possess certain characteristics in the intersection or combination of two or more specified characteristic characteristics in relation to a person. First up on SB 2871 is Keith Hayashi for Y State Department of Education. Good morning. For his designee.

Good morning. Senator Rhodes, Vice chair, Gabard, Members of the Committee, Sean Bacon, Assistant Superintendent for the Office of Talent Management, testifying on behalf of the Department. The Department stands on its written testimony, provides comments on this measure.

The Department fully supports the intent of fostering inclusive Inclusive and safe learning environment for all of our students and our staff. However, the Department would just like to ensure clear understanding of the proposed definitions to ensure proper implementation and consistency with the spirit of this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thanks very much. Next up is Marcus Kawatachi, Executive Director for White Civil Rights Commission on Zoom maybe.

Good morning, Rhodes. Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee. Marcus Kawatachi, Executive Director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We stand on our written testimony and support. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Sandy arjo Livingston, Chair, LGBTQ Commission and on Zoom, maybe.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

And support next to Sandy Ma, Public Policy Committee for AUW of Hawaii. Zoom maybe.

Currently unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

She's also in support. Michael Golojuch Jr. In support. Hoku Pack.

Chair.

Oh, Sandy Ma. I'm sorry. Okay, hang on a second. Let me back up to Sandy. Go ahead, Sandy.

Excuse me for the technical difficulties. Sandy Ma for AAUW of Hawaii. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, AEW is testifying in support of SB 2871. This bill is really to codify the federal court decision Lam versus the University of Hawaii.

This decision was a seminal decision, recognizing that discrimination is not based merely on one of our protected characteristics. It is really discrimination could be a combination of characteristics, recognizing that discrimination could intersect multiple characteristics.

And we really appreciate the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission understanding and supporting this measure and that it is not establishing new law, but codifying existing law. And so we ask that this Committee support this bill and pass it out of your Committee. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Michael Golojuch Jr. Who I saw on Zoom there.

Maybe. Yeah, I'm here. I just can't get my video to start. Ah, there we go. Good morning, Michael Golojuch Jr. He him pronouns for the. I am President of Pride at Work, Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this measure. It just. It just makes sense. And when we were.

Every time we come to amend the section of the chapter, we've talked about the intersectionality. And at this time we're now with this. With these amendments, we look at it as we are now protecting our allies, because our allies are, quote, unquote, guilty by association.

So there is nothing in the statute that would protect somebody just because they're standing up for our trans Ohana or mahu as we. As we fight forward with discrimination. And this would help ensure that just because somebody's standing up with us. They automatically get labeled as part of the queer community.

And this would help protect them from discrimination as well. So we encourage you to pass this. This is the right thing to do. And for the Department of Education, the clear definition is don't discriminate. If you don't discriminate, you're not going to have a problem with when this law passes, when this becomes law.

So we encourage you to pass this bill, protect everybody. And we need to end discrimination every chance we get. And this, this is this vehicle will help towards that. So with that said, thank you for hearing the Bill and we encourage you to pass it. Mahalo.

Thanks very much. Next up is Hoku Pack, also on Zoom.

Currently unavailable On Zoom.

Chair and support Honolulu, Hawaii NAACP. in support, Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara for Fujiwara and Rosenbaum llc on Zoom.

Currently unavailable on. She's on Zoom. Chair.

Okay.

I don't know why the video isn't working. Okay.

There you go.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for having this bill in front of us today. Mostly I wanted to emphasize my experience with this Lam versus University of Hawaii. I've been litigating this particular aspect of discrimination for over 30 years. And because of Lam, we have won numerous cases.

Because now the judges as well as the juries understand that it's not just as simple if you're Hawaiian or if you're Filipina, but if you're Hawaiian and a woman, it makes a difference than if you're a Hawaiian man or if you're a older Haoli woman, makes a difference and so forth.

So without Lam, we would have not prevailed in many, many cases. So we urge this Committee to pass it based on our 30 years of experience using lam in the courts. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Jen Kagiwada, Hawaii County Council Member. In support, Josh Frost for American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii.

Morning again. Hello again. I'm Josh Frost, ACLU of Hawaii. You have a written testimony. I don't really have anything to add to it. We're here in strong support. Hope you pass it. And here to answer any questions.

Great, thank you. Next is Hawaii State Women's Coalition in support, Isis Usborne for Lambda Law Student Association, also in support, Victor Ramos in opposition. And then about 15 mostly in support. One opposition. The total count is 27 in support, two opposed in one comment. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2871? 2871. Seeing on Members questions.

Let's see, I guess for HCRC, you're still here.

Yes, I'm here.

Does the, does the build make any substantive liability standards or remedies changes? I mean, we're not adding a, we're not adding a protected class or anything like that, correct? This is just a. The interplay of the already protected classes.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

Okay. And as others have stated, you, you concur that this is, this is codifying the Lamb decision, nothing more.

The section with regard to intersectionality. Yes, it codifies Lamb. It's well established law. We've been using it for many, many years.

Okay. Okay. All right, thank you. Other questions, Members. If not, we'll go ahead and move on. Next up is FB 2919. This appropriate spons to the Office of the Public Defender for one full time equivalent equivalent Public Deputy Public defender three position. First up on 2919 is Office Public Defender Morgan.

Good morning. Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, we stand in strong support of Senate Bill 2919. You know, the Office of the Public Defender is a statewide office. We have branches on Maui, Kauai, Big Island. We have Kona and Hilo and Oahu. However, the only statewide section in our office is the appellate section.

So generally the other offices, while they remain, you know, rent support them. They remain in communication with the Administration on Oahu. There, there is really no centralized person who can give advice statewide on issues of constitutional law and other related issues.

This is significant because when new developments come up in the law, it would be good to have a single person who could be a repository of knowledge and be a resource for these persons throughout the islands. So generally what happens now is, you know, when things come up, of course, appellate issues, they can call the appellate section.

But generally unless you send an email statewide, you're kind of relying on the information based on your particular island versus somebody who's going to be well versed in the issues in terms of the statewide office. And these could be issues related to constitutional law, new cases, collateral consequences that result from new laws or new cases, immigration concerns.

All of those things that are, will affect our clients statewide. And we should have one single person who's the resource person for that. And so we're asking, we strongly support this mission.

All right, thank you very much. Next up is Kat Brady, coordinator for Community alliance on Prisons and Support. Next is Liza Ryan Gill for Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. And support Christina Sublon for Legal Clinic and support Leilani Stacy for the acl, ACLU of Hawaii. In support Danico Ramos or Richardson.

William S. Richardson School of Law, Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Ramos from the Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic. You have our testimony, you have our written testimony and we'll be standing by it.

We just wanted to just emphasize that I think if we're going to add an extra public defender, that it should be also used to support non citizens and understanding their rights and how it enters how criminal convictions and charges intersect with the with the immigration system.

Thank you so much and happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Next is Victor Ramos in support, Nancy Moser in support, Kerryanne Shirota in support. That's everyone who signed up on SB2919. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2919? Seeing none. Members questions?

Yes.

Senator San Buenaventura.

Thank you. Public Defender So my understanding is you folks already have like annual CLE of your public defenders, right? Correct. You're informing them about any changes in law and statute. So this position is supplementing that?

Well, in a way, because the seminars once a year, it's held in May, so we apprise everybody of the developments up till then.

But you know, as you know, as an attorney, a lot's constantly changing, especially, you know, stuff like on the federal level, new cases come up in the US Supreme Court, the courts of appeals, new issues arise in terms of immigration law, those kind of things.

So throughout the year, in between the two in between seminars, you know, we would we were going to use this position to have somebody who would be like, again, a repository of knowledge and be able to keep a price of current developments in the law.

So that in between the seminars, it's one single person where somebody on Maui, if they have an issue, they can call this person, they can give them advice on that versus having to, you know, wait I guess to the seminar comes up or have, you know, look at their own office and, you know, try and see what they can figure.

Out from so so the plan is that this person would not only be repository, but in the event like the federal law keeps changing, Correct? Right. Federal Court of Appeals, depending upon which district or will say something. So this person will then blast emails out.

Yes, yes. And and also being prepared to advise people on the practical, you know, application of that, because sometimes, you know, just sending out email saying, here's the case, this is what it says. It's very different than how does that apply to my particular case in front of me?

Couple other questions. Good. Okay. So this person that you so this person. Did you see the refugee and immigration testimony? Yes. Do you think that that's necessary to do that amendment or. Or is it your plan anyway?

Yeah, I. I mean, I think that would be considered under. You know, because it's. Include. Yes. Correct. Correct. The short answer.

So. So it's really not The. The Ne. The last question is, are you folks finally getting paid your raises?

Yes. Okay. We did. They. They have been implemented, so now we're just. They're just waiting for the retro checks. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much.

Other questions, Members? Okay. If not. Oh, I do. I'm sorry. I have one more for you, Mr. Ikinaga. Does the $125,000 appropriation that. That covers both the salary and the fringe? It just doesn't.

That's salary.

That's just a salary.

Yeah. Salary. Correct. That's not. Freedoms.

Okay. All right. We'll make note of that somewhere along the line here. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, if there are no other questions on that one, we'll go ahead and move on to SB 3076 updates. The Tobacco enforcement laws to conform.

Confirm the authority of the Department of Taxation and the Department of the Attorney General to inspect and seize tobacco products, including electronic smoking devices and E-liquids, and clarify that untaxed tobacco products are subject to forfeiture as contraband without regard with. You know, that's what it actually says right now.

Without regard to the procedure set forth on Chapter 712a. First up on 376 is Chelsea Okamoto for Deputy Attorney General. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Chelsea Okamoto. I'm a Deputy Attorney General and I'm the unit supervisor for the Tobacco Enforcement Unit. Thank you so much for hearing this bill and the opportunity to testify. The Department is in strong support of this measure. You have our written testimony.

On January 12024 a new excise tax on electronic smoking devices and E-liquids went into effect pursuant to Act 62. And so we're asking that the statutes be updated specifically to Chapter 245 and 712A to strengthen and expand the enforcement authority of the Department of Attorney General and the Department of Taxation.

And that's just to ensure that these newly taxed tobacco products are covered under our enforcement authority. So we ask this Committee to pass this bill. We're available for questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up is Department of Health and Support. Okay. Gary Suganuma or designee for Director, Department of Taxation.

Good morning. Department stands on his written testimony in support of this Administration.

In support. Okay. Kevin Ramirez, program manager for Hawaii Public Health Institute. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Kevin Ramirez, Program Manager with the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii, a program of Hawaii Public Health Institute. Tobacco related disease remains the number one cause of death in our nation and state.

Much of the work we do with the coalition revolves around education, informing our community, raising awareness about the health risks of these products. We also advocate on legislation to better protect our communities. Best practices show that restricting access and taxation are proven methods to reduce consumption of these products. And a big component of that is enforcement.

Therefore, it is essential that the departments that conduct tobacco enforcement have clear authority to do so. So thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this measure.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Angela Young for CARES on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

In support. Emma Waters in support. And that's everyone who signed up on SB3076. Anyone else wishing to testify in SB3076? Seeing none. Members questions? Senator San Buenaventura.

Chelsea, could you come on up? So my understanding is you folks already have the ability to forfeit and grab illegal tobacco products by passing this bill. It allows you to. Why do we need this if you folks already have that ability?

Right. So we have special carve outs for untaxed cigarettes under the forfeiture statute where there's. The proceedings don't necessarily apply to untaxed cigarettes. So we're just asking for that parity to be applied to untaxed tobacco products which will include these electronic smoking devices and E-liquids.

Okay, so second question. So I introduced a bill under the behest of AG. And you know what that bill is? Basically it's to be able to grab potentially 90% of flavor grapes. Yes. Right.

I'm so glad you brought that up.

Okay, how does that work? How does that bill work? With this? Yes. Are they, are they copacetic or. Let's talk about it.

No. Thank you for bringing that up. So for Members of the Committee that aren't familiar, AG Lopez is very, very passionate about youth safety and youth health and has taken an initiative to introduce an electronic smoking device directory.

And so that directory would make sure that whatever products the FDA has authorized, those are the only products that would be allowed for sale inside the state of Hawaii. So right now that's only 39 electronic smoking device cigarettes or E-cigarettes that have been authorized by the FDA.

So that specifically about what types of products are on the market and within that bill, we have extensive enforcement authority built into that to seize products when they are found to not be on that list. Separate. And apart from that, right now we have a current tax on these products. And so this enforcement authority is separate.

Just looking at whether or not the taxes are being paid. If they're not, we want that seizure authority and forfeiture authority. So depending if that bill does not pass, then if this bill passes, then we do have that authority still intact here for untaxed products. Course, if both pass, great, that would be great for us.

Then we have two different sets of authority. One where if the product is not on that list, then we would be able to forfeit and seize based off of that list. Then that being on that directory.

And then separately, if they do not have taxes paid on it, then there is a separate authority because, for instance, if it is on that list but taxes aren't being paid, that's still a problem. Right.

Okay. So won't work against each other. No.

They, they. They're different enforcement tools, and hopefully that complement each other. When we can look at the entire scope of what our tools are for these different products. Thank you, Chelsea. No, thank you.

Other questions. Members, I do have another question for. For you. So in the very first part, section one, you know you got the bill. In front of you. Yeah. Down there about line 10, I guess. Untaxed tobacco products are subject to forfeiture as contraband without regard to the procedure set forth in Chapter 7 12A. So we were.

So I think what that means is this is a separate way. This. This is a separate way to see stuff. And 712A is you're not. Is. Is different and you're not using 712A. Is that what you're driving at?

Okay. We were debating whether that you meant you were. We were just trying to figure out whether that was incorrect language or not. But you're saying no, you just want that to be a separate.712 a is just a separate thing. And this is. This bill is a. Is its own way of enforcement.

Yes.

So for the. Be, I guess the origins of untaxed cigarettes, because of the Master Settlement Agreement, we had a duty to enforce the Master Settlement Agreement, which meant untaxed cigarettes were specifically targeted in. In how we were going to enforce that Master Settlement Agreement.

So we needed to make sure that once we found untaxed cigarettes, we weren't going to be subjected to the procedures in 712A. And so similarly, we would like that same authority applied to untaxed tobacco products.

Okay, all right.

But yes, you're correct.

Thank you. Okay, I think that's it. Members, other questions. Okay, we'll go move on and thank you. Next up is SB3300.

This requires a tax be paid before the courts may entertain a second appeal on the merits of the dispute for tax appeals requires a taxpayer who partially prevailed during the taxpayer's first appeal to pay the amount determined to be paid in the, to be due in that first appeal rather than the entire assessment in order to make a subsequent appeal all very confusing.

First up is Gary Suganuma or his designee for Department of Taxation. Okay, thank you. Tom Yamachika, Tax foundation of Hawaii on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Department Tax Foundation. We have already a rule in the tax area that says you get one appeal for free and for the second one you need to pay the tax.

That's, that's kind of been a compromise from before, before the rule was you had to pay the tax for any appeal which, which, which we thought was kind of harsh and some of the Practitioner Committee still think it's harsh.

Attorney McClellan who has also testified in this measure, he thinks we should have no Peter play, which I think is okay too. But given that the compromise position that's already in the statute, we think that it's much better to interpret the statute in saying. Appeals on them.

You know, we need an appeal on the merits because we have an actual case where the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the, the service copy got sent to the wrong place. Well, actually it was to the right place but, but to the wrong name.

I mean, went to the same office in the same building in the same city. But. That's, that's kind of why number one, we think that, that you know, for the, for the, for the 2 byte ruled account, you need to have a decision on the merits.

And number two, if you have the first decision that's rendered on the merits and, and it comes in for a number that is between what the Department says and what the taxpayer says, you should have that amount being paid instead of the entire assessment which is what the statute currently says, you have to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next is Richard McClellan in opposition. That's everybody who signed up for SB 3300. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 3300? Okay, seeing now Members questions if not for part of taxation. So your testimony, let's see, should have pulled this up first.

But anyway your testimony said you wanted to put back one phrase was stricken that said that if you don't pay, if you don't appeal and you have to pay the tax.

And is there no other place, I mean, is that not already spelled out somewhere in statute that if you don't appeal, you have to pay your tax?

I think what we're trying to be is just be very careful and not create any kind of ambiguity or confusion.

So we think that the language being stricken, the one that says if it's a decision in favor by the board that is not appealed by the taxpayer, we think that by taking that language out, it gives the taxpayer an argument that, well, we don't have to pay the tax then because it says right now it currently reads if a decision by the board or the tax appeal court is appealed by the taxpayer or the decision by the board is in favor of the depart, or the decision by the board in favor of the Department is not appealed, the taxpayer shall pay the tax plus interest.

So I guess someone could interpret that by taking that language out, meaning that, you know, if a decision is in favor of the Department and against a taxpayer, but the taxpayer doesn't appeal, then the following language doesn't apply.

So, so the other, so the, the sort of underlying law of. Guess this is. Would be on income tax. Yeah, 235. I think that's income tax. So there's no other, no place else in 235 that says you got to pay the tax if you, if, if the tax is due, you have to pay it.

I mean, it, I mean, yeah, I.

Mean that, that's the, that, that would be our argument if you guys were to adopt. Right.

This amendment. I understand. All right, thanks very much. Other, other questions, Members?

Yeah.

Oh, go ahead, Senator San Buenaventura. Go ahead.

Director. I, I'm sorry, I didn't read. 231-39b4. At what point does the interest apply if they don't appeal? Is it at the time when the appeal ends, appellate period ends, or at the time when the tax is due? And what if they appeal, they decide to drop the appeal?

Is it when they decide to dismiss the appeal? I mean, so it coincides with chairs concern that if you put it in there, then that there's, there will be an interpretation that the interest does not apply until the appellate period ends.

That's a good question. I mean, my, let me think about this. So. My understanding is that we would be subject to tax on any amounts paid under protest where we would have to refund it back to the taxpayer, essentially. Give it back. So we are holding their.

The amount that they put into the litigated claims Fund, the amount of controversy. But if the taxpayer wins and we have to give it back, my understanding is that we give them interest for the time we're holding the funds.

Okay, but if they put in the deposit and then they decide not to appeal. So you're already holding the funds. Right. Do they need to pay interest?

Okay, sorry, Which. Are we talking about the same Bill? Because the next Bill has. The next Bill has. Had. Yeah.

Okay.

No, I mean, because. Because if you. But if you don't mind, I'll follow up on that riff.

Yes.

Okay. So if they. If they've. If they haven't appealed and they have to pay the tax, assuming, you know, we get the wording right, if they do appeal, they have to pay the tax, and then if they stop appealing, they've paid the tax already.

They only pay the tax upfront. You get one free bite, as Mr. Yamachika noted. So the way it works is the one free bite can either be to the Board of Taxation review or to the tax appeal court.

Right, but in terms of the scenario that Senator San Buena was talking about, you've already paid the tax. So if you drop your appeal, you've already paid your tax because you had to pay the tax to get to start the appeal. That's correct. Okay, so I think that works out. Yeah.

So there's no interest because they. They paid the tax.

They just paid the tax. Yeah. Right. Now, the next Bill. That's different.

Okay.

Was there another question? Senator Chang, did you have a question?

Oh, okay. Well, since I'm up here, the language about the merits. Do you have any questions about that?

The merits of 3,300.

The amendment is to add that the decision has to be on the merits in order for the one bite.

Yeah. No, we saw your testimony thinking. Thank you. Arguing to. To do it just on any decision. Correct. Yeah. Okay, thanks. All right, let's go and move on to the last bill, SB 3301. This clarifies and adds procedural safeguards to Section 4034,035 of the HRS, which relates to payments to the state under protest.

There is only one testifier that signed up for this, and that's Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation.

Morning again. Morning. Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika for Tax Foundation. The primary goal of this bill is to avoid forfeiture when a payment under protest is filed too early. It's the it's basically the same as House Bill 1174, which was considered by this Committee the last session and passed out unanimously.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB 3301? 3301. See none. Members questions? I don't believe I have any on this one. So I think we're at the end of the agenda. Unless someone else has questions. All right with everybody. We'll go ahead and start voting. zero, yes. Yeah.

All right, back to the top of the top of the heap. Senate Bill 2248. This expands the scope of persons who are required to file financial disclosures to include certain gubernatorial nominees subject to Senate confirmation. The recommendation on 2248 is to pass with an amendment.

I'd like to make the effective date January 1, 2027 instead of upon approval because I think that will align better with the. It's a cleaner start for doing the filing the reports in the order they're supposed to be filed instead of dropping it down right in the middle of a, in the middle of a reporting period.

Questions or concerns. And it does go to another Committee, if not center G for the motion.

Chair's recommendation on SB2248 is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2530. This prohibits state or county contractors, officers and other officers, immediate family with contracts of 100,000 or more for goods or services or 250 or more for construction from contributing to can candidate or non candidate committees or any person for any political purpose for the duration of the contract.

Okay so the recommendation be the change of the dis. Let's see. Hang on a second. Okay, so we'll add a report. I'd like to add a reporting requirement to have contractors and grantees to disclose officers and immediate family members. And, and everyone who would be covered by this to report the. I'm sorry.

And then children, dependents and spouses, reciprocal beneficiaries, etc. Etc. Report it to the campaign spinning commission. But to keep that private, just because you're a contractor with the state doesn't I don't think means you should have to give all this information about your family.

And then we'll require the CSC to keep a database accessible to political committees so that when a donation is made, that Committee can be sure they're not taking money that's banned. And we'll apply the, the, the ban only to compensated officers for both grantees and contractors per Hono and the League of Women Voters. Suggestions?

I'd also like to change the description of the threshold for a grant or subsidy from more than 100,000 to 100,000 or more just to make it consistent. We'll delete references in the preamble about this being a loophole. It's not a loophole. It's just currently that's the current law and there's some technical amendments as well.

And I would also like to add in that this would only apply to contracts and grants executed on or after the effective date. So we're not going to try to affect contracts are already already being. That. Are already in effect to keep using the same words over and over again. Okay, that's it. Questions or concerns?

Yes, I'm going to be voting with reservations specifically regarding the the portion about it's going to be unlawful for for the immediate family to contribute. I I think especially where where the the contract is only for 100,000. There are minor contracts.

I mean that's relatively a minor contract under these types of inflationary times and a one time contract that would prevent a family member to contribute to a candidate to me is overreaching. So for those reasons I understand the need for this.

But one I think the 100,000 threshold especially for a family member is very low and two, I think immediate family members should be able to support their family whether when they run for office.

Okay. The number the 100,000 and 250,000 just come from the state procurement offices differentiation between major and minor and they do change from time to time but I understand what you're saying other concerns okay. If not Senator Gabbard.

Chair's recommendation on SB2530 is to pass with amendment. [Roll Call] Are there any no votes additional no votes or reservations hearing none. The measures adopted okay.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2732 revenant pre trial release requires certain factors to be considered when determining a defendant's financial ability to afford bail.

Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments like to clarify the reference to 150% of the federal poverty level for Hawaii by specifying the use of the annually published federal poverty guidelines and the timing and then the timing for determining the applicable level will be at first appearance and not date of arrest and that would be for the 100 that would be for the federal poverty level and then for the within 40 hours of arrest.

I'd like to change that to 40 hours of the initial appearance give. I think that gives the defendant a little more time because they should have an idea after the arrest what the ballpark figure is going to be. Give them a little more time to try to come up with the money and that's it.

Questions or concerns? If not Senator Gabbard.

On SB2732 Chair's recommendation passed with amendments. Are there any no votes or reservations? [Roll Call] The measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2871. This prohibits discrimination based on the perception that a person possesses certain characteristics Perception that a person is associated with a person who possesses or is perceived to possess certain characteristics for the intersection or combination of two or more specified characteristics in relation to a person. Okay.

After all that Recommendations to pass with technical technical amendments only questions or concerns. If not Vice Chair.

On SB2871. Char's recommendations are passed with amendments. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2919 relating to the office public defender. This appropriates funds to the Office of Public Defender for one time one full time equivalent public defender. 3. The recommendation here is to pass unamended questions or concerns if not Senator Gabbard.

On SB 2919 the Chair's recommendations pass on amended. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 3076. This updates tobacco enforcement laws to confirm the authority of the Department of Tax and Department of the Attorney General to inspect and seize tobacco products. Recommendation here is to. Well, this is available. Yeah. Okay. Any. Any tax. Okay. Tax only on this one. On 3076 Questions or concerns?

If not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB3076 is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Great. Thank you. Next up is SP 3300. This requires a tax to be paid before the courts may entertain a second appeal on the merits of the dispute. Requires a taxpayer partially prevail during the taxpayer's first appeal to pay the amount determined to be due in the first appeal rather than the entire assessment.

Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments we'd like to add at the very end. The taxpayer shall pay the taxes determined by the board of the tax appeal plus interest as provided in Section 231.39 in order to proceed with the appeal. That would be the the amendment we'd like to add there.

Then I'd also like to add in language on the if the appeal. If there is no appeal, then the tax is due. But it won't be as simple as probably won't be as simple as just unmarking out that phrase because of the other amendment we made anyway.

We do want to have something in there that says you have to pay the tax if you don't appeal. And we also want to make it clear that in order to proceed with the appeal that you have to have paid the tax. Questions or concerns if not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 3300 is to pass with amendments Any no votes or reservations? [Roll Call] The measures adopted.

Measures adopt okay that brings us at last to SB 3301 clarifies and adds procedural safeguards to Section 4035 of HRS which relates to payments to the state under protest Recommendation is to pass with text only. Questions or concerns if not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 3301 is to pass with amendments Are there any no votes or reservations None. The measures of adopted thanks very much.

That concludes our business. Thanks for being here.