House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the meeting of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Tuesday, February 10th, at 2pm here in Conference Room 325. My name is David Tarnas. I am the chair of the Committee. We have our vice chair, Poipoi here, as well as Member Shimizu. Others will join us presently.

For those who are testifying today, I would urge you, if possible, to keep your testimony to just a couple of minutes, two minutes, and I'll ask you to summarize at that point. I'm just trying to make sure we have time for everybody to give testimony. We have recently upgraded the microphone and sound system in the room here.

So you'll notice in the ceiling, two panels that have a green light on them. That's. Those are actually the microphones. So just speak with a regular outside voice project and articulate, and the mics should pick it up just fine.

And it'll be slightly amplified in the room here, but then it'll pick it up to go out on the live stream that we have for this Committee hearing. For those who are on Zoom wishing to testify, keep yourself muted, please, and your video off while waiting to testify.

And then after your testimony is complete, again, mute yourself and turn your video off. If you have technical issues, use the chat function to communicate with our technical staff and they'll help you out. If you're disconnected for any reason, don't panic. Please rejoin us. I'll try to fit you in as soon as you come back for testimony.

If the power goes off in the building here and we have to reschedule the the hearing, I will post appropriate notice to make sure that everyone knows when we're meeting and what we'll be discussing. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images because that kicks us off of YouTube, which is not good.

And when you're testifying, please refrain from profanity or any uncivil behavior, please. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We're all here to work for improvement in our state, for the people and the environment. And so I appreciate everyone's cocoa. So let's go ahead and get started.

Today's first item on the agenda is House Bill 1552, relating to the Chief Election Officer, provides that in the event of a vacancy in the position of Chief Election Officer, the Attorney General shall serve as the Interim Chief Election Officer until the Election Commission appoints a new Chief Election Officer.

First up, we have testimony from the Attorney General by in person.

Aloha Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Charles Zhongmin Lee, Deputy Attorney General. We wrote our testimony in opposition to the bill. And I'll be available for any questions you may have.

Could you identify why your key concerns, why you're in opposition? Just for the public who hasn't had a chance to read your testimony yet.

The Department is concerned that there could be a conflict of interest if the Attorney General serves as both the Attorney General as well as the Chief Elections Officer. Possibly because if there's any lawsuit, the Attorney General may have to be both defendant and the client, if that makes sense. The lawyer and the defendant. The client. Okay.

That's the main concern. Okay, thank you. Thanks very much. Next, testimony from the League of Women Voters, Amy Monk. Amy is here. I saw you. Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you. Chair. Vice Chair. The League of Women Voters wanted to take this opportunity to say that we think Hawaii's election is sound. That it's one of the best electoral systems in the nation. That allows for voting conveniently for the disabled, for busy working folks, for seniors who have a hard time getting to the polls.

We are assured that the Hawaii state has secure handling of the ballots, that the tallying system allows for transparency and a paper trail, and the results are accurate and verifiable. So in normal times, we wouldn't need an alternate to the Chief Elections Officer.

But we've noted that in the 2020 elections, seven states had alternate phony slates of electors. People were attempting to change the results of the election.

So we feel that even if there's a small chance that this will be used, that we provide for an alternate to the Chief Election Officer in the event that he is unable to fulfill his duties to certify the election. Now, we are not necessarily wed to the fact that it be the Attorney General.

We just want an alternate. So I leave it to the legislators to decide what's best for that. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Ms. Monk. We've received written testimony and support from the Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party, Hawaii. And then we've got testimony from Austin Martin on Zoom in opposition not present testimony. Written testimony in opposition from Abra Green. Testimony and opposition on Zoom from Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican women. Please proceed. Ms. Detwiler.

Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes. Yes, I can. Happy New Year. Good to see you.

Happy New Year, sir. Same here. Great to see you. Vice Chair Poipoi and Members of the Committee. Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women. The current statute to select a chief Elections officer In the event of a vacancy is threatened by this bill, by HB 1552 with partisan bias and government control.

We are pleased to note that the AG has taken the position to oppose this bill as well. We are in strong opposition to HB 1552 for the following reasons. Number one, as I described earlier, there are current statutes on the book to address the issue of a vacancy.

The statute reads, in the event of a vacancy, the Elections Commission shall meet expeditiously to select and appoint a new Chief Election Officer to serve the remainder of the unexpired term. There is no need for an alternate as described by an earlier testifier.

The current law provides for a fair and balanced process for appointing a Chief Elections officer in the event of a vacancy. Number two, as described by the ag, there is a definite conflict of interest and also a threat for abuse of power.

By allowing the AG to function the AG or an alternate to function as the Chief Election Officer, decisions and actions will be biased and give unfettered power to the Administration that's currently in office. The Attorney General's office could potentially delay the appointment of a new Chief Elections Officer or whomever that alternate may be.

Again, the current statute allows for the event of a vacancy. We offer these following solutions. Keep the current practice of appointing a Chief Elections Officer in place. Consider supporting future legislation for citizens to elect a Chief Elections Officer as it is done in the majority of states.

And may I lastly respectfully remind this Committee that Article 1 of the Hawaii State Constitution states that all political power of this state is inherent in the people and the responsibility for exercise thereof rest with the people. For these reasons, please vote no on HB 1522. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Ms. Detweiler. Next, we have testimony and support from Marlene Tom on Zoom. Please proceed. You're muted. Could you unmute yourself, please?

Yes. Apologies. Aloha. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. On behalf of indivisible Hawaii, I thank you for this opportunity to testify in strong support of HB 1552.

This bill provides that in the event that there's a vacancy in the Chief Election Officer position right before the election, the Attorney General, or as Ms. Monk testified, an alternate is appointed as the Chief Election Officer until a replacement can be appointed by the Elections Commission.

Given what happened on January 6, 2021 and the fact that the 2020 election is still being challenged by a non trivial segment of the population, I think the state of Hawaii needs to take all measures possible to ensure that we certify the election. So we stand by our testimony and I thank you for supporting HB 1522.

Thank you very much for your testimony on House Bill 1552. Next testimony we have been requested to accept in person is Tara Gregory in opposition. Aloha. Please proceed.

My name is Tara Malia Gregory. I'm just an advocate for the people of Hapai. I'm a constituent, a United States registered voter and I'm here. I also stand on my written testimony, but also on the testimony of Ms. Jamie Detwiler. So I'll just kind of cut to the chase after that part.

You know, federal law is clear under HAVA5.2 USC21083. Now our states are supposed to be maintaining a centralized, auditable voter registration system. And under NVRA 52 USC 20507 the states must conduct and retain records of voterless maintenance.

Now these haven't been done and I believe that this is why this bill might be on the table because of the scrutiny of the elections officer, the Chief Elections Officer, Mr. Scott Nago. I've been sitting in on the elections office meetings for about two years now.

I've been testifying for about two years now and there is much federal investigation happening as we speak.

There's three 9th Circuit Court hearings actually that have been done here regarding the ability that not only the Chief Elections officer but with the advice of the Attorney General have been non compliant with multiple voter roll being asked of them to be provided.

Now with that being said, I wasn't here for the earlier testifier that said may that there would be another person appointed.

But if this does continue, I would just really strongly advise that if you could maybe materialize what that other person could possibly be or like Ms. Detwiler said earlier today, maybe we just go by the actual federal law and stick to electing that position. So mahalo. So much for the time to speak.

Thank you very much. Next we have Sally Lee by Zoom. No, not present. Next we have Michelle Moku via Zoom. Not present. Is there any. We've received a total of 56 testimony in support, 54 testimony in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 1552?

If I may, Mr.

Chair, back to, back to you. Who is it on Zoom? Austin Martin. Zero, ah, Mr. Austin Martin, you're there. Please. I called you earlier and I missed you, so it's your turn now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. I'm Austin Martin. I'm the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii. I'm also an LNC Member, so I represent Region 1 on the Libertarian National Committee.

I was an observer, an election observer in 2022, and when I tried to report irregularities in the Hilo Counting Center, I was removed from duty without cause, under threat of arrest. We have a real problem with our Chief Elections Officer. It's interesting.

I reported this to the Attorney Generals, and they ran an investigation that went all the way to the top and got iced by Lopez right before she resigned. Interesting timing. The AGs have spent incredible resources, taxpayer resources, not trying to investigate the problems which are coming to light with our elections, but instead trying to cover them up.

Even going so far as knowingly and willingly covering up crimes in court, where they know that what they're defending is indefensible, and yet they do it anyway. They should not be trusted. In the absence of a Chief Elections Officer, this should be an elected position. We, the people, should be in charge of the elections.

Not the vendors who, by the way, order around the Office of Elections with embarrassing regularity. Not the Attorney Generals who are not answerable to the people, but to the Governor. It is the people who deserve to run the elections. Please do not give any more power to the AG or the Office of Elections over our election.

Please do not lock down the Elections Commission. Don't do most of the dumb stuff that's on the. On the agenda here. We need clean elections, guys. We need to take this seriously. I'm a Libertarian. I'm not a Republican.

I don't care about what happened in 2020 as much as I do what happened in my county in every year since. With that, I yield.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony on this measure? If not. Questions? Members, any questions? Maybe I could ask a question of the Attorney General.

If there is a vacancy in the Office of the Chief Elections Officer, I understand that there is a process for selecting a new one through the commission, but in that interim, when there isn't anybody there, do you know if there's a statutory provision for someone to act in acting capacity? Not that I'm aware. Sorry.

Not that I'm aware of. Not that you're aware of. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Nope.

Maybe a question.

Well, you have to say, yes, you have a question, or no, you don't have a question?

Yes, I have a question.

Okay. Please represent Belatti, the Attorney General.

So seeing that the concern is that the replacement of the Attorney General raises some partisan concerns, is there a Deputy Chief Election Officer who we could identify for this purpose? There's someone in the chain of command, essentially. Because what we're looking at is this, this gap, period. Right. It's potentially gap, period.

And if we wanted to pay heed to the concerns about partisanship, is there not someone else in the office chain of command that we could identify?

That would be. That question would be. Should be directed to Office of Elections. But however, I think somebody within that organization should be the replacement interim and not the agents. Understood.

Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any other questions, Members? If not, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2125 relating to elections.

This measure provides that any corporation operating under state law law shall hold all the corporate powers it previously held, provided that nothing in state law shall be construed to grant or recognize any corporate power to engage in election activity. On this measure, we have first the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Ashley Tanaka. I'm a deputy Attorney General. We did submit testimony in opposition of this bill primarily due to our concerns with the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission which held that corporations do have a First Amendment protected right to political speech.

So our opinion is that this bill courts would look at this bill as prohibiting corporations right to free speech under the First Amendment. Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next person that said they wish to testify as Chris Caulfield, IMUA Alliance not present. Next person who wish to testify is Marlene Tom on Zoom. Ms. Tom, please proceed.

Yes. Right. Aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee again, Indivisible Hawaii. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in strong support of HB 2125. We believe that this bill states that or clarifies that corporations operating under Hawaii state law do not possess the statutory power to engage in election activity.

It reaffirms that elections should reflect the will of the people rather than entities created by the state under statutes that grants special privileges and limited liability. HB 2125 does not address the rights of corporations. It talks about the power of what corporation, what powers corporations have. And it reinforces basic Democratic principles and accountability.

So we hope that you will support this bill. HB125. Thank you for the time.

Thank you very much. Next person that said they wish to testify is Josh Frost. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2125? Mr. Austin, please go ahead.

Yes, sir. Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii and Libertarian National Committee Member for Region one. This is an interesting, interesting bill and I appreciate the direction of trying to get Corruption out of political influence and election influence. And that is actually not a bad thing. So I want to clarify first on that. But there's a huge problem.

What is a corporation? A corporation is simply an association of people for a purpose. When we get together to try to change a law, we are required to go and register as a kind of corporation, Right? When parties get together to try to advance policy, that, too, is a kind of a corporation.

And so I worry about this. And then on top of that, our first amendment rights matter on these things. Sometimes corporations are actually very well positioned to advocate for things that are good for the public. It's not so simple as all corporations bad.

Where the problem comes is when special privileges are granted by the government to certain corporations to edge out competition, to improperly weigh in on the market, to, you know, put public funds where we don't want them to go. And that is not a problem with actual corporations in general. That's a problem with government corruption.

And so I don't think this bill will address that problem. It will only give the government a way to suppress organized dissent. And I think that we will see a lot more probability, not only of cost to the state, as. As was previously brought up by the Department, also the corporation, by the way.

I think that we just got to be really careful in how we go about trying to mitigate this problem. I think the problem lies in regulating the government and not necessarily taking away the first amendment right of free speech from corporations. With I'll yield.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2125? See no further questions Members, or no further testimony. Members questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair AG Please. Do you know if there's any other state that has challenged or successfully arranged a law Citizen scenario?

To my knowledge, no. There's no other state currently that's been able to enact such a law. Citizens United. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Other questions represent Belatti.

So this is my bill. I've introduced it. This is based upon some legal theories that Montana is advancing.

And I understand the situation is a little bit different, but say it was the policy call of the Legislature, which this Legislature has expressed its will to be opposed to Citizens United in many other forms and resolutions, that if we were to pass this law, isn't it true that as a matter of fact, if we are able to pass it through the state Legislature, it would be presumed constitutional, and then any challenges to it would be something that your office would defend, and it has a presumption of constitutionality if passed by both chambers of the house and then not vetoed by the Governor.

All that were to happen, I'm not sure if it would automatically be presumed unconstitutional. I mean, sorry, presume constitutional. Sorry, presume constitutional. It's our position that just, it's running afoul of the Constitution in light of Citizens United and the First Amendment.

But as a matter of legislation, you know, we pass laws all the time. That sometimes gets ruled unconstitutional later. As a matter of practice, you would have to defend this law as constitutional if it were to pass both houses and not be vetoed by the Governor. Is that correct?

I'm not sure about defending it as constitutional. I believe my office would have to defend the law should it be challenged once it becomes law. But I, I would have to get back to you on the position about it being constitutional.

And then just one more question, Chair. You know, we have our own Supreme Court that has challenged directly in some ways the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. So I understand that the battle would be set up so that there could be challenges under the Hawaii State Constitution as well as the United States Constitution.

But if we accept the belief that in this republic where states are the innovators of Democrat democracy and policies, that it's not, it's not so unusual to think that we can take this step of passing this bill because this is a problem that has plagued many states.

And many states are looking at different ways based upon the Montana plan to try to get this kind of reasonable policy passed so that we have some normalcy to our elections once again.

Isn't it true to say that that is something that we could do as a Legislature, as the policy making body of a three branch of government?

I mean, we, our job as the Department of the Attorney General isn't so much to comment or opine on the legislature's policy calls. Our job is to advise on constitutionality and legality of proposed legislation. So we do understand the legislature's intent behind this Bill as well as other similar bills that are currently before the Legislature.

We do understand the frustration that many of you may have, as many Americans have regarding Citizens United. But it is our position that federal case law from the US Supreme Court as well as the federal Constitution applies to whatever we do here in Hawaii.

Under state law, federal law is still binding upon us until it is changed or overturned.

Has that law in Montana been overturned that allows Montana to prohibit corporations from.

I, I'm not, I, I don't have knowledge about what's going on Montana. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? See none. Thank you very much for your testimony. We'll have to learn about Montana Bill, see what's happening with that. Let's go on to the next measure. House Bill 2493 relating to wrongful imprisonment.

This measure establishes the procedure that a court of the state shall follow upon the reversal or vacation of the individual's judgment or conviction on grounds consistent with innocence and where the charges were dismissed Requires the state to pay advance compensation to any petitioner who was convicted in a court of the state imprisoned for at least one year and whose judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated or was pardoned on grounds consistent with innocence.

Requires the comptroller to issue a warrant for payment advance compensation to a petitioner.

Requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assign a case manager to a petitioner upon the petitioner's release and requires the state to perform provide medical coverage to a person for a certain duration upon the reversal or vacation of a person's judgment of conviction on grounds consistent with innocence and where the charges were dismissed.

Requires the Department Attorney General to submit an annual report to the Legislature and it provides a few other matters as well. But that's in essence what this bill will do. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe Members of the Committee Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation supports the intent to House Bill 2493 relating to wrongful imprisonment.

However, DCR objects to the language that requires us to assign a case manager to assist a released individual with obtaining housing, state identification, medical, dental, mental health insurance, appointments, cell phone and employment. Once an individual is released from our custody, we do not have jurisdiction over them anymore.

It would be very difficult for our case management to follow this individual in the community to give this kind of support. DCR recommends that the duties of the case manager as outlined in House Bill 2493 be assigned by the court to its Adult Client Services Division or contract with a community based agency, including nonprofit entities if necessary.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the intent of HB 2493. If there's any questions, I'll be available.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Office of the Public Defender. Ms. Chang, welcome. Always good to see you.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Poipo Members of the Committee, as always, thank you for the opportunity to be here. We have submitted testimony in support of this measure and as this Committee knows, the Office of the Public defender doesn't. We are not directly involved in the civil remedies that this Bill outlines.

But I hope that our testimony will be valuable in the sense that most of these individuals start as our clients. We see firsthand how detrimental incarceration is generally, even if appropriately ordered. And I think the Committee can see how incredibly adverse it is if you have been wrongfully convicted.

For some people who may not know the difference between wrongful conviction and acquittal, we do just want to clarify that for people who may be watching, this bill does not address those who were arrested, held in custody, had a jury trial for, even. Even if they were held pretrial for years.

If they are acquitted, it's over and they don't have a course of action through this measure. This is particularly for individuals who were convicted and wrongfully.

So we stand on our written testimony and also want to highlight some of the things that we really appreciate about this measure and want to impress upon the Committee the significance of this. Release without resources can sometimes be worse than incarceration.

When you are incarcerated, you are housed, fed three meals a day, have some access to medical care. But if you are released from incarceration, all of those things go away. And if you do not have the resources or the ability to live every day, then, like I said, release can sometimes be worse than incarceration.

For those who have truthfully been or really been wrongfully convicted, the need to provide advanced compensation, the need to have a case manager, and I understand what DCR is saying, or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is saying, I'm not sure, maybe that's for the committee's consideration, who should be responsible for providing that.

But I do want to highlight how significant it would be to have a case manager. All of those things, housing, identification, employment, a cell phone, as I think was referenced, those things are basic things that we as normal community members take for granted.

And if you're released after an indeterminate amount of years in custody without access or assistance in getting those things again, it can set you back even further. The medical coverage and the clear statutory guidance that you do not have to prove that you are actually innocent, but that the evidence supports innocence, we believe is also critical.

And then, of course, as we noted in our written testimony, the shifting of the burden to the state to prove by a preponderance that the reversal was inconsistent with evidence.

So all of those things specifically, we support and hope that we are able to convey the significance of what this measure will do for those limited people who are in this Situation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. And I will be available for questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Your testimony is always appreciated in this Committee. Next we need. Next we're going to hear from the Attorney General. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tanas. Vice Chair. My name is Michelle Poole. I'm a Deputy Attorney General for the Criminal Justice Division. We are essentially the statewide prosecutors. We are testifying in opposition to this bill. The purpose of this bill is essentially to provide an expedited mechanism for individuals who are alleging wrongful conviction and imprisonment.

This advance compensation, as well as a state funded medical assistance is something that would be provided before there has been any court determination that the person is actually innocent, as is what's required by 661. Essentially, this would happen automatically while the petition is pending. Payments would be expended.

The Department does recognize that there is a provision allowing for a five day rule where if charges are refiled within that five day period, that this would not happen.

These automatic payments, however, five days is wholly insufficient to make a thoughtful determination on whether or not prosecution continues to be right for this individual factors would need to be considered, including the determination by the courts to evaluate whether or not the case is proper to go forward.

And that would take well in excess of five days to make an ethical determination going forward. Also, there is the issue of the fact that even if the petition is subsequently denied and the person is not found actually innocent, these monies and expenditures could not be recuperated. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Always glad to hear from you. Next, we have testimony from Ken Lawson, Hawaii Innocence Project. Welcome, Professor.

It's my understanding, and again, maybe I misheard, but my understanding is that the this statute, if passed, won't take effect until after the conviction has been vacated by court based on evidence consistent with actual innocence, not when the petition is found. Am I right? Go ahead and give us your testimony.

Well, again, I'll just read it into it. You have my written testimony. What I want to talk about is justice. And I tell my law students all the time, right? I can teach law all day long. What I can't teach is justice. Justice is a matter of heart.

Just as when we right wrongs that we know deep in our soul is unjust. Alvin Jardine spent 20 years in prison for a crime DNA proved that he did not commit. At $50,000 a year, the law said he was entitled to $1 million. He settled for 600,000.

Because when you're homeless and the state has dragged your case out for a decade, you take what you can get. He died homeless on Dec. 27 at age 56, before he ever saw a gun. Ronnis Durra, decorated Navy sailor, falsely accused, spent eight years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Four years of delay since he filed his compensation petition. He settled finally in December 2025, making him one of the first persons to settle underneath the statute. And even then, he settled for $420,000 with extraordinary circumstance provision entitled him to over $100,000 more.

But after four years of fighting and a threat of more appeals, he took what they offered. That is why the $5,000 a month in this Bill matters. It takes away the State's and the AG's leverage to make these men continue to wait day after day for payment.

And they are in such bad financial situations, they have no medical when they come out. We had to send Ian Swiser to New York. We had a dentist that volunteered to give him medical treatment. Gordon came out, needed medical treatment. Right.

And so what this bill does is it allows at least the exonerated, when their conviction has been vacated based on evidence consistent with actual innocence, to live like human beings and not have to beg on their knees for a state that wrongfully convicted them. Let me say this.

Put it in perspective. Texas. The state of Texas pays its exonerees $80,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment, plus a lifetime annuity, plus tuition, plus the right to bond to the state employee health plan. Since 2009, Texas has paid over $156 million to 97 exonerees.

Ohio, which is also conservative, pays over $55,000 per year plus lost wages, plus attorney fees. Ohio has paid $51 million to date. These are not liberal blue states. These are conservative states that looked at wrongful conviction and said, this is wrong and we're going to make it right.

Hawaii, the Aloha State, the state that prides itself on being just progressive and compassionate. We went eight years without paying a single claimant, not one. We're the only state in this country with a compensation law that has never compensated anyone. And that $5,000 a month matters more than you think.

Because right now, the AG's office and prosecutors are dragging these cases through court. Even when they stipulated at the Rule 40 hearing that the DNA evidence was not being disputed, that the new scientific evidence was not being disputed, they agreed that all this was new evidence.

And then when the judge says, I agree that we should vacate these convictions based on actual innocence, they start appealing. They tell Rhynister, either you're going to take this money now or we're going to peel it up and it's going to take you years to get compensated. So he takes it. $420,000, like I said.

Again.

You could summarize, please.

I'll summarize. A prosecutor's job. And she stated she's the prosecutor for this state. The AG is to do justice. See, as a lawyer, our jobs are to represent our clients zealously. But a prosecutor's job is different. It's to do justice to not just the state, but to the people that prosecute.

And, you, Honor, right now, I mean, not. Your Honor. Sorry, Judge, I asked you to pass the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Next we have Kat Brady, Community Alliance on Prisons on Zoom. Not present in support. Next, Royness Dural. Welcome, sir.

Thank you. Thank you.

The podium is yours.

I just come here because I want to give some real life testimony on how it happens when someone commits a crime. They come out. They should be rehabilitated. When someone is wrongfully convicted, we come out definitely traumatized. So when we get out, our mindsets are different. We don't have the resources that they have.

We quickly go from being blessed to be home to being scared. To figure out how we're going to survive. It quickly happens like that. We become a burden to the family because we have to. They have to take care of us. We have to do certain things. Having money is essential to living.

My first job, when I got out, I was making $11.50 an hour. I had three kids. You can't take care of a kid in Hawaii with $11.50 an hour. But that's what I had to do.

And the fact that they dragged these cases and they use it as a leverage tool, like the crazy thing about 661B is it should on its face matter. It should have been enough. But they forgot one fatal flaw, that the AG is adversarial by nature. Their job is to protect the state by nature.

So they're going to come and come with that mindset instead of doing justice for us. You know, getting this money is something that's. That's. So it's going to be a handful of people. What is the AG afraid of?

If they have confidence in their legal system, they should say, hey, we're gonna get this right most of the time. And if we get it wrong, we're gonna do right, to stand up, to make it right. At no point have they came up and apologized to neither one of us. DNA doesn't matter.

In my case, the perpetrators came forward and said they committed a crime. That still doesn't matter. The AG, the prosecutor office, they want people to take accountability for what they've done, but they won't even take accountability for what they did to us. You know, you see Alvin Jardine, I knew him, I did time with him.

And for him to die like that, and then the last act was them. They robbed him out of $400,000. And they tried the same thing with me.

Because the way the bill is set up, if I would have fought them, I would have won the 500,000, but then I would have lost money in the end because by the time I pay my lawyers, I would only got 390,000. So they know that that's what they could do to us.

And we've been fighting for all these years. And we get re victimized because when we get out and think just getting it overturned is not going to happen for most people, Most people in our situation die in prison or they die being found guilty.

So for us to finally get it overturned and to think that they're going to make it right and to come back and be re victimized by them, it's unacceptable. And I just urge you guys to just think about that.

And the $5,000 a month will give us the ability to sit back and fight this thing through without worrying about, can we feed ourselves? Can we feed our family? That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Dural, just to clarify, you are testifying in support of this measure? Thank you very much, sir. Next. Gina Gormley, Welcome. Thank you for being here. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I did submit written testimony, and so I don't want to rehash all of that, but I think what's important to point out is that.

And in support or?

In support, yes.

And what I'd really like to get across is that what's important for the Committee and just the community to understand is that these are real people. Royness Dural, Gordon Cordero, the Schweitzer brothers, Alvin Jardine. These are real people. And what that means is that it can happen to anybody.

You look at August 11, 1994 Gordon Cordero was building shelves in his garage. I mean, he ordered pizza from Pizza Hut. He had friends over. I mean, he was just doing what anybody else does. He switched out his sister's car stereo on that day. And yet that's the day that he was accused of committing this crime.

And so that just goes to show you that it can happen to anybody. It can happen to our family members, our friends, anybody. And that's what the community needs to realize is that there's this grave injustice that happens to these real people.

Royness and Gordon and the Schweitzer brothers and Alvin Jardine, and then yet when they come out, they have nothing. I mean, Gordon was fortunate because his family was there, so they brought him clothes. They also helped him get an ID. He had to use MCCC's address on his ID because he couldn't show proof of residency.

So these are the different hurdles. There's no gate money. Gordon still has challenges. Ronna still has challenges. You know, Ian Schweitzer still has challenges. We had to help. Our team, had to help Ian Schweitzer get an ID so that he could travel to New York. But this is stuff that people that don't realize or think about, right?

I mean, if you think about, like, what would you do if you didn't have a license or if you didn't have money, Just go by basic needs or. Or if you were released after serving 30 years and there's nobody to greet you? I mean, you'd be walking homeless. I mean, that's what happened to Alvin Jardine.

And so that's what people need to realize. So I think it's essential that when we look at the bill, you know, the first thing that's important is replacing the actual innocence with grounds consistent with innocence. There's gate money, there's reentry services. I appreciate what TCR said, and maybe it's not doable with corrections.

Maybe it's would work better with acs, but I think it's definitely worth exploring. There are, you know, people on parole, they, they have services, they have a case manager, people work with them. The case managers work with these individuals to get IDs, jobs, GEDs, medical, you name a bus pass.

These kinds of services also need to be available for Royness Dural, Gordon Cordero, the Schweitzer brothers. The other important thing that I wanted to point out is that, you know, the shifting the burden to the state.

I also think that that's important because instead of making, you know, Royness, Gordon have to relive what they've already gone through, the burden should shift to the state to show why they should not receive the money. So again, you know, I, I am testifying in support of HB 2493. Ken talked about, Mr. Lawson talked about Texas.

I do urge the Committee Members to look at the Texas wrongful compensation laws. I think it's very telling in that state. Arizona too also has some, some ideal compensation laws. But basically, you know, we cannot have Gordon, the Schweitzer brothers runners just keep waiting and waiting and waiting.

I mean, it's already unfortunate that Alvin Jardine passed away while waiting for his money. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Gormley. Next, Gordon Cordero. Thank you for being here, sir. Thank you. Floor is yours.

I'm in support of this bill.

And when I was exonerated and released from prison, the Department of Public Safety gave me a 30 day supply of medication, walked me to the gate and left me there. No plan, no support, just a gate closed behind me and a world I expected to survive on my own. I was lucky. My family was there waiting.

But I asked myself, what if they weren't there? What would I have done in that moment, standing there with nowhere to go, nothing to eat, no phone. My sisters brought me clothes. My family gave me a cell phone. They gave me a ride. My father gave me a place to sleep.

Without them, I would have been free and completely abandoned. They helped me apply for Quest Medical and SNAP. But how would I have done that? Alone, I had no real id, no transportation, no money for a bus, no computer. No instructions. No one telling me where to start.

My sister took me to the DMV, where I was forced to put my prison address on my state ID. I used my father's car to take my driving test. Without family, how does someone even begin to rebuild their life? And this isn't hypothetical. Alvin Drardim was released after being found innocent. He didn't have support.

He didn't have money. He didn't have help. He became homeless and he died. That's what happens when innocence is met with indifference. If I hadn't had a family, that could have been me. Innocent, homeless, hungry, invisible. So I ask you, why is someone who was found innocent punished twice? Change is not optional. It's necessary.

When an innocent person is released, there must be immediate help. A case manager should be there before they walk out the gate. There must be emergency funds for food, clothing, housing, cell phones so they can call for help. Transportation so they can get to where they need to go. Freedom without support is not justice. It's neglect.

We need to acknowledge that when the system makes a mistake, we must also take responsibility for what happens next. Because innocence should never come with a death sentence. If a conviction is overturned due to actual innocence, the state must take responsibility beyond release because justice does not end at that prison gate. This is not about charity.

It's not about accountability. No innocent person should be released without the basic support needed to survive. You have the power to ensure that innocence is met with dignity, stability, and support. To make sure what happened to Alvin Jardin never happens again. I'm in support of this bill, and I urge you to pass it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Cordero, anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2493, please come on up to the podium. Introduce yourself.

The new speaker is Heather McVay, testifying in my personal capacity in support of the measure. I just want to also highlight the fact that this. This issue really affects the whole community. As Mr. Cordero pointed out, his family supported him, and a lot of individuals become estranged from their families while they are incarcerated. So.

And I've known Mr. Cordero since 2013, and he's only been free for one of those years, so just in strong. Support of the bill.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. McVay, anyone else wishing to testify on HB2493, if I may. One moment, please. On Zoom. Angela, you're next. Please provide germane testimony.

Angela Melody Young, testifying in strong support. So to address the immediate survival needs and to enable the wrongfully convicted individuals, we with financial security to get basic necessities immediately upon release to help them to get housing, food and clothing.

Perhaps the Committee could consider an amendment to let nonprofits focused on providing basic needs and mental health support and assisting those who need extra assistance with SNAP food stamps and quest integration to work with the state to effectuate the purposes and the intention of this Bill include an amendment to legislate non profits and faith based organizations to provide beyond the ability of the state.

So faith based nonprofits are frequently legislated or contracted into partnerships to assist the state in providing social services with specificity to declare the funding is not for religious worship, but it is for charitable acts of social services and by doing so it is not a conflict of interest and it does not have the appearance of the state imposing a particular worship upon the group that it wishes to ask the faith based organization to provide the services for.

So I think with careful legislation and amendments with flexibility to allow faith based organizations and ministries to provide for incarcerated individuals and those who are wrongfully incarcerated, it can help with getting funding and resources to these people groups because if the burden upon the state is too much.

So instead of going circles, get assistance from the ministries that are effective and the ministries that I've witnessed are very effective in successfully helping individuals with reintegration to navigate life after coming out of the system. The ministries do really well.

Thank you. Would you summarize please?

And the ministries support of course, the DHS process right to improve the lives and the quality of life for these individuals. So perhaps also consider an amendment to include DHS.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2493? Yes, go ahead, Austin.

Thank you. Chair Tarnas, Members of the Committee appreciate you guys today. Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii. Ellen's the Member for Region one and I'm somebody who's personally been affected by process fraud, malicious prosecutions. But I'm not going to focus on my story.

I'm going to highlight something that we heard earlier that I hope this Committee takes very seriously.

Could you just explain, are you testifying in support or opposition or what your talking about?

I am in support. My apologies for not clarifying that I'm in support of this bill. I really liked what the Department of Corrections put forward about the need to put the funding sources on there, not from the Department, but rather perhaps as our previous testifier suggested, through nonprofits in the community. That's a great suggestion.

I wanted to also thank the prosecutors for their testimony because they showed the need for this bill, even though they were opposed to it, they showed the need for this bill by lying to the Committee and misrepresenting the nature of this bill in order to try to evade responsibility for other lies which they push in court against individuals selectively.

We have a real problem with a lack.

Could you focus your comments on the Bill, please?

They are. Sir. That is completely on the Bill. Because the reason that we need this is because. Summarize, please, sir. I'm exercising my First Amendment right to testify. I would. I'm listening.

I'm listening, sir. Please go ahead.

So when the attorneys are not trustworthy and not accountable to the people and want to avoid responsibility for the damage they do to our communities, and they lie in the people's house about the nature of the Bill, it only highlights why this is so important. We absolutely need to be accountable.

Libertarian solution here is that we should not have immunity for when the state makes a mistake. We need to be accountable for that and pay restitution to victims of wrongful conviction. So the Libertarian Party stands in support of this and thanks the prosecutors for highlighting for everyone here today just how corrupt the system is. Thank you.

I would appreciate if all the testifiers please focus on the bill, the language in the bill, rather than testifying on and impugning other people's character. Thank you. Next, we have Ms. Jamie Detwiler no longer present. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2493, if not. Questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, question for AG, please. If we go by the premise based on Act 156, that compensation or taking care of wrongfully convicted people is the right thing to do based on this bill and the concerns that you expressed.

And again, the premise is based on Act 156, that we should be doing something to help these people. Would you be able to offer any amendment, language that would add to this bill and make it agreeable to Attorney General's office?

If I may, sir, you. It's not our position that compensation is not warranted for those who are in fact wrongfully convicted. Understood. It's the automated procedure that we have an issue with. There first has to be a determination of actual innocence, which is not established by a conviction being vacated by the.

Court on the appellate level in terms. Of crafting language to make this more palatable. I'm not sure how we do that necessarily. I could certainly take that back to the AG.

Our concern is that we have 661b, which is the actual procedure for this process, I do understand the issue with it taking a long time for it to happen. I don't do the civil part of this process. I am the prosecutor, so I can't. Speak to why that process takes so long.

But in terms of expediting the process, I would have to talk to the AG as well as the tort attorneys. Who would handle that process.

Okay, thank you. I would encourage you to do that. I'd like to get some constructive testimony from the attorney General about what would be acceptable to you to try to address what is clearly an unfair process. I think, and I recognize that you don't want an automated one.

But come back with some suggested language that I'd appreciate it. This still has a ways to go. It moves on. If it moves out of this Committee, it goes to Finance, and then it would have to cross to the other side to the Senate. So it's still got more time to work on it.

Exactly.

I would really appreciate if the AG would come forward with some suggested amendments that you think would work. Address the concerns that have been identified, but also try to address your concerns about not wanting it automated.

Understood, sir.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Other questions, Members? Yes, Representative Garcia.

Thank you. Chair for Mr. Lawson, please. Just curious, how prevalent are wrongful convictions here or the petition to file wrong. Wrongful convictions here in Hawaii? I know there's clear examples of that. Happening here, but how. How frequent is it happening in this state?

Not frequent enough for anybody to be concerned that somehow the process will be abused by individuals. I mean, you know, so as far as stats are concerned, I can't give you any statistics. I'm just saying, you know, we have like, maybe 10 other cases that are sitting in our office waiting to be found. So.

And on average, when a petition is filed, how long does it take for the whole process to run out till. A decision is made?

It could take violence. Took years, Ronnie says. Took 2009. All the way to going through the whole process, like the 2019, because it went all the way to the Supreme Court in court.

Well, they took my case in 2004, and I didn't get exonerated.

Do you want to repeat that so that people on TV land can hear you?

Yeah, so. So the case was. Rhino's case began in 2004. It finally got all the way, you know, through the system from our investigation. All the way through the system. 2019. Gordon's case came into the office in 2010, and he just got exonerated last year. Okay, so over 10 years. Thank you. Yeah.

And the Schweiser brothers came in in 2006, and they got exonerated in 2023.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Representative. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Okay, I think we're okay. Thank you very much for all the testifiers. And I want to especially say thank you to those with lived experience that have come in and talked to us. Mr. Durel and Mr. Cordero, you were.

You've been burdened by mistakes from the state. We need to make it right, and we need to improve the process, and you help us understand the human impact of this. And so I appreciate you taking the time to come in today. It's not easy to rehash it all over again.

And I just want to acknowledge my gratitude to you for coming and testifying today. Thank you. Okay. All right, let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1522 relating to discrimination. This measure lengthens the statute of limitations to file a complaint of discrimination with the Hawaii Civil rights commission to one year.

First up, we have Heather McVeigh, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Aloha, Kakou. My name is Heather McVay. Thank you for hearing this bill. This is our bill, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Thank you for introducing it.

I use she, her pronouns, and I'm the Deputy Executive Director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, which we call HCRC, and we enforce Hawaii's anti discrimination laws in housing, employment, public accommodations, and access to state and state funded services. For decades, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission has had partnerships where we share cases with HUD and EEOC.

However, recent federal policy changes threatened to narrow and eliminate federal enforcement on cases involving discrimination claims based on gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, limited English proficiency, source of income, and disparate impact theories of discrimination.

And the Commission wants to make it very clear here today that these protected classes and bases of discrimination remain protected by Hawaii state law. So this bill, it proposes to extend HCRC's own statute of limitations from six months to one year to address the gap that's left by these changes in federal policy and enforcement.

So it will provide people of Hawaii with more time to access justice through our administrative process, which is free and user friendly.

And if this statute is not extended, individuals who have valid cases but fail to file with HCRC within that six months will be left without an accessible recourse and in some instances would be barred from filing a case in state or federal court. So let's fix that. And thank you for introducing this bill and supporting civil rights.

And I welcome any questions you might have.

Thank you just for the audience you mentioned, two federal agencies by acronym, if you could say what they are.

HUD, HUD and EEOC. So Housing and Urban Development and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. We've received a total of six testimonies. They're all in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1522? If not, questions, Members? If not, thank you very much for the testimony. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 16. This measure, this is relating to civil identification.

This measure lowers the age to obtain a civil A state civil identification card without a signature from a parent or Guardian from 18 years old to 16 years old. First up, we have testimony from the City and County, Honolulu Department of Customer Services. Megan Johnson, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Committee Members. Megan Johnson, Deputy Director, Department of Customer Services, City and County of Honolulu. The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on HB 1667, which lowers the age to obtain a civil identification card without a signature from a parent or Guardian from 18 years old to 16 years old.

The Department of Customer Services Division of Motor Vehicles administers the state civil identification program for the island of Oahu. While the bill does not change identity verification or documentation requirements, the department does note that implementation will require updates to staff training, public information materials, application forms, and supporting information technology systems to ensure consistent statewide administration.

Accordingly, the department respectfully requests one year from the date of enactment to fully implement the operational and system changes required by this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on HB 1667.

Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson. Next, we have testimony from Judith Clark on Zoom. Not present. We received a total of four testimonies in support, one in opposition, one with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1667? No more testimony. Any questions, Members? No questions. Thank you very much. Thanks to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2448, relating to female genital mutilation. This measure establishes the offense of prohibited acts of female genital mutilation of a minor, and civil remedies for victims of that offense. First up, we have testimony from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Welcome. The floor is yours.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Yasmine Cheney, Executive Director for the Commission on the Status of Women. We stand in support on my written testimony because this measure addresses the serious and harmful practice of female genital mutilation, which constitutes a violation of human rights. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We've received a total of six testimonies, five in support, one in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2448? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1681 relating to privacy.

This measure establishes the offense of non consensual distribution of an intimate image. First up we have the Attorney General, Ms. Nakamatsu. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Trisha Nakamatsu, on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. We submitted comments and suggested amendments to help to clarify the bill, make it more effective. Certain things like terminology. The words distribution, disseminated, and disclosure are used interchangeably. We suggested that be uniform.

Certain things about the way the states of mind are written. We have suggestions to make that clear, what state of mind should apply, and also, some certain terminology such as reveals the identity, reveals the identity, identifiable individual, and intimate content creators should be revised, we just feel, for clarification as well.

It's other things to help streamline the wording. Third party liability also should be deleted, we felt, because it's unlikely that prosecutors would be able to prove that a defendant has requisite state of mind to anticipate a third party's actions in these types of circumstances, given the state of mind required. Available for questions, if any. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next testimony, we said—we were alerted—that will be given in person is the Office of the Public Defender. Ms. Chang.

Good afternoon, again. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. We are actually submitting comments only on this measure. We absolutely understand the conduct and the behavior that the measure is attempting to address.

Our comments are limited only to the section that's seeking to enhance or, excuse me, extend quite significantly the statute of limitations. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes section or Section 701108, it articulates and delineates all of the regular statute of limitations that we see for all criminal matters.

And what this measure is, I think, intending to do is go significantly beyond that. For the misdemeanor provision, it's recommending or delineating a five-year statute of limitation for the misdemeanor offense. Normally misdemeanors, there's a two-year statute of limitations. For most felonies, it's a six-year statute of limitations.

And this Bill is seeking to extend it beyond that. And there's also that victim discovery rule that would permit the statute of limitations to I think go sort of for an indeterminate amount of time. So, we just want to convey the significance of having statute of limitations and why that is built into our penal code.

Over time, witnesses become unavailable, evidence can degrade, memories fade. And especially when we're dealing here with digital data, the opportunity to alter it or it be taken out of context, etc. might become problematic.

So, we just ask the Committee to be mindful of that provision and evaluate whether there is a legitimate need at this time to extend the statute.

If there is information from other jurisdictions who have passed similar measures that are running up against some sort of issue with the statute of limitations, that might find—that might be more of a basis to do that.

But for right now, that's the only thing our comments are limited to is the extension, as proposed by this measure, of the time limitation on prosecution. Thank you and I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Chang. Next, Chris Caulfield, IMUA Alliance, in support. Not present. Next, Dennis Dunn, in support, on zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Dunn.

Good afternoon, Chair Taras, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. I'm testifying in support of this measure but asking for certain amendments.

I need not go into any great detail in describing how terrible these offenses are, although some of you may have seen an article on the CNN website today that talked about organized groups that are actually out organizing these kinds of attacks.

I've worked with many victims who have suffered through this type of offense and it lasts with them for not just years, sometimes for a lifetime. I am supporting this measure but asking for a few different changes. Some of them have already been mentioned, so I won't go into any detail. One is the state of mind issue.

I think the Committee needs to make a determination as to what state of mind seems appropriate, although it appears that there are conflicting state of mind—states of mind—in the current draft of the Bill.

Secondly, there does need to be a greater clarity in the terms that are used to describe the conduct to be consistent with other terms already used in the statutes, as well as to consider whether or not it's necessary to have additional definitions.

And then, finally, there is some concern, I think, as to whether or not the proposed statute overlaps with existing provisions in the violation of privacy offense under 7111110.9. And I think with that should be viewed and possibly addressed if it the Committee sees fit. Thank you for my—for the time.

My full support for this with the amendments suggested. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm looking for your testimony. We have Pamela Ferguson Bray's testimony, but I will have to find your testimony, because it didn't—it must have come in late. And. And so, I'll have to find it.

It was late, but it should be there.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it.

If you, if you don't have it, let me know.

Okay, I will. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Any other testimony on House Bill 1681? If not, questions, Members? Okay, well, no questions. We'll move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1682, relating to the disclosure of intimate images.

This measure enacts the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act. And first up, we have Jane Sternecky, Uniform Law Commission, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jane Sternecky, and I'm legislative counsel for the Uniform Law Commission. The Uniform Law Commission is in strong support of HB 1682 to enact the Uniform Civil Remedies for the Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act.

HB 1682 creates a civil cause of action for the unauthorized disclosure of an intimate image when the disclosure meets certain criteria. HB 1682 acts as a civil counterpart to the criminal penalties authorized by HB 1681, which the committee discussed a moment ago. While HB 1681 is not a uniform act, we support Hawaii's efforts to deter the unauthorized disclosure of intimate images through a comprehensive civil and criminal approach.

Under HB 1682, a plaintiff can bring a civil claim if they can demonstrate an intentional disclosure or threat to disclose a private intimate image of an identifiable individual without the consent of the depicted individual by a person who has the requisite awareness that the depicted individual did not consent to the disclosure, the intimate image was private, and the depicted individual was identifiable, and finally, that the disclosure harms the depicted individual.

If the victim's claim is successful, they may recover statutory damages of $10,000 at a minimum, and where appropriate, punitive damages and attorney's fees. The victim may also recover an amount equal to the gain made by the defendant from the disclosure of the intimate image, if applicable.

HB 1682 further authorizes the court to take steps to protect the plaintiff's identity. We request your support of HB 1682 to enact the Uniform Civil Remedies for the Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act. And I welcome any questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Sternecky. Next we have testimony from Elizabeth Kent on Zoom. Please proceed. Hello.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, nice to see you. And Committee Members. Jane pretty much said it all. And just to be quick, this would provide a civil remedy for the person who was depicted. It can cause serious so much harm to people. And I mean, I just can't imagine what they go through. And I urge you to vote positively on this. Thank you, and I'll be around for questions.

Thank you very much. Ms. Kent. Next Kris Coffield, Imua Alliance, in person. Not present. Next, Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Ms. Chaine, welcome. Please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. Llasmin Chaine for the Commission on the Status of Women in support of this measure. This is a serious issue that disproportionately affects women and undermines their safety, privacy, health, and economic security, and we support the opportunity for these victims to be able to have civil recourse. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Lynn Costales Matsuoka. Welcome.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and the Members of the Committee. My name is Lynn Costales Matsuoka. I'm the Executive Director of the Sex Abuse Treatment Center, and we are opposing this particular Bill. The reason for our opposition lies primarily with some of the testimony as it relates to the issue of privacy.

So if we could just real quick on that issue. I am a victim, and I share my photo. Let's say five other individuals, and four of the five agree to keep it private, and one says no. So under this particular Bill, I would have a cause of action against that one individual.

But what would happen is that during this civil litigation, all the four individuals that I might have shared it with over the course of time will become the focus of the litigation. Who did you share it with? What did you share? What was the circumstances behind that sharing? And it opens the door to victim blame.

And that is where the Sex Abuse Treatment Center has a serious issue with when it comes to legislation that would open the door to victim blaming. The litigation will focus on the plaintiffs conduct, their choices, the decisions they made, and the defendant's conduct will fade into the back of the room as if it never happened.

Because now the focus becomes on the victim's conduct. And that's what we want to avoid. We definitely are supportive of civil remedies. This is a remedy that is not afforded to a plaintiff currently.

But we want to assure, you know, safe, safe legislation so that victims can come forward so that they're not always having to defend their conduct. Let's focus on the defendant, what they did and their conduct in not having permission to disclose it, and the circumstances surrounding that versus what the plaintiff did.

And so for that reason, we do oppose this legislation as it is currently written. So thank you for the time.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1682? No more testimony. Any questions? Members? I have a question. Let's maybe start with Elizabeth Kent. You, Ms. Kent, if you're there. Yeah, yeah. There you are. Thank you.

You heard the testimony from Ms. Lynn Costales Matsuoka with the Sex Abuse Treatment center with some very real concerns about victim blaming that might come out of this process. Do you have comments on that? Because this is really, you know, it's a Uniform Law Commission-recommended Bill.

Clearly, this is not unique to this state, but it's really a process question. Could you help us understand how. How we might be able to address the concern from this Matsuoka or whether this Bill does, you know, would this Bill Create the problem that she suggests. Go ahead.

Sure. Chair, would it be okay if I asked Jane to also come online? She has experience with the 10 states that have enacted it and a very wide background. And then if I can follow up. Sure. Thank you. Thank you.

So let me turn over to Jane Sternecky. See if you can comment on this, because I want to honor and acknowledge the concern that Ms. Costales Matsuoka brought up. And is this Bill, the way it's crafted, Is that concern a valid one, or what is your opinion?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we are, of course, sensitive to those concerns. And the intent of this Bill is not to engage in some sort of victim blaming exercise, because it's a uniform product. It was drafted very carefully over the course of three years.

And we did factor in input from across the community of folks who are affected by this. In the 10 states that have enacted this already, we have not seen any incidents of high profile cases where this has been, you know, going through someone's dirty laundry and putting the victim in an uncomfortable position.

From a civil procedure standpoint, the victim would, of course, have to prove those criteria that I walked through. And that would include that the image was private, that it was taken without their consent, that they were identifiable, and that the defendant met those requisite awareness requirements. But that would be a relatively minimal standard.

And in order for the defendant to demonstrate that they really had not met those criteria at all, either at the summary judgment or request to dismiss stage, they would have to show that there was absolutely no expectation of privacy or that the individual was absolutely not identifiable.

We do have to put some faith in Hawaii's courts here that they are being sensitive towards victims in these circumstances. But we do feel confident that the act provides adequate guidance that victims would be protected.

Okay, thank you. Ms. Kent, did you have anything to add to that?

No. Again, she said it all.

Okay, all right. Okay. Thank you. The concern of Ms. Matsuoka is something that I really would like to have someone talk with Ms. Matsuoka and have a conversation there so that we can see if her issues can be addressed. Maybe if that's something you could do, Ms. Kent, is reach out.

Oh, I have. I will continue to try to reach out and hope that we can have that conversation. It would be great to have it.

Okay. All right, thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, Mr. Chair, you have one? Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Shimizu, you have to speak up.

Question is, does this Bill capture Digital scope also as HB 1681 does?

So you mean specifically like the dissemination of digital images?

Correct.

Yes, it does.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1736 relating to animal control. This measure establishes the Spay and Neuter Special Fund to reduce pet overpopulation, including the free roaming cat population, and authorizes an income tax designation to provide revenues into the special fund.

It requires cats over the age of 5 months to be surgically sterilized and prohibits cats that are not surgically sterilized from being brought into the state with certain exceptions, and the measure appropriates funds. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Taxation. Welcome. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon. Kristen Sakamoto, Deputy Director of Taxation. We submitted comments on this measure. Just noting that we are able to add the check off option for this fund for tax year 2027, as currently stated in the rule. I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. My name is Patrick Chee. I'm from the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Hawai'i Invasive Species Council. We are in strong support of this Bill. We worked with the Members of the animal welfare community to also help craft this Bill in order to make sure that it balances the various interests in trying to reduce the numbers of animals that are out on the landscape by increasing the ability and funding for spay and neuter of cats.

So we believe that this is a good measure and takes into account a number of concerns that previous versions of this Bill may have had. So we are in strong support of this and if you have any questions, we are available.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chee. Next we have Cathy Goeggel, Animal Rights Hawaii, in support on zoom. Not present. Next we have Hob Osterlund, Kauai Albatross Network, in support on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Mai Kakou. Thank you so much for your time today. We at Kauai Albatross Network and many other organizations here on the island of Kauai strongly support this Bill. We are seeing so many more cats on the landscape and so much more predation on our native birds.

Our Koloa Maoli and our Alae Ula, down to 700 individuals each now in the latest count. Very, very endangered. We can't let them to feral cats. These free roaming animals are killing the birds no matter whether they're well fed or not. And whether they're spayed or not.

Which is also why we don't support trap neuter release, because once they're released, they are hunters still yet, they still have to eat. So we stand in strong support. I totally agree with DLNR's perspective and hopefully you folks can move this Bill along. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much. Next. Stephanie Kendrick, Hawaiian Humane Society. Welcome. Please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. We are opposing this Bill, which is not a decision we made lightly. We've been campaigning for several years now to try and get state support for spay neuter of both dogs and cats, which is something right now that is primarily supported by private nonprofits. On Oahu

We're fortunate that we have some county funding, but we do think it's incredibly important that the state step forward and help support this issue to reduce both pet overpopulation and the free roaming cat population. Unfortunately, we are also animal law enforcement here on Oahu.

And this Bill as written is unenforceable and I don't believe would be capable of accomplishing its stated goals. And so we are in opposition to this measure as written and committed to continuing to work on building state support for spay and neuter. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Grant Sizemore, American Bird Conservancy on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Grant Sizemore, Director of Invasive Species Programs at American Bird Conservancy. We strongly Support House Bill 1736. The spaying or neutering of pet cats is widely supported by residents, including cat owners, and is recognized as a best practice by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

In a recent survey that was conducted by a university of nearly a thousand Hawaii residents, the average response to the concept of mandatory pet cat sterilization on a 5.0 scale from strongly opposed to strongly support, was strongly support, 4.7 out of 5. We believe this Bill will not only benefit cats and their owners, will also help protect Hawaii's communities and native wildlife. Some of those that have already been mentioned, Alae Ula, Nene, Uaʻu, many others that are threatened by cats.

The requirement will prevent unintended cat reproduction before it has the chance to occur, before a cat gets loose or is lost, and it provides some necessary funds to help facilitate compliance with that new standard. I'll also add that, you know, some of the written testimony, it seems, thinks that the Bill might be too restrictive on cat breeding, while others seem to think that it's too lenient for cat breeders. I can't help but wonder if maybe this is than a decent middle road and while not perfect, certainly it would be a very positive first step. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next Renee Rabb, in person. Welcome.

Good afternoon. I'm Renee Rabb and I'm testifying in opposition to House Bill 1736 on behalf of of Action for Animals Hawaii. That's A4A. A4A is an all volunteer organization on the east side of Big Island that receives no funds from the State of Hawaii. We fundraise and we contribute our own money to cat and dog rescue.

We work with the Hawaii County Animal Control to place adoptable cats and dogs with loving homes and we maintain the kittens and cats and the cubbies at Petco in Hilo. In 2025 we placed 613 cats with stable and secure families. A4A Hawaii has as part of its mission to trap, spay, neuter, foster and adopt. While we have a vibrant dog adoption program, I'm here today to talk about cats. Session after session

We have supported a Spay and Neuter Fund through Income Tax checkoff to reduce the overpopulation of unwanted cats and dogs on the islands. Animal abandonment is a prime contributor to the problem. Lack of low cost or free spay or neuter programs is a huge cause of the out of control companion animal population.

This Bill, however, has several flaws that will not make this problem any better. One of the most egregious faults of the Bill is the language that says 'the Spay and Neuter Fund cannot be used to spay and neuter animals that are re released into the environment.' We have a working cats program.

We rescue and remove less social cats from outdoor environments, particularly cat colonies. We work to get them more socialized and healthy and we then place them in pairs on rural farms as barn cats. These cats have a job. They protect the farmer's grain and feed and provide rodent control. Obviously these cats are re released into the environment.

They must be outside in order to provide pest control. The language in this Bill does not exempt farm cats and does not clarify environment. This prohibition will make it impossible for us to do exactly what we do now to reduce the number of cats in cat Colonies.

There is a provision in the Bill which prohibits importation of unsterilized cats. This provision should also apply to dogs and it does not. There should be reasonable exceptions provided for legitimate animal breeders and they should apply to all companion animals, not just to cats. We wanted to be able to support a Spay and Neuter Fund as we've done in the past. Boy did we want to.

Unfortunately, this Bill has so many problems that we cannot in good conscience see this as anything other than mechanism to criminalize someone who has an unaltered cat and to make things much more difficult for those of us who engage in rescue work. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Ms. Rabb. Next, Lynn Muramaru on zoom. Not present, in opposition. Next. Aisha Aoki on zoom. In opposition. Please proceed, Ms. Aoki.

Ms. Aloha, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman and Board. I apologize. I'm going to be reading off my phone so my video will not be on.

That's fine.

We as breeders, pet owners of the Cat Fanciers of Hawaii Cat Club further on, known as CFH, we strongly oppose this Bill as it is written. The CFH is a local cat club that is a very small local cat club that is the part of a larger international Cat Fanciers Association.

We are breed preservationists passionate about preserving the healthy lines of breed specific cats and many of these cats are quote unquote rare with very few breeders available and take the commitment of special people to carry on healthy lines and genetics.

These responsible breeders are not in it for the money as many of us do not make from this hobby. What we care about most is carrying on healthy cat breeds and lines no matter what it costs. With this we expend costs for genetic and health testing.

We expend large veterinary costs for health maintenance, top tier food brands and supplements as well as the importation of new breeding stock to ensure genetic diversity among other things. As a purebred breeder and cat owner, no cats of ours are allowed to free roam per breeder contract.

A purebred cat is not a cheap quote unquote investment and it would not be wise to allow it to free roam where it could potentially get hurt, killed or pick up various diseases. This requirement is stated multiple times throughout the adoption process and is a clear stipulation in contracts that kittens or cats are to be indoors only and absolutely not free roaming.

Per one breeder, any potential owner stating that they want an indoor cat or may hint that a cat has access to outdoors to be free roaming will be turned down. Many of the breeders that we work with within the CFH already send their kittens home fixed or have contract stipulations requiring that owners fix their kittens by 6 months old if they are not able to go home fixed because they are physically too small to be done before being sent home.

We breeders and pet owners within the CFH are already registered with our overall national registration in which we follow strict standards, bylaws. We pay our dues for our small club here in Hawaii. We hold at least quarterly local club meetings as well as for our Executive club members, we attend an annual international association meeting.

Realistically, responsible breeders of our purebred cats are not contributors to the state's feral overpopulation. And we do support a Spay and Neuter Fund and assistance to the public to be able to to fix their pets. However, we as responsible breeders should not be penalized for problems that we haven't contributed to.

Our concern is that these statutes are created and only a handful of responsible breeders or pet owners will follow it. And however irresponsible breeders and people will continue to do as they do. In turn, there will be no change to the actual target issue of the feral cat population.

And we believe that the wrong groups are being targeted and blamed for these overpopulation issues. You know, if there is a Committee or amendments that need to be made, we are happy to sit down with the group and talk about it to help develop something further. However, at this time, we cannot support this Bill. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to give testimony.

Thank you very much, Ms. Aoki. Next, Dwayne Inouye.

Welcome, sir. Floor is yours.

Thank you, sir. I oppose this bill strongly like I did last year. I remember talking to you. This one is worse than last year's because it doesn't talk about free roaming cats. Basically, if you own a cat over five months, it's indoors. You've broken a law.

And as Ms. Rabb noted, is Hawaiian Humane Society going to hire kitty ICE agents to go to each house to see if there's unsterilized cats? I mean, it does not make sense. And as Humane Society stated, it's not enforceable. Now, if the bill was changed to identify at large only, then it makes sense.

If a cat is caught outdoors at large and they don't have health or age exemptions or cat registry, then they should be fined. The other thing I have concerns about is the fine amounts. $500 for the first offense, $1,000. That's equivalent to the first offense DUI or misdemeanor larceny. Usually courts will allow 500.

Not for the first offense, but later offenses. It should be graduated if you're going to have a fine. And as noted, cats cannot be released into cat spayed or neuter cannot be released in the environment. So that basically means that the TNR and TNRM programs will not be supported.

That's what we need. We need feral cats to be spayed and neutered. If they can't go back to the environment, they're going to either have to be adopted out or euthanized. Those are the only two choices. So I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you very much. Next, Helen Raine on Zoom. Please proceed.

And thank you for the time. I'm an avian conservationist on Kauai, and I work mainly on endangered water birds and endangered seabirds. I do see the damage the outdoor feral cats do to these endangered birds. And this bill goes a very long way to reducing that feral cat population on the landscape. With numbers like 700 ʻAlae ʻula left in the world and them only found in Hawaii, we do need to take action. There isn't more time left. The birds are basically declining before our eyes.

And having a big and growing population of feral cats on the landscape in Hawaii is undermining millions of dollars of conservation investment by the state and federal governments and multiple nonprofits in the conservation work that they do. It is also a health issue. Cats spread toxoplasmosis that mammals, so that's humans, monk seals, dolphins.

And we do know that wild trap and neuter works, if you catch the cat and sterilize it, it's not going to breed anymore. We can't have those cats released onto the landscape. So that is the reason why we can't see TNR, trap, neuter, release, in bills like this, because it just doesn't work. Those cats continue to remain on the landscape killing birds.

The bill does have an exemption for cat breeders in it, so I feel like that is well covered. And the bill is very definitely targeting feral cats. We completely agree that the breeders are not part of that issue and that this is a question of feral cats. But we take action now. So we do need to see the bill move forward if we don't want to lose our Native Hawaiian wildlife. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next. Anela Joseph in person. Not present. Next, Rebecca Holmes on Zoom. Not present. Okay, so there was a total of 45 testimonies in support, 38 testimony in opposition, and two testimonies with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1736? Ms. Young, please proceed.

Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES. Funding is a crucial catalyst in helping the animal industry and providing necessary resources to build infrastructure, implement sterilization programs, and to establish biosecurity protocols to prevent disease. Assists with helping the kitties. So this legislation specifically focuses on funding for a spay and neuter fund.

And so if the groups working together are not agreeable, then perhaps there can be funding considered for veterinary facilities instead. And so this bill was introduced to address the impact of a severe cat overpopulation crisis in Hawaii, our island state. And so because we have an island state, it is a very rare and unique concern.

So the provision of funding from the state to match the county's funding mechanism can really help with this. And to consider mitigating the impact of cats and the effects upon Native Hawaiian species such as birds, because they're endangered species, the mitigation efforts can help with managing these species.

Legislating funding from a state department to mitigate these animals and endangered species as pursuant to the Endangered Species Act from the federal level helps as a complementary mechanism to federal authority.

So it is a wise use of state resources to implement a state level law to be legislated to help with funding to fulfill and effectuate the purposes of a federal act. And so to effectuate the purposes of the Endangered Species Act, where we have so many Hawaiian species...

Could you summarize, please?

And the Hawaiian species need to be mitigated. I think this bill is going to be really helpful and... Yeah, thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1736? No more testimony. Questions, Members? Any questions? Seeing no questions. Thank you very much to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the last measure on our agenda. House Bill 1590, relating to vacation rentals.

This measure requires banks and lenders with a Lien upon an illegal short term rental to foreclose if the Lien is not settled within five years. It allows counties to use timestamps screenshots as evidence for the enforcement of short term vacation rentals.

It requires short term vacation rental brokers to provide certain data to the Department of Taxation by a certain date, authorizes the Department Taxation to issue fines and include short term vacation rental enforcement in the Hawaii tourism authorities plans, practices and efforts involving destination management.

Finally, it clarifies that the counties may use revenue from the county transient accommodations tax for the enforcement of short term vacation rentals and the measure appropriates funds. First up, we have testimony from the Hawaii Tourism Authority. Thanks for your patience. Pleasure to see you again. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Caroline Anderson and we stand in our written testimony supporting the intent. We agree with the language that's added to the definition of destination management. It's in alignment with our strategy of responsible tourism which is to encourage stays in legal legal transient accommodations and short term rentals.

We defer to the Department of Taxation on the subjective provisions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs on zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. My name is Kamaile Puluole Mitchell. I'm the Public Policy Advocate with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and we stand in support of HB 1590 as amended.

The Bill strengthens enforcement against illegal short term vacation rentals while protecting the long term housing supply and respecting county zoning and authority and provides due process. Illegal short term vacation rentals remove housing from the market and disproportionately impact Native Hawaiian families and communities. For these reasons, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs supports HB 1590. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next we have the Department of Taxation. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Kristen Sakamoto, Deputy Director of Taxation, DoTax supports Part 2 of the HD1 of this Bill which requires short term rental platforms to register with DoTax as collection agents. So under current law, operators currently are responsible for reporting and remitting their own taxes. But not all operators are compliant.

So what happens is we need to pursue the ones that we know about or that we discovered through investigation and investigate them, audit them, assess them. It is a lengthy process and we try to get to as many as possible. But this would change the onus and put the tax liability on the platform.

So we would have one taxpayer to audit instead of all of the operators that they service. So this will increase efficiency and assist us with collecting revenue. I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Aloha. Colleen Teramae with Tax Foundation of Hawaii on behalf of our President Thomas Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii stands on its written testimony. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next. Caitlin Miller, Hawaii Mid and Short Term Rental Alliance not present. Next. Lindsey Garcia. Welcome Ms. Garcia, floor is yours, Please proceed.

Hello Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Lindsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors. I just wanted to briefly discuss the comments that we've suggested in the amendments. We understand that the Bill is wanting to and agree with what DoTax is trying to do with trying to ensure that they are able to collect taxes.

However, we believe the broad definitions of the Bill could accidentally include real estate licensees who are managing properties including short term rentals, but as well as midterm rentals month to month, anything that could be under 180 days which could be construed as being a transient accommodation.

And so we've actually included recommended amendments to carve out real estate licensees from this requirement.

As it stands right now, property managers are required to fill out a form RCA1 which if they if the owner is not paying property taxes or the, the recommended taxes or the required taxes, sorry, and has designated the property manager to pay that on that behalf then you know that's indicated as such on the form RCA1. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Garcia. Finally, Mackenzie Chase with Expedia Group on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon Chair and vice chair Members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mackenzie Chase and I'm here on behalf of Expedia Group, a family of brands that includes Expedia.com, hotels.com and short term rental leader Vrbo.

I'm here to share comments on HB 1590 HD1 as amended which would newly allow and make platforms responsible for collecting and remitting taxes on behalf of short term rental owners and operators. We submitted written comments but they missed the cut off for the packet. Happy to send those around via email as well.

Expedia Group supports becoming tax responsible for short term rentals and we believe allowing Platforms to remit will both promote tax collections and reduce tax leakage. However, we are respectfully requesting a few changes for clarity. Specifically, as currently drafted, the legislation could be interpreted to apply to conventional lodging, including hotels and motels.

We don't believe that is the intent. So we recommended a few clarifying amendments for for short term rental as well as two other definitions in the text of the Bill.

We also very kindly request that you amend the Reporting in section 6D to include address of the transient accommodation gross receipts, General excise tax number and transient accommodation tax number.

Providing gross receipts will still allow the Department of Taxation to compute the General excise tax and transient accommodation tax remitted for short term rentals and providing those get and tat numbers with will help dotax to see whether each rental is properly registered as it should be. However, that would exclude names of short term rentals.

Short term rentals don't typically have names the way a hotel does. And more importantly, it would include Social Security numbers. Asking us to include thousands of Social Security numbers on our tax return will make the reporting significantly more complex to ensure that we are keeping inherently sensitive personal identifiable data protected as it should be.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today and I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony that we were told to expect today. Total of four testimonies in support, four in opposition, six with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1590? Seeing none, questions? Members, any questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much to all the testifiers.

We're going to move right into decision making and Members, we have decision making on the bills on today's agenda and right after that we'll have decision making on a Bill that we had deferred from a previous hearing on last. So let's go ahead and start from the very top. Thank you.

What you're getting now is actually the Bill that we'll be hearing—we'll be deciding—after we get through all the ones on today's agenda. Okay, first up, House Bill 1552.

This measure—you know, I just want to make sure that we've got coverage if there is an unlikely situation where there's a vacancy in the Chief Elections Officer position and it's an election and it needs to be certified. I don't have a clear answer as to what this should be. We've asked the Attorney General for suggestions.

I would recommend we defer action on this measure. It's a single referral. I could bring it back later, but I'm going to be watching for Senate Bill 2143 and see what happens with that measure to see if that can inform what we do on this side. In the meantime, I recommend we defer this measure.

Any questions or concerns, Members? If not, let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2125, relating to elections as well. On this measure, it's a novel approach. I'm interested to see how this would proceed. It is a single referral, so we have some time.

I would like to defer on this and see what happens with Senate Bill 2825. That measure is one that the Committee, the first Committee that could hear that, would deal with the corporate law issues that are at question here. And I'd like to see what they say about it.

And so, I recommend we defer HB 2125 and see what happens with Senate Bill 2825 and if need be, we can bring it back and put it on the agenda at a future hearing of this Committee. Questions or concerns, Members? Yes, Representative Belatti.

I really appreciate you hearing this, Chair. I'm looking at Senate Bill 2025, and if, if we don't get a hearing on that side, could we revisit maybe moving this one forward?

Yeah, we'll talk about it. I just would like to give the Senate an opportunity to actually do something on this.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

I think we've provided, through this hearing, useful input that the Senate could use and I'm hopeful they will do that. Other questions or concerns, Members? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2493.

On this measure, I would like to move this forward with a House draft one, defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000, make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I would want—throughout the bill, I think there's eight times where the word is chargers, not supposed to be chargers, supposed to be charges.

So, it was a mistake, a typo. So, 8 times chargers will be chart made—will be modified and replaced with the word charges. I would like to include the Judiciary's recommended amendment in their testimony.

I would like to include the recommended amendment from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation so that we identify the Adult Client Services Division as the group that would provide the services to the individual rather than DCR. And then, I would like to amend the preamble to make some corrections that need to be made.

Also, I want to make it clear that if the court is going to order a full award under paragraph five that they would not award advance compensation under paragraph two. So, we'll clarify that under Section 661B-BA.

On page 12, line four, we need to change the reference to 661B-B. On page 16, lines three to four, the phrase "petitioner was actually innocent" should be amended for consistency with the other amendments in the Bill which replace that language with "on grounds consistent with innocence."

So, I want to make those changes. That's it. Those are my recommended changes. Move it out with a House draft one, it moves from us to Public Safety and then onto Finance. So, there's ample opportunity for continued improvement of this Bill. But it's a much needed bill. I think we need to, to move it forward.

Those are my recommendations. Questions or concerns, Members?

Chair.

Yes. Representative Cochran.

I support. So, in your amendments, you listed, did—is the Deputy Attorney General's points addressed?

I did not say that they—I would adopt them.

No. So, no. Okay. And so, I'm just trying—I mean, I'm not a legal person. The grounds consistent with innocence is the definition. It has like a lower standard. So, it's not truly an actual innocence. Like if the person is deep term this or in their whatever, just description, that does it, it's a lesser standard, I guess, of being innocent. Is that true? Is that how that works? Because that's what it's kind of.

The Attorney General has made it clear that they do not like that language. I'm not adopting the Attorney General's recommended amendment. I'm not recommending we adopt that. So, I, I recommend moving forward with the language which is in there now. See if we can make it work.

All right. Yeah. Okay. I just have reservations then. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Understood. Absolutely. This is not—this is a complex matter.

Sure.

Other questions or concerns, Members? Thank you, Chair. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair, for your amendments and your thoughtful...I agree this is important to move it forward. I still have some reservations, but I, I would like to vote yes with reservations and take it up in the next Committee.

Great. Thank you. Other comments, questions, concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 1522. I recommend we defect the effective date to 7-1-3000 and move it out as a House Draft 1. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 1667. I recommend we move this out as a House draft one, defect the effective date, July 1, 3000.

On page one, lines eight to ten, we want to—the proviso is unnecessary there, and so, I want to remove that because I don't want to get some confusion between identification card and driver's licenses because they're, they're distinctly different. So, I just want to remove that proviso and then, I want to adopt the City and County of Honolulu's recommendation to request a year from the enactment, so they have time to actually get the administrative process organized. And we're going to be defecting the effective date.

So, I will put into the Standing Committee Report the request from the City and County of Honolulu that their implementation is going to be one year from the enactment date. Okay. Those are my recommendations. Questions or concerns, Members? Seeing no questions. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. House Bill 2448, relating to female genital mutilation. On this measure, I recommend we move this out with a House draft one, defect the effective date to 7-1-3000. I want to codify these provisions under Chapter 663, which is the chapter for tort actions.

On page two, line 13 to 15, I want to delete this language because that would only be relevant if the civil actions were allowed. On, we want to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I want to change the felony B on page four, line 19 to 20, to a felony C. So, a class B felony is a 10-year sentence.

A class C felony is five years. So, I'm just changing that so it's not quite so punitive, but still very serious. So, those are my recommendations for House Bill 2448. Questions or concerns, Members? Yes, Representative Garcia.

Thank you, Chair. I think this is a great bill. It addresses something very important, but I do have problems with the language that tries to clarify that gender-affirming care is not female genital mutilation. So, for those reasons, I will be casting a no vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Other questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 1681, relating to privacy. On this measure, it needs a lot of work. This is an important issue, but we don't have a clear consensus on it. I would like to move. I would like to recommend that we defer this measure. I want to see what happens with Senate Bill 2135.

This Bill is a single, so I could bring it back if we want to take action on it. But I want to see what happens with the Senate Bill 2135 and, and we also have another bill coming our way, House Bill 1963, which also deals with this issue.

So, at this time, I recommend that we defer 16, House Bill 1681, for the time being and see if some of these other measures might be more effective to deal with this issue. Questions or concerns, Members? This is a complicated subject matter.

If any of you have suggestions, I'm open to them, but at this time, that's what I recommend. Thank you for your indulgence. Next measure, House Bill 1682, relating to the disclosure of intimate images. This is the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act. I recognize that there is concern for this Bill.

Also, Sex Abuse Treatment Center did send in their opposition. I want to make sure that those issues are addressed. I think we can do this by moving forward this measure and continuing the conversation. My recommendation is to move this forward with the House draft one. I want to defect the effective date to July 1, 3000.

I want to suggest that the term sexual conduct be defined separately under Section 2 since it's used under section 3C so that that is better construction of the language in the Bill itself. With that, I recommend we move it out with the House draft 1. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 1736. This measure, we, we need to keep trying. I don't want to give up yet. It's a difficult measure to find consensus on. I think the introducer thought he had consensus, then it fell apart. The AG Chair moved out a Bill that he felt was comfortable, but still work in progress.

I would like to continue moving this forward because I really want to force the issue here and try to figure out an answer and a path forward. We need to protect our birds. We need to protect our marine mammals. Feral cats are a menace to both of those populations. And no offense against cats.

I mean, I've owned cats. And we've been, you know, they've been part of my family, too. But the feral cat population is a serious problem for our birds and for our marine mammals. And we need to figure out an answer. So, I don't have an answer.

I want to honor what the Agriculture Committee has done, and I do not have prior concurrence to change some of the things that were asked of me in the—or asked of this Committee in the testimony. I recognize the concern about the fine amounts, so I will take that in consideration.

But my recommendation is I keep working on this with the Ag Chair, Ag Committee Chair, and with the introducer and anybody else who's interested in working with them. I would urge you to contact the introducer and the Agriculture Committee Chair, give them suggestions on what you think is good for us to move this forward.

My intention is to move this forward with another House draft and I propose that we defer this for decision making until Friday. So, I'd like to put it on the agenda for Friday. And that reminds me that we need to let—that we are having a hearing on Friday because we missed a hearing yesterday.

So, I need to have your, I beg your indulgence for us to have a hearing on Friday. And if you can't make it, you can't make it. But we just lost a day and so I need to make it up somehow.

So, this measure I would like to defer and put it on the, the agenda for decision making on Friday. And I welcome people's input. But again, I'm going to be looking to the Agriculture Committee Chair and the introducer for guidance on this. So, I would urge you to talk to them. Okay?

Comments or concerns, Members, other than being grumpy about Friday? Okay.

No, we're not voting on this. Okay, last Bill, House Bill 1590—and not the last Bill, we have to two more bills. This second to last Bill, House Bill 1590, relating to vacation rentals.

This measure I want to move forward as a House draft one, make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, defect the effective date, July 1, 3000. I want to recommend that on page one, lines two to page two, line seven, these provisions should be codified as a new section under Chapter 46.

And I would like to adopt the recommended amendments from the Hawaii Realtors and from Expedia and note that in the Standing Committee Report that the measure would take effect on July 1st, 2026, with part two being effective January 1st, 2027. That's it. Those are my recommendations to pass this out as a, as a HD—HD 1.

HD—to move this out as a HD 2. Is that right?

Yeah.

Okay. No, that was, no, there was no changes coming into us. So, this will be—just move it out as a pass with amendments, with the amendments I just suggested. Questions or concerns, Members? Yes, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you for your always good incorporation of.

Oh, you're so kind.

Yes. And significant—for some reason, I might be on the wrong side of justice, but I'm gonna vote no on this.

Follow your conscience, man. Follow your conscience. Okay. Other questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. I'm going to adjourn this hearing and then I'm going to gavel into our 3:30 agenda for that one vote, that one Bill. Okay? So, with this, our hearing on these measures is now adjourned. And now, I'd like to call to order our 3:30 agenda.

This is the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee decision making on one measure, House Bill 1520. It is now 4:17 in Conference Room 325. House Bill 1520.

Members, I would like to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000 and adopt the Campaign Spending Commission suggested amendments, which you have in front of you, which were handed out to you, just now. Any, any questions or concerns? Seeing no questions or concerns. Vice Chair for the vote on House Bill 1520 with amendments.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. There being no further business before this Committee, we are adjourned.