Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Welcome, everyone, to the Judiciary Committee hearing this Friday morning, Friday the 13th. Hopefully, it's not unlucky for your bill. We have two agendas today. This is the 09:00 agenda.

There'll be another one joint with energy and intergovernmental intergovernmental affairs at 10:30, but we'll work on this one for for an hour and a half before that gets going. This this is being streamed live on YouTube. You can find links to viewing options for the Senate hearings and meetings on live and on demand video page at the legislature's website, capitol.hawaii.gov. If we have a big technical crash, we'll try again on Tuesday, the seventeenth, at 9am in this room, 016.

For all the people testifying remotely, all testify, our audio will be muted and video disabled until it's your turn.

We do have a two minute time limit on testimony both on Zoom and in person. If there's any temporary technical glitches during your turn to testify, we may have to move on to the next person, but we'll try to get back to you if we can work out the the kinks. And oftentimes, members have questions. So if you can hang around after your two minutes are up, that would be great. Okay.

First up on today's agenda is Senate bill 2246. This expands the scope of persons who are subject to public financial disclosure requirements. First up on this is, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, Robert Harris. Good morning. Good morning.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and, members of the committee who are listening. My name is Robert Harris, and on behalf of the YSA Ethics Commission, we are in strong support of this measure. I did want to just make a couple quick comments. I know you have our written testimony.

As we look at some of the corruption cases going on right now, including on the island of Hawaii, we note that had these types of measures been in place, that they could have potentially prevented, those case that case in particular, as well as the federal jurisdiction over the cases that have happened three or four years ago were directly related to public disclosure and then fact that the financial information was made available.

And so we see the importance of this as a building block to restoring public trust in government. And I will even note on a personal level, this would include my position and one that would have to publicly, share some financial disclosure information, albeit still be protected from a privacy perspective. I did have the opportunity to see the testimony it was submitted. Thank you for having that posted. And we do have a proposed amendment to address the concern that was raised.

And if it's okay if I may pass that over Sure. As a written copy. Just briefly, the intent is to indicate that the boards and commission members of the entities listed are the ones that would be subject to public disclosure, not actual employees of it. So I think it is a just a clarification of what is existing law already. So I don't think it would be a actual substantive change.

Okay. Thank you. Very much.

Next up is Susan Roberts Emery from the Green Party of Hawaii in support. Next is Judith Mills Wong, League of Women Voters in support. Ben Kreps for Public First Law Center with comments. Tanya Inesasian in support. William Curran in support.

Noel Lindeman in support. Jessica Kuzmere in support, Marsha Kimble in support, Kim Dong Hyang in support, Robert Petrici in support, Roberta Hickey Gomez in support, David Ball in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB2246. Would anyone else like to testify on s b on SB 2246? Okay.

Seeing none, vice chair questions? I do have a question for mister Harris. I'm sorry. So what what what was the concern that your amendment is trying to address?

So I'm Mr. Kreps, had raised comments, specifically addressing, on page eight, again, line one through three, that it potentially could be read. We've never read it this way. Again, it's existing language that the financial disclosure requirement applied to everybody within these various agencies. The intent's always been to apply to the board or commission members.

That's the way it's always been applied. So the proposed revision is really just intended to make sure that that is clarified.

Okay. So But

currently, it says members of the following state boards, commissions, and agencies.

And

so members has never been interpreted to mean everyone within the agency, but I think the intent here is just to try to make sure that that's crystal clear.

Oh, okay. So the only change is commission?

So it would read, executive directors or executive officers, if applicable, and board and commission members of the following, and then it just lists the different entities.

Okay. Alright. Alright. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Let's see. Let's go ahead and move on to the next bill, which is SB 2250, relating to the promotion of controlled substances. Amends the offense of promoting a controlled substance on or near schools, school vehicles, public parks, or public housing projects or complexes to include homeless facilities. First up on 225 is Haley Chang from the public defender. Good morning.

And good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard. Again, my name is Haley Chang. I'm the First Deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted testimony in opposition to this measure and just wanna highlight a couple of things. I think we might have a policy difference between the other agencies who are supporting this measure as to whether or not it is good policy to discourage people who utilize homeless facilities, and I think we've outlined that in our testimony.

But the bigger issue is we are concerned about having notice of what buildings or properties are actually homeless facilities. Most of these or a lot of these facilities are often unmarked, and I think we understand why. Commercial locations, even residential locations, do not wanna advertise that they are housing houseless individuals. So, a lot of times, these properties are not easily identifiable. And we do not believe that criminal liability should turn on invisible boundaries surrounding locations that are not clearly identifiable to the public.

We believe this creates a lack of notice, and raises fundamental fairness and possibly due process concerns, increasing the risk of arbitrary enforcement and/or uneven enforcement. So, that's the gist of our testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I will remain available for any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Christine Denton for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County—or Mr. Hugo instead. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard. I'm Daniel Hugo, testifying on behalf of the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office in support of this bill. And the first thing that I just wanna note is that this is not aimed at the addicts; it's aimed at distributors. It specifically talks about distributing or possession with intent to distribute.

So, we're talking about people who are preying on homeless people or preying on people trying to get clean. Now, notice it's a fact that's usually proven by facts and evidence; it's not dictated by statute. And a working prosecutor is familiar with the different ways that this can be shown because ignorance is a general defense to most crimes. So, the types of evidence would typically be things like signs.

It would be past contacts with the facility. It might be admissions on body worn camera. You know, in the future, we might have AI chat transcripts where people are planning these crimes. So, there's a wide variety of evidence that would be shown to demonstrate notice, and that would always be something that the prosecutor would have to prove. What too precise an enumeration creates is the opposite danger, which is creating loopholes.

And when we're talking about dealers who are already reaying on vulnerable populations, they won't hesitate to exploit any loopholes. And, of course, the public defenders will have a legal duty to advise them of any loopholes that are created by the statute. So, I'm not gonna—far be it for me to say that it's the fox advising on how to fence the chicken coop, but maybe it's the fox's favorite cousin, some of these notice issues that are being raised by the PD.

We think that the statute is defensible, and it's aimed at a particularly predatory and vicious class of drug dealers. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next is Jerome Picarro for the Narcotics Division of Honolulu Police Department on Zoom, maybe. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Clinton Corpuz. I'm the Acting Captain for the Narcotics/Vice Division. Sorry.

Major Pecar was unable to make it today, so I'm just filling in for him. I'm here on behalf of the Honolulu Police Department to provide testimony in support of Senate Bill 2250, relating to the promotion of controlled substances. From a law enforcement perspective, it's important to acknowledge the vulnerabilities that are present in the homeless facilities where substance abuse can relapse.

By implementing measures to deter drug use in these sensitive areas, we can help protect the well-being of our community, much like we already do in our schools, public parks, and public housing complexes. This ensures a safer environment for all of our residents.

The Honolulu Police Department urges you to support Senate Bill 2250 relating to the promotion of controlled substances. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, we have Connie Mitchell, Executive Director for IHSS, Institute for Human Services, in support. Next, we have Nikos Leverenz for the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii. Good morning.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members. Nikos Leverenz with Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii in opposition to this measure. The current language of the drug-free zone law as with other provisions of Section 712 uses a term promoting in a manner that perpetuates semantic absurdity, given that that applies to any amount, including unusable traces and residue. This includes possession for personal use in any amount, which is currently classified as a Class C felony, punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

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

Each county prosecutor should be able to readily identify the number of defendants who've been penalized under the current code section over the past decade so that the legislature can determine its ongoing efficacy and utility. Drug-free Sloan laws were the subject of a 2018 resolution by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative policy group founded by—funded by large corporations and others, and they've accept—successfully advanced measures in state houses that have included, among other measures, right to work laws and stand your ground laws.

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

States that have studied drug-free zones have been unable to identify any empirical basis for their size and scope, so it's really very highly curious that the Honolulu prosecutor is positioning itself to the, to the right of states like Texas and Arkansas and expanding these laws here in the twenty first century. And in the other chamber with the other bill, they, they quote the Cicero Institute, which is a Texas-based organization that is run by a, you know, a bill, a very times explorers.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Next is Azul for Schooling with comments. Lauren Walker for Hawaii Friends of Restorative Justice, in opposition. Next is Kat, Kat—sorry, Kat Brady, Community Alliance on Prisons, in support.

Angela Young, testifying for CARES, on Zoom per—perhaps.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

In support. Aaron Rudick in opposition. David Ukuzawa in support, and Carrie Ann Shirota in opposition. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2250. Anyone else wish to testify on SB 2250?

If not, questions Senator?. Let me see what I got here. For the prosecutor first. So, in terms of, I mean, right now, it's, it's just called homeless facilities. How, how do you identify what a homeless facility is?

Will it be a DHS list or mapping resources that confirm that a site qualifies under this part? Yes.

So, if—Senator Rhoads, on page five at lines three through six, "homeless facility" is defined to include—there, there are certain federal standards, I think, that are cross referenced here, in Chapter 346. So, that would be an element of the charge that we would have to prove, that it falls within this specific within this specific definition of what a, a homeless facility is.

It was just an attendant circumstance?

It's, it's an attendant circumstance.

So, you have to prove it same beyond a, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Be—beyond a reasonable doubt. And it also has to be specified in the charging instrument so that the person has a notice.

Okay. So, are, are you trying to capture every shelter/whole housing model? I mean, just include Kahales. I mean, what, what, what are you aiming for?

So, so what we're aiming for and, again, I'm gonna note, and this is different from maybe some of the national criticisms of drug-free zones. This is aimed at distributors. So, if look at page three, lines four through 18, the controlling verbs there are "distributes" or "possesses with intent to distribute." So, we're not talking about homeless people who might come in with trace amounts or even if they're users.

That would be handled under the normal possession standards. This is talking about people who are specifically setting up their drug business within close proximity to homeless shelter. So, yes, and it's our intent to cover all homeless shelters.

Okay. So, you think this language does do that?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Thanks. Could I have the PD back up? So, the, the distance—I mean, you, there's, there's lots of precedent for this in terms of how, how, what it's gonna look like because we already have similar laws for schools and parks and stuff. So, what, how do you, you, you would defend based on—you would make the prosecutor prove that the person knew he was, was within 750 feet of a park or—and that's beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yes. That would be the strategy at trial if that were something that was, that we evaluated after taking a look at the discovery. As Mr. Hugo said, of course, the state is free to present any evidence to support that element—that the defendant did, in fact, know that there was a, a homeless facility and that he was within 750 feet with the intention to possess with the intent to distribute, or whatever the case may be.

But I think our concern is if that's the specific behavior that you're trying to target, which is why there's this enhanced criminal statute for this zone, we question the validity of that if people don't even know they're within the area.

Doesn't that make it a really easy case to defend if they don't know that there's a—almost?

It, it may, but I think what needs to be part of the conversation is, by the time we get to that stage in the proceeding, oftentimes, our clients, of course, will have been detained, held in custody pretrial. For circuit court felony cases, it can take months for the case to proceed, depending on a variety of different factors.

So, even though there may be a strong defense and something that we would feel good about, clients typically, especially the ones that the Office of the Public Defender represents, often are unable to post bail, don't have a good place to be released to, based on what the court would require. So, there is damage. Even though we could defend it, if they don't bring the appropriate proof, there's damage on the front side, which is the detention of our clients. Yes.

Understood. Alright. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Other questions? Anything else? Alright. We're gonna move on to SB 2325. This is authorizes courts to modify sentences imposed on juvenile offenders if certain conditions are met and the court finds that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community.

First up on two three two five is Jennifer Wong, staff attorney for the circuit court. Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair.

My name is Jennifer Wong. I'm the staff attorney for the criminal divisions of the first circuit court here on Oahu. First of all, I wanna apologize for the lateness of our testimony. As stated in our testimony, judiciary supports the intent of this measure, and we support efforts to increase judicial discretion.

However, I just wanted to point out on top of our testimony that Hawaii is a truly indeterminate term sentencing state, where judicial discretion is severely limited with respect to the sentences that may be imposed, especially for class a felonies and cases involving murder, which is what this bill would generally apply to.

For juveniles, judges in those cases impose indeterminate terms of twenty years or life in prison with parole. The Hawaii Paroling Authority determines how much of that sentence the juvenile will actually spend in custody. So essentially, at this time, under this measure, when a court reviews a sentence at the fifteen year mark, there are no alternative sentences for which the court to reduce the sentence to.

As noted in our testimony, there have to be structural changes to the sentencing schemes for juveniles for the court in in order for the court to reduce such a sentence. The alternatively, the measure could be directed to the provisions of the white polling authority.

You could take all of the considerations that are on page three and three to five, direct them to consider them when they're determining a minimum term, whether or not they're gonna reduce a minimum term. And anytime they operate, they review them to to determine parole. We are willing to work with individuals or stakeholders in order to effectuate the intent of this bill, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Next up is McKenna Woodward for office of line affairs in support. Next is Darcya Forrester for the office of public defender. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha. Thank you. I'm here at my capacity as the supervisor of our juvenile division and also as an attorney who's worked with adult offenders as well. So we really strongly support the intent of this bill.

I am aware of the concerns from the judiciary about whether or not it's more appropriate that it be, but more directed to the Paroling Authority as a pathway that's created for youth who've been waived and who are now adults to be able to demonstrate and show change. I really support creating this pathway. When you're 17 and you've been waived and then you end up in the adult system, it's at a time in your life when you have just started figuring out adulthood.

And some of our youth don't make it. You know, they stay in the system, but some of our youth make changes.

They have supportive families, and they're able and willing to do the hard work to demonstrate rehabilitation. So what we are supporting is any kind of pathway that would allow it to be something that gives that's regulated. It's it's something they can apply for, that they can seek, that's institutionalized. I will stay open as to whether that pathway is through the courts or through the polling authority, but we do acknowledge it may be more appropriate to be done through the polling polling authority. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Donovan Kamakani Albano, policy fellow for ACLU. In support. Teresa Comenoz testifying for Human Rights for Kids online. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes and members of the committee. Teresa Comenoz on behalf of Human Rights for Kids in support 03/2025. The Supreme Court in a series of decisions starting in 2005 established that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing under the eighth amendment and must be treated as such. One way this has been effective is to afford people a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.

This measure would create a mechanism for judicial sentencing review after a person has served fifteen years of incarceration for a crime that was committed when they were under 18 years old.

Courts in making this decision to reduce a sentence would have to consider several factors not limited to the person's age at the time of the offense and any history of abuse or trauma or prior child welfare involvement. Since the 1990s, researchers have tied childhood trauma to a variety of negative life outcomes, including involvement in the criminal justice system.

And research by Human Rights for Kids has shown that nationally more than seventy percent of children tried as adults experienced both physical and emotional abuse prior to their offense. Another forty five percent experienced sexual abuse. The average adverse childhood experience score was six point three one out of ten, and the average onset age of abuse was six years old.

What we know about adolescent brain development is that the area of the brain responsible for reasoned decision making is not fully developed in children. And this is especially true for children with severe trauma histories whose development has been further impaired. But because the area of the brain responsible for reasoning and judgment is still developing in children, any criminal behavior is likely a reflection of transient immaturity, making children more amenable to rehabilitation. That's why laws like this are so important.

This measure does not guarantee release, but allow judges to take a second look at a person's sentence and reevaluate if it is still the most appropriate outcome after considering all the specific factors, including looking closely at a person's background and all the factors pertaining to the development of youth.

The last thing I would like to note is that this type of policy has been enacted in several other states using very similar language, using the notwithstanding language that is included in these provisions to circumvent any existing structural sentencing guidelines or mandatory sentencing structures when looking at sentence reduction. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next up, we have Jose Burgos or Burgos for Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth also on Zoom. I see your name.

He's he's here. Oh, you're here. Are you He's on Zoom.

Mister Burgos, you here?

They're present, chair, but they might be having oh.

Yeah. I was I was having some some difficulties here, technical difficulties. I'm trying to come off camera now, but I'll go ahead and and start. I do wanna say good morning to chair Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard, and members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in strong support of SB 2325.

My name is Jose Burgos, and I serve as policy advocate with the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. CFSW, we work across the country to end extreme sentencing practices for children and ensure meaningful opportunities for review. Not only as an advocate, but as someone who lived this reality, I was sentenced to life in prison as a child in the state of Michigan and served twenty seven years before being released.

I know firsthand what it means to enter prison as a teenager, still developing, still capable of change, and I know the power of hope, rehabilitation, and redemption. SB 2,325 reflects what research, common sense, and lived experience have shown us.

Children are different. They have a unique capacity for growth, accountability, and transformation. Sentences that ignore that reality undermine both justice and public safety. Since my release, I have dedicated my life to this work. I have served as a reentry specialist of the Michigan State Appellate Defender's Office, mentored returning citizens, worked on legislative reforms, and advocated for the abolition of juvenile life without parole.

I am also a member of CFSY Incarcerated Children's Advocacy Network, ICAN. ICAN is a national network of formerly incarcerated youth who are now leaders in reform. ICANN provides mentorship, peer support, advocacy training, and a powerful community of individuals who understand the challenges of reentry after long term incarceration. For youthful offenders receiving review and possible release under legislate on under legislation like SB 2325, connection to a network like ICANN can be transformative. No one should have to navigate reentry alone.

Through mentorship, shared lived experience, and leadership development, we help individuals move from surviving incarceration to becoming contributing members of their communities. SB 2325 is not about excusing harm. It is about recognizing human development, accountability, and the capacity for change. It is about aligning sentencing practices with science, fairness, and hope. I respectfully urge you to pass SB 2325 and affirm that in Hawaii, children are never defined solely by their worst mistake.

Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next is Nicole Nabel Juris or Juris for the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. In support. Lauren Walker for Hawaii Friends of Restorative Justice also in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2325.

Would anyone else like to testify on SB 2325? Seeing none. Member sorry. Vice chair, any questions?

Yes. For mister Burgos, you still with us? Jose?

Are you still present, chair?

You still there? Jose, are you there?

Seems to be having technical issues here.

Okay. How about, Teresa with the human rights for kids? She might be able to answer you. Hello, Teresa?

Hi.

So if this were to pass, you know, if if a sentence is modified and there are regular follow ups or supervision, to ensure that the juvenile remains compliant. And if they re offend, are there more severe consequences? In other words, you know, what is there to are they supervised, you know, after this, let's say that the sentence is modified to ensure that the juvenile remains compliant?

So part of the measure as it's written in Section two that any defendant whose sentence would be reduced would have a period of three years of supervised release. So they would be supervised by the court and any, you know, appropriate authorities to make sure that this person is reentry is going smoothly. And like any supervised release, if there were violations, that could be brought before the court again and appropriate measures could be taken.

And they would know if they reoffend what the penalty, what the consequences would be. Correct?

Yes. Of course. They would be supervised as anyone would be who is on a release program.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

So could I have, miss Wong back up again? How many I mean, looking at this bill, how many sentence modifications motions do you anticipate annually if this bill were to pass? Is there is there a big is is I mean, it can't be that big a universe. Right?

I I I don't think it's that large. I don't have that figure. Darcy, do you have any

Anybody know? Okay.

Yeah. But Alright. I can't imagine it's a lot. I in my fifteen years, I only remember three or four that have been waived by the Waived. County court. Waived by

the county court and come up and being convicted as an adult. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Thanks very much. Miss, come Caminos, can I have you back up if you're still there on Zoom?

Okay. Okay. Thanks very much. Miss, come Caminos, can I have you back up if you're still there on Zoom?

Thanks.

Is there some magic number to 15? I mean, if you were convicted when you were if you committed the crime when you were 17 and you were convicted when you were 18 or 19, then, well, you're 33 by then. Is that is there some scientific basis for fifteen years, or is that more or less arbitrary?

Okay. So it's not it's not just completely picked out of a hat then. There's a there's a there's a reason for it.

Right. But if we moved if it was twelve years instead of fifteen?

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Let's see. I think that's it.

Alright. Thank you very much. Any other questions, sir Gabbard?

Excuse me, chair. I believe Jose is now ready for questioning.

Oh, did you wanna ask him? No.

All good.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jose.

Thanks, Jose.

Okay. Let's move on to SB 2481. This repeals the law prohibiting drug paraphernalia under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. First up on twenty four eighteen is deputy director Radula for the Department of Law Enforcement. Good morning.

Good morning, sirs. I'm Jared Radula, the deputy director for law enforcement. We're offering our comments on this bill. We we certainly respect the legislature's consideration and the conversation around criminal justice and controlled substances, and we recognize those conversations are ongoing. And so parts of the bill regarding yield exchanges and the kinds of conditions that the polling authority can consider.

Those are, certainly conversations that we very well respect. Our strong comments are more towards the end of the proposal, which deals with repealing the drug paraphernalia law. In the past, whenever we've had to make exceptions to the drug paraphernalia law, the legislature has done it on a case by case basis, allowing a lot of conversation to occur.

Here, a complete repeal, we must urge you to use a lot of caution Even though the offense is just finable for the most part, it gives us bite that when we find certain kinds of nefarious drug paraphernalia out in the wild, we're able to seize it. Things like pill press machines and triple neck flasks where, hey.

There's only one reason why you find those in the wild, because somebody's trying to manufacture drugs. And so we do need a baseline regulation so that we have the authority when we find these things out in the wild to be able to seize it. Thank you for allowing me to testify.

Thank you. Next up is Department of Health or the Department of Health's designee. Good morning.

Good morning. Diana Felton, communicable disease and public health nursing division of the Department of Health here on behalf of the director. We stand, on our written testimony with comments describing some of the public health benefits of, removing barriers to drug paraphernalia. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next is Haley Chang for, first deputy for the public defender. Good morning again.

Good morning again. The office of the public defender, stands in support of this measure, and we've outlined very carefully, some of the reasons why. First and foremost, while we understand arguments, especially those similar to what, the Department of Law Enforcement has shared, anecdotally, I can tell you that, it is incredibly uncommon to see paraphernalia even when it was a felony charge, other than for pipes, needles, and things like that.

And I think back in 2017, when we reduced that offense of paraphernalia to a violation, we were already trending in the in a positive direction, recognizing some of the public health issues and the fact that paraphernalia offenses, disparately, impact native Hawaiian communities, other minority residents, and other resource communities. We'd also

like to just briefly highlight that we believe this measure works in harmony, with SB 2721, which is the re the changes that are being recommended to the model penal code. And as part of that measure, there is a portion of it that is seeking to reduce possession residue types of possession cases to a misdemeanor. Recognizing that our once hard on drugs stance, I think we've seen some of the pitfalls of that and the overincarceration that has resulted.

So I think that this is working well and in in harmony with that other measure that's before, the Senate this session. I will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Maui Prosecutor's Office. In opposition. Chief John Peltier for the Maui Police Department also in opposition. Jerome Picaro for a major narcotics place for Honolulu Police Department on Zoom maybe.

Good morning again.

Good morning again, chair and members of the committee. Again, acting captain, Clinton Corpuz from the narcotics vice division. I'm here on behalf of the Hmong Police Department to provide testimony in opposition of Senate bill 2418 relating to promotion of controlled substances. Our opposition is based on the concern that repealing drug paraphernalia laws could inadvertently encourage increased drug use and contribute to public health and safety issues.

First, by de decriminalizing drug paraphernalia may lead to easier access to items that support substance abuse and potentially normalizing drug use, especially among our youth and vulnerable populations.

Public health research generally indicates that greater availability to drug paraphernalia has a correlation with high rates of substance abuse. Secondly, unregulated paraphernalia could lead to public safety concerns, such as discarded items in public spaces, posing risks of injury or health hazards to the community. The Huntley Police Department urges you to oppose SB 2418 relating to the promotion of controlled substances. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Heather Lusk for Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center in support. Next is Kat Brady for Community Alliance on Prisons also in support. Nikos Leverenz for Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii and still here. Good morning again.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nikos Leverenz with Drug Policy Reform of Hawaii. We strongly support SB 2418, which would have Hawaii join Minnesota in repealing its drug paraphernalia law to strengthen its Landmark Statewide Syringe Access Services Program, which is operated to keep HIV rates low among injection drug users for over three and a half decades, provide naloxone to prevent accidental opioid overdoses from becoming fatal overdoses, and linking underserved populations with needed medical care and social services.

Notably, Alaska has never had a drug paraphernalia law. A full repeal of our drug paraphernalia law will strengthen our state's syringe services program and eliminate the looming threat of criminalization for the possession of disease preventing and life saving supplies, particularly among those from underserved communities.

I quoted a number of experts in my testimony, and I just want to go over two quick quotes here. Paraphernalia laws reduce access to safer use supplies and increasing and increased sharing of syringes, and no compelling evidence suggests that they deter illegal drug use. Rather, these laws continue to result in people dying from preventable overdose, contracting blood borne diseases, and experiencing the negative consequences of involvement with the criminal legal system.

Other researchers note the public health benefits that will result from full repeal, noting the insufficiency of carve out exceptions like the recently enacted laws to decriminalize fentanyl pest strips and repealing the one for one requirement. In conclusion, law enforcement and other governmental officials correctly state that we cannot arrest our way out of the current crisis of drug related harm.

Applying that maxim to the lowest hanging fruit in the drug law tree, the repeal of paraphernalia laws is long overdue. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thanks very much. Next up is, Aaron Rudick in support. Victor Ramos in opposition. David Fupuzawa in opposition. Carrie Ann Shirota in support.

Randy Gantz in support. And that's everyone who signed up on SB 2418. Would anyone else like to testify in this measure? Seeing none. General Gabbard, any questions?

Can I have the Department of Health back up? So I have to admit, I find deputy director of Rodula's argument about the the the paraphernalia that is clearly intended to make drugs or or compound them or turn them into pill form or whatever. Why is it is there a counterargument to what he's saying?

Not that I'm aware of for supplies used to to make to sort of process or make drugs. We're really concerned more about the individual user, and their ability to access supplies to prevent injury, infection, and sort of

The paraphernalia he's talking about doesn't, I don't know, make it less likely that you would get some sort of form substance in the the drugs that you're trying to that you're planning to use. Yeah. I don't wanna say a purer drug because it's that's because if it's purer, then it's born probably more lethal. But, you know, if you understand what I'm saying, that does it help to

The adulterants.

Does it help to avoid bad stuff getting put into a

I don't believe so. I think the adulterations, are coming in all across the board, whether it's made locally or made, you know, somewhere else.

Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Let's see. Okay.

Let's go ahead and move on to the next bill then, which is SB 2447. This provides that the period of limitations for criminal prosecutions under campaign finance laws commence upon the discovery of the offense by the campaign spending commission rather than being limited five years from the violation date for reporting filing, report filing date. First up on 2447 is Kristy Chang, counsel for Campaign Spending Commission. Morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair. Kristy Chang from the Campaign Spending Commission. I'm sorry for our late testimony, but thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The Commission is in some, supports the intent of the bill, specifically extending the statute of limitations from the date of--right now, the law says date of violation or date of filing--five years. So extending that and starting the start date from commencement.

I mean, the commencement date starting from data discovery. So we are in support of that. The part that the Commission is noting is when you look at Subsection G, it seems to remove our five year statute of limitation period and adding the enforcement and the violations under Section 701-108.

And when you look at that Subsection D and E, changes like Class C felonies and misdemeanors to three years and two years, which under our current statute for campaign violations, it's five years. So we would still want to have the five year statute of limitation, but we're fine with having it start from date of discovery.

Okay. Thank you. Next up is Susan Roberts Emery for Green Party of Hawaii in support. Chris Cofield for IMUWA Alliance in support. Deputy Shapiro for League of Women Voters, also in support. Then we have quite a number of well, quite, quite a few individuals in support.

Thank you.

Altogether, 19 in support. Nobody opposed. Nobody with comments. That's everybody who signed up for SB 2447. Would anyone else like--sure.

Come on up. Good morning.

Good morning.

I apologize for our late testimony. My name is Tina Holt. I'm here, on behalf of the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. We are in support of SB 2447. In many areas of law, the accountability does not disappear simply because misconduct was hidden well.

If someone conceals income taxes and it's discovered years later, enforcement does not stop because the calendar moved forward. If an employee embezzles funds and the fraud is uncovered later, the consequences still apply and the clock does not reward concealment. Our campaign finance system should follow the same basic principles. Right now, violations can go unpunished simply because they were not discovered within a fixed period tied to the date of violation, and that creates incentive for increased secrecy rather than compliance.

SB 2447 corrects that imbalance by allowing the statute of limitations to begin when a violation is discovered by the campaign spending commission.

And when rules governing elections can be avoided simply by hiding misconduct long enough, public confidence erodes. And when accountability is tied to discovery, fairness is restored. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 2447? Okay. Seeing none. Senator Gabbard, any questions?

Okay. Let's go and move on to the next bill. This one is SB 2454 relating to campaign contributions. This requires a candidate or any individual authorized to receive contributions on behalf of a candidate or noncandidate committee to deposit the monetary contribution or other campaign funds into a depository institution within seven days of its receipt, requires any elected official candidate, canteen committee, or other individual required to file an organization report or receives a contribution from a lobbyist to deposit the oh, I'm sorry.

No I'm sorry that's basically for the same thing. Okay. It also requires that the, if you have a fundraiser shortly before one of the exclusion periods in the current law that you have to deposit your contributions before that exclusion period starts. First up is Christy Chang, Campaign Spending Commission. Morning again.

Evening, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Christy Chang from Campaign Spending Commission. The commission, apologize again for the late filing of our testimony. The commission for section one, if that is, it appears that it's trying to put into the law what is already in our Hawaii administrative rule. And to that extent, they're fine with that. But with respect to Section two, the commissioners were, found that amendment to be confusing and unnecessary.

For purposes of Campaign Spending Commission, we treat data deposit of the contribution as that date, that's put on the disclosure report. So to the extent this bill is amending it to require any contributions that are received outside of the prohibited period needs to be deposited during that prohibited period, then they're fine with that. But if it's changing some other type of date for that, they would oppose that. We're available for any question.

Good. Thank you. Next is Gabriel Schneider for Legal of Women Voters in support. Lila Mauer in support. And that's everybody who signed up on SB 2454.

Anyone else like to testify on SB 2454? Okay. Seeing none, members' questions. I do have a question for CSC. My understanding is that your that your position on the law on a few years ago, we banned its fundraisers during session during regular during legislative sessions.

And then we also made it so that lobbyists were not allowed to contribute during session plus of, like, I think it was a five day buffer on either side.

Right? So somebody recently had a fundraiser a few days before the session began, and my understanding is she was in trouble for not getting not depositing the checks that she had received before the before the buffer period and before we went into session because she'd filed, she'd deposited within the seven days as required, but there was your stance was that that was not good enough.

Yes.

So that's what this bill is about was, because I thought the original law was pretty clear. If you got the money before the session started, it didn't matter when you deposited it. There's no t leverage to be had once you've got the money in your hand. It's just a matter of putting it in the bank.

Well, for the commission, our administrative rule requires, of course, deposit within seven days, but it also says for the disclosure reports is the date of deposit. And so that's a verifiable date on when it actually lands into the bank account. So one of the things, right, is if you receive a check, like an elected official candidate receives a check, it's a paper that you don't actually have access to that money until it's deposited into your account.

And at that point, it becomes part of your funds in which you have access to. So that's why we go off of the date.

Okay. So that's why I'm confused that you're that you don't think the second part of the bill was necessary because the date you guys see is the date it's deposited, and you don't really, it would be difficult to verify when you got the actual check. So why is that confusing? It just says it's seven days or before the exclusion period, whichever is sooner.

Yes. I think that's what you know, when our commissioners just met on Wednesday and looking through that bill, I think they just like I said earlier, if if this is to clarify, it should be deposited outside of that prohibited period, then they're fine with that. But it just seemed you know, when you're reading it, I think they would just prefer to say it needs to be deposited outside of that prohibited period. And I think maybe that's what you're saying when it says okay. I apologize, but it was they thought it was confusing when we had our meeting going through all of our bills. But if that's what you're trying to clarify, then I have no objection to that.

Alright. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Any other questions on this one? Okay.

Seeing none, let's go ahead and move on. Next up is SB 2466. This relates to the Chief Elections Officer, specifies that the Chief Election Officer who passes the standard state probationary period may only be terminated for cause. First up on this is Larry Smith for Kupuna Cox, the Democratic Party of Hawaii in support, and Amy Monk for Legal Women Voter. Oh, sorry.

League of Women Voters Hawaii. Yeah. Amy Monk. Yes. Good morning.

Good morning.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair Gabbard, and committee member Alba and committee staff. SB 2466 adds employment protection for the Chief Executive, Chief Election Officer, in line with what other, what civil servants receive. We recall that false accusations of ballot fraud, harassment, and death threats aimed at two 2020 Georgia election workers prompted many states to enact or update protections for election workers. 39 states have election worker protection laws.

I'm sorry to interrupt. Can you just pull the mic closer? It's a long way away.

Sure.

Thanks.

So 39 states have election worker protection laws. 35 states have criminalized interference or intimidation of election workers with incarceration and fines. Comparatively, SB 2466 is a small measure of protection for the Chief Election Officer, so please support its passage. We wanna emphasize that repeated false claims of voter fraud in Georgia have been used to question the legitimate results of elections, and they continue to this day.

We need to keep in mind that the incidence of voter fraud in the United States is extremely small and can be prosecuted.

According to the Heritage Foundation, from 1982 to 2025, there are five cases of voter fraud in Hawaii. Four of them resulted in criminal convictions and one in a civil penalty. So I keep I ask you to keep this in mind that this is a very small measure. But going forward, we might consider protections for all election workers. So thank you very much.

Have a good weekend, president.

Thank, thank you very much. Next is Jamie Detwiler for the Hawaiian Island, Hawaiian--sorry. Hawaiian Islands Republican Women in opposition. Next is Marlene Tom for Indivisible Hawaii Statewide Network on Zoom.

Yes. Good morning, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in strong support of SB 2466. The Indivisible Hawaii supports this bill because we believe that the Chief Election Officer is critical to certifying elections, and should be protected from termination due to arbitrary or partisan reasons.

We all know that as, Miss Monk just testified, disinformation is being spread by some groups seeking to sow distrust among the electorate, and we need to take all prudent measures to protect election officials who have proven to be trustworthy and effective. As, again, Miss Monk said, this bill is a, a, a step, an important step, but a, a small step toward that end.

And it will, but it will assure the public that our elections are being overseen and protected by competent and ethical officials. Thank you for supporting this bill, and we hope you will pass it. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next up is Estrella Marin, also on Zoom.

Not present, chair.

I'm sorry. I didn't hear you, Ricky.

Sorry. Not present. In, in Zoom chair.

Also in support. Okay. After that, it's a string of individuals mostly in support. Overall, 39 in support, five in opposition, with no comments. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2466.

Would anyone else like to testify on SB 2466? Seeing none, members, questions? Yeah. Senator Awa. Thank you.

For our Chief Election Officer, please.

Full disclosure, I didn't read this bill. So I'll try and answer your question.

Okay. Okay. It's more in general. So I, I hear the I hear the, the support for it. And without looking at partisan issues, there is a bipartisan bill coming up a little later about election access on election day.

And I, I don't have the data in front of it. Throughout the past ten years, my question is, I don't know if, if you're the guy to make the change or we're trying to make the change. All I know is there's a problem when it comes to, there's over and over problems when it comes to access on election day.

And so every other issue of our election aside, if you're the guy at the helm running the football team or the program, and we continue to have this to, what I think is a very serious problem. And, and on the other side, people think it's a serious problem.

How can we be asking for better protections for the job if currently it's kinda jammed up? And that last part is my opinion. So--

Yeah. I don't really know how to handle this because it's not, it's not really about the bill. So if you wanna respond, I'll, please don't take too much time. But if you wanna respond, go ahead.

Yeah. I would just want, I would say that 11109-C's border service centers are established by the county. So that is the responsibility of each individual county clerk.

Is there no influences? Like, if it was me. Just if it was me. And, and indulge me, Chair, because it, it, it doesn't matter to the bill because I, I, I get what it's trying to do. And for me to even get to the point where I could consider it, I'd have to know, like, from the head coach, how come this problem hasn't been solved?

Because you're asking to protect the coaches.

Well, I mean--the thing, the thing is that it, the, the rules are written by us, not by him. He's just, he's the, the executive branch executes the law.

I get the process, but if you're the coach, you have influence to, for your program that you run. That's the argument. And so it'd be like, we have a team that's asked also.

He can ask, but we don't always do what he asks. So I, I, I don't know. Let go ahead and finish your conversation, but

I, we, we don't have--

So, so that's what I have a hard time with, with, with this. When it comes to this specific--I have a hard time because how I see it is, we have a program and everything else aside, the, the when it comes to the one that the, in data access, it's like, it's like our offense just continues to splutter on election day.

And whatever the reason is--if it's the city, if it's the ledge--at the end of the day, you're the one that the public points out to. And this is nothing personal. It's just could be anybody in this, in this seat.

But I don't understand. For me, it's hard to make a a supported decision on something like this when the process is, continues to be flawed. Again, that's my opinion and a lot of people's opinions. If you can help me understand. How can we, how can we be you know, morally, how can we be asking for this if there are a lot of people who I've, I've for instance, the last one, six hour long lines.

I was the last person in line, a couple--I saw a lot of people leave.

Well, but they--okay. So they didn't need to, most of them didn't need to be in line. You, you we, we mail, Miss Carago's office mails out the ballots. You can put them in a drop.

With respect, Senator Rhoads. There's, with the people, with a lot of the people that I represent, you understand that it's tradition. They like to do it on the day of. You're not gonna change that.

So you have to respect that. I, I actually introduced a bill that we're hearing today that talks about that. So I think this is just the wrong place to have this conversation. So if if there's a question you wanna answer, go ahead, but let's let's move on. There is another bill today talking about that very problem.

And I, and I kinda wait because I like that. But, but for this one, for my vote, I don't wanna be disrespectful and just vote no. I wanna see it. So and maybe I can see what you guys are seeing, but I don't. So that's why I, I brought you up to ask for the discussion.

Yeah. And like I said, I did not read this bill nor did I ask for it.

K. Thank you.

you. Thanks. Glenn, unless you have another question other questions? Okay. Let's go ahead and move on to SB 2480.

This is also relating to elections. This allows voters in primary special primary elections to vote for any candidate for any office without regard to the voter or candidate's political party preference, so known as the jungle primary that California has used this for a long time. First up is Amy Monk for the League of Women Voters. Morning again.

Morning, and thank you for hearing this bill. The League of Women Voters encourages electoral methods that provide the broadest voter representation possible and are expressive of voter choices. We're interested in hearing the pros and cons of this electoral system. SB 2480 would change Hawaii's primary election from a straight party line ballot to an open election. The primary election would narrow the field to two candidates in what is called the jungle primary.

Voters would be able to vote for any candidate crossing party lines just as they do in the general election. This would be revolutionary for our presidential primary. Presidential primaries are currently run by political parties in Hawaii and usually done in caucus. SB 2480 would allow 800,000 Hawaii registered voters to have a voice in selecting the two presidential candidates. There would be no additional cost since this this would be another race on the primary ballot.

There might be a small cost to adapt the election software, to count the votes across party lines. And there will be some party scheduling changes necessary because primaries are usually held before the state party convention. State part the state conventions elect the national convention delegates in proportion to the results of the primary. So, obviously, we need the primary before the convention. Out of state voters and state candidates may also have to adapt to an earlier primary.

So and, of course, elected officials will have to deal with an early primary too. So thank you very much. I am anxious to hear what other pros and cons there are to this electoral system. We think it's very interesting, and we note that California has had much success with it. So we hope you'll consider it.

Thank you. Next up is Aubrey Green for Libertarian Party of Hawaii in opposition. Susan Robert Zimmery for the Green Party of Hawaii. Oops. Sorry.

What did I just say? The Libertarian Party was the previous one. This is the Green Party. Susan Roberts Emery in opposition. Jamie Detwiler for Hawaiian Islands.

Republican women also in opposition. Marlene Tom on Zoom maybe.

Yes. Oops. Okay. Sorry. Good morning again.

I just wanna clarify that I am testifying in support of this bill as an individual, not on behalf of, Indivisible Hawaii. I believe that SB 2480, would allow voters to vote for, any candidate regardless of party and advancing the the top two candidates to the general. To me, this this expands voter choice as as, again, miss Monk said, and allows the the general election candidates to reflect a broader support among the electorate, thereby making our elections more inclusive, competitive, and representative.

So I urge the committee to support this bill. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next up is Deborah Bringman Bringman with comments. Following that is a long list of testify individual testifiers both in support and opposed and with comments. Let me give you the total breakdown. 41 in support, nine opposed, three comments.

Would anyone else like to testify in SB 2480? K. We got three people. I'll start with second row there. Yeah.

And then Nico and then Barthein back there. Lang again.

Hi, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Thank you for accepting my late testimony. My name is Tina Holt again. I'm here with the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action in support of this bill. As you know, many races in Hawaii, the primary is effectively the deciding election.

Ballot and they can only vote within that party's races. So if someone wants to support a candidate in one party's gubernatorial race, but also cares deeply about a different race where that party has no candidate, they have to leave that race blank. They cannot cross over, and that forces voters to set aside part of their voice in the most consequential election of the cycle. We also know that Hawaii has a large and growing number of voters who do not affiliate with the political party.

And under our current system, those voters often have limited ability ability to meaningfully engage and stage in the stage of the election that carries the most weight.

When participation narrows, polarization grows, and candidates are incentivized to appeal to a smaller, more partisan segment rather than a broad cross section of our community. And over time, that dynamic weakens legitimacy, and it increases frustration with our democratic institutions. SB 2,480 expands participation by allowing all voters to vote for any candidate in the primary and advancing the top two vote getters to the general election, and that structure encourages candidates to speak to the entire electorate and broadens the base of support behind those who advance.

Expanding participation strengthens legitimacy, and legitimacy is the foundation that keeps democratic systems stable and resilient. So for these reasons and more, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action respectfully urge us to support of SB 2480.

Thank you very much. Before you come up, just one second.

Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Before you come up, just one second.

Okay, mister Leverenz. Please come on. Morning again.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members. Nikos Leverenz testifying in my personal capacity in strong support of this bill, and I thank the vice chair for introducing this measure. This is a simple yet far reaching bill that will improve voter choices in November. As the prior testifier indicated, right now we have a system here in Hawaii where most statewide contests and legislative districts are determined in August. A top two primary will help each major political party be more responsive to the felt needs of voters.

If a district is predominantly Democratic, there will be two Democrats facing off in the general election. This will prompt greater discussion of relevant issues and positions instead of a broad choice between products and identities. I was a voter in California for many years, and after I left and came back to Hawaii, I noticed a real difference between this. In 2018, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, won a very spirited general election contest against former state Senate president Kevin De Leon, both Democrats. In the case of Hawaii, let's make general elections great again. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you, Mister Dain. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Bart Dame. I'm testifying as an individual. I came to testify in another bill later on the agenda. This one piqued my interest. I'm a history buff, and my understanding of the primary processes, the primary process was imposed by government on the political parties.

The populist movement in the late nineteenth century was upset that candidates were being chosen in backroom deals, smoke filled backroom deals. And so they decided to pass legislation that would require the parties to nominate their candidates in an open process subject to supervision by government agencies. And it is still a nominating process. That's a function that people seem to forget. It's a means whereby the political parties get together and they decide who they wanna put on the ballot in the general election.

It's supervised by state and county agencies, but that's in exchange for having an open and fair process. I think it's still important that the constitutional right to associate with people who are like minded in order to pursue legislative change is honored and not forgotten, and that the political parties, not just the two major, but also the minor parties should be in charge of coming up with their best candidate, put them on the ballot, and let them compete in the general election in November.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Yeah. I got a question for Hapa.

Thanks very much. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 2480? Seeing none, members, questions?

Sure. Senator Gabbard.

Well, thank you for your testimony. So how would the state prevent voter confusion, you know, especially for voters who expect we've always done it this way.

As a person who has volunteered in many elections over my, albeit short life, we actually find that more people are confused by restrictions rather than openness. So I don't have the numbers specifically with me right now, but there are a relatively significant number of ballots that are spoiled because people vote across party lines. And it's really unfortunate that we end up with a system where people try and they are taking the time to be engaged, and then it doesn't matter anyways.

And as a country that values individual choice and individual freedom, I think it's really important that we work towards a system where people can follow their values and participate in each step of the way rather than partisan politics.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Other questions?

Thank you.

Good Senator Awa.

For Bart, please.

Good to see you again, Senator.

You too. I appreciate your comments. Aloha. This is something that I agree with Hapa, Hapa with but then when you make your arguments, I I understand that. Would there be some way to just take R and D off the ballot completely?

If that's the choice that you're not gonna have people designated by political parties, then that changes the function of the primary, certainly. I would support I still support the idea that you should try to build coalitions, broad coalitions in order to get legislation passed, and I think the political parties in the nominating process is an essential part of that. But if you wanna make it helter skelter, and atomized, and individualistic, then, we could get rid of party labels and we could just have people run as individuals without partisan, banner.

Thanks. Appreciate it. Okay.

Other questions? If not, let's go and move on. Next up is SB 2499 relating to vacancies, amends process for address addressing party candidates and state Senate vacancies. First up on 2499 is chief election officer Nago for office of elections. Morning again.

Good morning, Scott Nago, Office of Elections. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this bill. This bill just aligns the visions takes aligns provisions to existing requirements to allow us to meet the federal uniform overseas and citizens absentee voting act, which requires us to mail out ballots to overseas citizens forty five days prior to life shift. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thanks. Next is Janet Mason for League of Women Voters. Good morning.

Good morning.

Morning, chair Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard. Thank you for hearing this bill. The league supports the bill for the reasons that mister Nago articulated, but we think it would be better to fill the vacancies with special elections when the vacancy occurs, especially when the term of the, vacant office is relatively long. 25 estates already do it this way. The league supports direct representative democracy, not the current appoint from party options approach.

Since our governor appoints from three names chosen by the party of the previous legislator, this leaves out other parties and nonpartisan candidates for the vacancy, better a special election. In fact, with only one race on the ticket, it would be ideal to use ranked choice voting as Hawaii law already requires for special federal elections as well as fulfilling vacant county seats, maybe next year. Thank you for

Thank you very much.

Have a chat.

That's everybody who signed up on SB 2499. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 2499? Okay. Seeing none, members questions? I have a question for mister Nago of, you know, most basic questions.

So, I mean, the law that you're we're trying to conform to here, the I'm not blanking on the name of it. The federal, oh, uniform and overseas citizens absentee voting act. That's been around a while. Right? So why are we just getting around to doing this?

Or maybe we you tried before and failed out. It didn't work. I don't know.

So the reason why we're trying to do

this now is because with the complexity of voting systems. Previously, it was printing ballots, and you had your vote counting system, which is separate. So you could if there was a vacancy in a Senate seat, you could hold up printing up those ballots for that specific contest. But now with the voting systems we have where the ballot is tied to the voting system, when you do hold it up, you hold up the whole election. Okay.

Okay. So, basically, we just dealt with it in a different way before. Yes. Okay. With regard to the points that miss Mason made, some of these are elections, though, aren't they?

I mean, that's these are just the timelines. The other there there's a rule about the unfilled seat depending on when it opens up, whether it's appointed or whether it's Correct. An election.

So if it's a Senate vacancy that happens in the first two years, it's it's temporarily filled by appointment by the governor, but there's a special election held at the next regularly scheduled general election. If it's within the vacancy is in year three or four, it's it's just temporarily filled by the governor, but the election is at the next election when it was regularly scheduled.

Good. Alright. I think I understand the distinction there. Okay. Thanks very much.

Members, are there questions? If not, we'll move on. Thank you. Okay. Wonderful thing about the Judiciary Committee, the topics change right as you sit here and listen to what's going on.

SB 2565 establishes a fixed dep, disposition deadline requiring the Supreme Court to decide an application for certiorari within sixty days after the application is filed. First up on 2565 is Nicholas Severson for the Judiciary. Good morning.

Morning, chair, vice chair, committee members. My name is Nick Severson. I'm a staff attorney with the Hawaii Supreme Court, testifying on behalf of the Judiciary in support of this bill. Quite simply, the bill greatly improves judicial efficiency and also provides clarity to the public and to litigants.

And for those reasons, we greatly support this measure, and I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you. Next up is Thomas Hughes, Deputy Solicitor General for the Attorney General. Good morning.

Morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard. My name is Tom Hughes. I'm a Deputy Solicitor General in the Department of the Attorney General. The department supports this bill. This bill would ensure that every application for a writ of certiorari gets a full sixty days of consideration regardless of whether or when a response is filed.

So parties before the Supreme Court would benefit from the certainty the new deadline provides, and the public as a whole would benefit from the additional consideration given to applications that might otherwise have to be reviewed on a faster time scale. And the bill would also improve judicial efficiency as the judiciary's testimony makes clear. Finally, the bill would clarify how the certiorari disposition deadline interacts with weekends and state holidays, which is something that's unclear in the current law. I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Very much. Next is Haley Chang, Chang for Office of Public Defender.

Hi, everyone. We're in support.

In support. Great. Next, that's everybody that signed up for SB 2565. Would anyone else like to testify in this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions?

Oh, I did have one question, I guess, for the Judiciary. It, it seems like the bill is focused on, I mean, I just don't remember. Do all writs come from the ICA, or can you, are there direct appeals from, are there a writs of certiorari, not, not all writs. Writs of certiorari, do any of them come anywhere else other than cases that have come through the ICA?

It has to be from the ICA. Yes.

All from the ICA. Okay. So then if you, aren't there some kinds of cases that--

There there are other mechanisms to get measures before the Supreme Court such as a application for transfer, for example, which would be a mechanism to bypass the ICA and get the, appeal. Okay.

But that's not considered a certiorari writ.

There's a different, a different statute, different mechanism for that.

Just wanna be sure.

Thank you very much. Thanks. Alright. Let's go and move on to SB 2566 relating to domestic abuse orders for protection removes a requirement that, request to withdraw I'm sorry, to withhold from public inspection the petition record of a denied temporary restraining order or denied protective order be made orally. First up on SB 2566 is judge Medeiros for the judiciary or her designee.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, committee members present and listening. My name is Scott Boone. I'm a staff attorney for the family court of the first circuit testifying on behalf of the judiciary for this bill. This is one of our package bills. We stand on our written testimony, and I'm available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next is Anne Fried, co chair for HSW HSDWC, in support. Angelina Mercado for Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, also in support. Deanna Espinas, in support.

Coran Koran Polk in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2566. Would anyone else like to testify in this measure? Please come on up. Good morning.

Good morning. Yasmin Cheney for the commission on the status of women. I stand in support of this measure and the protections it affords for survivors of domestic violence.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else who wish to testify in this measure on Zoom or here? Okay. Seeing none, members questions?

For the judiciary? How how frequently are petition petition records withheld under current law?

Sure. I don't have those numbers in front of me. But regardless of the number, we feel that this amendment is appropriate. Okay. It does give domestic abuse survivors the option of

So you don't think it's gonna materially change the workflow?

It it won't change operations Okay. As far as we can tell from right now. Sure.

Okay. So I'm assuming you'll well, I'm not assuming. We we we we would develop a standard form so that people can make the motion. I mean, it's a pretty standard motion.

We'll certainly look into that for both stages at the temporary restraining order and then order for protection stage as well.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Members, other questions? Okay. So then we'll go ahead and move on. Relating to offenses against public servants, This elevates the offense of harassment to a misdemeanor when committed against certain public servants in connection with the performance of a government governmental function. First up is Brandon Kimura, administrative director from the courts.

Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, committee members, attorney Slee, staff attorney for the judiciary's administration. Thank you very much for hearing this bill today, which is part of our legislative package. The judiciary is in strong support of this measure, which would impose a stronger deterrent against the increasing numbers of harassment and threats that we're seeing directed at public servants.

We think this bill more appropriately, it reflects, the seriousness of harassment against public servants and the fact that the resulting harm is not only to the individual public servant, but also to the community at large, given the disruption to community services that the public relies upon.

And finally, I, we would also like to highlight the portion of our testimony that points out and explains that the public servants that are covered in this bill is based upon the definition of covered public servant in Chapter 92H, which this legislature passed two years ago to better protect the personal information of public servants online.

And we just offer that in this bill as a initial starting point for discussion, knowing full well that the legislature will ultimately decide who gets covered under this measure. We'll be available for any questions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next up is Keith Hayashi for Department of Education in support. Haley Chang for Public Defender. Morning again.

Good morning again. On behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, we have submitted comments on this measure. Highlighting some things from our testimony. Number one, we do believe there is already a significant existing statutory framework that addresses the conduct of great concern. Some of these offenses are terroristic threatening, which is also already elevated to a Class C felony for the individuals articulated in the current measure.

Obstruction of justice, obstructing government operations, and harassment by, by stalking are all measures that are currently covered under our existing penal code. The Public Defender's Office also has some concern about the nature of the role that these individuals play. Most of these individuals are very public figures and by definition have increased contact with the public. Especially in the judicial realm, there are the significant amount of pro se litigants that the courts deal with.

We just are concerned about the provision of harassment that deals with repeated filings, repeated contacts, and maybe not inclusive of those who are dealing with some challenging issues or are emotionally charged because of what's going on.

Of course, we do not condone any egregious behavior, but we just think that's something the committee should be mindful of. We've also suggested some possible amendments that might clarify the intent of the measure, which is to explicitly clarify that constitutionally protected petitioning and expressive activity is excluded from the measure, clearer standards for what constitutes actionable repeated contact, contact in this type of context, and consideration of requiring proof that the conduct materially interferes with the official duties or poses a credible safety concern.

Again, we fully support protecting our public servants, but we also have ongoing concerns about status-based enhancements and the risk of actually subsuming the base offense, which is supposed to be harassment, which is minor conduct on the scale of criminal offenses. Thank you, and I'll be available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next is Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City, and County. Morning again.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, vice, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Senator Awa. Daniel Hugo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, and we're offering a comment on this bill. Harassment is already a familiar charge to our office. We prove it all the time, and the constitutional doctrine around it is also well developed. And we believe that this bill, since it merely aggravates the sentence for particular public servants, would probably pass those constitutional tests, and it would be, our office would apply it in a constitutional manner.

However, we do have we do think that this committee should consider three points. First of all, unlike other victims, judges already have the contempt power. Teachers don't have this when they're harassed. Nurses don't have this when they're harassed. Sexual assault survivors don't have this when they're harassed.

A judge, harass a judge to their face in a courtroom? They can send you to jail without a trial, something that no prosecutor, no legislator can do. You can be convicted for summary contempt of court. So why aren't judges using their contempt power? I think the committee should ask that.

Second, in Inbre Do, which is one of the cases that we cited, the judiciary, the Hawaii Supreme Court decided that police officers should have a higher standard for fighting words, and the reasoning makes sense. Trained police officers are used to these sort of encounters. Why doesn't that same standard apply to judges and public officials?

Why shouldn't we expect that a judge in the safety of a courtroom should be held to a higher standard than a police officer, frontline, on, on duty police officer facing physical danger every day. Finally, we note that this is not reflective of how some judges actually apply the law and treat victims of ordinary harassment in court.

And it's not reflective of how even offenses against this chamber are treated, and we point to that in our testimony. I'm available for questions.

Thanks very much. Next up, we have Joy Buolosan for Hawaii Government Employees Association with comments. Next is Kamak, Kamakana Kaimuloa for United Public Workers in support. Judge Andrew Park with the Hawaii State Trial Judges Association in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2568.

Does anyone else wish to testify on SB 2568? Yeah. I can see a hand, but I can't see who it is. Come on up. Miss Mason.

Morning again.

Morning again. Thank you, chair, members of the committee. The League is in strong support of the intent of this measure. Frankly, we missed it, and it's very important. And we would try to make up for that in some way with public testimony.

Right. Thank you very much. Anyone else like to testify in SB 2568? Okay. Seeing none, members, questions?

Let's see. And for the Judiciary, is there any reason this shouldn't apply to lower level, I mean, the other people that come to mind in my, the other people that come to mind that get harassed are, you know, people at the DMV or somebody's unhappy because, whatever, they failed their eye test and they wanna keep driving when they shouldn't and that kind of thing. Is, is there, is there a sort of conceptual reason why this shouldn't apply to all rank and file government employees?

We are not opposed to expanding the group of protected folks in this bill. Again, this is just sort of like an initial proposal, but we, we are not trying to say in any way, one way or another if that there is some, some sort of, like, threshold, that needs to be met, in order to deserve coverage under this bill. We'd be fine with that.

Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Hugo, can you come back up? So you said you thought it was a, a bill that you could you wouldn't have any trouble enforcing if we expanded it out to, there's a couple of, there's several testifiers who would look to see it expanded out. If we did expand it out to sort of every government official from the Department of Taxation dealing with people at the front desk on up, is that, is that gonna be a, a legal challenge to prosecute?

No. It would become analogous to the terroristic threatening statute. So terroristic threatening in the second degree is a misdemeanor when it's committed against a public servant, and that is expanded, that is defined expansively to include educational workers, social workers, it becomes a felony.

Okay. I'm not sure I'm following you there. So you, oh, it's analogous. So you think that because of, okay. It's just not as high up, it's not as severe a penalty.

Right. So it would be a parallel sentencing enhancement.

Okay. But do, do, do you think it was enough, I don't know the elements and well enough to know would that be a, would it end up being a lesser included offense?

It, so ordinary harassment under this statutory scheme would be, but, but

But, yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. I'll let you finish your sentence.

But what would restrict it is that there also has, it's a specific intent crime, which is unique. So there would have to be a specific intent to harass, annoy, or alarm. And the first amendment is always a defense in terroristic threatening or harassment cases.

Thank you.

I don't, who's the vice chair for--

He's not, he's not--

Oh, he's not here. Okay. So we're waiting for, he's gotta have, we gotta have. Miss Chang, would you mind coming back up? Basically, the same question. If we expand this out, I mean, I know you have doubts about the bill in general, but what, is there any additional concerns you would have if we expand it beyond what the current scope is?

Yeah. And I, I do have, and I think on behalf of our office, have significant concerns. Something similar happened in the House yesterday where they expanded the definition, I believe, to just include all public workers. And while we of course, this is never meant to minimize the importance of individuals in those roles, it, it seems what, I guess the issue that we have is why not then a clerk at a grocery store? Why not a barista at a coffee shop?

Why not an attendant at a gas station? These are also hardworking individuals who engage with the public constantly. Our position is that the egregious behavior that I believe the Judiciary, as well as other proponents of this measure are concerned with, can be charged under existing statutes.

Harassment, which was originally designated as a petty misdemeanor, is to deal with minor criminal type offenses, such as taunting or, offensive physical contact that would not rise to the level of assault in the third degree, or repeated contact for the purpose of alarm. So if the behavior goes beyond that and is truly conveying a threat, they can charge it as terroristic threatening.

If there is an assault that's beyond an offensive physical contact, they can charge it as assault in the third degree. So when that, and that's a portion of our testimony that I think we're getting to, which is when the exceptions start to subsume the statute entirely, harassment was created to address less egregious contact. The elevated offenses throughout the penal code address more serious things. So that's our concern.

Alright. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Okay. Let's go and move on to SB 2661. SB 2,661 relating to nepotism, repeals language in the state's code of ethics that exempts the legislative and judicial branches from prohibitions against nepotism in public employment. First up on this is Robert Harris for the State Ethics Commission.

I'm sorry. The executive director of the State Ethics Commission. Morning again.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Robert Harris, and on behalf of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, We are in strong support of this measure. I'm I believe our chair has phrased it as, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, that there should be the same law applicable to everyone. We do note, with a proposed amendment that if the intent is to apply to legislators, we'd have to expressly put that in. And so we've referred to the bill that we introduced for just the language of how to do that. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next is Lynn Murakami Akatsuka in support. Deb Deborah Bringman in support. Lynn Manasau in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2661.

Would anyone else like to testify? On SB 2661? Okay. Seeing none. Members questions?

I have that one. Yeah. Go ahead.

Senator Watt. Robert, please. Saw the I saw the agenda today. I was like, oh, right on. We're gonna correct something that should have been done in 2023.

Just for the record, I'm sure you followed it. I wasn't there in the conference. Why wasn't this included the first time around?

I'm trying to be circumspect. Obviously, sausage making You can blame me if you like. I I

might have been the one. I don't think

No. No. It wasn't. I I I believe that there was a belief that the legislature should supervise itself or administer itself, and so I think that was a central thought. Both houses, the Senate and the House, have passed rules prohibiting nepotism, and so the intent here is simply to codify that into statute.

But in addition, I think the, advantage of this is that we do have a good cause exception, which is public. So if there's any ever a time where nepotism does occur, somebody has to apply for an exception that's public, and there's a rationale explained that anyone can see. Examples would include, for example, if it's a rural area where there are no other qualified applicants and the only qualified applicant is a relative, and they've gone through extensive efforts to try to advertise.

And so we put that in writing. Everyone can see it.

I've never understand, and we time limit it. So the idea is you have to post a job again in a year, for example. So a long winded way of saying that the current law that applies to all state employees outside the legislative and judicial branch would be have the same waiver process, which we think is good.

And then, finally, just as an odd exception, because the ethics commission, the ombudsman's office, and the auditor's office is on the legislative branch, Oddly enough, the ethics commission is the one agency that could commit nepotism under the current law, and there'd be nothing stopping that. So, again, we think just applying this broadly would make a lot of sense.

K. Thank you. Thank you.

Other questions, members? I do have one more for you. So the your read of this particular bill is that it does not apply it applies to legislative employee employee I'm not I'm not phrasing this right. It doesn't apply to legislators, but it applies to other people in the legislature who would be hiring someone.

Correct. Under the ethics code, there has been a distinction between employees and legislators made. And so creating the distinct you know, calling out the path that it applies to legislators as well and make sure that's that's who it would apply to.

Okay. And the other part of this, you there there is another bill. Right? And that's, like, one of your Correct. It is it does the same exactly the same I mean, it covers everybody.

It's not there's no question about the coverage.

Correct. And so we pointed that just for language. You know, obviously, if this bill is the vehicle to move forward, that's fine. Just would recommend that language. Okay.

Great. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Other questions on this bill members? Okay. If not, that actually is the last bill on this agenda.

So we will recess this, recess this agenda and we'll come back after this, the 10:30 agenda, and we'll do decision making on all those bills. Okay. So I'm in recess for the 09:00.

So we will recess this, recess this agenda and we'll come back after this, the 10:30 agenda, and we'll do decision making on all those bills. Okay. So I'm in recess for the 09:00.

Hey. Welcome everyone to the joint Judiciary and Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee hearing on SB 2728. This bill appropriates funds to the counties for more voter service centers for in person voting, the Office of Elections to print and mail the digital voter information guide to all registered voters, and the Office of Elections to support a public outreach and engagement campaign to encourage greater voter participation. First up on 2728 is Chief Election Officer Scott Nago. Morning again.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this bill. We'll stand on our written testimony. But one note for Section 2, the cost to mail out the voter guide would be over $2 million. And for Section 3, we estimate 178,000 for a voter outreach program, and this is based on the 2024 election where we spent 441,000 on advertising to include television, radio, out of home, and online, and newspaper. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next is Jon Henricks, County Clerk for Hawaii County for Hawaii County on Zoom. Good morning. Go ahead.

Hi. Yeah. I submitted written testimony. We stand on that testimony. I'm just here today to represent Hawaii County and answer any questions or provide any additional context I can to help you with your decision making.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Next up is Moana Lutey, County Clerk for Maui County. Oh, here you are. Good morning.

I'm here. Good morning, Chairs. I know there are two of you, and Members. I'm Moana Lutey. I'm the County Clerk for the County Of Maui. And this is my first time here, so I'm very excited. I sent you in a written testimony that I'm sure you found enthralling. And...

We did.

Oh, good. So part of what I wanted to talk about today, and I'm hoping that I can also sit up here when Glen comes here to get the full experience, is that we have a shared experience in terms of our voter service centers getting really busy on the last day. I will confess that the last election was my first rodeo, and, you know, prior to that, I was not doing elections. And it was very busy. We had two open voter service centers on Maui Island.

But because of uniqueness of our county, we also have one on Lanai and one on Molokai. To try and assist with getting people serviced, we also do a voter service center in Hana, which is our most remote area of the island, and that's done approximately two weeks in advance of the actual election days. And, historically, we have a very low turnout, and I'll give you an example.

We had seven last time at a tremendous cost because we need to rent the equipment and so forth to get out there through Hart, but we do it to try and service everybody. But a different dynamic also for our county that obviously is different for everyone else is the displacement of voters that we had as a result of...

I have a hard time talking about it. But the Lahaina wildfires, I'm from Lahaina. So we opened up in Lahaina. I'm okay. I get emotional every time I talk about it. So many people lost their homes. Anyhow, we opened up out there so that I can have, like, a little family reunion and a classmate reunions and so forth, so we're a little different in that respect.

But in terms of actually opening them on election day, the problem is logistics for us. It's very hard for, oh, I'm out of time. I'm so sorry. But can I just sort of finish that sentence? I am just crying like a kook. The problem is is that we have a hard time finding staff. So you can give us money and have us try and open them, but if we don't have humans, that's the problem.

Members often have questions, so if you can hang around, that'd be great.

I would love to. I'm here till 2.

Next up is Glen Takahashi for Honolulu Elections Division. Good morning.

Good morning, Chairs, Members of the Committee. Glen Takahashi, Honolulu City Clerk. We will stand on our written testimony. I would direct your attention to it. It goes into a little bit of detail into operations and operational concerns that we have. We thank the committee and the Senate for recognizing that funding is a part of the solution in addressing some of the things that we saw on the final day. However, this is kind of a multifaceted problem, and it's not a panacea. But, certainly, we welcome any assistance that can be provided. And, again, I'm here to answer any questions later when the time comes up.

Great. Thank you. Bart Dame? Morning again.

Good morning again. Thank you, Senators. I'm speaking as an individual on this with comments. There are three functions that are being funded, election related functions that would be funded by this bill. Starting in reverse order, it would be provide money to the Office of Elections for voter education to encourage turnout. I leave it to the wisdom of this body and the election officials to figure, you know, what forms and what amounts that should take.

On the second one, to grant money to the Office of Elections to print out and mail a voter's guide to all registered voters. I think you might wanna look at that. There's been other testimony. Perhaps it should be sent to each household with an active voter. And there are many voters who live in the same household. I believe in excess of a $100,000 could be saved by sending it to that households that contain voters rather than to each voter individually.

But on the first function is the one that I find the most problematic. It's not clear to me whether this bill is directing the counties to open additional voter service centers, which I think is the intent. If so, I'm concerned because I worked as a volunteer in the county center in the capitol, this building here, for eight years for elections, for general and primary elections. And I saw the hours and the work that went into those things.

Even as a volunteer, I put in 18 hour days for those things. Right now, the election volunteers or election staff are stretched incredibly thin. I saw where a legislator in the House was saying they should flex a little bit in order to expand and have more voting centers. I think their resources are stretched to a point beyond which they cannot go.

So if it's a matter of being optional for the counties, here's funds if you wanna expand your voting centers. That's great. But I think we've heard from all four of them that they do not believe that this will solve their problems and be able to provide efficient service to voters on election day if it's mandated.

Thanks very much. There's in addition to those testifiers, there's a list of individuals all in support. So the total count was 15 in support, one opposed, and three comments. Does anyone else wish to testify on SB 2728? Sure. Come on up. Hello again.

Hello, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Tina Holt. I'm here testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action in support of SB 2728. I want you all to picture election day. A working parent leaves work a little early to try and get a chance to vote before they pick up their keiki.

A kupuna arrives unsure of where to go or whether their location has changed for the year, or a first time voter stands outside of a voter service center trying to decide if they have enough time to vote before they go to work. None of these people are disengaged. They care, and they show up even if it's their choice to show up on election day rather than using our incredible mail in system. But democracy, our democracy can die in these fragile moments.

If the line is too long, location too far, if the information never quite reaches them in time and they have to go in person, their vote can slip away. SB 2728 helps to strengthen our basic infrastructure of participation by funding additional voter service centers so lines can be shorter and access is closer to home, which is particularly important where I live on Hawaii Island. And ensures voter information guides are mailed directly to registered voters, although I definitely agree, house holding is the correct choice there.

And it invests outreach so people know when, where, and how to vote. It's helping to make sure that the opportunity to vote is real and accessible to every single citizen. And when access improves, participation grows, and when participation grows, public trust grows with it. So we respectfully urge your support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 2728? Seeing none. Members, questions? Senator Awa.

For Maui and Oahu County Clerk Office, please. Thanks for coming.

I'm so glad to be here.

It's from the testimony, it appears that the, the biggest problem is people, staff. What if we could help you?

I would love that.

Would that change your testimony if you guys had volunteers?

It depends. Because part of the issue that we had in Maui County is that we have to have the training. So if you could get us those volunteers in the next month or so...

How many people are we talking about?

100.

100 people? How long training do they have to go? Tell me what what people should know.

So it depends what it is. What we're looking for, personally, and I can't speak for Glen, is we have so many diverse positions that are available. We need people that are computer literate because we handle the intake, obviously, of voters on voter day and get them all set up so that they can vote in person. But in addition to what we have people that are helping with the scanner, helping get people into the booths. We're passing out paper ballots and so forth.

So for just our Wailuku voter service center, at any given moment, ideally, we would have 50 to 75 people. In the last election, we might have had 40. So that's part of the issue. And we do use two temporary employment agencies. We've only been able to get two people that fit some of the categories I've discussed. In other words, data entry. And we also try to go through our county department of personnel services. And last year, we had zero. But we also have a shortage of about 600 to 700 vacancies in the county itself.

Is there a list somewhere where we can easily find, of those 100 people, we need 20 in this, 20 in this. Is there some place we can find it? Or Oahu, do we have the... And do you and is Oahu's numbers bigger, what you would need for volunteers? What do we need?

Sure. We operate our service centers using a temp agency to send us assignees, and we will typically employ, well, I won't say employ, but we utilize these assignees for the various functions in within the service centers and the vote by mail process. We at this, from what I've seen over the last three cycles since voting by mail came in, we're operating at about 70% of what we really need to handle the surge that we see.

And again, staffing has been the challenge for us. What we find is that in able to handle the large crowd, what we really need are the computer operators to screen them and get them on through the voting process. The trick with that is that that's not a role that is suited to volunteers. And so it's really comes from a workforce that we employ.

Right now, our temporary staffing, we probably have about 70 persons or so on as far as our temporary staffing, we definitely need more. Not all of them are in the service center, but I would say at least 50 of them are assigned in some fashion to the service center. We also use volunteers as well for some of the roles that do not require the highest levels of training.

And so we've used high school robotics clubs and things like that to supplement what we're doing. We also use civic clubs like the Lions Club and things like that to help us with retrieving ballots from the various places of deposit. So we have a workforce that kinda runs the gamut, if you will. And any help is obviously welcome. If you wanna see our temporary staffing, what that solicitation looked like, it was literally posted up on the procurement website yesterday, and so you can take a look and see what we require.

Yeah. And just one more question, Chair, please. Of that skilled staff that you have, the 50 or so that are working on the on the... Are you talking about on this past election when we had the two sites open, Honolulu and Kapolei, the 50 split amongst those two already?

Yes. It is. Yes. It is.

So how many more would be needed to open two more centers?

You know, well, okay. For the two that we're operating right now, we've actually run our staffing levels and things through these models that are available for elections. And given the numbers of people that we anticipate we might have to process, and what those models are telling us is that we probably need a dozen or so more computer operators in order to get that line really humming.

You're talking about at the two...

At the two itself. Right? But then, typically, like, at Kapolei and, like I said, there are the people in the building that are doing the voting operations, then there's some people on the outside that are also needed as well, right, for crowd management and things like that. Yeah. So, yeah, typically, we might have 20, 25 people going.

And the perplexing thing for us, and but we know that there's some human nature kind of things is that, gosh, you know, for the thirteen days of operation, any day other than the last day, man, it's an in and out process within ten, fifteen minutes, but you saw, you know, the our lines. And I'm one of those people. I don't like lines either.

I mean, both personally when I have to stand in one and on election day when I see it. You know? But that's just one of the our challenges. And, of course, we're always striving to get better, you know, at that. But sometimes, you know, there are there are there can be factors affecting the line that are outside of our control. Right? We just don't know.

We cannot predict when during the day people come. If we look at this upcoming general election, we're anticipating Oahu will have a multi page ballot because of our charter commission. That could that could keep people in the voting booths for longer as well too. So there you know, every election's a little bit different in what we see. But, typically, you know, these types of lines that you saw are in presidential general elections, and that's when we really get hit.

But we've seen it, I mean.

Would you mind if I add one thing? I'm so sorry. Yeah.

I'm sorry. We don't have much time. So Members, other questions? Senator Richards.

Yeah. Thank you. For Hawaii County, Jon. On Zoom. Are you still there?

Just waiting to be let in. I'm here.

Yeah. Thanks. One thing, Jon, we on the the Big Island, I'm not familiar with the other counties, but we have those drop boxes that we have for polling. Have you seen any problems with any of those?

No. No problems whatsoever. And those we do, every each election cycle we look, we try to find an opportunity to add one, if you will. But that's, you know, it's not as simple as just finding a space that has to be suitable. It's all the kinds of different criteria, but no no problems. They're very effective. And by the way, we do like those too because we're going to them all the time anyway, and it does save on postage. So it's very, yeah. Hawaii County likes the drop boxes. It's a good way for us to retrieve voted ballot packets.

Okay. Thank you. And then from the other counties, do you use drop boxes as well? And, again, we like them or I like them because...

We love them.

I mean, they're at all the police stations, so they're pretty secure.

We put ours at fire stations because they're manned 24/7 like police stations, but our fire stations are located on busier roadways than our police station is currently.

Got it. And I'll leave that up to you guys. So okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Other questions?

One more last one, Chair. To back off, just for the record, in my district, this is personal. In my district, the closest drop boxes in the most conservative voting district is Kaneohe and Sunset. We don't have one in ... at all. We haven't had one. Can we get one in there? Yeah.

Actually, we have one in... Is it Hauula? Yes. We have one in Hauula. Yeah. The community center over there. It's not as, I guess, visibly visible, like, right from the road, but it's right at the community center over there. Okay.

Other questions, Members? If not, I had a couple for all three of you, really. So your testimony, a couple of them were labeled as comments, but they seem pretty negative to me. It sounded to me like you were basically happy with the system as it works. I'll start with, let me start with the Big Island. I mean, Hawaii County.

Yeah. I mean, that's fair. I don't wanna come across as rude and opposed just sounds disrespectful in some way, but that's a that's a fair observation on your part. I don't know if we're happy with the system, but I think it's just being responsible with what we were asked to do when we switched to vote by mail. And it just, you know, it's in it's in my testimony.

It wasn't too long and it's easy to digest about the rationale for why we're operating the program the way we are. And going back to employment issues when it comes to voter service centers, you know, I think Glen touched upon it briefly. It's not really a matter of having bringing seasonal workers in.

You know, what we've experienced here is I want to make sure that we have a full time experienced career election official at a voter service center at all times that it's open to ensure things are going well because they're not polling places. They're they're much more sophisticated.

There's first time voters. There's people that are there, you know, you know, trying to get a replacement ballot, things of that nature. There's no poll books. There's a lot more computerization involved. And that's a comfort level thing where, again, we're balancing access with security. So yeah.

For Maui County?

We love the current system. I think it works well. It gives people an opportunity, especially based on the circumstances with Lahaina and so forth, to continue voting from the comfort of their home.

Sorry. I'm just in a hurry. So just quick on...

No. I don't have much to add other than, please don't mistake our comments for, I guess, you know, pushback or anything like that. We, of course, will implement the policy that the legislature puts forward. And so...

Have any of the three of you asked? Because the current statute says that the counties that you're authorized to open more VSCs than you want to. Have any of the three of your counties asked for additional money from the state to open additional VSCs?

We have not.

No. We haven't. And so when we saw this bill introduced both in the House and here and here, we were kind of surprised, if you will. We don't know how many additional sites are envisioned because I think don't think the bill actually mentions, you know, to do so many more sites, and that's what's hard, you know, to... Yeah.

And then just to very quickly for to be on the record, no. And, also, as I say in my testimony, I don't I don't think the timing of the funding would work out anyway. We wouldn't have time to be able to, you know, acquire everything we need to do even for the general election. So it's just that's a problem too.

Alright. Thanks very much. Members, other questions? If not, wanna recess for a second or you wanna just talk out loud?

Let's keep going. Okay.

So I don't know. I guess my feeling at this point is thank you very much. The bill, it's my bill. It wasn't clear to I introduced it because I was if the counties needed financial help to go forward with if wanted VSCs, I thought this would be a way to find out for sure that that's what the situation is.

Since they're not, since the timing isn't very good and because they're not really asking for more VSCs, I guess my inclination would be just to defer it. Okay. It's deferred. Alright. That ends our 10:30.

Returning to the 9:00 agenda to do some decision making. I don't know if we'll be able to get through them all. We have to get out of here by 11:15, but we'll start anyway. First, at top of that agenda is SB 2246.

It's expands the scope of persons who are subject to public financial disclosure requirements. The recommendation is to pass it with technical amendments. Oh, I'm sorry. And there was an additional yeah. I got it.

Sorry. I forgot about it. And, also, I'm sorry, text and an additional amendment suggested by the, Ethics Commission, which is on page eight, line one to three, and would read the executive directors or executive officers if applicable and board commissioners, board or commission members of the following instead of the current language, or I mean, to to amend that current language. Any questions or concerns? If not, vice chair.

On SB 2246, the, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair Rhoads? Aye. Vice chair with Tsai. Senator Chang.

Excuse. Senator San Buenaventura? Excuse. Senator O'Wai?

Aye. Measure is adopted. Thank you. Next up is, SB 2,250. This amends the offense of promoting a controlled substances on or near schools, vehicles, public parks, or public housing projects.

I think in the end, I will just go with the recommendation of, well, let's conform the preamble to the substance of the bill. The preamble was a little more expansive than what the bill actually said. And I think maybe the other one is that's that's it. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

Fifth amendments? Yes.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2250 is to pass with amendments. Are the members present? Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure passes.

Okay. Thank you. Next up is, SB 2,325. This one authorizes course to modify sentences imposed on juvenile offenders if certain conditions are met and the court finds that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community. Recommendation here is to go ahead and make some amendments.

It's fairly complicated. Okay. So what I'd like to do is place the supervision. So once the 15 is reached, we'll place this the this any any if if the motion is granted and there's further supervision beyond the being in prison, we'd place the supervision under the parole framework, which is typically what happens when you're getting out of prison. Probation is usually before you go and probation is something you can be put on instead of going to prison.

So we'll change it to a we'll change it to that framework And let's see. Guess that's is that too general? Is that gonna work okay? K. And then also, I think that, Senator Gabbard, since it's your bill, I guess my inclination would be to move the to make the fifteen years a little bit shorter, make it to twelve instead just because of the what the testimony was about.

Okay. So we'll also change it to, that the review would happen after twelve years instead of fifteen. Okay. Questions or concerns? Seeing none, Senator Gabbard.

On SB 2325, chair recommendations to pass the amendments. Members present, any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure's adopted.

Okay. Next up is SB 2418. This would repeal Hawaii's drug paraphernalia statute. I think we need to do a little more work on this. I believe, in the end, we'll pass something out, but some of the questions that were brought up by DLE give me pause. So let's see. It's, we got a hearing on Tuesday. Oh, wait. Delete 19. No.

I'm sorry. So let's go for we'll go for a DM on this one at ten. Actually, maybe we better put it off a little longer. Okay. That sounds good.

What time?

9:45.

So we'll go to 09:45 a week from today, Friday, the 20th in this room, 016 for DN. Okay. So that one's deferred for a week.

2447, this provides us a period of limitation for criminal prosecutions and our campaign finance laws can then respond to discovery. We'll go ahead and accept essentially what the CSC was suggesting so that it will be it will remain the statute of limitation will remain five years, but it will start with the discovery by CSC. Is that the right phraseology? Discovery or

Date of discovery.

Date of discovery by CSC as opposed to the date of the event or the occurrence of the occurrence. So it's still five years. It's just a different start date of typical often can be later. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

On SB 2447, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Members present, any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure's adopted.