Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning. We're convening the committees on Judiciary and Water, Land, Culture and the Arts on our joint 9:00 a.m. agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 016. We have one bill on the measure--or, excuse me--one measure on the agenda today.

To make sure we have an opportunity to get through all of this, because there are multiple hearings going on simultaneously, we're gonna ask folks to please make sure your written testimony is submitted, and we'll ask you to speak swiftly so we can make sure that everybody has an opportunity to testify.

So that set up, first is SB 2041, relating to real property, which repeals the Land Court and transfers functions of the Land Court to the Bureau of Conveyances and establishes a working group to recommend implementation along the way. And testifying first this morning is the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good morning. Ryan Kanaka'ole, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Oh, and we can sit down. We stand on our written testimony and we're here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Testifying next is the Judiciary.

We stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. Up next is the Hawaii Association of Realtors, in support. And we have signed up on Zoom, CARES.

CARES present, Chair.

Good morning.

Aloha. Angela Melody Young, CARES. I'm wishing to comment. And so, I did pass my properties management class test at Abe Lee's class, so I'm about to be a property manager.

And so I think with this legislation, there can be challenges regarding the lack of judicial authority if the transfer of functions from the Land Court goes to the Bureau of Conveyances because the Land Court is within the Hawaii State Judiciary and it operates in conjunction with the Bureau of Conveyance, which is under the DLNR.

And although this legislation seeks to modernize and to make things efficient because of the backlog, the primary benefit of the Land Court system in a judicial function is that it can adjudicate complex title disputes, boundary issues, and fraudulent claims, which if it's transferred to the Bureau of Conveyances, Bureau of Conveyances lacks that judicial authority.

And so, the working group component is good because it recognizes these risks and the proposal includes a working group to specifically recommend how to handle these issues and ensure a smooth transition. So, yeah.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB 2041 this morning? Seeing none. Are there any questions? Chair.

Can I have both Judiciary and DLNR up? Sort of foundational questions. If we-- if at some point the decision is made to deregister all the Land Court property, what's the legal ramification of that? Because it's essentially-- with the Torrens system, we're guaranteeing that we're-- the state guarantees the authenticity of the title, I guess, is the way to say it?

That's correct. That's one of the advantages of the Land Court system is the state guarantee for title. The downside, I guess, would be for large landowners if they were to go into regular system, there might be some wild deed issues that could happen in the regular system, as we've seen in other situations. And another, I guess, disadvantage of not having Land Court would be the possibility for adverse possession claims. Like yours, yeah.

So-- but in terms of-- I mean, I think that-- I suppose you could wait to deregister everything until there's another transfer of the property, but that could mean that Land Court or some vestige of Land Court would be around for decades because some property stays in the same hands for a long time.

What-- is that-- I mean, I guess the bottom-line question is as a legal matter, can we deregister property? Can we just say, okay, we've been guaranteeing the title for this for 50 years and now we're not going to?

So there is an option for landowners to deregister property now. It is onerous to do it and there's a cost associated and time element to the registration process, but it is available to landowners now, and I think after-- we reviewed the numbers since the deregistration statute had been passed and the amount of deregistrations has gone down over time. So those remaining--

But that's voluntary.

Yes.

So, I mean, conceivably, depending on what the working group here did, there might be some sort of involuntary deregistration, I suppose, and that's the part I'm curious about is, can we even do that or are we going to be somehow liable to those so that we used to guarantee title two and now we're not guaranteeing title two anymore?

I would leave it to the working group to discuss, especially with the large landowners as, you know, part of the stakeholder group, but what I would anticipate is the issue of the cost element of having to require the landowners to go through the deregistration process.

Okay.

Yeah.

Just one more, if you don't mind. So do you know whether the-- does the Torrens system-- do mortgage company-- or to banks and mortgagors, do they--I'm sorry, mortgagees--do they require less mortgage, less private mortgage insurance, or less title insurance if it's recorded in the Land Court system because it is guaranteed by the state?

I don't know.

Do you know?

Okay.

I'm sorry, you're with the land title?

He's our registrar for--

Okay. You'll need to talk into a mic, so.

But are you with Bureau of Conveyance?

Yes, I'm director of the Bureau of Conveyance. It's Mike Imanaka.

So, yeah. So I guess you heard the question. I just-- do title companies charge less if the property is registered in Land Court?

No. Well, I can't speak for the title industry, but I have worked in industry. So basically, the title insurance is generally based upon the value of the property or the loan.

Okay. So it's not--

It's not differentiated between what systems. It's--

Okay. All right, that's what I wanted to know. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

I have a question.

Vice Chair.

And I know this request has happened last year as well, in a couple of years, and I as the chair then has decided not to because until such time that I really understand the two-tier system. My question has to do-- you talked about large landowners.

My question would be kuleana lands and with the families and-- you know how it is when there's land owners, multiple, many, many, I guess, owners and to the current generation and understanding what the kuleana lands and the settlement of families whether to sell or not and the decision that arises with the titles, and my family and my in-law family on the Hawaiian side, you know, had these kinds of issues because of the large land divisions.

So would this then be incumbent upon us to ensure that the decisions with those kuleana lands and families that want to settle, you know, the land problems that they've had for generations and because of the-- those that doesn't support, you know, getting rid of property or some that wants to sell, is there any impact to that particular group? And that's a concern that bothers me as well.

I think we'd have to check on how many kuleana, particularly kuleana lands are in Land Court. I'm not aware--

Current, you mean?

Yeah, currently.

Yes, yes. But I'm just curious because-- so with those family issues, does it still proceed then with this going into the system, into the Land Court? And I think it does, yeah.

The family actually-- good question, Senator. The family issues pertain to both systems or property. There's historical issues where they may not have sold it with a contract. It might have went to family to family. So, you know, I think the industry is trying to work and clean up those issues and support, you know, the kuleanas to help them establish their true ownership.

I'm sorry to interrupt. Can you pull the mic closer? People are acting like they can't hear in the back. Sorry.

Okay. And can you kind of explain again so others could hear you?

Okay. So the question is, it doesn't affect the kuleana properties. I think where the kuleana properties reside, whether it's Land Court or regular system, it's a land issue. So that's something where generations, if they haven't recorded documents, there might be, you know, some clouds on titles, and I think that's where, you know, a lot of the kuleana ancestors are trying to figure that out and establish, you know, what type of property rights.

But it's a complicated issue that I can't answer immediately here, and that's why I think the working group would be best to help answer that question where you have, you know, professionals from a wide stakeholder group that can provide their insights and instructions to craft federal legislation.

Okay. Yeah. It's just a concern because if-- I think this measure deletes the Land Court-- I mean, the courts, the Judiciary, and it goes directly to the Bureau. And so, how thorough will you work on this particular issue? You know, is it faster or what?

But it seems like the Judiciary has a lot of recommendations that they would probably, in their policy, you know, work that-- to me, I think the protection for the family seems, I think, strengthens, to me, a family decision. But with the Bureau, I'm not sure if it's just a shorter whatever, but that's just a concern I'm raising. So at least with these recordings, if this measure passes, then the test-- the working group will, I hope, will consider this discussion.

Yes, and I just want to clarify that, as opposed to the legislation that was going through last session, this session is-- it's much more deliberate in the working group, putting that board first to, you know, think about all these nuances and then make recommendations for reform rather than eliminating altogether and converting everything over to regular system.

Okay. So when we work on this legislation, I know-- you know, we pass that becomes statute, just creating the workforce. So I'm thinking that perhaps maybe the committee can add some of the issues so that it's documented, because once it leaves us, we have no control because we're part-- you know, it goes through the task force.

We don't know how, you know, deliberate that they'll carry it on. And I'm just wondering if we should also indicate the kinds of issues that, you know, the Legislature is concerned about.

You can definitely put that in, and the task force has a good representation where the senate president is able to appoint someone, as well as the speaker. I think the biggest issue or the most complicated issue is working with the Land Court Judiciary. It's two separate entities.

That's right.

We're the Executive, they're Judiciary, and, you know, most people think Land Court thinking of just one section versus the other. And, you know, by going through this process and working collaboratively with the Judiciary, we should be able to come up with, you know, pretty good recommendations as well as with other stakers providing insights into better legislation.

Yeah. Thank you, Chairs.

Any further questions? Seeing none. All right.

Thank you, fellows. Thank you.

With that, this is the only measure on our agenda, so we'll go straight into decision-making on this. Chairs, having conferred, I'd like to recommend moving this forward for further discussion with amendments defecting the date.

I'll just recognize that, you know, obviously some of the discussion had raised a few issues that need to be sorted out, but just given the time frame for moving some of the bills to the next committee, we'd like to move that forward, and we'll work on it as a work-in-progress as we go. So any discussion? Any questions? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2041 with the Committee on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll call]. Okay. Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Same recommendation for JDC. Any questions and concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

On SB 2041, [roll call]. Measure's adopted.

Thank you. That takes us out. We're adjourned.

Foreign.

Okay. Welcome back, everyone. This is the judiciary only 904 agenda. On this agenda we have Senate Bill 2247. This prohibits any Executive branch employee who is nominated or appointed by the Governor to a compensated position subject to confirmation by the Senate from engaging in certain campaign fundraising activities.

First up on this Ethics State Ethics Commission package Bill is Robert Harris, Executive Director of State Ethics Commission or his designee. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabber and Committee Members, Key Campbell. On behalf of the State Ethics Commission, Executive Director Harris apologizes for missing this hearing. This is during the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting and unfortunately he was unable to attend. Sorry.

You better pull the mic closer.

Sorry. Yeah. And unfortunately, he was unable to attend. This Bill attempts to curb pay to play and the appearance of it for employees that handle large state contracts. The Commission believes that curbing pay to play is particularly important in our current context. Therefore, the Commission stands in strong support of SB2247. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Christy Chang for Campaign Spinning Commission. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee, Christy Chang from the Campaign Spinning Commission. The commission supports this Bill because we believe it will prevent pay to play practices or the appearances of that and is a step towards more transparency and supporting government. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Anne Frederick for Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha, Aria. Juliet K. Speaking on behalf of Annie Frederick in strong support. Our public confidence in government depends on knowing that the procurement and contract decisions are made free from political influence.

When the high level Executive branch employees with procurement authority participate in campaign fundraising, it creates at least the appearance of undue influence, even if no misconduct occurs. This Bill is narrowly tailored. It applies only to Governor appointed Senate confirmed Executive branch employees in compensated positions and prohibits them from organizing, hosting, attending or soliciting funds for political fundraisers.

This is a practical, measured reform to prevent pay to play dynamics. We respectfully urge you to support. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next up is Judith Mills Wong for League of Women Voters. In support, Johnny May L. Perry. In opposition, Lynn Maal. In support, Veronica Moore. In support, Lila Mower. In support, Gregory Makian. And support. That's everyone who signed up on SB 2247. Would anyone else like to testify in this measure? Seeing non Members. Questions?

I don't have any either. I'm ready to vote if you guys are ready to vote. Okay. Recommendation on SB2247 is to pass with amendments. We'll limit it to the Time after the person has been confirmed. And we'll also note that it. The restrictions stay in place until employment and a covered position ends. So from the.

From the time of confirmation until the employment in that covered position ends. Questions? Concerns?

If not, no comment, just quick. Sure glad to see this one. Hopefully it gets through the Senate. Last year I brought this up, some Senators took offense. So I was glad to see this on the agenda. Thanks. Any other questions or concerns?

If not Senator Gabber on SB 2247, Recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair Rhodes. Aye. Vice Chair with side. Senator Chang. Hi. Senator Sam W. Ventura. Excuse. Senator Awa. Hi. Measures adopted.

Comments?

All right, thank you, Ricky. There's no problem from your end. We'll just go on into our nine. What is it, 905 or 905 agenda? Is that okay? That is okay, Chair. All right, we're moving on to our 905 agenda. First up on the 905 is SB 2143 relating to the Chief Election Officer. Provides it.

In the event of a vacancy in the position of Chief Election Officer, the Attorney General shall serve as the interim Chief Election Officer until the Elections Commission appoints a new Chief Election Officer. First up on 2143 is Jungman Charles Lee, Deputy Attorney General.

Morning. Chair. My Committee, Carl Jung, Deputy Attorney General. Written opposition to this Bill, so I'll be. Questions?

Okay, great. Thank you. Next is Sandy Harjo Livingston, Chair, Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission on Zoom. Maybe not present. Chair. In support. Next is Jamie Detwiler, President of Hawaiian Islands Republican Women. Also on Zoom. Not present. Chair. oh, no, you're in person. Sorry. Good morning.

Chair Rhodes. Vice Chair Gabbard. Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women. Happy New Year.

Happy New Year.

The Hawaiian Island Republican women stand in opposition of SB 2143 for the following reasons. It's a threat to the current statute 11.1.6, which is the appointment of the election officer. This statute speaks to what happens if this position is vacated for any reason.

It already has the safeguards in place to call an emergency meeting of the elections commissioners together to then aggressively look for a replacement in the event of a vacancy. The current law provides for a fair and balanced process for appointing the Chief Elections officer by introducing bureaucratic control and government power as proposed in this Bill.

The ability to have a bipartisan appointment of a Chief election officer is therefore nullified. Number two, this is a conflict of interest and abuse of power. The Hawaii Revised Statute's appointment of the Chief Election Officer was established in accordance with the law. So really There is no need to change what's already in place.

This Bill threatens the current procedure. It also allows the AG to function as the Chief Election Officer in decisions and actions that will be biased, giving unfettered power to the Administration in office. The AG's office could potentially delay the appointment of a new Chief Elections Officer leading to government overreach. And we offer some solutions to this Bill.

Keep the current practice in place. Consider supporting legislation for citizens to elect a chief elections officer. May I respectfully remind this Committee that Article 1 of the Hawaii State Constitution states that all political power makes exception

to your I, I, I. Thank you, governors. I'm okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Michael Golo Jr. For pride at Work Hawaii. Maybe on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Michael Glo Jr. He him pronouns. President of Private Work Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this measure. What we're looking at here is putting safeguards for our elections, our elections as there it stands now. We do not have anybody can pick up the range should something happen to our Chief Elections Officer.

Luckily, over the years nothing has happened. But as we have seen, we have no idea what's kind of the future has for us. And we do. We definitely need these safeguards to ensure that we can have our elections certified in a timely manner.

So everybody else has a continuity, a government plan, a chain of command and a replacement. We do not have that for the Chief Elections Officer. And I don't understand why anybody would want to make sure our elections are certified in a fast and easy fashion. I understand the Attorney General does not want this position, but I.

We need somebody to fill this role. And as the chief, as the leading police officer in the state, they make the best. They make the right choice at this time. So we encourage you to pass this Bill. Thank you for hearing it. Safeguard our elections and making sure that this takes place.

Mahalo. Thank you. Next up is Amy Monk for Legal Women Voters. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard. Committee Members. SB 2143 provides for an interim official to certify election results if the Chief Election Officer position is vacant. Even if the Elections Commission could meet, we're not quite sure how they could agree on a substitute or an alternate in time.

They have not been able to complete an agenda in eight hours. So I think agreeing on a substitute Chief Elections Officer might be beyond them. So we would consider a person selected by or named by this Committee or the Legislature other than the Attorney General.

So long as there is an alternate that someone has faith in, we feel that an alternate is needed to prevent the delay of certification of election results and to provide for a transparent and expeditious process and a smooth transition of leadership.

We note also that the Attorney General's office can sequester a portion of the office and they can run alternate or different investigations that may run counter to what the Attorney General's duties are. So it's possible, but we are not wed to the fact that it be the Attorney General's office. So we leave it in your hands.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up is Marlene Tom for Indivisible Hawaii on Zoom. Maybe present. Chair.

Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabard, and Members of the Committee. Marleene Tom, testifying for Indivisible Hawaii in strong support of SB 2143. I totally agree. We totally agree with Ms. Monk from the League of Women Voters that this Bill is absolutely needed. Secure elections are the bedrock of our democracy, and we already know that.

We're seeing current attempts by the Federal Government to, quote, unquote, nationalize elections. And in our state, the chief Elections officer is the one who certifies elections. And should there happen to be a vacancy in that position, our election results are in danger, and, you know, none of our votes will be counted.

Therefore, we strongly urge and hope that this Committee will advance SB2143, because that's one way of ensuring that the electorate has confidence in our elections. And, you know, we. We maintain our democracy. So thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'll be around. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Shelby Picot. Picot, I'm sorry, Pikachu billionaire. Are you here on Zoom?

Present Chair

this Bill because if you've ever attended these long, boring meetings with office elections. Scott Nagle ignores all the questions, has no chain of custody for Oahu or Maui. So they have it on Kauai and Big Island. The big issue was recently, they're missing 19000 ballots and somehow they got inserted electronically.

On Big island, Kawhi, they're 600 short. Yeah, it seems a little off, but on Maui and oaku, there's zero chain of custody, meaning when you put in the. Your ballot, your votes into the box, normally somebody checks it, they'll put it in, submit it back into the registering area, and they'll count that up, match it up.

They didn't do that all the entire Honolulu. So that guy is lying to everybody certified the election. So if you replace them with the ags, that's written in the Bill. I don't know if the AG can handle it because I know AG body can't handle the Epstein files.

So you guys got a lot of work ahead because I know they're breaking the law. Now when they know they're breaking the law, that's a manzarea. And when they say can you continue to break the law, that's actus rias. So that's international law, the Latin of the law. I don't write the law, I don't enforce the law.

I know what Carl Rhodes as the helm for the Jewish Committee, he understands and you guys will do the right thing past it with technical amendments for clarity and consistency. And Chiku, let's move forward and hold him accountable.

Thank you very much. Next up is Anne Frederick for Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action. Also on Zoom maybe good. Good morning again.

Aloha Aria Juliet Castillo testifying on behalf of Hawaii Lines for Progressive Action in strong support. Our safeguards in election leadership is essential. Elections operate on strict legal timelines, ballot preparation, candidate filings, voter services and federal compliance requirements. Do not pause if a vacancy occurs.

Even a short leadership gap at the Office of Elections can create confusion, delay decision making and open the door for doubt of our integrity. The this Bill ensures continuity during a transition period without altering the Elections Commission's authority to appoint the Chief Election officer.

There's clear lines of interim authority that prevent that for those reasons we strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Sarah Simons for the Democratic Party of Hawaii. In support Hoku pac. In support, Susan B. Roberts Emory for the Green Party of Hawaii. Also in support, Randy Pereira for Hawaii State AFL CIO and support Ralph Kushnia on Zoom maybe present chair. Good morning.

Good morning. Can you hear me? Yep. Go ahead. Okay. Yeah. My name is Ralph Kushni. I'm a Member of the Hawaii Elections Commission. I am in opposition to SB2143 because the Attorney General has failed to enforce basic election laws and has actively obstructed oversight efforts, including blocking envelope counts and preventing independent verification.

Against his backdrop, SB2143 would place an Attorney General in direct control of the Office of Elections during any vacancy of the Chief Elections Officer position. Raising serious concern about independence, transparency and public trust, the Hawaii Elections Commission conducted a formal investigation into the Administration of the 2024 General Election and made the following major findings.

Hawaii election results based on electronic records are unverifiable. Elections officials withhold underlying daily data, including ballot counts over under reports, signature verification logs and audit records, preventing Independent verification.

None of the four counties county Clerk's offices provided chain of custody records that comply with HAR 3177453 and more ballots were counted in the statewide voter registration system than counties reported collecting. The Office of Elections misleads the public about ballot security and the integrity of elections.

The Chief Elections Officer did not certify the 2024 General Election in accordance with HRS 111555. The Elections Commission and the Deputy Attorney General's Office suppressed complaints and evidence of malfeasance. Most recently, the Attorney General's Office blocked the Commission's efforts to allow volunteers to count ballot envelopes from the Big island, preventing basic physical verification of ballots.

During the 2024 General election, the state reported counting more than 19,000 ballots than were collected by Hawaii County. Kauai county could not account for several thousand ballots. Maui county produced no record. The City and county of Honolulu did not have any.

You can go ahead and cut him off. His time's up. Linda Miata, you're up. Good morning.

Aloha Chair Rhodes Vice Chair and Members. My name is Linda Miata. Mahalo for the opportunity to share. Can you hear me?

Yes. Please proceed.

Okay, I respectfully oppose SB2143 for these five reasons. This Bill shifts election oversight closer to the Executive branch. It risks politicizing an office meant to be independent. It could undermine public confidence in election neutrality, creates precedent for expanding Executive influence over elections, and it lacks clear justification for why a political appointee is the fallback.

Mahalo for allowing the people to have a voice in this matter. I completely support what Ralph Kushni just testified. Please oppose SB2143. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Okay, that is everyone who signed up to speak or on Zoom. There's many other testifiers. The the count was 96 in support, 15 opposed with zero comments. But if there's anyone here who's would like to testify in this SB 2143, you're more than welcome. Please come on up. Good morning.

Morning. Trying to get in here. Hello, my kako. My name is Tara Malia Gregory. I'm a registered voter, a United States citizen, a former middle school teacher, and my father is currently here. And three years ago I moved back to the INA.

He is a Navy veteran, 100% disabled, so that I could speak on behalf of election integrity in this state. So we're living here in District 4 now. I strongly oppose this Bill as it's written. I'm not saying it's the intention of this body.

But last week, Tarnas, Representative Tarnas, he deferred this and I believe he deferred it for these very reasons because the companion Bill is HB 1552. For the past two years, I've been attending these elections Commissions meetings. Sometimes they go six to seven hours. They're every first Wednesday of the month.

And I also have to listen in on the city council to see what's going on in the city. At the same time, what I've witnessed was permitted interaction groups showing the various potential fraud happening right now. I've also witnessed the Attorney General speak on behalf of keeping voters not able to see audits.

They've collected tens of millions of dollars from the Federal Government, but yet have not complied by HAVA regulations or Nrva. Exactly the reason why the Department of Justice is looking into this so that we can have fair and just over fast and easy.

I stand on the various testimonies before specifically Ms. Detwiler, she spoke specifically to a great solution. Instead of appointing, this would love to have the opportunity for the people of Hawaii, the registered voters, United States citizens, to be able to speak for ourselves by electing this position.

So for that reason, I strongly oppose this Bill as it's written. Thank you very much, Mahal, for the time to speak.

Anyone else like to testify in SB2143 here on Zoom? Yep. Please come on up. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Walyn Christian, born and raised in Hawaii on the island of Oahu. You've seen me here many times as well as I've been on the monthly meetings with the Elections Commission.

We have seen time and time again what has happened with our elections and the responsibilities of the Chief Elections Officer. Unfortunately, I'm the one that's going to say that the people are not satisfied with it. I will say this.

I have a couple things that I'd like to do and I'm just going to go by bullet points so I stay on track. I strongly oppose SB 2143. I, as I said with many others and those that you've seen here, we do go to these elections commissions meetings every month and it's 56 hours sometimes on Zoom.

And we deal with the same repetitive rhetoric that's going on. And unfortunately the Deputy Attorney General is there most times going against the voices of the people. And that's a big problem for us. It is a conflict of interest, as the AG has already stated.

So with her saying that, I think this Committee should really look into that and say, you know what? She's right. We're not going to do this. We're going to kill this Bill.

I will have to say that also having the person appointed by the elections commission is concerning to me, although I do like some of them on that commission's board.

Because what can happen is they will choose someone that they can control and with that problem, that person will not do according to the law or the voices of the people, which what we've seen with the current CEO, there is no need for an alternate because the current law provides for a fair and balanced process for appointing the CEO.

And I mean Chief elections officer. My apologies. And I also respectfully remind this Committee that Article 1 of the Hawaii State constitution states that all political power of this state is inherent in the people and the responsibility for the exercise thereof rests with the people. Thank you very much. All the government is founded on this authority.

And with that I thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify in SP2143? Okay. Seeing none Members questions. I know Mr. Nago is not here for this Bill, but I do have a question for you.

Yes, I do.

You know, having heard the Attorney General's concern about. Well, actually I don't even need to go into that. We, we've seen the Attorney General doesn't really want the.

What, what I'm suggesting in this Bill, my question to you is internal to your office, like if you're gone for the day, is there a, Is there a chain of command within the office?

There. There is not because Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution provides for a chief election officer and the Legislature shall define its responsibilities. So there's not a statutory. Not a statutory one. I'm aware of that.

Yes.

But in terms of practicality. There is a practicality, but I don't believe that person would be able to certify the election because statutorily they're not. They don't have that authority.

Yes, but we're the Legislature, so we can change. Yes. So what I'm asking is the practical day to day, if you're not in the office, who's the boss? There is a chain of command in the office.

Okay, that's what I'd like to know. What is the chain of command in the office? What position is next and what position is after that? And what position? It's, it's.

It's usually the support services section because they have. I had it all, all aspects of the office.

Okay. So what I'm. What I'm considering is changing the Bill or suggesting to my colleagues that we change the Bill to just say that when. If you're. If you're unable to serve for whatever reason, that there is a chain of command.

That whatever your chain of command is internally, the next person in the chain of command would be the one who would have the. Your authority and including the authority to certify elections so we don't have to try to send it off to another Department or another agency. So that, that's my. My specific question is who. What.

What is the chain of command and who. What. Which positions. In which order are they?

So there's only. So like I said, it would be the election support services section head would. Who normally is the second. Who functionally served as the second in command Support Services section.

Okay. And then after that, we don't go. That. You don't go that far. Okay, well, we may need to. So we're probably gonna pick some. We'll pick some more. Okay. Thank you very much. Members, other questions? I do.

Sorry, Scott, it seems to me that this is looking at only a specific event because if you choose to retire, you would give notice. And the elections commission then can appoint. So it's only upon unexplained death or unexplained vacancy. What. And I understood that you.

That, that, that you answered Chair Rhodes question that the support staff then takes over. But isn't there an appointment position? I mean, like the Governor appoints somebody in the interim for. For elected office until there's a special election. So are we.

Are you saying that in the event that an election is occurring, that your support staff then becomes the chief elections officer until the elections commission appoints something? He's not saying that. I'm the one suggesting it. I mean, who is it now?

So right now.

So, yeah. In the event you suddenly die,

that I would. I wouldn't.

Nothing happens to you. Okay. But. But you suddenly die or you suddenly for some reason need to vacate.

As I was explaining that. So it would be up to the commission to appoint a new chief election officer, but in the immediate aftermath, I. There is not a statutory position for somebody to take over.

I mean, so we, we heard testimony that sometimes these elections commission meetings last for like, five hours. And how long do they normally take to make a decision?

I would. I would only say you would have to watch the. The video of the meeting too. I can't answer that.

Okay, thank you. Members, other questions. All right, let's see. All right, thanks very much. We'll go ahead and move on to the next Bill. Next Bill is SB222239 relating to voter registration. Authorized state agencies to make applications for voter registration part of certain state agency application processes. First up on SB2239 is. No.

Eventually I have an answer here for you. Scott Nago for the Office of Elections,

thank you for the opportunity to testify on this Bill. We support the intent of the Bill, but would defer to other government agencies. As for the as it relates to the implementation, thank you for the opportunity to testify and we appreciate the committee's efforts to expand access to voting and strength civic engagement.

And I'll be here to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Jung Min. Charles Lee, Deputy Attorney General.

Morning, Charles. General submitted our written comments for better implementation of this Bill. I'll be available for any question.

Great. Thank you. Next is Director Kim Hashira or Aaron Owens for the C County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services with comments. Next is Shelby. zero, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabard, Committee Members, Megan Johnson, Deputy Director for Department of Customer Services, City and County of Honolulu. The Department stands on its written comments and I'm available for questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next is Shelly Pikachu, billionaire on zoom zoom. Right in.

All right, Pikachu. Shelby Bonier, live and empowered. Good morning. Thank you very much. Just came from Waianae, caught the bus. So I definitely want to support that Bill for free bus for because it took me like three hours to get here. So I was on the zoom on the bus. Now I'm here.

Glad to see our beautiful faces. So I do support this Bill and I know you guys are smarter than me. So please, please pass it with the technical amendments with clarity and consistency because David Tardness tells me that all the time. So I wanted to say it back to all of you and let's go. Now goes here.

I can see a timer when I'm on the bus. I cannot see the time, so I cut it quick. Don't worry, I won't go. I'll let it for a minute 30. I'll just do a minute. So to answer your question, Senator, those meetings are so freaking boring.

If you have insomnia at night, you can watch the Office of Elections meetings. We got maybe like 16 to 80 people maximum on YouTube and like 186 participants. So some of the testifiers are very good. They're empowered like Wallen Christian. I can tell you they're going to break the law this year.

Article 2, Section 4 When they force you to choose a primary or a partisan group for the primary election, they've done it every year and it breaks their own constitution. Made in 1978. I didn't write the law. I didn't break make the law. But ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you of the law.

And I was born in 1982, so that's made 1978. And I'm pro Hawaiian Kingdom. That's Hawaiian. Say constitutions, you know, that's in the black and white. You know, I'm not Jesus. But I'm saying they're supposed to follow the law. Right?

Unless they're following Donald Trump's example of the Epstein files and AG Bondi, then I got issues with that because I send that to the home police commissioners as well. That's for a separate issue. Thank you very much. Please pass this Bill. Aloha.

Thank you. Next up is Jamie D. Detwiler for Hawaii Islands Republican Women. Good morning again.

Hello Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women in opposition of SB2239 while I support the intent of the Bill to register as many individuals as possible, I think there is a lot to be said about the process of this Bill.

So the dual purpose applications that include automatic voter registration, lack of paper trail which increases the vulnerability of election fraud. There are also privacy concerns with the automatic voter registration it may require raise concerns about data security and privacy, exposing voter information.

It could also strain resources and administrative capacities on the state agency, county clerks and the Office of Elections. Also, some individuals may feel pressured to register or to vote. There are also startup costs which are not addressed in the Bill.

While dual purpose applications can save election officials money over time, switching to this system may cost a lot of money and the taxpayers will bear the burden of that. Also, I have a question. Is the county Clerk going to check for duplication of voter registration submissions?

If a client goes to DHS or DLIR for services, will they be dually registered and how will the system handle that? Newly registered voters added to the database will worsen problems in these current voter rolls. The voter rolls need to be cleaned, so we recommend that you vote no on SB2239. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thanks very much. Next is Anne Frederick for Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action on Zoom. Good morning again.

Aloha Aria Juliet Castillo testifying on behalf of Hawaii Lions for Progressive Action in strong support of SB2239. This Bill strengthens our automatic voter registration system which we already have by allowing applications at public facing state agencies that serve as dual purpose voter registration areas and given the application, the applicant can affirmatively decline rather than opt in.

This approach expands access while maintaining strong safeguards and oversight and most importantly does not change who is eligible to vote. We are always asking young people to get involved in our democracy. This Bill helps remove unnecessary barriers so participation is actually accessible. We know that this approach works.

According to report by the center for American Progress, automatic voter registration helped Register More than 116,000 people in Oregon who were unlikely to have registered otherwise. 40% of those registered through AVR were under 30 compared to just 13% using traditional registration.

This improves the accuracy of our voter rolls, reduces administrative burdens and strengthens participation without compromising any integrity. We strongly respectfully ask you to support

thank you very much. Next is Susan B. Roberts, Emory for the Green Party of Hawaii. In support Chris Caulfield for IMUA Alliance. Also in support Ellen Ibata for Kawaii Individual Indivisible in support Glenn Takahashi, Honolulu Elections Division in support and Ralph Kushni on Zoom Morning again.

And I'm a Member of the Hawaii State Election Commission. I oppose SB2239 because Hawaii does not currently have verifiable elections. The Chief Elections Officer, Scott Nago, now claims there are over 868,000 active registered voters. Yet in 2020, he acknowledged that more than 100,000 out of roughly 800,000 registrations were bad.

Since the 2020 census, Hawaii has lost over 22,000 residents. At the same time, about 68,000 voters were added to the rolls. So the population is shrinking while the voter rolls are growing.

That surplus creates the condition for ballots to be added electronically, especially when there is no independent verification of the statewide voter registration system or the electronic election results. The voter rolls have never been independently audited. The United States Department of Justice is now suing to force release of Hawaii's voter rolls.

In the 2024 General election, the state reported counting 19,000 more ballots than the Big island collected. Hawaii cannot account for receiving several thousand ballots. Maui had no records and Oahu did not report the number of ballots they collected from dropboxes.

The Hawaii Office of Elections has never had a comprehensive external audit, despite a formal request from the Hawaii Elections Commission to the Legislature. The Attorney General's Office just blocked an effort by the Elections Commission to have volunteers count the envelopes from the Big island for the 2024 General election.

We must have verifiable elections before expanding registration pipelines or electronic Systems Please oppose 2239 and require an independent audit of our election systems, cleanup of voter rolls, and physical accountability for every ballot envelope received by the counties. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Linda Miata, also on Zoom,

present chair.

Hello again. Can't hear you yet. Looks like you're okay. There you go. There you go.

Thank you. Aloha. I respectfully oppose SP2239 for these five reasons. It risks voter role inaccuracies from agency data sharing. It raises citizenship verification questions. It expands government involvement in elections, creates privacy and data sharing concerns, and it sets precedent for broader election system changes.

Mahalo for opposing SB2239 so we have transparency and trust in our voter registration process. I also support what Jamie Detwiler and Ralph Kushney testified. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That is everyone who signed up to talk. The total count was 20 in support, 15 imposed and three comments. But if anybody else is here who would like to testify in SB2239, you're more than welcome.

Okay, go ahead. Mr. Golio. Good morning. Michael Goyu Jr. He him pronouns. President of Private Work, Hawaii. Prior Hawaii stands in strong support of this measure. We apologize for not getting our written testimony in on this. Removing barriers to making sure people are able. Able to vote in elections is paramount to ensuring a strong democracy.

People are very busy. They working 23 jobs, just keep a roof over their heads. They may not have time to remember to register to vote.

So by this would secure, would be able to make sure that every person that is eligible to vote in the state of Hawaii has a ballot sent to them in a part and have the opportunity to vote.

We encourage you to pass this Bill and strengthen our elections by making sure everyone has their right to vote at the. At the polling box. So mahalo for hearing this Bill and we encourage you to pass it.

Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2239? Okay, please come on up. Morning again.

Aloha, Tara, Malia, Gregory, thank you again for the time to speak. My preface this by saying that I do oppose this Bill as it's written, and I do preface this as a United States citizen and a registered voter. And the reason I say that is because of this automatic opt in.

I've heard some testimony today saying that this would just strengthen the voter rolls, but it actually just strengthens the perception of it. And I just want to specifically talk about the Bill itself. You know, HB 2132, which is the companion Bill. There were two reservations and two opposing last week for this specific Bill.

On Section one, lines 45 and six, the each state agency that deals with the public shall make available to each Member of the public 18 years of age of older.

I request that we put in there US citizen instead with proof of citizenship 18 years of older under the authority and in compliance with Hawaii and federal laws regarding voter rolls and voting in General. And then also I would love to propose on page two, it's about lines six through 12 regarding the voter registration roles.

At this point, the Elections Commission led by and actually keeping accountable Scott Nago, the chief Elections officer. You know, like I said before, the capacity to be able to sustain what we already have is in jeopardy. So to create more of an opt in that is automatic and not an opt out will just compound the inability.

We don't already have voter roles that have been audited as is. Can you imagine hundreds of thousands already? I stand on the statements that Ralph Kushnie made earlier.

Also, you know, I was on these commission meetings as well, and what I heard was 19,042 discrepancies, the unwillingness to open the voter rolls to even see if they are compliant. You know.

And so I would love if this body would just take another look at this Bill and see if there's a possibility of amending some of these terminologies. Okay. For the time to speak.

Anyone else like to testify in SB2239? 2239, come on up.

Morning again.

Good morning again. Okay, I'll try to be quick again. Again. Wallen Christian testifying in opposition of this Bill. And and I'll give you just two quick and I think you think it's going to really be funny, but it's not because it's serious.

Last last month on our elections commissions meeting, a young lady came on and testified that she received a ballot for her dog who was automatically registered through automation. The dog's name was Rascal and they put her last name and they sent the dog the ballot to her address.

That in itself speaks volumes that we cannot do automated registration. It's very simple. It's a valid ID requireD. We ask people for ID for alcohol, for cigarettes, anytime we go to banking, anytime we do any business, we are required to show our government issued valid iD.

Voting is just as important and we need to ask for that as well. So I ask that you oppose this. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else like to testify in SB2239? 2239. Okay, sing on Members questions.

Yeah. Scott, since you're here, come on up. So I know you didn't testify. No, I did. We're going. Yeah, you did. Regarding this though, I guess I didn't see it. I apologize because I didn't see your testimony. I saw the attorney General's testimony. It seems to me the biggest problem we have with voting isn't necessarily the registration.

It's making people vote because we have high amount of registration, low percentage of actual people voting. And frankly when I talk to people who want to vote, they get deregistered if they moved and they don't think that they need to re register.

How do we does this Bill fix the deregistration registration dilemma that voters who want to vote but simply like moved across the street and found out that they end up becoming a different district, end up becoming deregistered?

No, this Bill does not do that. And I don't think any state law would be able to fix that because that's a federal law where if you move, ballots are not affordable.

So anytime you fill out a change of address form or you move and something bounces back, we start the process of we don't remove you, we flag you as a questionable address and the federal law says you can only remove a voter after two General elections have passed.

So we have to go find that voter if they move. So we have to send affordable piece of mail for them to re register and then we have to wait two General elections, we're finally Removing them. And that's in federal law.

Don't we already have like same day registration?

Yes, we do.

So those people can come in and register.

Correct.

So when they want to vote, I mean they may not be able to get a ballot in the mail because they move, but then they can actually go to, they could go to a

voter service center, register and vote at the same time.

Did you. In the event that this Bill passes, because it seems to me that there is going to be administrative issues. Did you ask for an appropriation?

No, because it would be the agencies, the state agencies to implement it.

Okay. And they, and they basically testified that they want appropriations that they wanted.

Yeah, they did not read their testimony,

but yeah, they provide comments. Okay, thank you very much.

Members, other questions? Questions, Senator Gabby, go ahead. So the previous testifier about Rascal getting registered to vote, I'd like to hear your response to prevent that from happening.

Yeah, I don't see how. I mean we, that was said at a commission meeting. There was no. It was also said that that ballot was destroyed. So we don't have proof of that. But I, I can't see how that would happen because to register to vote you got to sign. It gets bounced against different databases.

So I don't know how a pet could get a ballot.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Chair, Other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. We'll go and move on to the next Bill. Which is SB 2721 relating to the Administration of Justice Implements Recommendations pursuant to Act 245 to amend Hawaii penal code. So this is the, the P. Nicole Review Commission Committee. The results from that. So it's quite a long Bill.

First up is Jennifer Long for Judiciary. Good morning.

Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Wong. I'm the staff attorney for the criminal divisions of the First Circuit as well as for Judiciary Administration. I just would like to. We stand on our written testimony and we support the endeavors of the 2025 Advisory Committee on the Pedal Code Review.

Just wanted to note that this was a expansive Committee of stakeholders. There's 61 Members. It included Members of the Legislature, Members of the judiciary, prosecutors from all counties, the attorney General, advocacy groups. A ton of people work very hard on this.

And this is the Bill that gained what is in this Bill is what gained super majority in plenary session. So just wanted to make sure we knew that the judiciary appreciates the work of all the Members of the Committee and thanks them for their participation. Sorry.

While we take no position on the revision or creation or elimination of statutes themselves or offenses themselves.

I did just want to point out a couple comments with respect to the revisions Chapter 704, because we really believe that these amendments will expedite the transfer of defendants out of the state hospital, especially where there's no dispute as to whether or not they're fit to proceed.

I do want to point out a couple of things with respect to the Bill itself. There seems to be a couple of typographical errors on page 27, line 17 where it says part 5 or the 5 or should actually be taken out. It should just be part 13.

And then the as somebody else pointed out in testimony, it appears that there should be on page 41, line 14 where it says filing, it should actually be file. And those two changes would I think effectuate what we meant to do in the proposed amendments. Okay.

I will be available for any questions, although I do have to run upstairs as well. Thank you.

Next up is Haley Chang for the office Public Defender. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. The Office of the Public Defender has submitted mainly comments on the proposed measure. But echo what the judiciary has just stated.

I personally did serve on the Committee and can state that there were a number of representatives from all different stakeholders that would have an investment in our criminal system. I do just want to highlight a couple of things that we really urge this Committee to support.

Noting that also as the judiciary stated that this the proposed amendments were the super majority of the broad Committee. Decreasing the offense for residue offenses for drugs to a misdemeanor is something that I think is critical.

And again that the Committee recommended also the reduction of the probation terms for nonviolent class C felonies from four years to three years. Hawaii is so far behind what the national trends are in terms of the length of court supervision. And this is a small step. I know there is significant opposition for restitution purposes.

I expect the Committee will hear testimony in opposition for that reason today. But just noting that there the process of freestanding orders exists. Restitution is not a barrier because of shortened probation terms and with all of the other policy considerations, we'd ask the Committee to consider that carefully. Thank you. I'll remain available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next. Next is Behavioral Health Administration for Department of Health.

On behalf of the Department of Health, we stand on our testimony in support of this measure.

In support. Okay. Next is panel. Ferguson Bray, Executive Director, Crime Victim Compensation Commission.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair Members Pam Ferguson Gray, Executive Director of the Climate and Compensation Commission and also A Member of the 2025 panel on Penal Code Review. Yeah. You have our testimony. We do support the Bill with the three proposed amendments. I'm sorry, I think there's a typo in my testimony about the first proposed amendment.

As the public defender mentioned, one of the proposals is to reduce in certain class C felonies probation from four to three years. We believe that this provision in creating a shorter term of probation will negatively impact crime victims and will shift the burden during that last year for collection of restitution from the judiciary to crime victims.

We also have significant expertise in matters relating to restitution. We collect restitution for inmates and parolees. We worked with the Council of State Governments publishing an article about that project entitled Victim Restitution Four Lessons from Hawaii to ensure Financial justice for Crime victims.

Reducing the amount of time that the judiciaries are obligated to collect restitution, as we said, unfairly shifts the burden of restitution collection to victims. We believe that criminal justice reform must not only serve the interest of offenders, but must also include meaningful protection for the interests and rights of crime victims.

A group of attorneys and folks across the country who actually enforce victims rights across the nation suggested six different issues that policymakers should think about when doing criminal justice reform. And one of the questions they suggested policy makers address is does this strategy eliminate or reduce the opportunity for victims to receive court ordered restitution?

If so, how will financial recovery of victims be supportive? Our testimony discusses the issue of freestanding orders. It is a fake promise to victims. We have never seen people actually being available. Maybe two people in. In the decades I've worked on this have tried to avail themselves this. The process is so burdensome we would challenge.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks. Next is Lila Konovitz for the Hawaii Psychological Association on Zoom now. Present Chair with comments. Next is Mike Goodman in person. Maybe on Zoom. Chair James Lindblad in support, George Yindl. Also in support, Dennis Dunn on Zoom. Present Chair. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard and Members of the Judiciary Committee. I am testifying in basic support of this measure. I did serve on this Committee. I'm very proud of that fact. And my compliments to Judge Paul Wong and the other Members of the Judicial Council who put together this effort.

I am supporting this measure with some concerns and I have proposed a couple of amendments. My concerns, similar to Pamela Ferguson Bray, are those regarding the ability for victims to get restitution once they're off probation. Most of our felony offenders do not go to prison, they are on probation.

And victims depend on the probation officers and the court to be able to make sure that that restitution is carried out. And the current process, we don't really know what works because we tried and did not get any statistics on restitution within the probation probationary periods.

And so I would would urge you to carefully weigh lowering the terms of probation, seeing what the impact there might be for victims. I've also included two measures to proposals to amend the statute. One would require an individual who's applying for early probation or early release from probation to have completed their restitution.

The other would require that the victim be notified when an individual is being considered for release from probation. Current statute provides that they're notified if the person is put on probation, that there's no requirement that they be notified if they're being released from probation.

Again, as it says in my testimony, put victims first and see that their deeds for restitution are at the cornerstone of our criminal justice process. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. That's everybody who signed up on SB2721. Would anyone else like to testify in SB2721 on Zoom or in person? Okay. Seeing none. Members questions? Yes, Senator

Awam, Judiciary and. And the public defender, I guess. So the question is regarding the victim restitution. So I don't think probation officers should be collections because there's a huge industry for debt collection already.

But what I want to know is how does that freestanding order saying that there is a debt owed, could that then be translated into like a civil order? And the answer is yes. So they can then go to district court. To district court. Yes. And get wage garnishment like any other debt collection person could.

Or they could use that and hire a collection agent to go after the. The defendant.

Yes, Whatever collections are available, that that would be how they would do it. The problem is it becomes a civil order.

Right. So that this. It is a civil order. Yes.

Once it's a freestanding order, it is a civil order.

And the reason that the criminal courts order freestanding orders is for that very

purpose that they can then use and get wage garnishment or asset garnishment. Yes. In district court. And that way the probation officer stays as a probation officer and not necessarily via collections.

So just to clarify, while they are on the term of probation, often it is a condition of probation that they make whatever payments they can make according to their financial ability to pay. Sometimes it's as low as $30 a month.

So in fact, the, the freestanding order, because my memory of the civil judgment they can collect wage garnishment up to 25% of wages and basically unlimited amount of assets is actually better than a probation officer trying to collect because a probation officer is limited to financial means.

Correct. And, and, and I, at least from the perspective of the office of the Public Defender, most of the time the clients are not paying restitution because they don't have the ability to pay. It is not a.

There, there is a contumacious payment statute that the prosecutors can utilize if they believe truly that defendants are willfully disregarding in order to pay restitution. I have never in my almost 20 year as a defense attorney seen that utilized. But that's, and that's maybe because the, my career has been in the realm of indigent defense.

So I think mine.

Yeah, I did, I did court appointed and I have seen probation officers use a confirmatious. Yeah. To try to extend the probation. But, so, so I understand them.

But I also understand, because I do, I mean I do civil work, that with a freestanding order, you have the 10 years to collect and then with a possibility of another 10 years to collect with, with an extension of time, you could get up to an even. Okay. Okay. I don't. Thank you.

I think I'm answering my own question. Sorry. Thank you.

Other questions, Members? If not, let's go ahead and move on to the next Bill. Okay. Next up is SB 2727, relating to discrimination. It lengthens the statute of limitations to file complaint of discrimination with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to one year. Currently, it's 180 days. First up on 2727 is Heather McVay for the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha Kakou. My name is Heather McVay. I use she/her pronouns and I'm the Deputy Executive Director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and we enforce Hawaii's anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, public accommodations, and access to state and state funded services.

For decades, HCRC, as we call it, has had partnerships where we share cases with HUD and EEOC. That's the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Equal Opportunity—Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

However, recent federal policy changes threaten to narrow or eliminate federal enforcement on cases involving discrimination claims based on gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, limited English proficiency, source of income, and disparate impact theories of discrimination. The Commission wants to make it very clear today that these protected classes and theories of discrimination remain protected by Hawaii law.

So, this Bill is extending HCRC statute of limitations from six months to one year to address the gap left by these federal policy changes. So, regardless of what the feds do, Hawaii law will stand.

Further, this extension will provide the people of Hawaii with more time to access justice through HCRC's administrative process, which is confidential and free and built for access.

If HCRC was not able to extend its statute, these individuals that have valid cases with these protected classes but fail to file with HCRC within the six months would be left without an accessible recourse and in some instances would be barred from filing a case in state or federal court. So, let's fix that.

Thank you for introducing the Bill. Thank you for caring and supporting civil rights. And I'm here for any questions you might have.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next, is Llasminre Chaney for Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, in support. Next is Deborah Bringman in support. Veronica Moore in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2727. Is there anybody else? Oh, wait a minute. Would you like to testify?

I'm back. Yes. Hi, Michael Golojuch, Jr., he/him pronouns. President of Pride at Work Hawaii. Again, we apologize for not getting our written testimony in time. We stand in strong support of this Bill.

For everything that you just heard from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, this Bill is desperately needed, especially given the attacks we have seen on our community coming from the federal level on a daily basis. And I do say daily. And I'm not being, I'm not being hyperbole there.

That seems every day there's a new attack coming from the Federal Government against our civil rights, against discrimination, for protected classes. So, we encourage you to pass this Bill, provide us the opportunity, provide those that face discrimination the opportunity to seek justice. We thank you for hearing the Bill and we hope you to pass it. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 2727. Okay. Seeing none. Members, questions?

Yeah, I do. Sorry.

Senator San Buenaventura.

Civil Rights Commission. So, 180 days seems like a really short period. How many—do you know if there's any quantifiable number of claims that you folks end up having to turn away because the six-month period was not complied with?

Yes, there is a handful and anecdotally, I would say, you know, probably a small number, but there's also under reporting, I think, so it's kind of hard to have the data of the folks that didn't make it to us and fell through the cracks.

But we do have because of the dual file status on cases, we know that there are some folks that try to initiate with us and when it's past the six months, we would then refer them to initiate with the other with either HUD or EEOC, and that housing and employment, those two categories, is about 90% of the cases that we have, so.

Okay, housing and unemployment. So, when you mean dual filing, that they can file also with, with, with federal agencies, other claims?

Correct. Right. So, when we have overlapping jurisdiction and the cases initiated with us, we would do the investigation with HCRC, and it would also receive a case number from on the federal side as well.

How many, do you know, mean, I don't know whether is this your Bill or?

Yes, it is.

Okay, thank you. Then, I'm assuming that, you know, how many claims that you folks turn away because it wasn't within the six months, but they, for some reason, are not able to file with the other agency.

I would say it's a handful of bills every year that we're aware of now because until now, it hasn't, until the policy changed and they're saying they're not going to cover certain protected case, certain protected classes, it was not a problem because we could rely on our partners to pick up those folks that were past the six months.

But now that they're saying, well, we're interpreting, for example, but, and this is coming by, you know, policy announcement, right. It's a kind of informal.

Well, it's in writing, but it's informal announcing that, for example, sexual orientation is not explicit in the Fair Housing Act, so that HUD would no longer cover cases that were involving sexual orientation as a protected class.

So, now I understand.

Okay, Right. So, we're aware of a number. I mean, in our regular practice, we would have a handful that we're aware of that they try to initiate with us. And we say, oh, it's past our statute, so you have to start on the federal side. Right.

And because right now you don't know quantifiably how many more claims that may end up being turned down because of policy, federal policy changes, you don't know whether or not you folks need any more staff.

We think at this time—we didn't ask for an appropriation at this time. We're really interested in securing those rights for Hawaii's people. And, you know, if a year from now we see that there's a, you know, incredible increase and the data is showing the need for one more investigator, for example, that could be a possibility.

But from the cases that we're aware of, that we, in our regular practice, see maybe 5 to 10 cases a year that might have that scenario where it's past the six months and we—and it's viable on the federal side. Yeah. So, we're ready to take a hit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions on SB 2727? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go and move on to the next bill which is SB 2731. This limits the maximum term of imprisonment for misdemeanors or for offenses punishable by up to or not exceeding one year to 364 days.

The first person up on this one is Hayley Cheng from the Office of the Public Defender. Morning, good.

Good morning, again. On behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, we strongly support this measure.

The reduction from 365 days to 364 days, maximum possible penalty for a misdemeanor, may seem nominal on paper, but the potential consequences and implications that that reduction can have in the—for our non-citizen clients and for immigration consequences is incredibly significant.

What we've done our best is to outline that in our testimony from the perspective of our office and what we see. Also noting that there are several other jurisdictions that have adopted similar measures for this exact same purpose.

So, I know you'll be hearing from the actual experts in this field, the immigration legal community, who is here in strong support as well, and I'll defer to them on the nuances of the legality of that matter and the impacts it does have. But we come across this situation all the time in the representation of our clients.

So, I will be available for questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you. Next up is McKenna Woodward for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in support. Leilani Stacy, Immigrants Rights Staff Attorney for ACLU of Hawaii or, or somebody else. Good morning.

Somebody else here. Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Committee Members. Mandy Fernandez, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii. We strongly support this measure and what this Bill does is it reduces the maximum possible sentence for misdemeanors from 365 to 364 days.

This one-day reduction, as the public defender stated, avoids triggering immigration consequences at the federal level that kick in when somebody is convicted of an offense punishable by one year or more, meant to cover more serious crimes. This does—it doesn't really matter, it doesn't matter if you're actually sentenced to the full year or not.

And in fact, it's incredibly rare that someone convicted of a misdemeanor would receive the maximum of 365 days in jail. It only matters that the offense carries a possible sentence of 365 days. In Hawaii, we see this really affecting our neighbors who are here legally under the compact of free association.

The consequences of deportation removal are devastating, tearing families apart and people away from their children, jobs, and communities for a minor offense. And we see this as an issue of proportionality. What this Bill does not do is it does not provide any immunity from deportation for other reasons.

It does not change anything about how charges are brought or anything about the elements of the offense itself. And it doesn't really impact public safety either way. It doesn't require a significant lift of the Judiciary or any other agency either. It's just one day.

Other states have also adopted this change, such as Utah and California, and we respectfully urge Hawaii to be the next. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next up is Kat Brady for Community Alliance on Prisons, in support. Eliza Ryan Gill for Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Good morning.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Liza Ryan Gill with the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. We stand in strong support on this bill. We represent about 30 immigrant-serving organizations across the pea 'aina, and this was identified as a really small but important technical fix, especially as my colleague Mandy Fernandes from ACLU mentioned with our COFA population, which right now are as the second largest population in the state that is being impacted by detention and deportation.

And so this is something that has trickled up from immigration attorneys to say, just a slight little tweak in the change here can drastically change the trajectory of a family's life. So, mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up is Christine Sablon for the Legal Clinic. Good morning.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members. Tina Sablon from the Legal Clinic, and here on behalf of our Board President Amy Agbayani. TLC is a nonprofit that advances immigrant justice through legal services, advocacy, and community education. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure.

And to briefly highlight a few points, my colleagues from HCIR and ACLU and the Public Defender's Office have already stated quite well the potential and very severe immigration consequences that can result for non-citizens who have any sort of contact with the criminal legal system for low-lying offenses.

I just wanted to highlight how much the immigration system can act as a secondary punishment for people long after they've served out their sentence, rehabilitated, reintegrated with their families and communities, and there really is no statute of limitations for the immigration penalties that can arise out of even misdemeanor offenses.

And so, in conclusion, this bill really promotes fairness, as has been said, and proportionality, but without compromising public safety or accountability. And we respectfully urge this committee to advance this bill.

Thank you very much. Next up is Veronica Mendoza, founding executive director for Roots Reborn Maui, on Zoom.

No present, Chair.

In support, Danicole Ramos from the William S. Richardson School of Law, Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic. Good morning.

Yeah. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Danicole Ramos with the William S. Richardson School of Law, Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic. You have our testimony, written testimony in support, but we'll be standing by it.

And as previous testifiers mentioned how important this bill is in terms of proportionality and equality and fairness, one thing I do want to specifically hide in our testimony is the concept of aggravated felonies in immigration law and that even for small misdemeanor sentences in state court, if they're sentenced to a year or more, they can be considered aggravated felonies, which essentially bar any kind of relief for the non-citizen from deportation and hinders them from applying for naturalization in the future. Thank you so much, and we're happy to answer any additional questions the committee might have.

Thank you very much. Next is Chris Caulfield for IMUA Alliance, in support, Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara for Fujiwara and Rosenbaum LLLC, in support, Christine Andrews, in support, Veronica Moore, in support, Kanani Kai, in support, Patty Cook, in support, Ellen Caringer, Ph.D., in support, Kehaulani Coleman, in support. That's everybody who signed up on 2731.

Would anyone else like to testify on this measure, on Zoom or here? Okay, seeing none. Members, questions? I guess I have a question. I'm not sure. Let's see. Is Ms. Chang-- I can't quite see. Yeah, you're still here. Okay.

So I'm pretty liberal, but I do have some concerns about-- I mean, there are misdemeanors that are classified as violent crimes, correct? What-- is there a way to differentiate between violent and non-violent for misdemeanor convictions?

Yes, there would be. There are a handful of what I think anecdotally we would consider our violent misdemeanors, and those, I would say, would be assault in the third degree, terroristic threatening in the second degree, sexual assault in the fourth degree. Those are the ones that come to mind immediately.

All right, we'll figure out how to do that if we try and go that direction. Okay, thank you very much.

No problem.

Senator Gabbard, any questions? No. Okay. We'll go ahead and move on to the next bill then, which is SB 2830.

This extends the statute of limitations for offenses based on misconduct in office by a public servant to allow prosecution anytime during the defendant's period of public service and up to 10 years thereafter. First up on 2830 is Ms. Cheng again from Public Defender's office.

Good morning again, Chair and Vice Chair. The Office of the Public Defender has submitted opposition to this measure, and it has less to do with the subject matter of the proposed Bill. We, of course, support integrity and accountability in public service, but it's a general opposition to an extension of the statute of limitations.

Statute of limitations are there for a reason. In order to have various delineated limitation periods and traditionally and what's in 701-108-RS already is that for most felony offenses, most, there are exceptions. The defined statute of limitations is three years. For misdemeanors, it's two years and for petty misdemeanors it's one year.

So, this measure significantly increases the statute of limitations far beyond what is normal for a felony offense. We do believe that this makes prosecution difficult, litigation difficult. So, that is the, I think, the spirit of our opposition. And I'll be available for any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Anne Frederick for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action on Zoom.

Not present, Chair.

Hello again.

Aloha. Aria Juliet Castillo testifying on behalf of Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action in strong support of SB 2830. Public office is a public trust. When that trust is abused, the damage extends far beyond one incident. It weakens confidence in our entire system of government. Misconduct in office is office concealed—often concealed—and it may not surface until years later. When the statutes of limitation expires before the wrongdoing is even discovered, our laws unintentionally reward secrecy and undermine accountability.

The time should not function as a shield for abuse of public power. That person could be still serving in office and still living in a way that would undermine public trust.

Healthy democracy depends on durable oversight and meaningful consequences. We strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Susan B. Roberts-Emory for the Green Party of Hawaii, in support. Chris Caulfield, Muhula Alliance, in support. Shelby Billionaire right here. Hello, again.

Aloha, guys, Chairs. I'm glad just it's just us three. So, now we have quorum, right, to hopefully pass this bill with the us three. Dressed up in my ninja costume by request by some of the fans because there's a lot of misconduct going on in the world.

For example, Scott Nago, who was just here, clearly knows the laws better than you and me because obviously the Chair of Judicial Committee. Now, I didn't write the laws like I said in my testimony, but how come they keep on breaking the law? Written the Hawaii State Constitution, 1970, Article 2, Section 4.

And you're going to see this happen when it comes to this primary election. So, it breaks the hearts of people's minds to why should they run for office and there's so much misconduct going on in this world. Like Donald Trump, who's totally in the Epstein files about X, Y, and Z.

The DOJ, AG Pen Bundy, was a whole display to Congress and they need to set an example. Otherwise, other kids are going to learn from these older generations and continue to learn from that bad behavior. Because I know if I was Senator Gabbard's son, he would, you know, I would get lickens if I was in his family and I acted like Donald Trump with a bad attitude and lying all the time.

So, I think you have to set the tone, especially if they're a trusted public servant that they have to be in a higher—held to a higher standard—just like for in school and if we go old school, I think that's the solution the answer.

So, I recommend you pass this Bill with technical amendments for clarity and consistency. Thank you very much.

Thanks very much. There's quite a number of other people—almost looks like they're all on support. The total count was 24 in support, 1 opposed, 0 comments. Having said that, was anybody else here on Zoom would like to testify in SB 2830? 2830. Seeing none. Vice Chair, any questions? So, Anne Frederick, are you still there on Zoom?

Believe not anymore, Chair.

Okay. All right, fine.

All right. We'll go ahead and move on then. Next bill is SB 2914, relating to lawmaker safety. This prohibits the public disclosure of legislators' personal contact information and voters' affidavit of registration, nomination papers, and electronic database for campaign committees. First up on 2914 is Jung Min Charles Lee, Deputy Attorney General.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Charles Jung Min Lee again for the Deputy Attorney General. We submitted our written comments for better implementation of this bill and one typo. So I'll be available for any questions.

Okay, thank you. And comments, Kristie Chang, Campaign Spending Commission. Good morning, again.

Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Kristie Chang from the Campaign Spending Commission. The commission has strong concerns with the administration of this bill. Hawaii campaign finance laws exist to provide transparency, which includes full disclosure of names and addresses of candidates, candidate committees, and contributors, and this bill would require us to redact that otherwise required information.

In our testimony, we point out a couple of things that the bill seems to be silent on. One is whether the commission-- if this bill were to pass, would the commission be required to redact former elected officials that don't terminate with the commission? Some do keep an active registration with our office. That would be one.

The second would be, doesn't appear to address appointed officials by the governor. If there's a vacancy in a position and it's an appointment, seems it's only elected officials. And if this bill is passed out of the committee, we would ask for additional time to figure out implementation and working with our vendor to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Yasmeen Cheney for Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Maybe on Zoom?

Not present, Chair.

In support. Stirling Morita for Hawaii Professional Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, in opposition. First name, Jen, in support, and Jay Franzoni, in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2914. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 2914?

Chair?

Yes.

Aloha. Michael Golojuch Jr., he/him pronouns, testifying in my personal capacity. I have grave concerns about this bill. Why do elected officials get this protections and not your average candidates? Just because-- every candidate has the opportunity to provide a post office box for their contact information in their filings that are made public.

There are other safeguards that can be put in place if somebody is concerned. We see this regularly done, but I think that this provides-- does not provide the transparency that we desperately need when we're looking at elections of candidates. So if it's okay for the goose, it should be good for the gander when it comes to this for everybody who's running for public office.

And they have the choice-- they have the choice what information they may they put on those forms and what is made available and what they-- if they choose to use a cell phone for just for their campaign versus their personal cells. So I don't think this is necessary.

And it does strike-- it sort of strikes at the heart of if you're running for public office, what you make available and why is it-- it sets up a tiered class for candidates. So as incumbents, you already have the power of the incumbency. So we encourage you to hold this bill and rethink it. Mahalo. I encourage you. Sorry.

Thank you very much. Anyone else like to testify on SB 2914? Okay. Seeing none. Senator Gabbard, any questions? Okay. Moving on. Okay, next bill up is SB 3072, relating to theft; requires a mandatory 12-month minimum sentence of incarceration for a conviction of theft in the first degree when the value of the property or services stolen exceeds $250,000. First up on 3072 is Mark Tom, Deputy Attorney General. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the department. Department provides testimony in support of Senate Bill 3072. As mentioned, this bill sets a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of 12 months for the offense of theft in the first degree when the value of the stolen property or services exceeds $250,000.

This bill will provide strong deterrence, promote a level of fairness, and reflect the gravity of harm that when this offense occurs and it involves this amount of value, how much it inflicts harm on victims. We'll be here for any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next is Haley Chang for Office of Public Defender. Busy day for you.

Last time for this morning. And good morning, again. The Office of the Public Defender opposes this measure for the specific reasons as articulated in our written testimony. First and foremost, we are oppositional to mandatory sentences. Under this provision, the court would have no discretion to not impose the mandatory minimum of one-year jail, either as a condition of probation or as the open term.

We want to, of course, reiterate that the court can impose up to the maximum penalty, which is a 10-year open term of incarceration, regardless of this measure or not. So if the judge in his or her discretion believed that was appropriate, they could in fact do so.

Also, we would like to highlight that often the crux of these cases is victim restitution. Putting someone in custody for at least a year with no opportunity for suspension or reduction may undermine the ability of that individual to meaningfully pay restitution. I think this committee is fully aware of the impacts of long-term incarceration.

And finally, we just wanted to briefly address the perceived disparity in the justification sheet for this measure, which highlights the habitual property offender bill, which does require as a felony offense for those individuals who serve a mandatory minimum of one-year jail.

However, that is a very different situation because it is petty misdemeanor conduct oftentimes, where the maximum possible penalty was 30 years. If they are convicted as a habitual property offender, that does increase the option to felony exposure. So it's a completely different analysis and two completely different sets of charges. So for those reasons, we oppose this measure and we'll remain available for questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Manuel Hernandez Major, District 3 for Honolulu Police Department on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Major Manuel Hernandez, Honolulu Police Department, District 3 Patrol. The HPD supports Senate Bill 3072, and this mandatory sentence both highlights the seriousness of the offense as well as provides a deterrent for commission of the offense. We stand by our written testimony, and thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Next up is Vivian Tolner with comments, Thomas Michener, in support, Veronica Moore, in support, Gregory Misakian, in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 3072. Would anyone else like to testify to SB 3072? Okay. Members, questions?

I did have one question, and maybe the AG and the Public Defender could come up since that's the position you guys are used to being in anyway. About the-- because 250,000 is not the-- that's not the normal threshold for Class A theft, right? It's 25,000 or something like that?

20,000 for the Class B, yes.

Class B. Okay. So in terms of the attendant circumstance of the 250,000 threshold, how do you read the bill right now in terms of what you have to prove? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt for that 250,000? You're both nodding your head, so you actually agree about something.

Yes.

Okay, that's great.