House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It's 2 PM here in Conference Room 325 at the State Capitol. If you're testifying today, we have quite a few testifiers. If you could keep your testimony to about two minutes, I'll ask you to summarize at that point.

If you'd be so kind as to do that, that'd be great. We have a new microphone and sound system in the room now, and there—microphones are in the ceiling here. So, just stand at the podium, speak clearly, articulate, use your outside voice, and it'll be able to pick up everything.

But it also picks up quiet voices, too. So, if you're whispering to your neighbor, it'll pick it up and everyone on YouTube will hear what you you're saying to your neighbor. So, I would request to keep those side conversations to a minimum.

If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify, and then again when your testimony is complete, turn your video off and mute yourself.

If you're having a technical issue, you can use the Zoom chat function to communicate with our great IT staff here, and they will do their best to help you. If you're disconnected in your testifying remotely, just rejoin as soon as you can, and I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony, if time permits.

If the power goes off here in the building and we have to reschedule, we'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you'll know when we're meeting and about what. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using trademarked or copyrighted images.

And as always, if you're—or any of the testimony you know, please avoid using profanity or uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We've got to try to do our best to work together for the best purposes for our state.

Okay, first up, we're going to hear testimony on House Bill 1957 relating to safe entryways. This measure establishes, for a city with a population greater than 300,000, enforcement procedures to prevent domiciling or storing personal property on public property in a manner that blocks, obstructs, or otherwise impedes ingress or egress to private doorways or entrance ways.

First up, we have the Attorney General. Welcome, Mr. Tom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department just provides comments on House Bill 1957. Specifically, I'll just point out three things in our testimony. Suggesting the contents in Section 2 be moved into Chapter 711 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Currently, where it's placed in Chapter 46, that governs mostly county organizations, powers, and administrations, that language that's in there, which is essentially creating an offense, would fit more properly in Chapter 711 which is offenses against public order. The Department would also suggest establishing more defined terms or definitions for some terms in this Bill.

It will ensure that we will be avoiding constitutional vagueness, as well as ensuring uniform application of these terms when this offense is used. The Department would also like to incorporate language to ensure proper notice, inventory storage, and a mechanism for contesting dispositions of property. It will ensure that we avoid any constitutional issues in relating to property rights.

We'll be here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from two individuals, one with comments, one with support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1957? If not, questions? No questions.

Thank you very much and thank you to the AG for helping us out with not only your testimony, but we are grateful to receive suggested amendments to try to address these because it's complicated and I appreciate you—your legal assistance in that. Okay, let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2503, relating to fireworks.

This measure authorizes civil asset forfeiture related to fireworks offenses involving fireworks with a total weight of 25 pounds or more. It amends the definition of aerial device. It clarifies that the offense of sending or receiving fireworks or articles pyrotechnic by air delivery applies regardless of whether the offender accompanies the air delivery.

First up, we have Mr. Tom, the Attorney General.

Thank you again, Chair. Vice Chair, Deputy Attorney Mark Tom for the Department. Department supports this bill and just offers some comments in regards to House Bill 2503. Our testimony just relates to the forfeiture portion. That's where the comments come from. Currently with the weight limit, it might treat similar types of fences differently.

The Department would just suggest removing the weight requirement in Section 1. However, I would note to the Committee this is a policy decision by the Legislature and there's other avenues or mechanisms that the Legislature can go in terms of forfeiture. It could be removing the weight.

It could also be looking at just all felonies that the forfeiture can relate to apply to to make sure that all felony offenses are treated very similar. Regardless of which. I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Next, Mike Lambert, Department of Law Enforcement or his representative.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair Jared Radula. I'm the Deputy Director for Law Enforcement. Our Department is in support of this bill. I'll just summarize our testimony by saying that the bill recognizes that fireworks enforcement is evolving, investigation is evolving, and prosecution is evolving. And it lends credit, it lends to clarity in places that we've already encountered.

So thank you very much for doing this.

Thank you. I appreciate your good work, sir. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2503? If not, any questions? No questions. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2137, relating to artificial intelligence.

This measure prohibits certain harmful uses of and mandates disclosure for realistic digital imitations generated by artificial intelligence. It establishes certain exemptions, provides for civil actions and civil remedies for individuals injured by unauthorized artificial intent—intelligence-generated—realistic digital imitations. And it requires the disclosure of the use of synthetic performers in advertising and establishes civil fines.

First up, we have the Hawaii State Commission on Status of Women. Ms. Cheney.

Good afternoon. Yasmine Cheney, Commission on the Status of Women. The Commission stands on its risk written testimony in support of this measure as it addresses the growing risk posed by AI-generated images, providing safeguards and remedies. We appreciate the committee's consideration and support. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, the Motion Picture Association, on Zoom. Not present.

Next, Jamie Detwiler on Zoom. Hello. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Jamie Detwiler from the Hawaiian Islands, Republican Women. Thank you for allowing me to testify in opposition of HB 2137. While I support the bill's intent to protect individuals—I truly do, we do, as an organization—I oppose this Bill because it violates our First Amendment rights.

The Hawaii Attorney General's testimony really details it very well, much more than I could ever do. And for these reasons, please vote no on HB 2137. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Always good to see you.

Thank you, sir.

And anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2137? If not, any questions? Seeing none, we'll move on. And we did get Attorney General suggestions for amendments to this to address the constitutionality issues. So, we'll take that up in decision making. House Bill 2198, this measure, relating to prediction markets.

You know, I never knew this was a thing. Now I do.

Yes. Melissa. Yes. Excuse me, so sorry. Motion Picture Association.

Oh, Motion Picture Association. Oh, you're.

Mr. Chair.

I see you. Take a deep breath. We're gonna go back to hear your testimony on HB 2137. Is that right? Or is this, yes. HB 2137, Motion Picture Association. Please proceed.

First of all, my deepest apologies, I.

No problem.

So, thank you so much for accommodating me. I'm speaking not only on behalf of the Motion Picture Association, but also the Recording Industry Association of America, as well as Sag AFTRA, the guild that represents the performers in our motion picture, television, and streaming industry.

And we are aligned, unfortunately, in opposition to this Bill, but only because we have a better framework. And we would love to work with the Committee, with the author, with interested legislators on substituting what we call the no fakes Bill. It's a Bill that has been introduced in Congress, model bill on protecting digital replica, protecting against the unauthorized use of digital replicas.

And we would welcome the opportunity. It balances all of the interests of the stakeholders, the constitutional interests and concerns.

And we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee, with the authors, and any other interested legislators in crafting this Bill in such a way that it is more reflective of the agreed upon framework in the no fakes Bill. Thank you so much.

Sure. Thank you very much for your testimony. Okay, so we're finished with testimony on 2137. Now we're going to go on to HB2198 because we've already asked all the questions we did on 2137. Okay. House Bill 2198, House Draft 1 relating to prediction markets.

This measure includes prediction markets and the definition of gambling by specifying that the purchase, sale or financial speculation of securities or commodities on the outcome or future contingent events related to catastrophe, contests, death, legislation, national security, people, politics and sports. First up, we have Steve Almolu. Welcome, Mr. Alm. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poivoy, Members of the Committee, my name is Steve Alm from the Colon Prosecutor. We're in strong support of this. We appreciate the Legislature picking it up. It's being challenged in other states. They make most of their money on gambling.

But there's been some horrific stories about people making money on when the President of Venezuela is going to get grabbed, which reeks of insider trading type of activity. So whatever can be done to join the other states, there's going to be fights in the court on this. But we appreciate you addressing this head on.

And House Draft 1 specifically addresses national security and other things that people don't trust the government enough already. This would just make it worse. So thank you. Thank you very much.

Next Christine Otto Za on zoom not present Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2198? If not questions Seeing none. Thanks very much for the testimony. Thank you Mr. Alm. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1511 relating to consumer protection.

This measure prohibits entities from distributing unsolicited mail or electronic mail that employs high pressure tactics or is reasonably likely to cause a consumer to believe that the sender is affiliated with another entity that the sender is not actually affiliated with and the entity is asking the recipient to pay for goods, services or forms of legal authorization unless certain disclosures are met.

The measure makes contracts that fail to meet disclosure requirements voidable at the option of the consumer. First up we have the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Office of Consumer Protection.

Good morning Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Radji Tolentino with the Office of Consumer Protection. OCP stands in on its written testimony in support of this measure.

I would like to highlight our proposed amendment requiring that any entity that solicits payments to renew a license or registration to clearly disclose that the consumer may renew directly with the property government agency and any fee charged by the entity is now required by the government agency.

We ask this because our office has received complaints regarding mailers that closely resembled official communications from our department's Business Registration Division and those mailers offer to process the consumers annual registrations for a fee. After some digging around, these consumers have found later that they could have filed directly with REG and not be charged these additional processing fees.

So this amendment would help prevent consumer confusion, promote transparency and assure individuals understand that they are not required to use third party services to complete the renewal.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Insurance Division.

Good afternoon Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee, Jaymie Yamamoto on behalf of the Insurance Division. So we support the measures that outline acceptable practices to promote transparency and clarity and ultimately protect consumers. Thank you. Available for questions.

Thank you very much. Is is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1511? If not any questions, We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 1897 House Draft 1 related to condominium alternative dispute resolution.

This measure amends the conditions and procedures of alternative dispute resolution methods for condominium related disputes, including the use of evaluative mediation or binding arbitration. First up we have Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Hawaii Real Estate Commission.

Good afternoon Chair Vice Chair Keating Klein Hans, condominium specialist here on behalf of Derek Iman and Real Estate Commission. The Commission offers comments primarily with respect to ADR supported by the Economy Minimum Education Trust Fund the Commission supports to reduce initial fee amounts for evaluate remediation and binding arbitration.

I request for facilitated remediation to remediate an option for subsidized adr. Thank you Bill for any questions.

Thank you. Phil Nurney on Zoom.

Yes, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Philip Nurney testifying in support of House Bill 1897 House draft 1 on behalf of CAI. CAI stands on its written testimony and I am available for questions.

Thank you very much. Paul Ireland on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1897? Not questions. See None. Thank you very much for the testimony. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1642 relating to consumer protection.

This measure, beginning October 1st, 2026, prohibits the ownership, operation, or management of a digital financial asset transaction kiosk that accepts U.S. currency from a customer in exchange for a digital financial asset. On 1642, first up, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Office of Consumer Protection.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Emma Olsen for the Office of Consumer Protection. We will stand on our written testimony in strong support. We believe that prohibiting cryptocurrency kiosks from accepting U.S. currency is the most effective way to protect consumers.

Enforcement actions in other states and federal data show that a substantial percentage of kiosk transactions are linked to scams. The ban will not hinder legitimate users because most crypto purchases are made through licensed crypto exchanges or bank-funded transfers. We respectfully request that the bill be voted out of the committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Keali'i Lopez, AARP Hawaii. Welcome, Ms. Lopez.

Hello, Chair Tarnas and members. I'm Keali'i Lopez, State Director of AARP Hawaii, and here to testify in strong support of HB 1642 HD 1. Fraud is an important focus for AARP, and fraud prevention in particular is one of our highest priorities.

The thing to keep in mind is that criminals really, over time, consistently evolve their tactics, and one of the things that they're doing is utilizing cryptocurrency kiosks or cryptocurrency ATMs or Bitcoin ATMs, and they've quickly become the preferred method for scammers.

So keep in mind, the bad actors are the scammers, but what we're hoping for in this legislation, as well as another bill that we support, is that there are some provisions that would have or require kiosk operators to in fact put measures in place to help prevent these scams. In the first 11 months of 2025, the FBI reported that more than 12,000 consumers lost 333 million, not just not here in Hawaii, but across the country, and by far the people who are most impacted are older adults.

Disproportionately, they're targeted and harmed, partly because they've worked all their lives and saved for retirement. So one of the things to keep in mind with older adults, when they lose-- anyone losing money to a fraud is not a good thing. Younger people, like the young gentleman that just walked in, still have a whole lot of years ahead of them to recoup that cost.

When you're 60, 70, or 80 years old, I hope you don't have to go back into the workforce. So the critical piece in this is there are two versions. There's this bill as well as SB 2387. That's a bill that ARP put forward. We do really like that bill insofar as we know it's worked in at least 18 other states. Our main issue is, this bill goes very far. That's not the problem. We want to know that, in fact, the bill will be approved and signed by the governor.

We do not want only one bill to be passed, meaning this strict one, and he goes ahead and vetoes it, and then consumers are basically in the dust for another year before something can be taken care of. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Lopez. Next, Louise Pais, Hilt Ventures.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair and members of the committee. I'm Louise Pais.

Pais, sorry.

Pais. That's okay. I can't-- I won't even try to pronounce half the names in this room. Chief Compliance Officer for Hilt Ventures. We are the largest crypto kiosk operator in the State of Hawaii, but small on a national scale, so may not have heard of us.

I submitted testimony, so I'm not going to reiterate all of that, but what I would like to say is we are opposed to this bill. We are opposed to a complete ban. We are in favor of regulations. We are currently licensed and regulated by the federal government.

As a money transmitter, we are also licensed and regulated in several states that we operate in as a money transmitter, and even in the states where they aren't licensing, we follow common-sense legislation similar to what Ms. Lopez was referring to, which are bills that provide guardrails and safeguards, such as warning labels, transaction limits, receipts, things of that nature.

I want to stress, since I have the opportunity to do so, that from a compliance perspective and someone that's been doing this for a long time, the bad operators are the issue, the people that don't follow the rules, that don't have rules in place. We take this very seriously. I'm a former IRS senior litigator.

Rules are very important. Consumer protection is important. Some of the verbiage that's in the Commerce and Consumer Affairs' testimony you should take a look at because the operator that's quoted in there having the 93% or whatever fraud is not a legitimate operator.

FinCEN, which is the report based in the back of that testimony, does not support a ban of crypto kiosks. That particular advisory was actually issued for kiosk operators like us to make us aware of what we can do to better help them prevent scams. We have extra rules in place for kupuna.

We put holds on transactions, we put limits on transactions for our seniors, and because of our monitoring constantly, we're able to stop most of the scams that actually take place. You're never going to stop 100% of the scams, whether it's at a bank teller, or a Zelle or, you know, Cash App or something else, gift card scams, but when you have legitimate operators who are given rules and guardrails to operate in, you're going to be able to stop most of it. So that's why we're here, my husband and I. He's going to come up next.

So I just want to say, you know, we're hoping that the Senate Bill passes, and maybe you guys can work together. I don't really pretend to understand how all that works, but we do have some edits to that bill, but that bill does kind of-- it is in line with what the ARP has supported in the past and what many, many states have in place that does work. Like I said, you can't catch 100% of it, but when you have things like that in place, it definitely limits the amount of scams. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Next, Chip Meyers with Hilt Ventures also.

Hi. I'm Chip Meyers. Nice to see you guys. So I'm the owner and operator of Hilt. Been operating here for about five years. I also live here. Unfortunately, I'm a kupuna, so Ms. Lopez and ARP are trying to protect me, which I certainly thank you for doing.

There's 80 million people in the United States, a lot in Hawaii that are either unbanked or underbanked. It's hard to believe, but a lot of people in the United States don't have a bank account or have $400 worth of savings. They are outside the financial system.

These are the 50% of the people that are not in the stock market, and those are the people that use this machine. So a ban is completely not common sense. Guardrails like the ARP had put forward make sense. A lot of the reporting is erroneous. There was listed hundreds of these kiosks.

There's only about 83 of these kiosks in the entire state. I control a third of them and we have about 5,000 customers. Ninety-nine percent of these are legitimate transactions. Certainly there are scams. We take care of those and we work-- I work closely myself with law enforcement, HPD, FBI.

I would venture a guess that Ms. Lopez, maybe Ms. Olsen, maybe people on the committee have never even used these kiosks and don't understand all the guardrails, and I would invite them and all of you to come with me to a store locally so I can show you how these kiosks work and how they are benefiting the lower income people and the middle-class people that cannot get a Coinbase account. That's wrong.

Most people cannot get a Coinbase account and don't have access to these financial services, and taking this away and banning it is going to create bigger problems, and you're going to go underground, and there's going to be more issues there.

So I'm here as opposition, of course, and like I said, I would welcome anyone to meet up at one of these locations that are around town, and we're on four different islands, and I personally service a lot of these myself and talk to customers. So I can give you a lot of insight, more than most people that may be testifying or writing these reports. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1642? If not, questions, members?

Question.

Yes. Representative Shimizu.

For Hilt, the woman from Hilt.

Me?

Ms. Louise Pais.

Yes.

Yes.

I'm so sorry that I didn't catch your name. I heard you mentioned that you have a legitimate business. So you have-- was it license and permits that you have to--

Yes. So as a-- all legitimate crypto kiosk operators--and there are, like Hilt, Bitcoin Depot, we're all licensed by the FinCEN, Internal Revenue Service, as a money transmitter, so we have to follow a long list of rules and parameters on how to operate, and we're examined every year to make sure that we follow those rules.

So the fraudulent people are also licensed and have a permit, or no?

No. I mean, there's many unlicensed operators, and that's part of the problem. Of course, Hawaii doesn't have a licensing program; either does Colorado. There are states that don't have state licensing, but as a federal license, there are operators operating without a license, yes.

And then, some of them that have a license don't necessarily follow the program, so they're going to be examined, they're going to be dinged, they may go out of business. The states do the same thing. So some of the states that have licensing have licenses, too, like rules and regulations.

Did I hear you or your counterpart say that you prefer the Senate version?

Yes.

And why is that?

Well, this is a ban, which means--

Just so I'm clear, it's not the Senate version of the same bill, right? It's a different bill.

It's a different bill. There's a Senate Bill that's currently going through the motions. That's more along the lines of what the AARP has supported throughout the country and what's in place in about 18 states.

So we'll have to wait and see what comes over?

Yeah.

I think the point was that this is a ban and those other bills are regulations.

So this is a ban, and, you know, there's gift cards, there was a bank teller, Bank of Hawaii in December that took money out of elderly accounts. We're not talking about banning banks, or gift cards, or any financial scam other than these crypto kiosks, so--

Understood.

--we obviously are in support of guardrails--

--because we're operating by the book.

Yeah.

Got it.

But bans don't make sense. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay, let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1753. House draft 1 relating to social media.

This measure requires certain social media platforms to provide an accessible mechanism for users to delete their accounts on the platform and permanently erase all personal information and sensitive personal information associated with deleted accounts.

It prohibits certain deceptive practices by a social media platform that obstructs the deletion of user accounts and authorizes the Attorney General to pursue civil actions and seek injunctive relief and penalties for violations. First up, we have Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

Good afternoon again, Radji Tolentino on behalf of OCP, we offer comments. We appreciate the FAR Committee's amendments of classifying unique identifiers and inferences as personal information.

The definition of personal information in this draft expressly includes unique identifiers and these are like tracking cookies, IP addresses, digital beacons and similar technologies that collect invisible data capable identifying or tracking a consumer's device. Without this clarity, a company could delete a consumer's account yet continue tracking the device through a unique identifier loophole.

Also, this Bill appropriately includes inferences that the profiles companies generate to protect a person's habits, health or religious beliefs by defining personal and sensitive personal information to include inferences. A deletion request would eliminate consumers entire digital twin, preventing companies from retaining detailed profiles under the claim that the data is thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1753? If not questions Members no questions. Okay, we'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 1654 House draft 1 relating to public employees. This measure requires the Attorney General to establish a confidential process for persons to anonymously file complaints against public employees.

It requires the Attorney General to review and forward the complaints to the Department, board, commission or agency deemed appropriate by the Attorney General and requires the Department's boards, commissions and agencies to process the complaint pursuant to their standard complaint processing procedures and report the disposition to the Attorney General. The measure also requires reports to the Legislature.

First up, we have the Hawaii State Ethics Commission not present. Next, the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Deputy Attorney General Diana Sumarna on behalf of the Department of Attorney General. We strongly oppose this Bill because of the major implementation obstacles as detailed in our testimony.

We really focus on the due process concerns and thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am available for your questions.

Thank you. Very strongly opposed.

Strongly opposed. Thank you.

Got it. Message received. Okay. Kaunawi Sabas Hawaii Government Employees Association

Chair Vice Chair Kauanui Sabas with HGEA. We're in strong support of this measure and for the most part we'll stand on our written testimony. But I do want to add the intent of our advocacy for this measure which essentially establishes an intake process for individuals looking to file an anonymous complaint.

Our advocacy is is due to provide a check or some verification against individuals that file baseless anonymous complaints that through an investigation is untrue, but it impacts an employee's reputation. We also want to try to have a balanced approach where for individuals that rightfully decide to file a complaint, there is an avenue for them.

I also do want to note that employee harassment is a big concern for our Members and our organization and I trust that bad actors can or have used the anonymous complaint process to weaponize it against employees within the state.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next UPW in support, not present anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1654. If not questions?

Chair.

Representative Shimizu in g place, I know you're in strong opposition. My question would be would you acknowledge that this problem exists? It's a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Representative Shimizu

AG, please, I know you're in strong opposition. My question would be would you acknowledge that this problem exists? It's a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Although it's not stated in our testimonies and our previous testimony, I do believe that the Department does acknowledge that it does exist.

And the fact that there are actually other avenues already existing to address this type of complaints, namely, to name a couple, is that the State Ethics Commission is able to receive complaints that might start off as anonymous, but, you know, it moves forward through their own process, investigation process, which is the stark difference in this particular Bill, where basically the AG is being made a repository only without any substantive, you know, power over those complaints.

So when I mentioned the state, at the State Ethics Commission, they're able to actually receive complaints in terms of fraud. I mean, I'm sorry, fraud, abuse and I believe, waste. They also, you know, enforce violations for lobbying and, of course, ethics violations. So I hope that answered your question. Representative.

Yeah, it did. Thank you. So, Chair. So I know part of your opposition might be that you're being tasked to do this. Would there be any other entity that would be appropriate to handle this? What this Bill is asking?

That's a great question. And I'm told not to actually, you know, throw any other entities under the bus. So in order for me to actually, you know, give you, you know, an official answer, I will have to actually return back to the Department, if that's okay with you.

Can I ask one last question? HGEA thank you.

Thank you.

You heard Attorney General said that there are already avenues, possibly through the State Ethics Commission. Is that satisfactory or is there a problem with that?

Yeah. Chair. Representative thank you for your question. I'm not aware of avenues or processes that actually verify anonymous complaint complaints or provide some check to it. I understand that certain departments or agencies have anonymous complaint, I guess, avenues for individuals to file, but I'm not aware of, like I mentioned, a process to verify.

So you're not aware of it. So is it possible that it exists, but you're just not aware of it?

I don't think it exists.

Thank you. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1659. House Draft 1 related to collective bargaining. This measure repeals the prohibition placed on certain employees exempt from civil service law from grieving a suspension or discharge.

It allows any employee who is a Member of an appropriate bargaining unit to grieve any disciplinary action unless the collective bargaining agreement specifically provides otherwise. First up, we have Department of Human Resources Development.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Brenna Hashimoto, Director of the Department of Human Resources Development. We submitted testimony in opposition to this measure and I'll just summarize a couple of the key key points that we articulated in our testimony. First of all, this measure is inconsistent with the at will nature of exempt employees.

They serve at the pleasure of the appointed authority and can be removed at any time for any reason as long as it's not a discriminatory or a job protected reason. So although we don't allow them the right to grieve, their suspension or discharge still needs to be compliant with employment laws non discrimination.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that four of our collective bargaining agreements have negotiated provisions related to the ability for exempt employees to file grievances. So we believe that this process should remain part of negotiations. In other words, we believe that legislating this avenue is contrary to the collective bargaining process. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Director Hashimoto. Next we have Osatuhe, Hawaii State Teachers Association not present. Next we have HGEA. Welcome Mr. Sabas.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Nui Sabas for HGA we're in a strong support of this measure. I think over the past six years we've seen 600 position increase in the use of it in position increase in exempt positions within six state government.

And we strongly believe that this is due to our state's slow civil service hiring and also our state's refusal to increase pay to a competitive rate.

Although many of these exempt employees are included within collective bargaining and part of bargaining units that are within our union, many of these employees do not have just cause protections and cannot appeal any disciplinary action, effectively making these employees at will.

We appreciate the amendment made in the HD1 version of this measure which clarifies that this is a subject of collective bargaining. But the language would provide a more a clear path for us to negotiate this item.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1659? Questions?

I have a question.

Yes. Rap Shimizu

Formulated but I didn't want to lose the opportunity to ask a question. HGEA so these exempt positions, do they pay union dues

For exempt positions that are included in collective bargaining? They have the opportunity to paid in that are part of a bargain unit? Yes.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2091, relating to petitions to temporarily restrain and enjoin harassment of an employee.

This measure authorizes public employers to petition for temporary restraining orders and injunctions against employment related harassment, credible threat of violence or unlawful violence of certain public employees. First up, we have the Judiciary.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members Nick Severson, Staff Attorney for the Hawaii Supreme Court, testifying on behalf of the judiciary in support of this Bill. As outlined in our written testimony, there's been a significant increase in harassment, acts of violence and threats against public servants in recent years.

This Bill would permit public employers to seek temporary restraining orders on behalf of public servants that face employment related harassment and would empower public employers to maintain safe working environments and ensure continuity of operations.

For these reasons, the Judiciary strongly supports this measure and respectfully, respectfully requests adoption and consideration of the approach taken In Senate Bill 2567, Senate Draft 1, which we outline the specific areas that were addressed in that Bill as well. And I'm available to answer any questions that you folks may have. Thank you.

Okay, thanks. So basically you'd like us to adopt the language from Senate Bill 2567, Senate Draft 1.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you. Next. Attorney General,

Good afternoon again. Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Diana Sumarna. We submitted testimony in support of this. Well, actually I apologize. We submitted comments so that way this House draft can be better aligned with the Senate draft one. Thank you.

So you also like Senate Bill 2567, Senate Draft 1.

That is correct. And the reason for that is that because we were working closely with the judiciary so the provisions were made satisfactory to our, you know, our from our perspective as well. So thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Okay, next. University of Hawaii Professional Assembly with comments. Next. HGEA. Back to you, Mr. Sabas.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members Nui Sabas for HGA. We submitted written comments on this measure. We do request an amendment to expand the definition of public service, public servant to include all public employees within the state and its and its political subdivisions. Currently it's limited to higher level government and elected officials. Elected officials.

And many of our Members are public facing and do may find themselves in a case where they would need a TRO. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, UPW.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Point Member Kamakana Kaimuloa, United Public Workers. You have our in testimony providing comments. We echo the statements of HGEA, our members through their duties have high engagement with the public and are often most susceptible to this kind of behavior.

And we would ask that the Bill be our consideration of including all public workers as public servants. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Mr. Kaimuloa. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2091? Yes, please come on up.

Sorry, Chair, I think I testify.

We have Department of Education testimony. I just didn't know you were going to testify in person. Please go ahead.

Oh, just in support. Thank you. We're here in support.

Why don't you introduce yourself so everyone on TV can sure see who you are.

Ken Kakasako, Department of Education. We also write have our testimony in support. Also echoing the comments made by the previous speakers asking that it be expanded to all state employees. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. The Department of Education. Anyone else wishing to testify? House Bill 2091. If not questions? No questions. Thank you. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 2455 relating to employment practices. This measure requires certain employers to provide administrative leave of absence for victims of workplace violence, threat of workplace violence.

It expands the type of certification an employee may provide to an employer if the leave exceeds five days per calendar year. First up we have the Attorney General.

Hi, Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Lauren Sugai and our Department has submitted written testimony with comments. Our testimony suggests technical amendments to ensure parallel construction and to avoid any potential ambiguity between the origin of domestic violence and sexual violence.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Department of Education.

Carrie Tom representing the Hawaii State Department of Education. We stand stand on our written testimony in support of HB 2455 HD1, which would allow Department employees who are victims of workplace violence or a threat of workplace violence to be entitled to administrative leave for what appears to be about 10 days. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next. Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. Next. HGEA.

Chair, Vice Chair Members Nui Sabas for HGEA we're in support of this measure and we appreciate the contents of this provision that allow require employers to provide administrative leave for their employees. We find that more than appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Ms. Chaine.

Good afternoon again. Llasmin Chaine for the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. We stand on our testimony in support of this measure as it enables workplace violence protections and will improve the safety and well being of workers. Thank you so much for your consideration in support.

Thank you very much. UPW.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee again. Kamakana Kaimuloa. United Public Workers together in testimony again, just sort of in line with what everybody else is saying. We do appreciate the intent of this Bill. We think it's at this time something like this is needed, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara on zoom.

Hello.

Hello. Please proceed.

Elizabeth?

Yes, please, I'm here.

Please proceed.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Please proceed.

Oh, okay. I've been doing civil rights work since 1986 in Hawaii. The violence towards women has increased tremendously. Before, there was just a lot of harassment, and now we're actually looking at assaults. So definitely this Bill is needed, and it's needed immediately, not way in the future, but today.

So we would definitely appreciate it if the Committee passes this Bill. And also we agree with the technical amendments that the Attorney General is suggesting. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2455? If not, any questions, Members? No questions. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1878. House Draft 1, relating to discrimination.

This measure prohibits discrimination based on one, the perception that a person possesses certain characteristics, two, the perception that a person is associated with the person who possesses or is perceived to possess certain characteristics, or three, the intersection or combination of two or more specified characteristics in relation to a person.

First up, we have testimony from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. My name is Marcus Kawatachi. I am the Executive Director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. I'm appearing on behalf of the commissioners of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission who are in support of this measure. You have our written testimony. I'll just summarize very briefly.

As you mentioned, Chair, there are three parts to this Bill. Part one deals with intersectionality of discrimination claims. And we feel that this Bill would simply codify longstanding established case law that was established by the 9th Circuit Court back in the 90s.

And I think that that would be a good idea, especially given the current political and legal climate. The other two parts of this Bill deal with the perception of protected characteristics, as well as association with people in certain characteristics.

And the Commission feels that these are logical and reasonable extensions of concepts that already exist within our state's anti-discrimination laws. So again, we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii State LGBTQ-plus Commission. Livingston, Sandy Haro, Livingston. No, not present. Next, Hawaii State Department of Education.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Beth Schimmelfenning and I'm testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony which provides comments on this measure.

The Department supports the intent of HB 1878, HD 1, to foster an inclusive environment, but offers comments regarding the operational and litigation risk created by subjective definitions of perception, association, and intersectional discrimination. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, American Association of University Women of Hawaii. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Yonghee Overlee and I'm representing AAUW Hawaii today. We stand on testimony that was submitted by Sandy Ma. She's traveling today. I want to—I wanted to see if there are some recent, what the recent cases, in regards to intersectionality, looks like.

And in my research, I found EEOC report, it was about older women. That's me, so I took a special effort in looking into it and I share with you a couple of examples that actually touches on all three aspects of this Bill.

In one case, first of all, out of 52,000 cases EEOC had, between the year 2020 and 2023, in regards to age discrimination, more than half of them are women. Me again. So, a couple of examples. One is a car dealer who told employee that isn't it time for her to retire because she looks like his mother.

Age and woman and perception on what older women can or cannot do. Right? Other example was a receptionist returning back from her paid sick leave was asked to leave basically because wouldn't she rather spend time traveling to spend time with family? In this case, it was disability, age, and gender, three characteristics.

So, we can go on and on because there are 52,000 cases and at least more than half of them are in regards to women and age. But these are a couple of examples that prove that it would be important for us to clarify what seems to be an obvious one. So, thank you for listening.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Pride at Work Hawaii, Michael Golojuch. Next, Hoku Pac on Zoom. Nope. Next, Josh Frost, ACLU. Not present. Next, Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara on Zoom.

Yes, can you hear me now, Chair?

Yes, we hear you. Please proceed.

Yes. I've been doing these cases under LAM for about 30 years now and it's clear that if you use more than just one protection, that the judge and the juries will understand how this affects real people, as AUW just mentioned.

For example, if it's a woman and she's older, she can be discriminated against just because she's older compared to a younger woman. Or if it's a Filipina, if she's a woman, not a man, she can be discriminated against because she's a woman.

If it's a black woman who's darker than other black women, she can be discriminated against because she's darker. Say, if it's an Okinawan woman who's darker than other Asian Americans, she can also be discriminated against because she's darker. So, as Yonghee said, it goes on and on. And I disagree with the Department of Education.

We haven't had the issue that they are speaking about at all. It's clear to many people just from their life circumstances how people fitting into more than one category can be discriminated against. So, we urge you to pass this Bill. And again, we hope that it's effective immediately, not in the future.

And because of what's going on with the Federal Government and because this is a 9th Circuit case, we would hope that this is codified into Hawaii law and it's not just left hanging out there.

As far as Hawaii courts, the judges here have had no problem with this concept and it's been adopted since 1994 at the trial level and the appeal level. So, thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1878? If not questions, Members? Yes, Represent Belatti. Just in time.

I know. Thank you. Is the Civil Rights Commission here or via Zoom?

On Zoom?

Yes, I'm here.

Have you had an opportunity to look at the Department of Education's comments?

Yes, I have.

And their concerns about need for more specificity. Can you respond to that or metrics?

I, I can respond, I think, particularly with regard to the specific of specificity of the language.

Yep.

What I've done is I have gone through, done a little bit of research on other states that have similar protections in their law. What I've seen is that, I mean, there is, I, I admit a lack of specificity in the language, but I believe that that's intentional.

What we've seen is that when we talk about, for example, association with persons of protected categories, it's sort of a common sense thing. I mean, it's, it's associated. You, you can be a friend, you can be a relative, you can be a work colleague, you can have supported someone in some sort of claim that they made.

And so, I haven't seen specific language in other states. It's really been the courts that have been interpreting "association." That's just one example. Perception, kind of the same thing, that's really sort of common sense is.

I mean, it's sort of a mistaken percepted—perception—or belief that someone is of a category because they may look a certain way, they may talk a certain way or whatever. And so, there hasn't really been in my mind a need to get more specific with regard to a pretty common sense understanding of what that means.

So, I think that's how I would respond in general. I mean, any other—I can answer whatever else you have.

Can I reframe the question maybe?

Yes.

Okay. So, I just wanted to understand because I find this Bill very important and I appreciate the Department of Education is saying that they're in support of inclusivity.

I guess what I want to understand is that is this language, as it's designed, a framework in which we could operate and apply these protections under the current laws and kind of administrative rules and all the case law that we do have already currently in place?

I mean, my simple answer is yes, I believe it would be sufficient.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Representative. Chair Bellotti, any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2388, House draft one relating to public notice. This measure allows government agencies to satisfy public notice requirements by posting notices on official state or county websites while retaining publication as an option.

First up, we have Office of Information Practices with comments. Next we have the State Procurement Office with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee Bonnie Kahakui, Administrator, State Procurement Office the State Procurement Office provided comments regarding the responsible agency who will develop and maintain a statewide website for public agencies to post their public notices.

We also recommended language which would provide guidance to to those public agencies who will continue to use the traditional method of posting their notices through newspaper other publications. Thank you for the opportunity and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Ted Kaphalis not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2388 if not questions. Members

Question

Rep. Shimizu.

Is Boi P. Here?

Nope.

State Procurement Office.

Ms. Kahakui is on zoom. Please proceed. Representative Shimizu

My concern is the kupuna who are not on computer. They're not in the digital age. How would they be notified if they're not even able to access this provision?

Thank you for the questions. That is one of the reasons that we would like the agent, like the Bill to give the agencies the flexibility to provide either online or or in the traditional method through newspaper.

There are some agencies that have specific requirements or whose audience is, say, the kupuna, which would then lend itself to public notification through the traditional method. And there are other opportunities like procurement, specifically e procurement systems, which would continue to run in their, you know, their regular websites.

Okay, so you have amending language for that.

Yes, we do. That would allow for agencies to use the traditional method, but we also wanted to make sure there's guidance on that. Thank you.