Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee hearing the, Saint Patrick's Day version. We have two agendas today, one at 09:45. This is a governor's message. This is for governor's message506 Lonnie Eward for the commission to promote uniform legislation for term to expire on 06/30/2029.

And then at 09:55, we have a a bill agenda as well. If a two minute time limit on testimony, either on Zoom or in person, and if we have a major crash, we'll try again on Friday, March 20 at 09:45. And for those who are on Zoom for those testifying on Zoom, you'll be audio you won't be able to audio will be muted and the your picture won't be available until it's your turn to testify. Okay. On the first agenda, the 09:45 agenda, as I mentioned, this is for Lonnie Ewert for the CPUL.

First up on the testing fire list, this one is Jill Nagamini, deputy attorney general in support. Elizabeth Kent may be on Zoom.

Present chair.

Good morning.

Good morning. Lani's very humble and not one to sing her own praises, so it's my pleasure to do that. Lonnie, I know you're gonna blush, and this is gonna be uncomfortable, but it's gonna last less than two minutes. My written test in my written testimony, I mentioned Lonnie's dedication to the uniform law commissions work in producing well, thought out bipartisan products on issues of importance to the states that call for uniformity between the states, and that will be an actable. She believes that this helps the people of Hawaii in their daily lives.

And so for 49 years, Lonnie has served faithfully as a volunteer uniform law commissioner. If my math is right, she's been nominated by seven different governors, and this is her twelfth confirmation hearing. And I can't even begin to count how many drafts she's worked on and brought to you for enactment. That's commitment. Lonnie has attended each of the 49 annual meetings since she was appointed.

They last about a week each and are full of days of sitting in big conference rooms with commissioners from other states going over proposed bills line by line. Her thoughts and suggestions are respected by other commissioners, and she's participated on other committees and been part of leadership. That's commitment. Sometimes the state has not had the funds to cover the commissioner's expenses, and I estimate that she's covered some or all of the costs for herself for between 15 to 20 meetings. And she was accompanied to those meetings by her wonderful you husband, Usen, so that added to the cost, that's dedication.

Being more being a good commissioner is more than just attending annual meetings, and, I believe that she spent approximately a 150 hours a year working to produce those. That's over 5,000 hours. You may not know that one of the first women to serve in the ULC was from Hawaii. That's Marguerite Ashford, and she was a trailblazer, starting just after the nineteenth amendment was ratified. Waalani has served was the very first woman to become a life member, and she too is a trailblazer.

And for these reasons and more, I urge you to vote yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next is Peter Hamasaki, in support. Michael Tanoe, also in support. Bob Toyofuku, in support. That's everybody that I have that signed up on g m 506. Would anyone else like to testify on g m 506? Seeing none members, any questions for miss Kent? Seeing none, miss Ewart, come on up. You'd like to make a opening statement of a couple minutes, that would be great.

Thank you for the opportunity to answer any other questions you might want.

Maybe you should pull the mic a little closer. It'll move. Yeah.

Is that better? Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to answer any other questions you might have about my nomination to another term on the commission to promote uniform legislation.

As Elizabeth Kent, indicated, it's been a long time, and I've done this for a long time, and it is something that I've enjoyed and I'm grateful for. And I also think that I've given in a way that I'm able to to the laws of this state as well as the other states in the nation. K.

Was were were you finished? Was that I didn't mean to cut you off.

Finished. Finished. Members, any questions? Well, miss Kent said 49 years. So you've been serving on the commission since 1977. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Obviously, you find it rewarding somehow. What what do you what do you what what what what are the high points for you as of being a commissioner?

I think the high points are seeing a process where there are a number of different views that are raised about laws that might help citizens of all the states. And, working with those viewpoints, not only by commissioners from each of the states, but also with observers and people who are interested in those laws and coming up with compromises sometimes and going through debates and working through the different questions that come up as well as the different terms of the law. It gives us time that sometimes I know a lot of legislatures don't have the time to devote to laws.

Do, are there are there particular, model codes that you anticipate or or maybe let me back up. Are there particular topics that you expect to come up in the in this coming term of yours that you're particularly interested in?

In this coming term, there are some topics that deal with health care as well as the discovery rules. There are some some of the acts deal with laws that might, in some states, be enacted by or not enacted, but adopted by the judiciary. So there are some of those that are are up for adoption or at least for debate.

Okay. Other questions? Senator vice chair Gabbard.

Well, you've given us the high points. How about the low points? You gotta have the other side.

Well, one of the the low points is definitely, and, unfortunately, the inability to have financing for our, required trips. Everybody serves all of the commissioners, for the entire national groups are without pay and every state decides how much they will support the commissioners. And so, Hawaii has been generous in the past in paying our, hotel and travel and sometimes a per diem, picking up our registration fees. But, lately, it's been very difficult because of the budget to fit us in. We fall under the attorney general's budget, and they try to give us as much as they can.

So that is a low point. But and the other low point sometimes is not having not being able to to enjoy the places that we are at because we are in sessions from usually eight or 08:30 in the morning till five, and it runs from Friday, Saturday, half a day Sunday, and then Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. So sometimes that's very difficult. But we have a very good group of commissioners, and we figured out a way that we can each, take our take a particular act to focus on and give the others a chance to take a break during the session during the annual meetings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions? If not, I'm prepared to vote. If everybody else is, let's go ahead and vote. I just have to get the warning right here. The recommendation is in to advise and consent to the nomination of Lonnie Ewart. Questions or concerns? If not, vice chair.

On, governor's message 506 chair's recommendation is to advice and consent. Chair Rhodes? Aye. Vice chair Buena ventura? Aye. Senator Awa? Aye. And the measure is adopted.

Alright. Congratulations. We will adjourn this, we'll adjourn this agenda.

Okay. Coming back in for the 9:55 agenda. This is a House Bills agenda. As I mentioned before, if we have a drop, if we have technical difficulties, we'll try again on Friday, March 20 at 9:45 in this room, 016. Two minute time limit. And if you're on Zoom, your audio and video will be not available until it's your turn to testify. Alright.

First up on this agenda is House Bill 1247. This allows a party aggrieved by the judgment of a circuit court on a minimum term order to appeal to the intermediate court of appeals. It requires prisoners to continue to be represented by counsel in any petition challenging minimum term proceedings. First up on HB 1247 is Hayley Cheng for the Public Defender. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee. My name is Hayley Cheng. I'm the First Deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted testimony in support of this measure with some comments.

I do wanna first clearly state that we are always going to be supportive of measures that give the opportunity to people to have review, whether it's to the Judiciary, the appellate courts, or by the Parole Board itself to look back and have the opportunity to challenge things that may have gone wrong. We support the spirit and the intent of the measure.

We also wanted to clarify that we believe the right to continue counsel should exist for inmates, even those who did not initially have representation at their initial minimum hearing. And we included some reasons why in our written testimony. Some may forego that right at the hearing, but we believe that right should exist through any later challenges. We do wanna say one thing. Our office currently does not have the capacity if this measure were to pass to take this on.

I think other testimony has indicated that there were over a thousand minimum terms in one calendar year. Majority of those, I can assuredly say, were handled by our office. So we do not, in our current capacity, have the ability to take this on and as we believe and rightfully so that many of these individuals would challenge their minimum hearings.

So we do just wanna highlight that and flag that, and we've included as a part of our testimony what we believe we would need meaningfully to take on this role. Otherwise, these individuals would have to be assigned court appointed counsel if we cannot take on the load. So thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I will remain available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Jeannette Castagnetti for the Judiciary with comments. Next is Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support, and Veronica Moore in support. That's everybody who signed up on HB 1247. Would anyone else like to testify in this measure? If not, Members, any questions for Ms. Cheng? I don't either. Let's go ahead and move on to the next bill. This is HB 1516. Requires certain factors to be considered when determining a defendant's financial ability to afford bail.

First up on 1516 is office Hawaiian Affairs in support. Next is Kristen Johnson for the y o Correctional Oversight I'm sorry, Correctional System Oversight Commission in support. Next is Haley Cheng for public defender. Morning again.

Hi. Good morning again. Our office stands in strong support of this measure, and we just note that the bail statute itself chapter or Section 804 dash nine states that a bail amount should be so determined as not to suffer the wealthy to escape by the payment of a pecuniary penalty and nor to render the privilege useless to the poor. And again, the office of the public defender who represents the indigent defendants throughout our state sees this happen time and time again that this privilege of bail has become rendered useless to the poor. We believe this measure and the factors that the courts will be required to consider or the agency setting bail are needed in order to ensure to the best of its ability that that does not continue to happen.

So we stand in strong support, and I will be available for questions. Thank you.

Next up is Christine Denton for the department of prosecuting attorney for the city and county in opposition. Next is, Kelvin Walton for the, the prosecutor for the county of Hawaii on Zoom, maybe.

Not present, chair.

Also in opposition, next is Darnella Villanueva for the Hawaii Police Department in opposition. Melissa Pavlicek for State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers in opposition. Kat Brady, community liaison prisons. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning, chair Rhoads, vice chair Gabbard, and members of the committee. Thank you so much for hearing this measure. We have so many people in our community who are struggling to put food on the table to if they have a table, you know, or houseless. So this is really important.

I included some data from the Alice report, which is, you know, the asset limited income constrained and employed. And these numbers are from 2024. And people are leaving Hawaii because they just can't afford to live here. And, you know, to me, many of them are native Hawaiians, and that is so heartbreaking that they have to leave their homeland because they can't even afford to live here. The number of Alice households at Maui County increased by 9% because of the wildfires.

And, you know, I think we need to take that into account when we look at people. So thank you. I know too many stories of people who couldn't even make $10 bail. So thank you so much for hearing.

That. Thank you. Next up is Chris Cofield Cofield for Inuit Alliance in support. Next is Mandy Fernandez with the ACLU of Hawaii. Good morning.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Mandy Fernandez on behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii, strong support of this measure. You have our written testimony. The evidence is very clearly on our side about why, why reviewing the ability a defendant's ability to pay and releasing guys who don't need to be locked up in jail makes a lot of sense for public safety to alleviate human suffering. But what I wanna talk to you about today is that a few months ago, our entire team toured o C C C.

And what we saw was haunting. Not just the conditions of the building, which looks like it's being held together by, you know, asbestos and prayer, but also that people were being locked in cages and not being see not being allowed to go outside and get rec time for more than a week when we were there. Can you imagine that being locked up in a cage with several other cellmates and not being allowed to go outside for more than a week? And that was because CEOs are not showing up to work. I don't blame them.

I would not wanna work there either. The only solution that DCR has been has been putting out there is this new jail, and we oppose this, this plan for a couple different reasons. I'll name two. One of those is that it's not right sized. It's not considering the decarceration effects of pending proposals such as this that could reduce the population, get people out who don't need to be locked up, who are not posing any sort of public safety threat if they're released, and are only being held there because they cannot afford bond.

But second, it wouldn't be built until years in the future. That's not gonna do anything for the people who are locked up there now. We know that the jail on the Big Island is even worse. We really hope that this committee will consider moving this measure and other measures like it forward because we can't move forward with a $1,000,000,000 jail that the taxpayers are gonna fund when it's not even considering how many beds there need to be, when it's not even considering the very real, human suffering that's happening now and is being used as a way to avoid those conversations. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next up is Ethan Chang in support, Isabella McRae in support, Greg Pupiani in support, Corey Cory Harden in support, Gaye Chan in support, Veronica Moore in support, Carla Allison in support. And then Dita Sharma in support. Nathan Leo Brolick in support. William L Wong, CPA PFS in opposition.

Christine Andrews in support, Tony Loric Lorkie in support, and Jesse Hutchinson Hutch Hutchison in support. That's everybody who signed up on, HB 1516. Does anyone else wanna testify in this measure? If not, numbers questions? I do have a question for, public defender.

I think, at least when we've dealt with those like this in the past, it seemed to me like there was a lot of misunderstanding about how the system works. So if someone is cannot bail out, they can stay there for quite a while, I mean, indefinitely, until they till till their court hearing until their trial comes up if they don't plead out before then. Right?

Correct.

Okay. So if they do bail out, then they're supposed to they're supposed to show up at court for their whatever hearings or trial they have.

Yes.

The I guess the the question is for a lot of people is do they, like so that's the first question. Do they show up for court when they when they're out on if they're if they've bailed out? Or or maybe more more accurately, just bail does bail does paying bail guarantee that they're gonna show up?

I don't think there's ever a guarantee. We have people who are released on their own recognizance or who are able to post bail that unfortunately do not show up to court. What I will say anecdotally, though, is I think that's less common than people think. Especially with the bigger cases, if you are able to post bail, there are a lot of safeguards that can be put in place. The courts always have the discretion to impose conditions of bail.

Conditions can range from supervision by the intake service center. Conditions can range from, you know, check ins with whoever the court deems deems fit, restrictions on travel, requirements to keep in touch with counsel, etcetera. So I think it's less common than people than people think.

Okay. So so, really, I guess the the only way to be sure that people show up for their court dates is to not let anybody out on bail. Is that fair?

To guarantee 100%, attendance at court, yes. That would be correct.

Is that, in terms of the the capacity of the prison or the jail, is that even vaguely realistic?

Absolutely not. Okay. Yeah.

One one last question on the the tail end of it. So if you're if you're in if you don't bail out and then you go to trial and you're convicted, typically, they'll give you credit for the time served. Correct?

Correct.

So if you if you're in jail for in in jail for a month and you commit a petty misdemeanor and they Max you out and give you thirty days, you already served your term, and they let you walk out the door at that point.

That is correct.

But if it's the other way around, then you actually have to be convicted of something first before you before you serve your jail term.

If you are released prior. Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Members, other questions? If not, we'll go ahead and move on to the next bill. Thank you. Next up is HB 1565. Excuse me. This establishes a working group within the judiciary to improve family court processes, including access to legal representation for youth in the child welfare system. First up on 1565 is Scott Boone for the judiciary. Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, committee members. My name is Scott Boone. I'm a staff attorney for the First Circuit Family Court. Court. I'm testifying on behalf of the judiciary for this bill. We stand on our written testimony, and I'll be available for any questions. Great.

Thank you. Next up is office of child oh, I'm sorry, of wellness and resilience. Says in person, in support. Next is Malia Tom Denik for department of human services on Zoom.

Not present, chair.

Some somebody else for DHS.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

I can hear you. I can't see you, but I can hear you. Okay. Now I can see you. Go ahead.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Stacy Pascual, child welfare services program development administrator on behalf of of child welfare services, Department of Human Services, child welfare services branch. And the department stands on its testimony and available for you.

Thank you very much. In support. Sorry. That's a question. In support?

Correct. And we defer to the judiciary. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is office of office of Hawaiian affairs, also in support. K. Natalie's Washington from National Association of Council for Children in support. Next is Nicole Wu for Children Actions Network Speaks on Zoom. Good morning.

Aloha, chair Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard, members of the committee. I'm with Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks. We coordinate a group called the Children's Policy Agenda. It's been over ten years of that now. It's several dozen, about 60 groups, and, people who care about Keiki in our state.

We go through our own process sort of like a legislative, caucuses, to pick a package of bills. This idea of bringing making sure our youth have legal representation in the child well welfare system was brought to us a few years ago, and we put it into our package every year. We're really concerned to learn that we are in the minority of states that don't give youth this legal representation. So we definitely support the creation of this working group to move us closer to that. Thank you for hearing my testimony.

Thank you very much. Next is Sonia Blackstone for Hawaii Youth Services Network in support. Okay. Then there's a bunch of people testifying for opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii all in support. I'll run through their names quickly.

If you're here or on Zoom, please let me know and you can testify. Melissa, Pavel, check check, Blakely, Eustacio, Kanyo, Loyo, Torkado, Anastasia Newman, Destiny, Jade, Roberts, WADA, Serenity So to, Opony Boyer, Kira Arcangel, Precious Ahulau Kaleo, Salinta Hemios, and James Lee. Continuing with that same group, Caprice Cool, all these are in support. Elena Barr in support. Kisha Rai, Pacheco Pagalou Pagalino Juan in support. And Patricia Chin may be on. Yes. Good morning. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes, vice chair Gabbards, and members of the committee. I'm Patricia Chin. I serve as the high hopes initiative manager at EPIC Ohana. Our statewide initiative does work with young people between the ages of 14 to 26 who have experienced foster care, ensuring that they have the necessary relationships, resources, and opportunities that they need to thrive. I'm here in strong support of House bill 1565 because legal representation does change outcomes.

In addition to supporting the bill, we respectfully request an amendment of an former GAL to be included in the working group member composition. A former GAL can offer critical insight into how representation currently functions, where the gaps currently exist, and how the system can evolve to better support youth rights and youth voice. In states that have already provided counsel for youth, young people are 40% more likely to exit the foster care system within six months45 percent more likely to reunify with their family, and fewer of them experience different fewer placement and school mute school moves. These numbers represent something deeper. They truly represent stability, healing, and hope.

The most powerful evidence comes from our young people themselves, many of who wanted to testify today but are unable to due to work and family responsibilities, and I'd like to uplift their voices in this space. One of our youth shared that they often felt lost and did not feel as if they were represented. Another shared that if they had a lawyer, they could have avoided four grueling years in a placement that wasn't right for them. And then finally, a 17 year old who is currently in the system has shared that important decisions were made about their future without their full understanding or their involvement. House bill 1565 is a meaningful step forward to ensure that no young person is left in the dark or has to rely on chance to be heard.

Hawaii truly has the opportunity to lead the way in honoring youth voice, protecting their rights, and building a system where they truly feel seen. High Hopes initiative stands firmly in support of this bill with the amendment to include a former GAL. Mahalo for your time and for your commitment to Hawaii's young people.

Thank you very much. Next is Johnny May, Terry in support, Judith Clark in support, Theresa Verano in support, Stella Anne Holding in support, Melissa Mayo in support, Keola Pagoon in support. That's everyone who signed up on 1565. Would anyone else like to testify in HB 1565? Seeing none of the members questions?

Okay. We'll move on to the next bill. HB 1716. This establishes a process by which any political party continuously listed on the general election ballot for eight or more years shall be deemed continuously qualified for ballot placement. First up on '151716 is Jung Min Charles Lee, deputy attorney general. Morning, sheriff, vice president. Okay. Thank you. Next is Shelby Pikachu billionaire for the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands and Ohana Unity Party on Zoom, maybe.

Hello, chairs. How are you guys doing? Great job. We just have the other meeting with the chief elections officer. If you watched the office of elections meeting, there's a lot of corruption going on.

So regarding this bill, it makes us very hard to establish any other independent parties. Because I was the chairman for the Ohana Unity Party, you have Aloha Aina, all these other ones. It's not fair to make these other people, the longest establishment, go through this without doing any paperwork because it doesn't give their free chance and their free work because we live in America for other independents to foster other chance for groups. Like if we wanted a new party, we get all the college kids together and if they just stuck it for eight years, they could do that. So it doesn't really make sense to me and it's not fair.

So you should definitely say no to this bill, pass it on because it's not fair, and it's not American. It should be unconstitutional. And it's a cheat system for those already establishing the system. And some of those people have been in office longer than I've been alive. You guys know. So thank you very much. Appreciate you guys. Aloha. May the force be with you always.

Thank you very much. Next is Anne Frederick for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action in support. Susan B Roberts Emery for the Green Party in support. David Mullenix for Our Revolution Hawaii on Zoom, maybe. Yep. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you so much. We totally support this bill. Dave Mullenix, Our Revolution Hawaii. The winning bill sums up our position, Billy.

The purpose of this act is to promote fairness, equal treatment among political parties, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens for long established political parties in the state, recognizing sustainable voter support and organizational stability, and ensure consistent, predictable, and nondiscriminatory ballot access. Anyway, it it's a process that we need to expand our democracy, and this is ensuring that expansion of democracy and fairness to all. So thank you. Please vote yes for this bill, and have a good day.

Thank you. Next up is Nanea Lowe, also on Zoom, maybe.

Not present, chair.

In support. Next is Christina Holt in support. Greg Khan in support. List of individuals all in support. The total count is 19 in support, zero post, one comment. And at this point, is there anybody else who would like to testify as HB 1716? Seeing none, members questions. I do have a question for AG, if you don't mind. We're considering we're a little concerned well, partly because of your testimony. We're concerned about treating different parties differently.

So what we were thinking is maybe we would just make it easier for all political parties to register. So and I don't know if you have this in front of you, but, HRS 11 dash 62 subsection b, right now, it's three general election cycles in a row, and you're you're qualified for ten years. I don't know if it's in the bill.

Sorry. I have the So what what we were thinking is maybe making it just make it just two cycles. So you'd have to you'd have to qualify for two cycles in a row, and then you're qualified for ten years. Just makes it easier for everybody, but doesn't actually change the qualifications and disqualifications. Do you see any problem with that? That's that's my my real question.

Right now, as long as it applies to everyone, that's then it's fine.

Probably alright. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Other questions, members?

Thank you. If not, we'll go ahead and move on to the next bill, which is HB 1878. This prohibits discrimination based on the perception that a person possesses certain characteristics, the perception that a person is associated with a person who possesses or is perceived to possess certain characteristics or the intersection or combination of two or more specified characteristics in relation to a person. Next, first up on HB 1878 is Keith Hayashi for the Hawaii State Department of Education or his designee. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes and Vice Chair Gabbard, and members of the committee. My name is Beth Schumelfinig. I'm the director for the civil rights compliance branch of the office of talent management in the department of education. The department stands on its written testimony, which provides comments on this measure. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you. Next up is Sandy Arjo Livingston for the Hawaii State LGBTQ plus commission on Zoom, maybe.

Not present, chair.

In support, next is Marcus Kawatachi for the Civil Rights Commission, also on Zoom. Good morning.

Yes. Good morning, chair. Terrence, vice chair Gabbard, members of the committee. Marcus Kawatachi, executive director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, and I'm appearing today on behalf of the commissioners of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. I stand in, I stand on testimony in support, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Kat Brady from Community Alliance on prisons. Good morning again.

Good morning. Thank you so much for hearing this bill. As you know, the Hawaii constitution has greater protections than the federal constitution. And right now, we are in a time where rights are being challenged, ignored, so it's really important. One really important part of this bill is multifaceted discrimination.

So it's not just one thing, your race or your sex or your gender. It's it's not that. It's people who have multiple areas of discrimination. A black woman who is gay, that's two. So, you know, a disabled native Hawaiian man, that's two or more. So we know that these these happen, and I think this bill helps employers understand what multifaceted discrimination is, and they are better able to protect their workplace and their employees because of that. So I really hope that you pass this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Aaron Kogan and Maggie Batangong or SHRM, Hawaii in opposition. Next is Sandy Ma for AAUW of Hawaii on Zoom, maybe.

Not present, chair.

In support, Michael Golojuch junior, pride for Pride at Work Hawaii in support.

Good morning. I'm Michael Golojuch Jr.

Oh you are here. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

He, him pronouns. Good morning. President of Pride at Work Hawaii. Happy Saint Patrick's Day. We do wanna thank you for hearing this bill.

We stand in full support. One of the things that we would like to point out that hasn't already been brought to your attention is that this also takes care of our our allies that are presumed to be part of the queer community just because they stand with us and they've faced discrimination. Currently, they without the rights decision, they would not they would have no recourse. And this gives clear guidance on that that, yes, just because you presume somebody to be a member of the community and you discriminate because of a of your presumptions, they should have protections under the law from and not face discrimination, for that. So that this gives them a legal opportunity to, address those regardless.

So we encourage you to pass this bill. We thank you for hearing it, and I'm available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next is Leland Brady for Aloha Independent Living. Aloha Independent Living Hawaii in support. Excuse me. Josh Frost for the ACLU or somebody else.

ACLU.

Okay. Thank you, Michael. There's a list of individuals after that that are all in support. Let me give you the stats. 16 in support, two opposed, and one comment. If there's anyone else who would like to testify on HB 1878 this is time to do it on Zoom or here. Seeing none of the members questions. Marcus Kawatachi for civil rights commission. Are you still here?

Yes, sir. I'm present. Oh, let me turn my video on. Yes.

Thanks. So my understanding is there's currently a ninth circuit a federal ninth circuit case that is that this bill basically tracks. Is that a fair characterization?

In terms of the intersectionality portion of the bill, it would track that decision. I think you're referring to the Lam decision, from the nineties from the yeah. That's the one.

Okay. So what what what proponents are concerned about then is if for some reason that decision was overturned, then there would be no or if if another case came up through and then when and it was a different result that time, there would there'd be no state protection.

I I think to be cautious, it would make sense to codify the holding of that decision within our state law to make it perfectly clear. Whether or not the civil rights commission would change its interpretation, I think, remains to be seen if that ever were to occur. But I will say that the Lam decision, confirmed what we had been doing from the start anyway, and that we did, feel that intersectionality of claims was a valid way to look at, you know, real life occurrences. So, hopefully, that answers your question.

Yep. It does. Thank you very much. Other questions, Members? Okay. If not, we'll go ahead and move on to the next bill. This is HB 2089. This establishes a fixed disposition deadline requiring the Supreme Court to decide an application for certiorari within sixty days after the application is filed. First up on 2089 is Hayley Cheng from Public Defender.

Stand on our written testimony in support.

In support. Okay. Next is Thomas Hughes, Deputy Solicitor General. Oh, you're here. Good morning.

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

Parties before the Supreme Court would benefit from the certainty this new deadline provides, and the public would benefit from the additional consideration given to applications that might otherwise have to be reviewed at a faster pace. Bill would also improve judicial efficiency, as the Judiciary's own testimony makes clear.

And it would clarify how the certiorari deadline interacts with weekends and state holidays, which is currently unclear. Finally, because this is a bill about the Supreme Court, I'll make an appeal to precedent. The committee passed the identical Senate companion bill in February, and so we urge you to do the same here. Thank you, and I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you. Next is Nicholas Severson for the Judiciary on Zoom, maybe. Yep. There you are. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Members of the Committee. Nick Severson, staff attorney for the Hawaii Supreme Court, testifying on behalf of the Judiciary in support of HB 2089. We stand on our written testimony and believe that this bill promotes judicial efficiency and provides clarity for court staff and litigants alike. I'm available to answer any questions you may have, and we thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next up is Mark Murakami for the Hawaii State Bar Association. Support. Okay. That's everybody who signed up on HB 2089. Would anyone else like to testify on HB 2089? Okay.

Seeing none, members questions? I don't have any either. Let's go ahead and move on to HB 2,090 relating domestic abuse orders for protection. Removes the requirement to request to withhold from public inspection the petition record of a denial of a denied temporary restraining order or deny protect order will be made orally. First up on 2090 is judge Madero's or the judiciary for the designation.

Good morning, Chair. Scott Boone on behalf of judiciary. This is one of our package bills. We stand in support, obviously. And what this bill is attempting to do is, iterate on act 18, which was recently passed in 2020 to to give domestic abuse survivors the opportunity to submit, written requests to withhold certain, documents from public view, and I'll be available for any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Yasmine Chaney for the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning. Yasmeen Chaney for the Commission on the Status of Women. I stand on our written testimony in support of this measure and thank the committee's consideration and support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Angelina Mercado for the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence in support. Mark Morakami for Hawaii State Bar Association.

Chair will stand on it.

In support. Okay. Isabella Zingray, also in support. That's everybody who signed up on hb 2090. Would anyone else like to testify on hb 2090? Okay. Seeing none, members questions? Yes. I do. Senator...

Judiciary. I'm just trying to figure out the mechanics of this. So it's if the petitioner request the removal of a counter TRO, which is what the judiciary's testimony was referring to, Does that mean for denied counter TRO. Does that mean you folks will remove it from gems or Jeffs or whatever?

No, Senator. I believe it would be designated as sealed or confidential, basically withheld from public inspection at that point in time.

Okay. So it'll still be listed in GEMS, like, the the the defendant that files a counterTO FCDA claim?

I would have to check. I'm not sure right now under current law if an oral request is made. If if I understand the question, if that case file is then searchable or if it'll show any information when you search for it. But the particular for certain the particular petition itself would be designated as sealed or confidential.

Okay. So we will need to amend this if we wanted to remove it from Gems.

I think if the legislature was gonna look at that, I think it would need to be amended. I would have to look further into

Proposable then hopefully before conference to remove those frivolous counter TROs from also GEMS. Yeah?

Understood, sir. I would have to look at potential applicable federal and state law where, you know, certain documents can be removed from public inspection, but there's

Just one day.

But they're but but they're not just erased completely. There's there's still there within the system. So I would have to look into that to see whether or not there's any sort of federal or state law implications to have it removed completely.

K. I see the utility of this for the frivolous counter TROs that, you know, used to practice Commonly law, and I've seen this. My concern is that it's still there in searchable under GEMS. So if I put in a victim's name and there there is gonna be an FCDA action, which is sealed, but it'll it's still there. Yeah.

That part, I'm not sure. I can definitely respond back to this committee with how that works technically because I'm not sure if you search for that party's name if it's gonna return that sealed case. I think I'm not sure if it does or not. It it's I do know that it

I've seen it. I've well, I haven't checked for a while, but I've seen it. Okay? And that that's the reason I ask I'm asking you the question. K. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. You can stay there for a second. So my understanding is this bill just because this bill, there's only a 22 word change. It's oral or written twice.

Yeah.

So it's not really aimed at the what whatever the situation is now in terms of whether you can see the document, it this won't change it at all. This is just how you make the motion. Correct. Okay. Fair. Just wanna be sure I was understanding it correctly.

Yeah. I

Okay.

And maybe I'm asking for too much. But okay. That that may be for next session.

Thank you, Senator.

Other questions, members? If not, we'll go ahead and move on to HB 2094. This increases the amount each juror or prospective jurors paid for each day of acting I mean, actual attendance at court. First up on 2094 is Haley Cheng for the public defender. Good morning again.

Good morning again. The office of the public defender is in strong support of this measure. We know firsthand how critical it is to remove any barriers to jury service. And while it is a civic duty, it can put a great strain on individuals, especially for cases that last longer. It's a nominal change, and we recognize that, but it can make a significant difference to getting a broad cross section of our community to be able to show up in a meaningful way for jury service.

So we stand in strong support, and I'll be available for any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Dean Hiraki for the judiciary, on Zoom, maybe. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard, my name and members of the committee. My name is Dean Hiraki. I'm the deputy chief court administrator in the third circuit appearing today on behalf of the Hawaii state judiciary. The judiciary strongly supports House Bill 2094 House Draft one. This bill seeks to increase the jury compensation from $30 to $50 per day.

We are seeking an appropriation of $684,385 to account for this increase. We know this increase is modest and will not replace any lost wages and that the legislature has, you know, many difficult decisions on a number of other funding requests this this session. But we are still asking for this increase on behalf of the residents of Hawaii who serve this important and vital role in our justice system. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Christine Denton for department prosecuting attorney, city and county in support. Mark Morakami, Hawaii State Bar Association. In support. Thank you. Next is Johnny Mae Perry in support. Glenn Kagamita in support, Marcela Alohalani Boito in support. That's everyone who signed up to testify in HB 2094. Would anyone else like to testify in HB 2094? Seeing none of the members' questions?

Okay. Let's go and move on to the next bill. This is HB 2099. This amends the processes for addressing party candidates and state Senate vacancies. First up on 2099 is Scott Nago, chief election officer. Sure.

Well, Scott, I'm gonna continue to support of you.

Great. Thank you. Next is Christine Andrews, also in support. And that's everybody who signed up on HB 2099. Would anyone else like to testify on HB 2099? I'm sorry. Yes. Twenty 99. If not, members questions? Okay.

We'll go ahead and move on to the last bill on the agenda, HB 2578 as provides a determination of personal liability for another person's unpaid general excise taxes as an assessment subject to the due process procedures and appeals available for other assessments. First step on 25 at 78 is department of taxation, Theoretically in person, but with comments, and that's everybody who signed up on h b 2578. Does any all anyone else wish to testify on hb 2578?

Seeing none. Members, there's no one to ask questions of. I'm ready to start voting if you guys are. Any any issues? Okay.

Let's go back to the top of the agenda, HB 1247. This allows a party aggrieved by the judgment of a circuit court on a minimum term order to appeal to the intermediate appellate court, requires prisoners to continue to be represented by counsel in the petition challenge challenging minimum term proceedings. I think this is a work in progress. I don't I'm inclined to move it forward. We have a couple of amendments that will hopefully make it better.

So I'd like to accept the public defender's amendment and apply to the right to counsel provision to all prisoners, not just those who have been previously represented. But both the public defender and the judiciary requested additional money to move forward with this. So we'll go ahead and put in two blanket appropriations for those two agencies, and I will put a different bad date on it, 03/22/2075. Questions or concerns? If not, senator Gabbard.

On HB 1247 the chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. If all members present, are there any no votes or reservations? No. No vote for senator Awa. The measure passes.

Thank you. Next up is h b 1516. This requires certain factors to be considered when determining a defendant's financial bill to afford bail. Recommendation here is to basically conform the amendments with what JDC did on Senate bill 2732. So what that entails is clarifying the reference to the 150% of the federal poverty level for Hawaii by specifying the use of the annual published federal poverty guidelines and setting the time for determination as the date of first appearance. The first appearance is different than what's in the bill now. It's arrest. And then we'll adjust within forty hours of arrest to within forty hours of initial appearance, and we'll put a a different bad date on it, 03/2275. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

On HB 1516 recommendations to pass with amendments, any no votes or reservations? No. No vote for senator Awa. The measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is HB 1565. This establishes a working group within the judiciary to improve family court proceedings, including access to legal representation for youth in the child welfare system, appropriates funds for the working group. Recommendation here is to pass with amendments. We'll put a different bad date on it, 03/2003/22/2075. And in the committee report language, we'll note the judiciary's budget request of 140,000 and the breakdown that they gave in their testimony. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

Chair's recommendation on HB 1565 is to pass with amendments. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is HB 1716. This establishes a process by which any political party continuously listed on the general election ballot for eight or more years shall be deemed continually continuously qualified for ballot placement. As I mentioned when we were talking was speaking with the testifiers, I'm a little concerned about treating different parties differently. So my recommendation is to pass with an amendment that treats all the parties the same, but it will make it easier for all political parties to qualify for the ten year status by lowering the number of cycles cycles where you qualify from three to two, and that's in HRF 11 dash 62 b.

And we'll put a bad effective of data a bad effective data on the 03/22/2075. So it boils down to a pretty small it's it will look like a big change in the bill, but it's in the same spirit as which in which the bill is offered, I believe. Questions or concerns? If not, vice chair.

On HB 1716 recommendations passed with amendments. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

K. Thank you. Next up is HB 1878. This prohibits discrimination based on the perception that a person possess certain characteristics, the perception that a person is associated with a person who possesses or is perceived possess certain characteristics or the intersection or combination of two or more specified characteristics in relation to a person. The recommendation here is was mentioned in the testimony of the current common law in the I believe it's the Lamb case already this is this is basically the law in Hawaii now, but this would this would take that stand that decision and put it into state law.

So recommendation is to go ahead and put a good date on it and move it forward. So it would be upon approval. Questions or concerns? If not, vice chair.

On HB 1878 local nations to pass amendments. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure promises.

K. Next up. Thank you. Next up is HB 2089. This establishes a fixed disposition deadline requiring the Supreme Court to decide an application for tertiary within sixty days after the application is filed. I'm surprised this wasn't requested, like, fifteen years ago, but our recommendation is to pass as is. So it will go this is it. So it'll go straight up to the pres or up to the governor after after clears the floor. Questions or concerns? If not, unamended.

Recommendation on HB 2089 is to pass as is. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is HB 2090. Removes the requirement that requests to withhold from public inspection the petition record of a denied temporary restraining order or deny protective order be made orally. I taking note of senator San Buenaventura's concerns, I just I don't think this is that bill. I understand where you're coming from, but it's my recommendation is to pass it as is. Questions or concerns? If not, vice chair.

On HB 2090 recommendations to pass as is. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is HB 2094. This increases the amount each juror or prospective jurors paid for each day of actual tenants at court. Our recommendation is to put a different bad date on it, 03/22/2075. And note in the committee report that the appropriation amount is blanked out on the bill, but the appropriation amount requested by the judiciary. And the original bill was $684,385. Questions or concerns? If not, vice chair.

On HB 2094 recommendations to pass with amendments. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure passes.

Thank you. Next up is HB 2099. This amends the process for party candidate and state Senate vacancies. It's mainly to comply with federal law about the length of time you have to have certain things done before the election. Recommendation is to pass it as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

On HB 2099 recommendations to pass unamended. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next up and last is HB 2578. This provides that a determination of personal liability for another person's unpaid general excise taxes is an assessment subject to the due process procedures and the appeal available for other assessments. The recommendation here is to just well, I'll go ahead and we'll go ahead and put the effective date that I think it was judiciary asked. DOTAX.

DOTAX. I'm sorry. DOTAX asked for which is 01/01/2027, and there is another committee after this. Questions or concerns? If not, vice chair.

Recommendation on HB 2578 is a pass with amendments. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Great. Thanks everyone for being here. We're adjourned.