House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Convening our committee on public safety. Today is Friday, March 20th, 2026, 10:30am, Conference Room 411. Thank you members. Thank you to the public who are here and thank you to the public who are present via Zoom. This is a rainy day, a very wet day here in Hawaii.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of the North Shore, as we see, the damage and that the rain and floods are right now leaking on our communities. As the weather shifts towards town, we wanna make sure that people are safe on the roads. My inclination here is going to be to conduct this hearing, but then to defer decision making until our next hearing date on Wednesday. Wednesday, March 25, at 11AM.

The both of these measures are double referrals, so we are fine with the deadlines.

And so let's get through this expeditiously. First up, we have Senate Bill 2109, relating to emergency preparedness communications. This is a little bit of an omnibus bill coming over from the Senate. Members, we have seen different elements of this bill passing through on the first go around. So we had testimony in support first up from state health planning and development agency.

Testimony in support from Disability and Communications Access Board. Thank you, Ms. Pagano for joining us here in person today.

Yes. Yes. My name is Kristine Pagano from Disability Communication Access Board. Good morning, Chair Belatti and also Vice Chair, Iwamato, and also the committee here. DCAB, the Disability and Communication Access Board, we stand on our testimony, our written testimony. We want to just amend just a little bit of the language in section six, chapter 1278 HRS, Hawaii revised statutes. So thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony in support, from Hawaii Emergency Management Agency that I fear is very probably busy right now. Testimony in support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Testimony in support from the legal clinic. Testimony via Zoom by the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Go ahead, Ms. Gillette or ACIR if you're present on Zoom. We will wait.

Oh, hold on. Oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

Okay. Hi chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Sorry, as you might imagine, things are a little chaotic right now. We're also trying to support our thirty some immigrants serving organizations across the Paeʻāina. You know, to illustrate why we need to see funding for language access planning at a HIEMA. About two two sessions ago, we were able to get a full-time language access coordinator in the department, but we definitely need kind of evergreen and also emergency materials that we can deploy in a situation like we're experiencing right now. I'm having folks send me screenshots of the evacuation notice up on the North Shore. None of that is in Ilocano.

If this goes around to Hauula, we would definitely need Tongan.

That's why we need this money, so that when we have this exact scenario, we can make sure that we are deploying the right materials so that folks can get them. You know, getting this in three days means that it's it's of no value to those folks. So, yeah. This is why we need this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you, Miss Gill. Thank you for sharing your testimony. We have testimony in support from Hawaii Food Industry Association via Zoom. Okay. Testimony in support by Hawaii Food Plus Policy.

Testimony in support from Hawaii Disability Rights Center. Testimony in support by Hawaii, Hawaii Humane Society. Testimony in support from Roots Reborn Maui. Testimony in support from the legal clinic. We have testimony in support by Kona Indivisible and Matriarchy Rising.

Testimony in support from individuals Jeremiah Brown, Christine Andrews, Kanani Kai, Jennifer Lum, Barbara Tom, and Veronica Moore. Any other testifiers in the room for Senate Bill 2109? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none, members, any comments, any questions? Seeing none, I want to, again, just inform the public that we will defer decision making on these measures until Wednesday, March 25, on our 11:00AM agenda.

So we can dismiss the ASL signer at this point if they, if we want to, but or whatever the staff is supposed to do. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other questions, we're gonna move on to relating to emergency management, Senate bill 2151. Members, we've seen different versions of bills looking to modify, the executive's authority in which to declare emergencies.

First up, we have testimony in opposition from Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. We have comments from the Office of Information Practices. We have testimony in support from Councilmember Felicia Cowden of Kauai County. We have testimony, with comments from, Public First Law Center via Zoom. We have comments in person from Grassroot Institute of Hawaii or via Zoom.

Seeing no one hears the members that's testimony in support. We have testimony in support from Earthjustice.

Hello, chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, committee members. Drew Harrow with Earthjustice. So we submitted testimony in support of this measure with amendments. First, wanted to acknowledge our emergency management agencies, given that we are in a state of emergency currently and have been over the last week. And we appreciate the important work that they do.

And and I really wanna clarify that the measures in this bill and the amendments proposed by Earthjustice are not meant to divest HIEMA or our county emergency management agencies of any of their abilities or powers to respond to legitimate emergencies like the ones that we've been experiencing in our State over the last week.

So this bill and the amendments proposed by Earthjustice are really just meant to target and focus those emergency powers, particularly the extraordinary emergency powers available under 127a-13 that allow the governor, to suspend essentially any law, under an emergency proclamation. So, the amendments that we have proposed would add new definitions for the terms of emergency and disaster, to bring this bill in line with House Bill 2581, which this committee passed earlier this session.

Just to mention a few things about other parts of the bill, we we also are in full support of the provisions relating to the Uniform Information Practices Act. I think the public has made it very clear that transparency in government decision making is of utmost importance.

I think particularly in sort of extraordinary situations where these sort of decisions might or where our, you know, resources could be particularly vulnerable. I would also say that I appreciate, provisions in the existing bill that would allow the legislature the opportunity to terminate an emergency proclamation by two thirds vote. I think that standard is too high. A super majority is really hard to achieve. And we would support amending that provision to allow the legislature to terminate an emergency proclamation by simple majority.

There's precedent for this in other jurisdictions. For example, New York State in 2021 amended their Emergency Management Act, to allow for the legislature to terminate a governor's declaration of emergency, at any time, by concurrent resolution. And that's New York Executive Law, Section 28, Section 5. Just to respond very quickly to some of the testimony and opposition that we saw from individuals, I think largely, respectfully, that testimony misunderstands what this bill is trying to accomplish.

A lot of what I read in that testimony was concerns about abuse of power through the invocation of the governor's emergency powers.

This bill actually would respond directly to that. And I think if some of those individuals were able to understand what this bill is actually doing, that that's what their their opposition would turn to support. Maybe they don't think it goes far enough, but we think this is an important step. So mahalo for the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony, in support by League of Women Voters of Hawaii. Testimony in opposition by Hawaii Christian Coalition.

Aloha, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, and members of the Public Safety Committee. I'm submitting this testimony on behalf of Hawaii Christian Coalition. My name is Margaret Mejia, and we're in strong opposition to SB 2151. I urge the committee to reject SB 2151 in its current form as it largely preserves and potentially entrenches the core flaws of Chapter 127a rather than meaningfully reform it. We'd also ask you to remove or reject language that reaffirms or expands law suspension authority.

We believe that gives the governor too much power, strengthen the termination mechanism to require automatic expiration after one week so that, he can't keep, prolonging an emergency. With mandatory legislative review and simple majority approval. So I think right now it's, it's super majority, but I think simple majority would be much better and limited to, two weeks at a time.

We'd also like to ask the committee to prohibit compulsory immunizations or other mandates without documented scientific evidence presented in emergency legislative hearings and explicitly bar any suspension or override of constitutional rights, protections under any declaration or extension. So Hawaii has an opportunity to lead by restoring balanced, accountable emergency powers that respect representative government and the people's rights while ensuring preparedness for real crisis.

So thank you so much for your time, and I'm available for questions and just urge the committee to prioritize comprehensive reform over incremental changes that leave dangerous authorities intact. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Miss Mejia. We have testimony in opposition from Kim Cordery.

Aloha. My name is Kim Cordery. Thank you for the opportunity. I oppose, SB 2151 SD 2. This bill's definition of a disaster is too broad.

I believe that it gives the governor too many opportunities to declare a disaster or an emergency. I believe this bill is also cloaked and and is deceptive, in several aspects with reigning in his powers and reigning in the powers of the governor. It actually clarifies and justifies his use of emergency proclamations. So I am adamantly opposed to this bill.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Theresa Ambrester in person in opposition.

Aloha Chair and committee members. I'm Theresa Armbruster, and I oppose, SB 2151 in its current form. I would ask for major amendments in it and in particular narrow down the definition of disaster because right now, as other ones already said, it's too broad. And when you give that many opportunities for the governor to declare an emergency, then he can use all those other emergency powers that, some of those are going against our constitutional rights.

So I would ask you to very narrowly, I know he has to have some flexibility but, narrow down the events that would trigger him to be able to call an emergency and try to amend that in such a way that, you know, that it's, acceptable to everyone.

And I think you can do that. And also, since, HRS 127a, 13 and 14 are included in this, but even though they're law right now, but since it's included in this bill, I would ask it if any way possible you can try to amend portions of that or repeal portions even though it's in there already that it's because it's already clarifying what his, additional powers are during emergency. So, I'd ask you to do that.

And also the thing regarding, trying to end emergency declaration, other states, the legislatures, have other measures besides, you know, the two thirds majority vote. So I'd ask you to really look at different measures in other states to be more effective because once an emergency is declared, it's very hard to stop it.

So I would, and other states, they have it only, like, two weeks or possibly thirty days, and it automatically terminates. So I'd ask you to make more amendments in those areas where you have, more opportunities. And, again, I would ask that try to amend this in such a way that you can reign in the powers of the governor.

Right now, it's way too broad, and especially in 127a, 13, those emergency powers, the additional ones, those are the ones that are most egregious and go against infringing on our constitutional rights. So I ask you in any way possible to try to amend that or repeal those sections. So thank you for your the opportunity.

Thank you, Miss Armbruster. We have testimony in opposition from Sheila Maderos.

Actually, I had a long written statement, but everyone's already testified and I echo all of it. And I stand by my written statement I submitted. I do want you folks to know, and I appreciate you folks hearing this, is you have to understand who the audience is that's opposing it. The audience that's opposing this bill are the peoples that were called nonessential during the COVID pandemic that were treated and ostracized by our own government and weren't hurt.

So that's the massive opposition you folks have.

So when you understand who you're talking to, when you folks are opposing, then you have a better understanding in working this bill. I completely disagree with the bill because it doesn't stop any of the current powers the governor has, whether it be green or whoever it is, that executive branch has unconstitutional authority that was given to that branch, that position back in 2014. That needs to be reined in. That's the problem here.

None of these in '20 in HB 2236 and 2151 doesn't reign in any of the unconstitutional powers he has right now.

So that is the problem we see with this bill. And I thank you for considering it and appreciate your time, Mahalo.

I really appreciate that you're here, Miss Medeiros. Testimony in opposition from James. Last name. Go ahead, James.

Morning, Chair, committee. Thank you for this opportunity, and I totally oppose to HB 2151. It gives the governor too much power, you know, and you know already here, he already has the most power of all governors of all The United States. He appoints hundreds of positions, and then we're gonna give them more power. There needs to be checks and balances.

He's actually out of control right now. Lot of the things he's doing right now, lot of the laws he's doing right now is unconstitutional. And all these emergency, all these disaster, it's all a fraud. It's all a fraud. He just does that to extend his power.

And remember COVID? See, people mentioning COVID, when the governor had the power, him, the governor, and the mayor, he is moving the goalpost every time. Remember, two weeks, two weeks to get rid of that COVID thing. Two weeks, but it was two years. Right?

So let me see. So giving him that much power would make him like a like what everybody said, a king. Right? So let's have a no king's rally against Josh Green. Let's have a no king's rally. So I opposed to this SB 2151 and thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, James, for being here to provide you testimony. We have testimony in opposition from Sarah Shirley. Sarah Shirley. Testimony in opposition by Kevin Hill. Number of testimonies.

Okay. All of this in opposition from individuals. Lori Jean Searcy, Linda Miyata, Rayna Laughlin, and Cheryl Toyofuku. We have testimony comments from Lois Young, testimony in support from individuals, Michelle Melendez, Fred Hoffer, Joanna Weber, the Magoon Ohana, Julie Shouse, Greg Shouse, and Marlys Lee, as well as Tammy Perkins. Testimony in opposition from Alice Abolita and testimony in support from Linda Dewey.

Do we have any other members in the audience who would like to testify? Please come forward, identify yourself and state, in support or in opposition, and please provide your testimony.

Aloha, Chair Belatti, committee. I'm Gary Cordery. I'm here, to declare my strong opposition to this legislation. I believe this legislation is flawed essentially in three major areas, and I I happen to confirm and affirm this gentleman's recommendation. It's one of the flaws that we have is in this bill, and that is to require a two thirds majority of both houses to suspend the governor's powers.

That bar is far too high. I think in our legislative mix in this state, both in the house and the Senate, you will never achieve two thirds majority to restrain the governor's power. I think that's it needs to be a simple majority. Does not need to be a two thirds majority. Secondly, and I think most importantly, these powers given to the governor and to the mayor rest on subjective reasoning, in my opinion.

I believe, this is the kind of language that's authorizing the emergency proclamations. There's no data-based. There's no historical-based. There's no evidence-based criteria for the governor to actually initiate an executive proclamation. And we have some that makes sense.

Executive proclamations about emergencies in the state. There's a there's a massive storm coming. Fair enough. But I also believe that in this body, you already have existing law that allows for the legislative body to restrain the governor. It happened during COVID.

I heard the legislation. They tried to restrain the governor by re-upping every sixty days. He reauthorizes any governor. It's not just about the current governor. It's about future governors' authority and power to implement legislative issues like this that suspend the constitutional laws within the state of Hawaii.

Individual rights will be suspended. And the fact that this legislation articulates some of the specific areas defining these areas, suggesting that by defining the area, somehow it limits the governor's authority does not. It just states, It actually affirms his ability to speak into these areas. And there's no restraint in this legislation that that requires the governor

to justify rather than he just simply makes a declaration, a proclamation. Finally, my opposition has to come, has to do with individual rights. When any elected official has the authority to suspend the constitution, the consequences fall on the people's individual rights. At no time, and no place in our constitution is there any legislative authority given to any person at any role in government to suspend the individual rights of the citizens. We are a representative government.

Representative government requires the representative, those who are being representative to speak into these issues. So if you wanna have this conversation, do it at the con con. Bring it to the constitutional convention. Give the governor the authority to do these kinds of executive proclamations at the constitutional convention, not as being demonstrated in this legislation. So I strongly oppose this.

I thank you for your time. I think there's universal agreement that the governor has too much power. It's not only in this body, but it's statewide. It's in the media. It's across the board.

Thank you. I know you're trying to get me to hurry up. I just wanna say that it is your it is your Kuleana to bring clarity to this issue and to restrain the governor, both this governor and any future governor. I I thank you for this time.

Thank you, Mister Cordery. Any other testifiers in the room? Please come forward and you can identify, say your name, support or opposition, and then provide your testimony. Is there anyone via Zoom? Okay.

So seeing none via Zoom. Go ahead, sir.

Hi. My name is, Del Sidslauch. Good afternoon, Chairman, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. I stand in opposed to this bill. I do feel as the same as everyone here that it provides too much power.

There's not enough detail, and I think we should kind of go back in and kind of take a look at it. I'd be for me personally, I feel like it's almost like a dictatorship bill that's been introduced and, you know, so I just request that if we could go back in and, you know, make some amendments to it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for being here. Seeing no other testifiers in the room and no testifiers via Zoom, members questions. Representative Iwamoto.

For Justice. So your testimony was pointed out by another testifier. Did your testimony include the recommendation that we move from two thirds to just simple majority?

That's not included in our written testimony that we submitted, but I did, I think, mention that in my oral presentation and also mentioned that there is I think someone else mentioned that there is precedent for that in other jurisdictions as well.

Thank you. Thank you for that recollection. Also, my other question is that is there anything in this particular section of the statutes that allow for a suspension of constitutional rights?

As I understand the provision there, it would not allow, violation of of constitutional rights. So suspension of any law, meaning any law enacted by the legislature. So it's yeah. And and individuals would still have the opportunity to raise a constitutional claim if they felt that their constitutional rights were violated. We actually saw this happen in Mauna Kea.

So during the, when Kea'i were on the mountain and governor Ige issued an emergency proclamation, to authorize basically extra jurisdictional, police departments to flood into Hawaii Island and and police Kia'i. An individual challenged that proclamation through 127a-27, I believe is the provision. And that's a very comprehensive statutory provision that allows for the court to convene. It's actually a three-judge panel that gets convened by the chief justice, and it's an expedited litigation process.

So it allows for I think within a matter of, like, three days or a week, I'll have to revisit the provision to get the exact details.

But in a very expedited process, there is a panel convened. There is a determination on a preliminary injunction. And then at that point, there's a follow-up to determine if there should be a permanent injunction or a termination of the proclamation. So in that case, what happened was the panel convened, they determined that as to that individual, his particular constitutional rights under article 12 section seven were being violated by governor Ige's proclamation, And they suspended the proclamation as to that individual so that he could still access the amount of, to engage in his traditional customary practices.

And then it ended up not getting resolved because that proclamation was repealed by the governor before the process could sort of run its course.

Thank you. Thank you so much for enlightening us to the process. So, without giving any kind of legal advice around this, are you saying then when the Governor Green, or I'm sorry, governor whichever governor was issued the mandate that, state workers or certain workers being, receive the COVID vaccination. It was that taken to under the same process? Do you know?

So I believe what you're referring to is a case that got brought up. Actually, it was not brought under 127a-27. That was brought in an original action.

Oh.

So that was during COVID. So it would have been Governor Ige's proclamation. It was resolved by the ICA. I think the Supreme Court denied certiorari, but they found that that was an appropriate exercise of the statute as currently constructed.

But it wasn't a constant it was a constitutional challenge of the emergency proclamation.

I would be surprised if there wasn't a constitutional challenge in there, but I I would have to revisit the the case. It's been a while since I've worked there.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you.

Sure.

Okay. Go ahead. Representative Shimizu.

Speak up.

Hawaii Justice, please. You know, in line of, Iwamoto's, Vice Chairs questioning, I heard you say that. Well, let me ask the question again to reiterate my understanding. The concerns that were brought up regarding constitutional rights being violated by the current law that's already in place. Do you have any comment regarding that if our rights are being, I guess, neglected by the current law?

Sure. So if I guess the way I would answer that question is the current law. Right? So inherently, there's not a violation. Where the violation would come from would be essentially through a proclamation that specifically impacted someone's constitutional right.

And and the current law allows a process for an individual to challenge that and to vindicate that right, through the existing statutory language.

Right. As you were explaining earlier. So, you know excuse me, Chair.

You know, as you, did reference that Mauna Kea example where the person did go through the process and he won and his, quote, rights were reinstated, is that just for the individual or does that principle apply to the the the population in in general because the precedent was, established?

No, no, go ahead.

Yeah. So to my knowledge, that is the only time that that process has been invoked under the statute. It's a relatively new statute. It was passed and amended in 2014. So in that case, it was specific to the individual.

And that was the decision of the court at the time. But had the process been allowed to sort of go through to completion, it potentially could have resulted in the entire proclamation as it applied to everyone in the state being repealed or terminated. So, to the point that it actually got to before the governor of his own volition rescinded the emergency proclamation, it only applied to that individual.

And I think it's intentionally designed that way because, right, there is consideration within the statute that we wanna afford the executive with authority and some flexibility to respond to legitimate emergencies. And so if it's a matter of public health and safety, there is, in some circumstances, an interest in allowing an emergency proclamation or certain provisions or suspensions to remain in effect broadly.

But this provision allows us to make sure that any individual that's being unfairly, illegally or unconstitutionally affected can have immediate relief while there is sort of greater consideration given to the application of that proclamation to our citizenry as a whole.

Sure. Can I ask another one?

Sure. One last follow-up question. Are any other questions from one of the members? I'm sorry. Okay. Last follow-up question, representative.

So I'm hearing that the governor intervened in the process, to allow that individual. So by him intervening in the process, it sounds like it cut off the completion of that process that would have resulted in, general population, being similarly to the individual being allowed their rights back.

Yeah. So just a couple of things. The, when you say intervention, what happened was governor Ige rescinded. He terminated up his own volition in the emergency proclamation. Right?

So he basically said there's no longer an emergency on Mauna Kea. So that effectively that proclamation is then gone. And so there's no violation at that time. The timing of when he did that was sort of, in the middle of this adjudicative process during which an individual had received temporary relief as to his person. But there was not a greater decision made as to the application for, you know, the entire application of the proclamation.

And under that provision, it would have applied to maybe other native Hawaiians or other Ahupua tenants that would have had similar rights to that individual. But you could extrapolate to other constitutional rights that would be more broadly applicable.

So maybe if you had brought the case, not as an individual, but as a coup, then it would have applied to a wider, persons.

Potentially. Yeah. The group would have to have similar standing to the individual. And that again, would have been, up to the determination of the three-judge panel at the time.

Okay. Thank you so much, Chair.

Okay. Representative Souza, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question, questions for Sheila Medeiros. I read your testimony, and I have a couple of questions regarding your actual written testimony. So the first question is, what is your understanding of the objectives of Chapter 127a?

So I know what you're trying to do.

Okay. What I'd like is can you ask the question, but can you address the Chair? The Chair.

Right now, under the HRS, the Governor, the Executive Branch has on let's just say he has a lot of unconstitutional powers, which hold on. Let me get my... I'll read it since you asked me a question.

Oh, no. I'm just hold on.

I have your written testimony.

I'm asking, I'm answering it. So the bills and legislative termination mechanisms, two thirds super majority vote to end an emergency. This does not fix the core dangers in Chapter 127a HRS. Chapter 127a gives the governor unilateral sweeping powers with almost no checks, suspend virtually any state law 127a, 13a, 3, forced quarantine based on suspected exposure and governor's opinion alone.

Thank you, Chair.

127a...

A one.

Thank you, chair.

I have the entry onto the private... I'm answering your question. 127a 13a, 1. Regulate the...seize firearms and ammunition, 127a, 13a,12, take over private infrastructure, 127a, 13a 11, control business and transactions. 127a, 13a, 8, expand compulsory immunizations. 127a, 13a 1. Okay.

I have another question. Thank you. I'm asking the questions just so you know that this we're allowed to ask the question, and I'm just expecting an answer.

I did answer.

I have your I have your written testimony, so I'm not asking you to read off of your written testimony, I'm asking you for an answer as to what your understanding is as to Chapter 127a. Okay. Thank you. I have another question.

So you state in your testimony, these provisions risk infringing core protections under the Hawaii constitution. And then you go on to state and The US constitution, and you say the fourth, fifth, fourteenth amendments, second amendment, first amendment freedoms, can you explain how this legislation, if it moves forward, will hinder those protections under the law when it comes to the fourth, fifth, fourteenth amendment, second amendment, and first amendment freedoms.

If the repeal is impossible, so I'm asking for all the repeals that are currently under HRS, chapters 127a with a narrow statute, that bans, pursue full repeal and replacement, bans suspension, override of constitutional rights and protections, no exceptions, sets objective declaration criteria and short automatic expirations with mandatory legislative approval. If appeal is impossible now, support strong amendments at minimum, no broadened emergency definitions, remove, reject law suspensions, expansions, require automatic expiration after one week. Extensions need simple majority legislative approval every two weeks max.

Thank you, Chair.

Ban mandates compulsory immunizations without scientific evidence in legislative hearings. Explicitly prohibit overriding constitutional rights under any

Extension.

Thank you, Chair. You know, I I think my question is very specific to, for example, how does this actually hinder our first amendment freedoms? Our first amendment is protection of, you know, freedom of speech. How does that actually hinder something like that?

Well, let's put it this way. So, let's give you an example. During the COVID pandemic, and thank you for your one example, Maca. So I lived through the COVID pandemic.

Please address the Chair.

I lived through the COVID pandemic of being one of the non-essentials. We were not allowed to do a lot of things as those who were not vaccinated. Our freedoms were taken away from us. We were told we couldn't do this.

We couldn't do that. That's what we are here trying to prevent from happening again. Because right now, under the statute, right now during this emergency proclamation, his powers exist.

That's right.

Right now, nothing changes. So he could, say for instance...

So you're saying that hinders our freedom of speech is what that...

I have one last I have one last question Chair, thank you.

Ask the question, please, and then then we're gonna...this.

Thank you. So you say that, we have to understand who our audience is. Right? And our audience is non-essential workers.

How is that our audience? Can you just explain that further?

Because non-essential is your taxpayers. They, you work for them.

You work for them too. I don't understand your question.

What about essential workers?

So how is, you said our audience is non-essential workers.

I don't understand the question.

Question is the non-essential workers is the audience. Can you just expand upon that? And then and then we're gonna terminate this.

So, again, going back to COVID, this is why you have the massive opposition you have right now with 2236 and 2151. The powers that were given in 2014 to the Governor, to the Executive Branch gives him unlimited powers based on what Gary Cordery mentioned, like he can just say, oh, I think so.

I'm saying I'm trying to address the freedom of speech. We were put through a lot of unconstitutional suppression during the COVID pandemic, and we were the state that had the longest the longest lockdowns. So that's what I'm saying is we were prevented from assembling. We couldn't even go on the beach. We couldn't even, we had to literally pretend we were swimming to be on the beach.

Okay. Thank you, Ma'am. I understand that, I think we understand your point. Members, any other questions?

Please. Please.

One last question for the Hawaii Christian Coalition. Thank you, Chair. Just one question. One quick question.

Miss Mejia.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

We need to refrain from any kind of outburst, from all sides. So please go ahead.

Thank you for being here. I appreciate your testimony. I also read your testimony. You know, it just seems like, I understand a lot of the conservative arguments that are being made as to this particular legislation. And I'm just curious to know the companion bill to this is House Bill 2236. Correct?

Yes.

Correct. 2236. Yes. And have you, you understand that just from a conservative perspective that three Republicans did introduce or are primary introducers on that particular legislation?

And have you reached out to them to ask perhaps why?

Yes.

I mean okay. So do you, are you guys still continuing to push down this road? Have they perhaps changed their outlook on the particular legislation?

I let them know where I stand, but they have not contacted me.

Okay. Okay. Awesome. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.

Can I answer the question about the Fourth Amendment?

No. Not at this point. I think we we're we're good. We Okay. And this I will note that this measure, if it moves forward, has a second hearing.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Any other questions, comments, or concerns? Alright. Members, thank you. This has been a very good, conversation around both of these bills. My inclination is going to be to actually take a look at the testimony, to do a little bit of research.

I am very interested in what other legislatures are doing around termination of emergency powers. I will state that as a general framework, it's, one of the challenges that we have as a legislature is that we need to make sure that bills are also veto proof. And so we are gonna be working within certain parameters. I understand, on both of these measures, the different kinds of points of views that we're hearing from, but I do wanna take the time to do a little bit of research.

I wanna acknowledge that, representative Poepoe has done a lot of work around the definitions of emergencies, and that was in her in a bill that was also heard by this committee.

I think that we can actually address many of the concerns that have been raised here through different approaches in this bill. Because as we limit the definition of emergency, it actually helps to address some of the concerns about, overreach and, protections of constitutional rights. So with that said, this is a complex area of the law for both of these bills. Chair's recommendation at this point and decision is to defer to decision making to next week, Wednesday, March 25 on our 11AM agenda.

Members, any questions, comments, or concerns?

Seeing none, you can reach out to me. Please be safe over this weekend and stay safe and dry. Aloha. You're adjourned.

adjourned.