Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right. Welcome, everyone, to the Judiciary Committee hearing this Tuesday morning, March 24, 9:45 a.m. in 016. If we have a catastrophic crash on the Zoom side, we'll try again on Friday, March 27 at 10:30 a.m. here in 016. For both people on Zoom, you'll be muted and your video turned off until it's your turn, and for everybody, a two-minute time limit on testimony.

Members often have questions, so if you can hang around after you've testified, that would be great. First up today is Governor's Message 573, submitting for consideration and confirmation of the Statewide Elections Accessibility Needs Advisory Committee, gubernatorial nominee, Lou Ann Blake for a term to expire June 30, 2029. First up for Ms. Blake is--excuse me--Joel Cho in support. Patricia Morrissey in support. Ann Lemke on Zoom meeting.

Not present, Chair.

In support. Next is Katie Klein in support, Virgil Stent in support, James Gashel in support, Deborah Gabe in support, Marie Kufu in support. That's everybody who signed up on GM 573. Would anyone else like to testify on GM 573? Okay. Seeing none, members, no one to ask questions of, Ms. Blake, would you like to make an opening statement? Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Rhoads and members of the Judiciary Committee. It's my privilege to be here. I am a blind voter, and I have had personal experience with many of the barriers that voters with print disabilities are faced with when they go to exercise their constitutional right to vote privately and independently.

I have worked for 20 plus years as an advocate for the right of voters with print disabilities to vote privately and independently in a manner that is equal to the opportunity afforded to voters without disabilities as required by the Help America Vote Act and Title 2 of the ADA. I have also managed programming to provide tech training and technical assistance to elections officials, voting advocates in the Protection Advocacy System, and as well as to blind and low-vision voters, and my advocacy efforts have been on a nationwide level.

I am happy to say that here in Hawaii, I think things are more accessible for voters with print disabilities than they are in many states. I was really happy to be able to vote totally-- with a totally accessible vote-by-mail system in the 2024 Primary and General Election on my iPhone, which was truly thrilling. And Hawaii is only a handful of states where voters with print disabilities have that opportunity.

While we are, you know, doing a good job here in Hawaii, I think there are some areas where we could do some work on, where I would be privileged to work with the Office of Elections as a member of the Statewide Elections Accessibility Needs Advisory Committee. I think we need to raise awareness among the print disability community here in Hawaii that this fully accessible system exists. I think we need to do more outreach.

I think it would be great if the Office of Elections and members of the Accessibility Needs Advisory Committee could attend events, such as the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii annual convention, the Hawaii Association of the Blind annual convention, meetings of those organizations, as well as other meetings of other organizations that work with the print disability community here in Hawaii.

It would be my honor to serve on this committee, and I look forward to working with the Office of Elections and the print disability community of Hawaii. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that anyone may have.

Great. Thank you very much. Members, questions? Well, you pretty much answered all the questions I was gonna ask, so I would just say, I think you mentioned before that you're already active with the National Federation of the Blind.

So you'll have enough bandwidth to be able to do both that and this new responsibility?

Yes.

Yeah. Well, actually, my part-time job that I've been doing for the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii as program manager for NFB Newsline Hawaii, I am actually retiring from that the end of April, so I will have lots of bandwidth.

Okay. Sure. Well, I don't think I need to ask any other questions. Members, anything else? If not, let's go ahead and vote on this GM if the <unintelligible> no certain objection, and we can let Ms. Blake go on her way. Recommendation is to advise and consent. Any questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard for the vote.

On GM 573, Chair's recommendation is to advise and consent. [Roll call]. The measure's adopted.

Thank you very much. Congratulations. There'll be a floor vote fairly soon. I don't know exactly when.

All right. Mahalo. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay. Moving on to the bill portion of the agenda. First up is House bill 2095. This is the judiciary budget for the fiscal biennium beginning.

It's a supplemental budget. First up on 2095 is Brandon Kimura, administrative director of the courts. And good morning. You don't have to say anything. I'm just if you if you'd like to, go ahead.

Oh, sure. Just briefly.

Yes. Of course.

Thank you. Good morning, chair. Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard, members of the committee, Brandon Kimura, administrative director of the courts, and with me are administrators and subject matter experts from across judiciary, testify in strong support of this measure, which is our judiciary supplemental appropriations measure. We acknowledge the economic uncertainty facing the state and yet, respectfully make these requests, due to underlying circumstances of each of the requests.

Overall, we're seeking 6,400,000.0 in operating funds in four permanent positions and due to conversion, subtraction of three general funded positions and subtraction of one special fund position.

We also initially request 55,400,000.0 in bond funds. The house funded 45,400,000.0. We are agreeable with that approach on the bond fund front. We have requests in three general areas that I can describe or elaborate upon further later. First, some critical security resources related to, first supplemental, armed private security to supplement the services of DLE, a nuanced approach of two positions for cybersecurity.

Second is the critical services to court users, specifically restoration of funding for POS contracts for substance use services in the first circuit and restoration of funding for the sole position for the office of the public guardian on Kauai.

And the third area is critical staffing resources, specifically requisite funds pursuant to the commission on salaries for FY twenty seven, conversion of one position from temp to perm, and restoration of funding for a position in Kona for court operations specialist and no cost conversion of two temporary to permanent positions for the CASA program on Oahu. Finally, for CIP, constructions funds for South Kohala. And, again, we're agreeable with the house's approach of 20 of the 30 request million for phase one.

1,200,000.0 each for chillers on Kauai and Hilo, 15,000,000 for Kahumanu Hali elevators, and, 8,000,000 in lump sum.

So available for questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Next is Hannah Lisiak for True Cost Coalition. I apologize if I butchered your name. Good morning.

Good, chair. Thank you.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Hannah Lisiak, and I'm testifying on behalf of the True Cost Coalition in strong support of this measure. You have a written testimony, but just briefly, I wanted to highlight an appropriation of $574,716 within the judiciary's budget to restore funding for purchase of service contracts in the first circuit court, that provides substance use treatment for adult probationers on Oahu. These contracts were significantly reduced during the pandemic despite continued and growing need for these services.

And restoring this funding is very critical for us.

So I wanna thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next is Nicole Wu for Hawaii Children Action Network Speaks, in support. Next is Mark Murakami, Hawaii State Bar Association, also in support. Thomas Farrell, in support. Sarah Fairchild in support.

And Jessica Hatcher in support. That's everybody who signed up on HB 2095. Would anyone else like to testify on HB 2095? Seeing none of the members questions. I do have a question for you, Mr Kimura.

So the lump sum request of 8,000,000 proposals, I guess this is the second year in a row that you've asked for an $8,000,000 lump sum. Is that correct?

I believe last year might have been 7, but it is I can check that briefly.

Sort of larger than its Larger than usual. Yes. Past. Is that how did the how did the judiciary use that higher amount in this well, I guess, the year that we're still in?

In the year that we're still in well, both both years, the I should start back. We usually the usual request is 5,000,000 for lump sum to address, you know, various projects across the state or to add on to a more specific CIP request. Last year, when I believe it was 7, it might have been 8. The additional from 5 to that higher number was specifically to address the Children Justice Center.

A year or two ago, the legislature appropriated funds to relocate the Children's Justice Center from Newnanu to a different site.

We've since selected Leahy Hospital in that area, and as the plans are evolving and moving forward towards construction, which we hope will begin later or early this summer, we've been working with DAGS, identified additional funds necessary. So the 2 to 3,000,000 that were added last from last year's lump sum were towards that.

And thankfully, we've actually have funds available in our lump sum to put towards that construction so they can put it out to bid again very soon because we've used more of the funds toward more of the lump sum funds towards that project than perhaps initially planned. The additional 3,000,000 this year from our usual 5 to the 8,000,000 is to sort of backfill, if you will, our lump sum so that we can address a lot of those projects that we had planned on working on.

Okay. So the fact that the Children's Discovery Center got moved, soaked up a bunch of

Yes.

Money that you didn't expect, but now you're trying to catch up on the smaller Okay. Correct. So as you probably heard, there was a testifier for the True Cost Coalition, the idea being that the reimbursements for services purchased service contracts aren't keeping up with inflation. Does the supplemental budget reflect an increase in those areas, or are these are the numbers essentially the same from last year?

It would be in a sense, it would be an increase, but the our budget request for 574 and change for substance use services on Oahu is, relatively narrow, in in the sense of the True Cost Coalition, and we support their their general efforts. It's for these particular contracts, which are probationers on Oahu. These funds were reduced significantly during the early part of the pandemic, and this is to bring us back to that pre pandemic level.

So this is not to the extent of the true cost coalition's efforts to, to expand and actually address the true cost of delivering services. We're happy and supportive of that.

So long as we receive appropriations, we're happy to pass it through. But in light of the economic conditions of the state, our modest request to you at this point is the 574 to bring us back to pre-pandemic levels. And, again, we would be happy to pass through more if more funding is available to the providers.

Do you are you concerned at all that you're gonna stop that you're gonna that some providers are just not gonna work for you anymore?

We do have significant concern, and that's a large part of why we're seeking to support the providers, in you know, with the decreased funding over the years from that pre pandemic levels and our, you know, resultingly less funding for the contracts for the providers, we see that they have reduced their capacity and their stability, and we do, you know, wanna be able to support them.

And so it's supports not only the providers, it supports our clients, it supports the community, and it it's a very economic use of funds. K.

So I'm assuming that that's not the only category of expenditures where inflation is having an effect. It looks to me like the elevators at Ka'u Manu Hale are a lot more expensive than we thought they were gonna be. Can you tell us what the status on that is at the moment?

Thank you, chair. The, so the status on the elevators, on one hand that it's the elevators themselves are the same as they have been, which is in very poor condition. They continue to break down. People continue to get trapped. Judges and staff have been getting trapped.

So we've had to postpone court hearings, in that sense. So the elevators themselves are the same. In terms of the status of the project, we are continuing to work with DAGS. I've been in direct contact with a com controller who has reassured me that this is a high priority for them. They understand the circumstances and that this is these are unique elevators in the community of elevator issues that we all have.

They plan to put out for bid soon with the funding that has been previously appropriated a project for all nine elevators in the building. DAGS believes that of the funding that has been previously appropriated, that is sufficient for the first five, and the funding that we are requesting this year would provide the funding for the remaining four elevators for the nine in the building. DAGS is an indicator of how much you are highlighting this as a high priority for them.

They're taking an appropriate and fully legal, but unusual measure of providing partial certification of the funding so that they can put it out to bid for all nine elevators, even though at this point, as we sit here today, we only have the funds for the first five. Okay.

So the nine, there's there's some private there's some public ones and some private ones. Is that correct?

Yes. There are four public elevators. One is a custody elevator and four private elevators.

Okay.

Okay. All members, other questions? If not, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and move on to the next Bill. That would be HB1520.

This clarifies that the statute, 5 year statute of limitation for criminal prosecutions of campaign finance violations begins upon discovery of the offense by the campaign spending commission. First up on 1520 is, Kirsten, you zoom in the towel or her designee? Oh, no. You're here. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair

Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard, Senator San Buenaventura, Senator Chang, Kristen Izumi-Nitao, executive director, Campaign Spending Commission. We are here in support of this Bill by changing the start of the statute of limitations period from the date of violation or date of filing the report to the discovery of the violation by the commission. We believe that it will prevent candidate committees and noncandidate committees from delaying proper reporting on campaign finance reports to avoid prosecution.

I would like to add however, that with respect to section 2. We would recommend the reinsertion of the language on. I think it's page 2, lines 16 through 18 from the original House Bill concerning reference to the statute of limitations for campaign spending violations to commence upon discovery of the offense. This is just for consistencies when matters are referred for criminal prosecution because as you know, section 2 refers to 701108 and section 1 refers to the campaign spending statute.

I'm available if you have any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next up is Marlene Tom for Indivisible Hawaii statewide network on Zoom, maybe.

Yes.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, and members of the committee. Marlene Tom, on behalf of Indivisible Hawaii, thank you for this opportunity to testify in strong support of HB1520 HD 1. We support this Bill because we believe that the current 5 year statute of limitations of criminal prosecutions of campaign finance violations is insufficient or because campaign finance violations are often difficult to identify, and they're not immediately noticed.

So it makes a lot more sense for the 5 year limitation to begin when the offense is discovered and not when it actually took place. We believe that by strengthening, excuse me, the adjusting when the 5 years statute of limitations begins, it strengthens the deterrent power. Excuse me again. The deterrent power of our existing campaign finance laws and, ensures that accountability will take place when the crime is discovered.

This will restore public confidence that our elections are fair and our officials are playing by the rules.

Thank you for the opportunity. I hope you will advance this Bill.

Thank you very much. Next up is Eileen Hilton for Windward Coalition in support. Chris Cofield for IMUWA Alliance, also in support. Anne Frederick for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action in support. Gregory Masakian on Zoom maybe?

Not present, Chair.

Also in support. K. There's a list of quite a few people that are all in support.

The total count was 26 in support, 0 opposed, and 0 comments. At this point, does anyone else wish to testify in HB1520? If not, members' questions?

Senator San Buenaventura.

Yes.

Kristen. Buenavent. So my problem with this is there anything in the statutes that require campaign spending to use due diligence to find these violations?

I don't know if I see that specific verbiage. But.

You know, I did criminal defense before I became a legislator, and there are tolling statutes Right? If, for instance, the defendant choose to leave the jurisdiction and then the statute of limitations is tolled or if certain things don't occur, that statute of limitations are tolled. But in this instance, this Bill, you don't have a tolling. You basically are allowing the campaign spending to take its time to find these violations.

It could be, like, 20 years down the road, 20 years after the election. And to me, it doesn't do the public any justice because the election has come and gone. Whereas if the campaign spending commission does its due diligence and points out the violation before the election, then the voters know whether or not these intentional violations occur. K.

So would you be amenable instead of a discovery to allow for tolling provisions that says that if there's an intentional deception or words that similar to the criminal statutes, But to still require campaign spending to use its due diligence to find these violations.

So, Senator, you know, a lot of these the reason we're in support of this is we can only do so much as what is reported. And a lot of times, we found out there's misreporting. And that's not on behalf of the Campaign Spending Commission. That is on the behalf of the committee that has failed to disclose something that we have found out later on, typically maybe by a whistleblower, perhaps sometimes maybe by just looking at the other filings.

But a lot of times, we just have to rely on what is filed by the candidate or the noncandidate committee.

And we don't find some of these things out till much later because sometimes there are amendments that occur or more information that comes out to light. So what this statute permits us to do is from the date of we discover it When a candidate, you know, terminates their registration, they're no longer running for office. We do not look at those reports. I mean, those are termination. We have don't have jurisdiction over those reports.

K. So, basically, then the discovery. So any violation or any prosecution by the campaign spending commission then terminates upon the dissolution of the candidate committee?

On satisfaction of the terms of the statute, yes. If the candidate committee qualifies or noncandidate committee qualifies for termination, yeah, we will terminate their registration.

So, I mean, a lot of times and you know this, Kristin. I mean, I'm sorry. And I apologize. I don't mean to disrespect you. Okay?

It's a lot of times, and you know this, the violations are unintentional, and usually and most violations really occur by new candidates who don't know what what's occurring. I understand. I fully understand the misreporting and the intentional, and those people should you know, we we should throw the hammer down on them. But for the a lot of our treasurers are all volunteers. And even if they watch the videos and you know this.

I mean, there's a there's a difference between reporting versus PayPal reporting versus actual deposits. They are violations. I mean, do these violations then become something that and, again, I guess, will haunt the candidate forever so long as their can campaign committee is still around

Well, I mean

if we pass this Bill.

So my comment to that is the law basically says when you file your report, you're filing that it's true and accurate. You're certifying that. Yeah. So the public as well as the commission should appreciate the fact that you're certifying the truth and accuracy of that report. If we find out later that it was inaccurate, well, then the next thing we have to look at is, was the misreporting intentional, knowing or reckless?

And if it falls into that area, again, that's for the commission to decide whether that matter will be referred criminally for prosecution. That's the only point. I can tell this committee that there's been very few cases that we have referred for criminal prosecution? Most have been handled through some type of administrative civil fines. So any insertion of a state of mind into an administrative agency regulation is troubling for us because we don't deal with criminal law.

We have to refer that for criminal prosecution. So the state of mind, this should be more, you know there's a report that was filed. We can subpoena bank records. If they don't match, there's a problem. And for the most part, it's a violation.

And what we'd rather do is get compliance, fix a mistake. But if it is an ongoing violation, well then does this rise to the level intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly? That's a matter for the commission to take up. But we can't just refer something criminally just you know, unless but there's very there's a few there's a few things in our statute that says is a is a crime. But, again, our commission can't pursue it.

We'd have to give it to a prosecutor to handle.

This particular Bill, though refers to violations, and that's the problem I have. If it refers to criminal prosecution where it refers to that intentional knowing, then I have no problem with this whole discovery thing. But it's those minutiae that I have problems with. So thank you very much.

Are members other questions? Yeah. I have a couple of questions. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. Before we do that, I think there's somebody else on Zoom who would like to testify on Mister Musakin.

If you could let us take this test fire. Go ahead, Mister Musakin. Good morning.

Aloha. Good morning, everyone. Greg Musakin. I'll be very, very quick. I just jumped in from another hearing.

So I do support this Bill and just so you can move along for full disclosure, I do serve on the good government caucus and we are actually Coahuil Council where I serve as president and I'm here as an individual today, but we're gonna be hosting the Good Government Caucus on Monday for a program. So we're gonna be talking about different aspects of ethics and different things going on within our legislature.

But I do support this measure and I hope you move it forward. Mahalo.

Thank you. Oh, I guess I'll ask you. Anyone else wish to testify on HB1520? Okay. Seeing none, I do have a question for executive director.

Yep. So I'm just reading from the Bill itself.

Yep. So I'm just reading from the Bill itself.

Prosecution for violations of this part shall not commence after five years have elapsed from the date of the and then we changed it to discovery of the offense. So I guess just in terms of the underlying and there's a variety of things that could be the underlying offense. Right?

It could be as simple as not filing your report on time.

I see. I hope that.

Yeah. Okay. But the prosecution, I guess, I had read it at prosecution, meaning, like, an actual prosecution, a a criminal prosecution that may be derived from something like that, but that had gone well beyond the point of just missing your deadline?

Well, I mean, late reports is one thing, and this is really addresses quite another type of, offense that's covered by the, you know, campaign spending laws. For instance, you know, false names. When you you give a false name rather than

Well, that's a class c felony already. Correct?

It is a class c felony already. Correct. And that's why too, when these bills were coming down, we had to be very careful with the criminal statutes too because there's some confusion as to what would constitute what would be the statute of limitations for a campaign finance violation versus what would be the statute of limitations within the criminal statutes.

As you've already, had many hearings on the bribery statutes too, where there's some element of a public official or an elected official or a campaign spending component to it. There's varying statute of limitations here.

We're advocating the five years from the date of discovery because that is really typically what has happened. There have been some cases that we have had that we couldn't pursue because that report had been filed, let's just say, it could have been filed five years ago, and we can't pursue it because

So but you're looking at the underlying infraction, whatever it was, but it's not necessarily criminal to start with. There are many of them would be probably most, 90% of them would be resolved, probably more than that. The vast majority of them would be resolved administratively, and it would never get to a a criminal prosecution.

But that's that's the moment you're talking about is the initial violation.

Correct.

Yes. So then is there a separate statute of limitations for the administrative side of things if you don't I mean, I don't I'm not quite sure how the how it's like, how does it work now? So if you find something fairly trivial, it's but you don't find it in say this is to me, it's probably the most trivial because it happens all the time, and we in our mandatory penalties. If you miss your deadline

Correct.

You mean you don't file your report on time?

Right. If you don't file your report on time, it's just like a $200 penalty no matter what.

So if you if you found out five years if you found out, five years and a month from now that somebody had filed their report late

Yeah.

That won't happen because we track everybody

I better use a different example. So some something else that's fairly minor that is typically a mistake.

Notice of filing of, fundraiser. They usually don't have that So

Let's just leave it general because I'm not sure exactly where it's gonna come up. Something that's fairly minor and you find out five years and a and a month after it happened, then are your administrative remedies also precluded? So you can't fine them 50 for whatever it was? Or

Well, I mean, I guess I can say this is we don't I mean, we do our best with our staffing to handle those types of kind offenses quickly. We review the reports, and we can see that there was, no fundraiser.

But if you didn't if you didn't catch it for more than five years, what would happen? Are your administrative penalties precluded at that point?

No. I don't believe they are. But, again, I mean, the general premise of what we do is we want good reports so that the public knows has informed voting.

I understand that. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about how long you have to bring whatever action you bring. So you're saying then that right now you believe you can bring an an administrative penalty twenty years later if the person is still in office?

I think if we did that, I think we would be troubled by that as administratively as well, the staleness of that. But, I mean, if it was we found out later, I mean, let me just say this. You know, you got it's public. When we dealt with Kanyala Ng, we didn't realize he had changed his bank account five times. We had said to subpoena many different banks to figure this out, and every single report he filed was wrong.

So if we have something like this, are you gonna I mean, technically, are we gonna be barred from bringing the whole campaign structure down because we just discovered it now, and that was just because everything reported to us was wrong? I mean so that's more of an extreme example.

You're not answering my question, though, because I just wanna know what your statute of limitations is for the administrative time.

To my knowledge, we don't have one for administrative as far as violations for administrative.

So the statute of limitations that's in the current statute, not in this bill, but just in the current statute. You're saying that the only thing that applies to is the actual, I mean, it says prosecution, but in this case, that would imply that it means a criminal prosecution.

That that's how we had interpreted it. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Alright. But it doesn't actually so okay. Alright.

Other questions, members? So if we changed it to criminal prosecution for violations of this part, would that bother you?

No. I mean, again, I think the structure of this bill has to do with criminal prosecution.

Okay. So if we make that explicit, it's it's okay?

Yes.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Other questions, members? Thank you very much.

Thanks for being here.

Next up is HB

HB 1548 relating to sentencing limits the maximum term of imprisonment for misdemeanors or for offenses punishable by up to or not exceeding one year to 364 days allows individuals previously sentenced to a one year term of imprisonment to apply to the court for a sentence modification to conform to the new limit.

Okay. First up on 1548 is Hayley Cheng for The Office of the Public Defender.

Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. The Office of the Public Defender strongly supports this measure. What it does in practice is reduce the maximum sentence to 364 days and specifies that as a one year penalty essentially for misdemeanors. This has significant consequences for our clients who are noncitizens, who are facing potential immigration consequences.

We believe that it does not in any way diminish the court's capacity or the system's capacity to appropriately punish those who may be in need of a year sentence as it just diminishes it by one day.

There are immigration attorneys who will can probably tell the committee more about the minutia of how this works in practice. But I can tell you from the perspective of The Office of the Public Defender, if something was like this was in place, it would definitely lead to quicker and easier resolution of matters because oftentimes, we are under our obligations as criminal attorneys required to litigate things in order to investigate and fully flush out all of the immigration consequences for criminal matters.

So thank you for the opportunity to comment. We stand in strong support. I'll be available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Liza Ryan-Gill for Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Coalition for Immigrant Rights on Zoom. Yes.

Good morning.

Good morning. Hi, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Liza Ryan Gail with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Many of our coalition members are legal service providers. We put this bill forward on on their behalf as we've seen a 500% increase in detention across the country and a nearly 300% increase here in Hawaii, our the number of folks that are currently in detention have gone from an average daily census count from about 15 to 80,81, on a daily basis here. We are we put this bill forward.

It's a very, very tiny little tweak, but it can help our immigration attorneys that are doing pro bono work and working with the public defenders to make sure that there are not radical, repercussions for a misdemeanor for many of our immigrant families here which, as we might remember, represents about 20% of our population in Hawaii.

We thank you for your attention to this. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up is Kat Brady for the Community Alliance on Prisons, in support. Kris Coffield for Imua Alliance, also in support. Megahn Chun or Alejandro Villarino for Mercado De La Raza, in support. Stephen Munkelt for League of Women Voters of Hawaii in support.

Yvette Kay for Kona Indivisible. Also in support, Veronica Mendoza for Roots Reborn Maui in support. Leilani Stacy for ACLU of Hawaii. Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Leilani Stacy, and I'm the Immigrants’ Rights Attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii. And we stand in strong support of this bill and the HD 1 version. And we would just stand our written testimony as the Office of Public Defender is mentioned. We work closely as well with immigration practitioners and this one day difference really has serious consequences.

And just tangibly what that means is, if there is a 365 day sentence, that means that many avenues for gaining citizenship or some sort of legal status, that's 365 day, either arrest or conviction will be a bar to those sorts of immigration relief.

And so other states that have passed similar measures, have passed without any limitations on the types of misdemeanors, that would fall under this category really because, again, there's no difference in the accountability for citizens and noncitizens.

It's just the downstream consequences are so much more serious for those who are seeking some sort of legal status. So, happy to take questions and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next up is Christina Sablan for The Legal Clinic in support. Christine Andrews on Zoom, maybe. Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'll stand on my written testimony and I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you so much.

Great. Thanks very much. Next is Marsha Kimball in support.

And then there's a number of more individuals in support. Does anyone else wish to testify in HB 1548 on Zoom or here?

Seeing none, let's see what the total count was. 23 in support, zero opposed, zero comments. Members, questions?

Let's go ahead and move on to the next bill.

Next bill is HB 2050 relating to partial public financing of elections. This increases the expenditure limit and the amount of partial public campaign financing available for all elective offices. First up on 2050 is Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Imiloa Borland. Good morning.

Aloha, Kahiaka Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Imiloa Borland with the office of Hawaiian affairs. OHA stands on our written testimony in support with amendments. OHA supports public partial public financing as a good government measure. However, OHA objects to the continued disparity it faces under the partial public financing law.

HRS 11-423D sets the campaign expenditure limits for candidates receiving public financing using a formula that multiplies the number of voters in the last preceding general election registered to vote in the relevant voting district by a specific dollar amount. The statewide OHA trustee races receive comparable votes to the lieutenant governor races.

In the twenty twenty four general election, the three OHA trustee seats for Molokai Lanai, Kauai, and OHA trustee at large all received more votes than the 2022 primary election for the lieutenant governor. As a matter of fairness and equity, OHA respectfully requests for parity with the office of lieutenant governor. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up is Kristen Izumi Nitao for campaign spending commission. Good morning again.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members. Kristen Izumi Nitao, executive director, campaign spending commission. We this is a Campaign Spending Commission bill, so we are in support of this. As you know, it was submitted to enhance the partial public financing program, which has never been done. And it does so by increasing the maximum amount of public funds available, including significantly to OHA, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to qualified candidates.

It also permits a downward adjustment of the minimum qualifying contributions for certain offices as well as increases the expenditure limit for the, elected offices by 20%. We, as this committee knows, it's the Commission's attempt to boost an existing program that's mandated by the state constitution, which has not changed and whose maximum dollar amounts has not changed since 1995. So respectfully, I'm available if you have any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Marlene Tom in the Visible Hawaii Statewide Network on Zoom. Good morning again.

Good morning. Marlene Tom again from, Indivisible Hawaii, and we are in strong support of HB2050, the HD 1 version. As has just been stated, the current public financing funds have not been updated since 1995, so we know that they don't match the current realities of inflation. And we support this bill because by increasing the expenditure limit and adjusting the number well, lowering the minimum required number of qualifying contributions.

This will allow more candidates to participate in the program, and the companion bill to this in the senate, SB 2528 SD 1, was passed, last Wednesday.

So we hope this committee will forward this bill, so that we can level the playing field for all candidates, so that they don't have to be constantly concerned about fundraising. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Thanks very much. Next up, we have Chris Caulfield for Imua Alliance in support. Ariana Juliet Castillo, on Zoom, maybe. Good morning.

Aloha. Aria Juliet Castillo testifying in strong support of HB 2050. I've seen how difficult it can be for viable candidates to run without access to wealthy networks, especially those who've committed to not participating in Hawaii's pay to play culture and those who say no to corporate money. Hawaii's public financing program is one of the most important tools we have to make it. Elections were accessible and it's long overdue for an upgrade.

The cost of running the campaign has changed significantly and the structure has remained pretty much the same and very underutilized. I hope we can bring up the match in this version of the bill to four to one as is in the senate version right now. A four to one match in particular has a potential to make small dollar donations truly competitive. Also, respectfully suggesting an amendment that was recently passed in the senate version to improve how the program can function in practice.

Currently, candidates receive separate allocations and spending limits for the primary and the general, a pot for each one.

But in reality, many candidates will only face one true competitive race, either in the primary or in the general. And if we, are able to allow the option for candidates to access, up to 75% of their total authorized fund and spending limit in either the primary or the general would help make this program a little bit more practical, without increasing the total amount of funding available for candidates and over without increasing the cost of the program.

It simply just provides some flexibility so candidates can access the resources where it's most needed. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you. Next up is Gregory Masakian, also on Zoom. No longer present, sir. K. In support.

Let's see. Marsha Kimball in support. Michael Oyo senior in support. William Caron in support. Judge Daniel Foley in support.

James Raymond in support. Johnny May Perry in opposition. Jane Aquino in support. Martha Nakajima in support. And there's a fairly long list of additional individual testifiers, most of which are in support, but the overall count is 29 in support, 2 opposed, and no comments.

Would anyone else like to testify on HB 2050? If not, members questions? Okay. Let's go and move on to the next bill. That will be HB 2494.

This establishes factors under which officers may arrest and detain persons without a warrant for petty misdemeanors and violations and requires officers to document the justification for the rest. First up on HB 2494 is Michelle Acosta for the judiciary, followed by Hayley Cheng for The Public Defender. Good morning.

Good morning. Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. The judiciary stands on its written testimony with comments. We are requesting that there be made an amendment to the date for which the judiciary will redesign the citation to 07/01/2027 that will allow us to redesign and procure the new citations that this measure has passed.

We're also requesting an amendment, to the language on page nine, lines 13 to 15, which reads available options for citation resolution and options for persons unable to afford any fines or cost imposed would be included on the new citation.

This measure pertains to traffic as well as petty misdemeanors. Petty misdemeanors are criminal in nature. And at the citation phase, by law enforcement, there is no there are no options at that point.

So we do, request that you consider these amendments.

We'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next is Hayley Cheng for The Office of the Public Defender. Good morning again. Followed by Mark Tom for Deputy Attorney General's Office.

And good morning again. The Office of the Public Defender, strongly supports this measure. We believe that the language of the bill gives law enforcement enough discretion to arrest when necessary. And we've outlined in our written testimony all of the other policy reasons and systemic reasons why we believe this is critical. We also believe this effectuates the findings of the pretrial task force as referenced in the preamble of the bill.

I also just wanted to highlight, the importance of revamping our citation system, which I think is equally a critical part of this measure. We have in our capacity as The Public Defender Office, we see countless clients who receive citations many times, that are illegible where the court date that is a summons, is not readable resulting in bench warrants or missed appearances.

And we understand that the law enforcement officers are trying to be swift and timely and efficient. But I think having a electronic system would alleviate a lot of that as well. So we stand in support of the measure. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next is Mark Tom, Deputy Attorney General or someone else. That works. Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Michelle Puu-Lozier. I'm a Deputy Attorney General. Actually the Supervisor of the Criminal Justice Division for the department. We are testifying in opposition to this bill.

We believe that it is imperative that law enforcement maintain officer discretion to the maximum extent possible, even in petty misdemeanor cases. Essentially, this will cause every petty misdemeanor arrest to be subject to challenge by way of motion.

That will mean every arrest and every piece of evidence and every confession, every statement made by a defendant who is arrested will be subject to suppression. Every arrest will be subject to challenge, and that is a problem. If a petty misdemeanor is arrested with say, a firearm, that will be subject to suppression.

The criteria that would be considered satisfactory evidence of identification, whether or not they will appear in court, an outstanding warrant, and the language in the bill gives indication the person might fail to appear. They've already given very clear indication they will not appear in court by way of that or that contempt arrest being on their record.

Whether or not there will be further contact on the date of the incident or immediate future, These are all issues that are going to be litigated by way of motion for every petty misdemeanor arrest. And the offenses that are not laid out in addition to driving under the influence of alcohol or petty misdemeanor abuse, harassment, disorderly conduct, theft in the fourth degree, criminal property damage, trespass second, indecent exposure, and contempt of court. The threshold for a theft four is $250, Criminal property damage, $500 or less.

Unable to arrest unless you can meet these criteria. That is critically problem for law enforcement. We oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next up is, Erin Harbinson for the Judiciary with comments. Sorry.

I'm here.

Oh, you're here. I'm sorry. Couldn't see you back there. Come on. Good morning.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're just standing, did you just wanna stand on your testimony?

Yes.

Okay. Sorry. With comments. Sorry. Office of Hawaiin Affairs in support.

Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission with comments. Melissa Pavlicek for State of Hawaii Organization Police Officers in opposition. Daniel Hugo from Department of the Prosecuting Attorney in the City and County, also in opposition. Kellgren Walton for the prosecuting attorney for Hawaii County on Zoom, maybe?

Not present, chair.

In opposition, Andre Peters for the Honolulu Police Department on Zoom, maybe. Oh, you're here. Come on up. Morning.

Good morning, chair and vice chair and members. I'm not Andre Peters, but I'm Captain Chang, Andre Peters couldn't be here today. We stand by our testimony, but we acknowledge that officers have discretion currently to write citations or arrest. I think the measure should be they may issue a citation instead of Shaw. So that's so we oppose the bill.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Maui Prosecutors, also in opposition. Rebecca Like for County of the County Of Kauai Prosecutor.

In opposition. Steven Donoho for Kohala Coast Resort Association in opposition. Tammy Laflamme testifying for Fairmont Orchid in opposition. Lars Trautman for the Policing Project at NYU School of Law and State Court. Captain Nicholas Anghel or Angel for Hawaii Police Department in opposition.

Hawaii Police Department in opposition. Jerry Gibson for Hawaii Hotel Alliance in opposition. Lieutenant Diane Goldstein, Executive Director for Law Enforcement Action Partnership in support. Josh Frost for ACLU of Hawaii in support. Dennis Dunn on Zoom maybe.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard. Dennis Dunn, testifying in opposition to this measure. And I'll just try to basically, summarize my main points, very similar to the objections of the, Attorney General's Office. Number one, this creates dangerous barriers to necessary law enforcement. If anything over the years, I've heard victims complain that arrests are not made in situations which they are in danger.

Even though it may be called a petty misdemeanor, many of these situations could involve attempted assaults or attempted sexual assaults, which, may not meet that criteria, but have all the same elements. The new procedural requirements will undoubtedly lead to improper case dismissals by setting up arbitrary legal requirements. You're inviting collateral legal challenges based solely on technical defects rather than the merits of the case.

Again, as was echo echoing some of the comments of other testifiers and opposing this, you're going to be having unnecessary litigation over these cases simply because you're inserting new requirements that are not necessary.

And then just finally, I had one other important point and that is when you have someone that's done via citation, it may not appear on their criminal records because criminal offenses that are not supported by fingerprints will generally not be permitted to be filed with many of the criminal history databases.

So in summation, I think this is a mistake. It creates a problem for police officers and for victims and I would urge that you hold this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is William Caron in support, Louie Lois Kim in support, Veronica Moore in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 2494. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 2494?

Okay. Seeing none, members questions?

I have a question for a minute. I'm blanking on your last name. Michelle Acosta?

Puu?

Puu? I was way off. Okay. Sorry.

That was the judiciary lady.

Sorry?

I think we're both Michelle's.

Is that what it is?

That's the judiciary lady.

So let's see. What was my question? Yeah. So, I mean, right now, under current law, under 803 -6, arrest how made there is a provision. I did.

Yeah. In the subsection b, in any case in which it is lawful for a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant or a misdemeanor pay misdemeanor violation, police officer may but need not issue a citation in lieu of the requirements of subsection a. So it's already an option. So why would this create more litigation?

Because, sir, if you continue to read in the bill on page seven, subsection c, line eight, it reads, for a petty misdemeanor, police officer shall issue a citation.

And so

Except there's a bunch of exceptions.

Right. The exceptions that are listed in the previous section. But if you don't meet those five criteria, then you shall issue a citation.

Right. But that doesn't change the fact that, it doesn't change the fact that there's still a citation for a crime and that the person is still required to show up in court and be tried for the crime or plea or whatever happens.

Yes. But what you're doing is you're requiring an officer to merely issue a citation instead of being able to effect an arrest and remove the individual from the situation of where the crime is occurring right now. Sometimes an individual needs to be removed from that situation immediately and booked.

Okay. We're just arguing about it. That's fine. But there's a bunch of exceptions. So why I mean, isn't there always some even now, we're under current law, arresting officers have to make a decision about if this person is basically they're going through the same checklist.

It's just sort of a experiential mental checklist as opposed to what's in the statute.

It is, sir.

But if the statute isn't codified, then an officer can run through the statute, these checklists essentially mentally and they're not necessarily beholden to what's actually codified in law and having to demonstrate which subsection under this statute they decided to arrest under and this was the category that they held under in affecting the arrest and when you do that you're requiring the police officer to substantiate that in court later at a motion hearing that this was the reason because of a safety issue, because of a threat issue, because of a, we thought we would have to come back immediately issue.

Understand. So but the motion would not have anything to do with the underlying crime. It would have to do as to whether or not the person had been arrested.

Correct. And any evidence gleaned from that arrest would be subject to suppression as well as the arrest would be subject therefore to dismissal.

What would be suppressed if you haven't arrested them?

If there are any fruits of crime on the person upon the arrest, drugs, weapons, a gun, all of that would be subject to suppression because of it would be characterized as an illegal arrest. And also, if you're just issuing a citation, that person is not going to revoke the person.

So that's what happens now if a police officer issues a citation?

No.

They're still allowed to do that. Right?

Correct. But if you

So you're arguing about whether the discretion that the officer has now will be restricted. They will still have some they'll still have discretion under this bill, but it will be restricted compared to what it is now. And you're saying that all this evil will follow from that.

Because it's codified law, sir.

Well, it's codified now that they can arrest them with a citation. I mean, they can they can issue a citation instead of arrest.

Yes. But once you put the categories in the statute as the basis for why they cannot effect an arrest, these become things that they have to establish as to why they did the arrest. That's the difference.

Understood. Questions? Other questions? If not, I think that was the last thank you very much.

Let's if everybody's let's see what time is it. 10:48. I think we have time to vote.

Okay. We've already voted on GM 573 for the statewide elections accessibility needs advisory committee. So we'll move on to HB 2095.

This is the judiciary's supplemental budget for the year. Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments. Okay. So the first one, we'd like to restore the transfer from special funds to A funds, the funds for two positions to redescribe are cybersecurity positions, and that would restore the judiciary's request for a $188,880 in general funds for cybersecurity position and the transfer from special funds to general funds for another position.

We'll put a different effective date on it, 03/22/2075. We'll note in the committee report that it is the committee's understanding that the bill's funding for the building of a new courthouse in South Kona reflects phase one of the project and that the additional funding will be be provided in a subsequent bill for phase two. The security services funding request by the judiciary oh, I'm sorry.

And then separately in the CR, we'll say we'll indicate that the security services funding, requested by the judiciary for private, security guards is intended to be a temporary remedy and not a decision to permanently outsource security services. Let's see.

So we're gonna also add a blank appropriation to increase the contract prices for existing purchase of service contracts or services provided by community based organizations. And we will request in the committee report that the need for the private security is reevaluated before the beginning of the 27-28 fiscal year. That will be in the committee report. Okay. Questions or concerns?

If not, vice chair for the vote.

On HB 2095 HD 2, church recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair Rhodes? Aye. Vice Chair Loosai. Senator Chang?

Aye. Senator San Buenaventura? Aye. Senator Hawak? Aye.

Measures adopted.

Thank you. Next up is HB 1520. This clarifies that the five year statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions of campaign finance violations begins upon discovery of the offense. Recommendation here is to pass with an amendment. As we mentioned during the discussion, we'll go ahead and put in, in the, where it says prosecution, we'll just put in criminal prosecution.

I think it's redundant because the whole section is about criminal prosecutions, but we'll put that in. And we'll also change the bad date to another bad date, 03/22/2075. K. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

On HB 1520 HD 1, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. With all members present, are there any no votes or reservations? Reservations. Reservations Senator San Buenaventura, measures adopt.

Okay. Thank you. Next up is HB 1548. This limits the maximum term of imprisonment for misdemeanors or for offenses punishable by up to or not exceeding one year to 364 days. Our recommendation here is to pass with some amendments.

I'm gonna ask that we conform the bill to , I think it was actually a companion bill, SB 2731, and limit the offenses that this applies to those that I'm sorry. To limit it to violent offenses and crimes of violence are defined in HRS 134-1. And let's see. And I think we'll go ahead and put a different defective date on it, 03/22/2075. So we're limiting it to violent offenses and a different defective date.

Questions or concerns?

Sure. Go ahead.

Yes.

So violent offenses, you're gonna change sentence at 364 days.

I'm sorry. Did I say it backwards? Yeah. I mean to I mean yeah. Okay.

I if I said it backwards, I'm

Nonviolent.

Applying this to nonviolent offenses.

That makes more

The the definition is in 134-1, and that's where the violent offenses are. So that's how you differentiate.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yes. It needed it. Thank you. Any other concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

On HB 1548 HD 1 and recommendations to pass with amendments, all members present, any no votes or reservations? No. And a vote for Senator O'Rourke. Measure is adopted.

K. Thank you. Next up is HB 2050. This increases the expenditure limit and the amount of partial public financing available for all elective offices under the partial public financing system that's constitutionally required by the Hawaii constitution. Recommendation here is to increase the match of public funds in Section four four to one, meaning four dollars for every dollar raised up to the maximum amount of public funds.

Correspondingly, we'll increase the maximum amount of public funds available in Section three to 20% for the offices listed in paragraph one on page four. That's governor, lieutenant governor, Honolulu mayor, and Hawaii County mayor. Current share is 10%, and the CSC proposal was 12.5. We'll raise it to 25% for the offices listed in paragraph two on page four. That's Senator, representative, County Council, prosecuting attorney, Kauai mayor, and Maui mayor, and the current statute is 15 CSC proposals, 18.75.

Because OHA is getting a huge increase already in this bill, I'm just gonna leave the 7.5 for OHA candidates, and we'll see how that goes at conference or if it gets sent if it makes a test bar. And we'll make it effective on 03/22/2025. And the CR will request $3,000,000 in appropriations to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund, which in addition to the amount of money that's already there, should be able to run this fund for a cycle. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

On HB 2050 HD 1, chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure's adopted.

Thank you. Next up is HB 2494. This establishes factors under which officers may arrest and detain persons without a warrant for petty misdemeanors and violations and requires officers to document the justification for the arrest. Our recommendation here is to pass with some amendments.

So the we'll make it so the citation must be visible on an offender's criminal record, which is what we had done with these, House and the Senate companion. And noting that the last four digits of the Social Security number are still required, which the original bill didn't, will require the new law the new form be developed by 01/01/2028 per judiciary's testimony.

We'll make the bill effective upon 03/22/2075, and we'll amend item 13 on page nine to apply to citations for noncrimes, for example, violations and fractions as crimes can't be resolved before arraignment, and it's also from the judiciary's testimony. So it does have a bad date, and we'll like to continue the conversation about this. Questions or concerns?

If not, Senator Gabbard.

On HB 2494 HD 1, recommendations to pass with the amendments. Any no votes or reservations?

Hearing none

Sorry. 2494.

Senator Awa?

Just 2494.

Measures adopted.

Alright. Thank you, everyone for being here. We are adjourned. Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry. We have another DM. Yeah. I forgot. Well, we'll gamble out of this and.

Going in for our decision making only agenda on House bill 2250. This makes appropriations for claims against the state, its officers, and employees. Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments. I'm gonna ask the committee to do something fairly unusual. We're gonna add a couple of blank appropriations.

I have to back up a little bit. The the current statute says that if you're deemed to be actually innocent or found to be actually innocent under 661 b, you're supposed to get $50,000 for every year that you are in prison. A settlement that was reached with Jardine after fighting over it for nine years and going up to the Supreme Court and coming back down was for 600,000, which

Which is way less than 1,000,000. So I'm gonna put in a blank appropriation and put in the CR that we suggested, you know, we're we're under an obligation to follow the statute and that there should be an additional $400,000 awarded to Jardine's heirs because he passed away before he was able to get the money.

Less than that.

And then we'll put in two more blank appropriations for interest for the almost ten year delay on the paying payment for Jardine and then another one for Roynes Durrell for interest due to this it was not nine years, but it was several years between the time he was exonerated and the time the claim was completed. In his case, he did get the amount that was specified by the by the statute.

The other thing I would like to do, and I realize this is a claims against the state bill, but I'd like to incorporate the statutory amendments to this claim statute that are in SB 2311 that would prohibit claims for refunds, reimbursements, or other payments authorization for which is sought from the legislature that exceed the time limitations of section 40-68 from being claimed.

And this would also require the attorney general to submit a confidential report within five days after the opening of a regular session with the speaker of the house, president of the senate, the house and senate judiciary chairs that provides a good faith estimate of each possible judgment against the state that has not yet been settled. So confidential, so it won't affect the litigation, but it would be useful for the legislature to know what's coming around the coming down the pipe.

And then we're requiring the attorney general to submit a court every five years to the legislature containing further incidents that occurred in an agency that led to claims so we can see whether the corrective actions that the agencies are supposed to be taking on the AG's advice are actually working. And then we'll change the deffective date to 03/22/2075.

And finally, I'd like to delete the US EPA claim with committee language asking the attorney general to justify the ways and means committee why it should be put back. I it seems to us that it should've that the claim should be against the lessee who put in this gigantic cesspool, and I'm not sure why we're on the hook for it.

But in the interest of moving the bill along by the by the deadline, I'd like to kick it down the road to WAM and let them take a look at it again. Alright. Any questions or concerns about any of that?

If not, Senator Gabbard.

On HB 2250 h d two, recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. Now we're secondly adjourned.