House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. Appreciate all of you being here. It is Wednesday, April 8, 2PM here in Conference Room 325. My name is David Tarnas. I'm Chair of the committee.

We have our vice chair here represent Poipoi and our member represent Chamizoo. Other members will join us presently. Here's one of them right here, represent Garcia. For today, if you could limit your testimony to two minutes, that'd be great so we can get through all the testifiers who wanna testify and be able to make decision make make make decisions on the bills today after we have received testimony on all the bills. There's a new microphone system in the room.

If you haven't used it before, just come up to the podium as usual. Speak clearly and loudly. Just articulate. The microphone should pick up your voice. And but heads up, the microphone is really sensitive, so we'll pick up your side conversations just to your neighbor.

So be sensitive to that so that, you could try to keep that to a minimum. If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you testified. Turn on for that, and then turn it off again after your testimony is complete. Use the Zoom chat function if you have technical issues, and our technical staff will do their best to help you.

If you're disconnected, just please try to rejoin when you can, and now if time permits, I'll have you complete your testimony when you rejoin.

If the power goes off in the building here or something, you know, fire alarm or who knows what, and we have to reschedule, I will make sure to post appropriate notes so everyone knows what we're talking about and when. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images that kicks us off of YouTube, which is a problem because we want the public to watch us and watch you when you give testimony. And, it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.

We're all here together to try to do what's best for the state. Okay.

Let's go ahead and, take testimony on our measures today. First up, we have Senate bill two two five three, Senate draft two, house draft one, relating to highway safety. This measure amends the offense of negligent injury in the first degree to include injuries negligently inflicted by intoxicated drivers. We first person said they wish to testify is from the prosecuting attorney sitting in Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the committee. My name is Han Lam Chung Chek, and I'm testifying on behalf of the City and County Honolulu, Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. The department strongly supports SB 2253. Since 2024, I've been working closely with the Honolulu Police Department's vehicle homicide unit to prosecute prosecute and reckless drivers who caused critical and fatal injuries. SB 2253 does not elevate the penalties for all motor vehicle collisions involving impaired drivers.

There are built in gatekeepers to ensure that it only applies to crashes that lead to severe injuries.

The idea behind SB 2253 is nothing novel. Under Hawaii's penal code, a driver who operates a vehicle in a negligent manner and kills another individual faces a class c felony. However, if the driver is also intoxicated, the driver will be facing a class b felony, which carries more severe penalties. The department pursued criminal charges against 20 drivers who operate a vehicle in a negligent manner and cause substantial bodily injury between 2021 and 2025. Of those 20 cases, 13 involve alcohol

or drugs. However, all 20 drivers face the same penalties in misdemeanor regardless if they make the conscious decision to drive while impaired. Every injury resulting from impaired driving begins not with a crash, but a conscious decision, and every decision is a foreseeable consequence of such a decision. And SB 2253 holds people accountable for these decisions, and we urge the committee to support SB 2253. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? I have a question. Sir, I'd like to ask you, Sunil County, Honolulu prosecuting attorney.

This is a bill that was proposed by your agency, and I'm trying to understand it better.

If you could help me. Subsection three and four expressly address cumulative punishment and the treatment of multiple injuries under subsection one c. While these provisions clarify legislative intent as to that subsection, their inclusion could be read to imply by negative inference that cumulative convictions or separate offenses are not otherwise available under subsections one a or b, even where such outcomes might otherwise be permitted under existing law. Was that intentional, or is additional clarification warranted?

I believe additional clarification could be warranted at a later time.

So that was not intentional?

It was not intentional. Okay.

So if the committee is willing, when we go into decision making, I may make a recommendation that we make modify the language to make sure that and clarify it so that we're not making a negative inference saying that cumulative convictions, separate defenses, would not be available.

That would make sense. Okay.

Any other questions? If not, thank you very much. Okay. Senate Bill 2429. Senate Bill 2429.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senate Bill 2429, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, related traffic safety. This measure establishes a framework for the use of intelligent speed assistance technology for habitual speeder. It establishes liability for a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer regarding the design, manufacture, installation, or repair of an aftermarket intelligence speed assistance system. It requires a report to the legislature and allows for probation for persons who are charged with excessive speeding. First up, we have the judiciary.

Comments. Hello. My name is Jessica Orr. I'm the district court staff attorney. You have our testimony.

Just to briefly summarize, we are looking for a more clear definition of a habitual speeder. We're concerned about it applying to the traffic infractions, statutes. We also have some suggested language for the financial assistance and equity that might make more sense to follow 291 e 5. We have a small little correction for the rule section. And finally, we would love

Very substantive, but small.

We would love to have an effective date in 07/01/2027 to allow us to prepare our judiciary information management system. I'm here for any questions.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Next, we have, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tong.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee, deputy attorney general Mark Tong of the department. First off, I'd like to apologize to committee for the late testimony submitted by our department. With that, the department does submit testimony with comments. Would count just three different portions.

I know that the judiciary just testified about the definition section of public show speeder designation. I think it appears pretty clear that it's part 10 of 291 c. So it appears that it would cover any of those speeding offenses offenses which are infractions.

And because it appears that it covers infractions, there is a concern that there's as we mentioned in page three, line nine through page four, line 11, there's kind of some areas of loopholes where when it's infraction, two things, limited court ordered, oversight. And additionally, there's ways to, avoid coming in front of a court because infraction cases, can be paid over the counter.

And when it can be paid over the counter, either online through the courts, They're never coming in front of a court for a judge to adjudicate and determine that they are a habitual speeder and to then potentially order this device to be on their vehicle. So there is some issues if it does rise to the level of just a fraction case, which it appears it does. Last is similar to the judiciary. We did suggest amendments for the financial assistance and equity.

We take no position on any of these issues.

However, we pointed out two sections where the HRS already utilizes devices like the SCRAM device as well as the breathalyzer. There is sections that designate how that the vendor who has that contract might address these financial assistance. The way that the bill is written, it's the policy by the the committee. But if it mirrors it, the vendors in those two sections would be, responsible for the financial. The way that this is written, it says to court.

So I'm not sure if that's intentional or if it's, just an oversight. I just pointed out to the committee. We'll be here for any questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next person, Tiffany Yajima, Alliance for Automobile Innovation on Zoom. Not present? Okay.

Any anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2429? If that question's members just a quick question. Mister Tong, looking at the judiciary's testimony and your testimony, is there a conflict between the recommendations of between the two of you?

So as it relates to I'd have to go more in-depth of the judiciary's, but, in pre conversation, it appears that it's similar for the financial portion. I think their recommendation is similar that it should mirror where the vendor is responsible. Understood. So that's similar. So that's similar.

In regards to the habitual speeder designation definition, it's a little different issue. I think they're it it might actually be the same issue, but just written differently. Theirs is just getting clarification if it is encompassed in fractions. I think they pointed out 291c 101, which is basic speed rule, and 102 , regular speeding. However, the way that the bill is written, it does say part 10 of 2901 c.

So I think that part 10 covers all those speeding infraction cases. So our I think the overall issue that both departments are coming across is when it is an infraction, it leads to different problems than if you have excessive speeding, which is a petty misdemeanor where, there was an amendment made to allow probation. When there's probation, the courts would the individual would come in front of a court.

And at that point, if it is adjudicated, they could put the they could order the they may order the device and that could be part of the probationary term for say an excessive speeding if that amendment goes through with this bill. So it's just I think it's the same issue.

It's just, like, approached in different ways when if it is an infraction.

Okay. Okay. Another question. The bill has a blank for the number of speeding violations within a five year period to be designated as a habitual speeder. There's also a blank where it says exceeding the posted speed limit by, you know, length miles per hour.

Do you have any suggestions on what that should be?

The department, unfortunately, doesn't have a position in our testimony, the committee address of this committee. But if the Chair

The deadline is we gotta move it if we're gonna move it. Understood. But, if it's if the committee is agreeable to moving it forward to conference, we'll have to address those issues, but I don't wanna pick a a number out of thin air. Understood. So I would like to get some input on that from you.

And then, if I could make the same request of the judiciary to assist us in this regard, unless you have any input today.

No. We we really don't have any opinion on the what's the easiest.

Okay. So I would like to get a better sense of that, and it may be that you could, you know, speak with the whoever your deputy AG works with the Department of Transportation on this so you can come up with something. But we'll need that to get through conference.

Would you, Chair? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Oh, one last thing. Page three, line four. Oh, I'm would there be any issue where, on page three, line four, when we're talking about the rules being adopted? I always like to use Chapter 91 and pursuant to Chapter 91.

Would there be any issue with that? You can't answer it, I guess, because it's not in your testimony.

I apologize. I will follow-up, and I will

So I my intention is I always like to use pursuant to Chapter 91. It gives the public a chance to give input on it and other stakeholders. So you'll find that I do that sort of as a as a standard practice. But if the committee is willing and we move it to conference, I would look for your input on that if that would cause trouble or concern.

I'll take that, to the department and I will follow-up with our Okay.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions, members? Chair?

Yep.

If it's already been answered by your quest questions, please correct me. Permitual speeder designation and then you end the paragraph with, HRS 291c - 161 may need to be revised accordingly. So you make that statement, but you don't comment on how it should

be revised. Yep. Because we don't really know what the definition is and if it is gonna be covered traffic infractions, 291 c -161 has the penalties. So if there's going to be changes to to that to include traffic infractions, then that might need to be changed. We're not saying it has to be changed.

It just it's offering that as a possible eventuality.

Because those infractions are beyond the speeding with with, serious bodily injury, focus scope. Is that Right.

The speeding that we're talking about is sort of basic speeding, and then it gets higher and higher, and then you're going into excessive speeding, which are petty misdemeanors and things like that. So traffic infractions like mister Tom said, they're just treated very differently in district court. So if we're gonna add something onto it, the definition just needs to be a little bit more clear, and two ninety one's penalty section, two ninety one c dash one sixty one, may need to be changed.

But because we don't know the definition right now, we really have, no ability to offer any kind of suggested language. Thank you.

DOT is not here yet.

No. Okay.

Object to sharing some amendment on the the payment. So I guess they're gonna ask that question.

Yep. I understand. Yeah. So and I have worked on some language, to try to address that issue that the judiciary brought up on, habitual speed limit. Okay.

Any other questions? No. If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2697, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, related to transportation.

This measure prohibits vehicles from driving on the shoulder of a roadway except in certain circumstances, authorizes Department of Transportation, law enforcement officers, and other approved persons to impound vehicles with expired registrations of three or more three years or more under certain conditions, requires an annual report to the legislature, increases the fine amount for owners of out of state motor vehicles who failed to register the vehicle in the state, and establishes minimum and maximum statutory penalties for violations relating to the use of high high occupancy vehicle lanes. On this measure, first up, we have, Michael Moriyama, deputy attorney general.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas. Vice Chair and Members of the committee. Michael Morayama, deputy attorney general. The department of the attorney general has two concerns about this bill. The first is regarding the penalties for driving on the shoulder of a roadway.

Certain violations could be subject to both the $250 fine and the $1,000 fine. If a second violation was committed eighteen months after the first violation, The second would be subject to the $250 fine because it did not occur within one year after the first infraction. However, the second violation would also be subject to the $1,000 fine because it occurred within five years of the first violation.

The department recommends that the bill use a consistent five year period and use the language similar to HRS two ninety one e dash 61, the DUI provisions for penalties for repeated offenses. The department is also concerned about allowing any approved or designated person or contractor to impound and tow unregistered vehicles.

Impounding vehicles, even unregistered ones, is a drastic measure and may implicate constitutional issues involving due process and the taking of private property. Therefore, it is essential that the only DOC officials and law enforcement officers are trained in the law and recognize constitutional risks, verify registration status, and then impound and order the vehicle towed. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, oh, no one else said they no. No one else said they wanted to testify. Is there anyone else here wanting to testify in Senate Bill two six nine seven? If not, questions, members?

I have a whole bunch of questions for city and county. Not here. Yeah.

K. K. If there's no other questions, to to anyone that's here, we'll move on to Senate Bill 2852, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1 related to civil rights. This measure requires the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to adopt rules and digital accessibility. Excuse me.

Requires the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to adopt rules on digital accessibility for places of public accommodations that are consistent with certain federal regulations. Specifies that a violation of the rules is an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Establishes it as an unlawful discriminatory practice or a place of public accommodation to deny a person with a disability full and equal enjoyment of information related to their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations by requiring the use of information and communication technology that is not accessible to the person with a disability. First up, we have Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

K. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and committee Members. I'm Megan Han, interning for the Hawaii State Council on the mental disabilities and for Daintree Bartoldis, our executive administrator, to express our support for SB 2852. We stand in support because as more services, payment methods, and just general information about public facilities become increasingly digitized, the council sees this bill's capacity to specify the statutes and violations for digital accessibility effective in ensuring people with disabilities are not being excluded to live full and dignified lives.

Inaccessible websites and applications can become barriers to access basic goods and services for people with disabilities.

So to reinforce our long standing commitment to equal civil rights protection, we stand in support of this vote. Thank you for not being a testifier today.

Thank you very much. Next, Christine Pagano, Disability and Communication Access Board.

Well, Chair and committee Members. I'm Brian McCarron on behalf of DCAB. And on behalf of, Steve Cardano. We are in support of this bill. We'd defer to the vice president's mission in the AG's office for proposed amendments.

Just would add, this is a really important bill. Been important for several years now. Depending on where court cases were filed. There were inconsistent, rulings. And on top of that, now we have the DOJ revoking a lot of their guidance and changing their statuses, on accessibility related issues.

So I think this is really important that we get something established at the state level for these protections. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Sarah Ann Mao or Lauren Sugai, attorney general.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Members of the committee. Deputy attorney general, Sarah Ann Mow, on behalf of the department of the attorney general. Our comments are contained in our written testimony. We just had one comment. We recommend removing the wording as amended to defend against potential unlawful delegation of legislative power challenges.

I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Constance Genscher for the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We stand in support of this bill, which clarifies that businesses that use digital communications to interact with the general public must also ensure that it is accessible to individuals with disabilities as technology increasingly becomes a part of society in our daily lives. I'd also like to add that we support the amendment, proposed by the state's attorney general's office to better withstand possible legal challenges.

Thank you for hearing this bill, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. James Cash James Gashel, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii. Thank you for being here, sir.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas and, Vice Chair Poepoe and members. James Gashel here, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii. I just wanna say I've actually kinda looked at my written testimony and reconsidered certain portions of it. So I'll just go through that real quick. You know, I think the HD one version of this bill is just fine.

It puts the emphasis more on regulations, which is fine. I just wanna make this following suggestions in regard to that because this provision just doesn't have dates that it should have in it and and some definitions. Here's my suggestion. I think you should consider adding back definitions that are in SB 1496 HD2. That's the essentially the same bill on this subject that this committee passed a year ago.

And especially I would look at the definition of place of public accommodation, page four lines four through seven. Because that mentions both physical and digital premises as being places of public accommodations. I think that's important for the Civil Rights Commission to have authority to regulate on digital as well as physical places. Next, I'm gonna say that certain dates should be considered.

By the way, there are other definitions in SB 1496 that you might look at and and add back in, but particularly in place of public accommodation.

Then as far as dates goes, I would suggest since word is that the Civil Rights Commission has a draft regulation that, that we say that the rules should be adopted by 12/31/2026. I'm not saying compliance date, but rules adopted and then say compliance, 01/01/2027. No. 01/01/2028, which gives a year for compliance. And if you wanted to stretch it out a little bit for, let's say, small entities, January or larger entities, 01/01/2028, and then everyone January 20 01/01/2029.

That way, it would be phased in a little bit, which which would be fine. Important thing is to enact a bill. Mahalo for your consideration.

Thank you very much, mister Gashel. I sure appreciate your testimony. Next person said they wish to testify is mister Peter Fritz on Zoom.

Thank you, chair. My name is Peter Fritz. I'm an attorney with a disability and an advocate for persons with disabilities. My practice includes work under the ADA and related civil rights laws. I submitted testimony in prior hearings raising concern about earlier drafts.

Those concerns were structural, not substantive. The civil rights purpose has always been sound. But the earlier draft placed technical compliance such as certain definitions and required and the earlier draft required conformance with the most recent version of the WCAG, which is 2.2.

That meant that when the new version three point o is finalized, every business in Hawaii would immediately be bound by a new standard with no transition period, no hearings, no regulatory review, and the legislature will not have voted on the HD one that fixes that. The structure adopted by HD one, that puts the disability follows what has been done for more than thirty years in the disability law.

It puts the discrimination in the statute, and then it follows up with rules. Those technical standards will be adopted by the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. While urging restoration of certain original statutory language would place certain things back into the statute and would require amendment. The rules allow for public hearing, public discussion, and businesses to make, things move forward. This is not a path to delay with the regulations.

The Department of Justice completed its title to web accessibility rulemaking in eight and a half months. They started August 23. They were finalized April 24. The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission already has a working draft of rules, which includes those definitions as well as certain timetable, and the commission doesn't start from a blank page. I urge the committee to to pass this bill.

I will stay around for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Senate bill two eight five two, I'll strap one. If not, questions members?

Question.

Rep. Shimizu?

Can I ask James Gashel?

Can you educate me on how these provisions look like for for a business to comply? So Some examples maybe?

Right. So for example, a kiosk where you would buy a ticket or make a payment should have a voice control so you could hear it as well as seeing a screen. And the technology exists to make this happen. It's just implementing it. Or an ATM machine, same thing.

And you'll notice on most ATM machines, there are outlets to plug in an earphone. Sometimes the voice is activated when you plug in the earphone, and sometimes it isn't. The machines are built so that they are accessible, but it's up to the bank to turn them on. And some banks do, some banks don't. This law would say they all should.

Can you ask one Yes. Question to Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, please?

Go ahead. Yep. Go ahead.

I know on your written testimony, you had put the date 04/24/2024, and then you you stated that you were in agreement with the attorney general who had 06/24/2024.

And it might be a small issue, but I just wanted to clarify that discrepancy.

Okay. Yeah. So the 04/24/2024 date was the published date that was published in the federal register, and the 06/24/2024 date, I believe, was the effective date. So we're fine with going with the effective date, and getting rid of the as amended language as well.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, chair.

Any other questions?

Question, Chair.

Yes, Rep. Garcia. Attorney general.

Yes. I'm looking through your testimony here and it says, as is currently as drafted, if that if your specific amendment is not made, then it would, at the bill as drafted may constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power. Could you briefly verbalize that concern?

Yes. So the civil rights commission does have rulemaking authority pursuant to Chapter 91. But by automatically adopting the amendments of the framework that is has been established by the United States DOJ in the title tool title two final rule on web accessibility, it may be subject to an unlawful delegation of legislative power.

And this is pursuant to the case, state v Tengen, which, essentially pursuant to that case, State legislation which adopts by reference future legislation as, the bill, the current bill, the current version of the bill dies, which adopts by reference future legislation, rules, or regulations, or or amendments, like in this case, which are adopted by another sovereign entity in this case, Hawaii civil rights, Hawaii Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, it would constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power, and that's just pursuant to the to the case, state v tenet.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill two four seven one, Senate draft two, House draft one, related to the powers of artificial persons.

This measure reaffirms that artificial persons created under state law possess only those powers that are necessary or revokes all prior grants of entity powers and regrants only those powers that the state determines to be necessary or convenient to conduct lawful business under the Hawaii State constitution and laws of the state. First up, we have department of commerce and consumer affairs.

Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. I'm Nadine Ando, the director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. And we had offered comments on this measure largely because the regulatory and enforcement provisions of this measure are placed with the DCC, the director of the DCC. And a big part of our concern with this is that of of the in terms of what we currently do with regard to business entities, that is contained within our business registration division within the department.

But that involves simply the, really, registration and collection of fees, it's a ministerial task. So we don't currently do anything that regulates what their activities are. And so this is a huge task to place within our department and so we can't under under underestimate how how much of a change that would involve to promulgate rules and to regulate this and to go after entities that aren't following what the measure restricts. So just to give you an idea, we we currently register as of January, 207,000 entities.

So I looked at this and I said I posed the question in my mind, this is really aimed at restrictions in terms of camp campaign finance contributions.

So thinking, we don't have anything to do with that. We don't do anything to regulate any of that activity. And I'm thinking, well, who does regulate that in the state currently? And it's under the campaign finance. I mean, it's campaign spending commission on on which is under decks.

But then I don't see anything referencing here any amendments to the campaign finance laws under the appropriate statutory section. So it's puzzling to me. And then I understood that when I was reading through the testimony of the Center for American Progress, This measure, it appears, is based on their research and a paper that they had published that proposes this as an, a different way of getting around the holding of Citizens United, the US Supreme Court case.

And instead of following the normal tactic, which is to look at campaign finance laws, it's looking at doing something to corporation law, corporate laws. And so to have the state restrict what entities like corporations and limited liability companies and partnerships can do.

But the problem with that is you don't have anything in this measure that does anything to amend what's currently on the books under the campaign finance laws. And there are particular provisions in there in terms of camp campaign contribution limits. So, you know, this this this whole thing, it just doesn't seem like it all flows and really what should be at this point.

If something if the if the state is gonna do something this novel to get around the Citizens United decision, then I think it needs to be much more well thought. And in particular, how you're going to actually regulate and enforce this as your law.

So that's my that's something I wanted to I'm going off script on that.

That's okay. I appreciate your voicing your concerns.

But I'm here for questions.

Thank you very much, director. Next, we have state health planning and development agency. Not present. Next, we have, attorney general.

Good afternoon. Deputy attorney general Christopher Hahn in strong opposition to the measure. We are well aware of how deeply unpopular Citizens United is. Heck, I don't think our department is a fan of the decision either. That said, we are asking this committee to take a long, hard look at the path ahead.

Should this bill pass into law, we will likely face a legal challenge in the federal district court where Citizens United is the law of land. This bill may even work its way up to the US Supreme Court, the very body that issued Citizens United and created this whole mess. Nothing in the court's current composition today indicates that Citizens United will be overturned or rendered inapplicable on this measure. This bill relies on an untested legal theory, and we're concerned as to its viability.

It's both overly broad in that it involves an unprecedented exercise of the state's power, and it's overly specific in that it only targets a specific type of speech.

This bill invokes revokes the power to engage in political speech for all artificial persons across the state. The sheer scale of this maneuver alone raises concerns as to potential unforeseen impacts. But what's even more alarming is that the revocation is limited to political speech only, which will likely trigger strict scrutiny as a form of content based regulation.

Regardless of whether the state characterizes a corporation's ability to engage in political speech as a power or a right, the freedom to engage in political discourse is a fundamental bedrock of our democracy that is closely guarded by the courts. For the purposes of the First Amendment, the speaker's status as a natural or artificial person is irrelevant.

We understand that there's a strong desire to do something about Citizens United. This is a federal problem, and this bill's approach is just gambling with our taxpayers' policy. We know this is not an easy decision to make, but we do ask that the committee please support this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Gino Sakena, Hawaii Building And Construction Trades Council. Not present. Next. Plumbers and Fitters, UA local six seventy five.

Okay. Not present. Next, Marlene Tom, Indivisible Hawaii Statewide Network on Zoom. Please proceed.

Yes. Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. On behalf of Indivisible Hawaii, I am submitting testimony in strong support of SB 2471 SD 2 HD 1. This bill, as you've stated, reaffirms the powers granted to artificial persons. And those powers do not include spending money or anything of value to influence elections or ballot measures.

It does not, in any way, restrict an individual's right to speak, organize, or participate in any democratic action. It simply defines the limits of what state created entities can do as entities. For too long, we all know that corporations have spent unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns that led to super PACs flooding and tainting our elections with dark money. Now is the time to stop these practices by focusing on what powers the state grants, corporations, LLCs, LLPs, or any other state created entities.

This bill will allow Hawaii to show the rest of the country what free and fair elections really look like.

And your role in passing legislation that nullifies the harm that Citizens United has done will be long remembered and celebrated. We also agree with all the amendments that have been made to this bill, especially in House Draft one. And we respectfully ask you to advance this measure as is and ensure that it passes the floor vote to be signed by governor Green, as the new and just law of the land. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Dave Mullenix, Greenpeace Hawaii on Zoom. Not present. Next, Nate Hicks, Hawaii Public Health Institute. Welcome, sir.

Vice Chair, members of the committee, Nate Hicks with the Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. Of the $10,000,000 donated in the twenty twenty four election campaign, half of it came from just 800 donors. In addition, we had three non candidate committees spending $13,000,000 far outpacing the rest of our democratic process. If we want to make sure our our elections are by the people and for the people, we need to do everything we can, to remove this undue influence on our elections. Please pass this bill.

Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Makana Hicks Goo on Zoom. Not present. Next, we have Tom Moore on Zoom. Please proceed, mister Moore.

Chair Tarnas, Members of the committee. I'm Tom Moore, senior fellow for democracy policy at the Center for American Progress. I'm testifying on behalf of CAPP in strong support of SB 2471. I wanna thank the chair for scheduling this hearing. I know the member's time is valuable and time is short.

The attorney general's office has now testified repeatedly against this bill, and each time they have made the same fundamental error. They analyze SB 2,471 as if it were a regulation of political speech. It is not. It's a definition of corporate powers. These are entirely different legal acts operating in entirely different legal domains governed by entirely different legal doctrine.

As long as the Attorney General's Office keeps making this fundamental error, its constitutional analysis simply does not speak to the bill in front of you. It is disappointing that even after months of testimony, supplemental analysis, and extensive case law provided to this legislature, the Attorney General's Office has chosen to double down on its errors rather than reevaluate them. The Attorney General's Office calls this mechanism untested and unprecedentedly dangerous. It is neither.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the state's authority to revoke and redefine corporate powers for more than two centuries.

This is not untested. It is just very dusty. The Hawaii Constitution specifically allows it. Article one, Section 21 says the state's power to act in the general welfare shall never be impaired by irrevocable grants of special privileges. That clause was written for this moment.

The attorney general also says Hawaii cannot reach foreign corporations. This is wrong. Delaware cannot empower a corporation to operate in Hawaii. Only Hawaii can do that. Your own statutes say that foreign corporation may not exercise any power here that a domestic corporation cannot exercise.

That is not new law. That is existing law. The attorney general warns you'll get sued and you'll lose. I invite the committee to ask them today to cite a single case holding that a state must grant political spending power to its corporations. And if they cannot cite a case, and Citizens United is not that case, then this committee should weigh the rest of their constitutional analysis accordingly.

I provided this committee with the written detail in response to the attorney general's testimony. It was late and not in the packet. I apologize for that. But your legislative ancestors saw what could happen when corporations are set loose, and they left you a gift in your constitution, the tool you need to reel them back in. I urge you to use this gift and move 20 s p twenty four seventy one forward as is.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Cameron Hurt. Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Good to be here for you guys. We are here today to stand in strong support of this bill. I don't really know how to follow-up with mister Morced. I think he really nailed it. But the thing that I want to just drive in is that, again, what Citizens United addresses is using money as a way of free speech.

This bill is not talking about that. This bill is talking about how are we defining corporations locally, which is a power that is granted to the states. This what we're looking at is a issue, really, of states' rights of who gets to operate and into what capacity in their states. That's what this bill is addressing. It is not going down the Citizens United route of let's redefine corporations and their power to spin in elections.

No. It's saying, what is a corporation definitively in the state of Hawaii? And how that looks in Hawaii may look very different than how it looks in Delaware, and that's okay because our constitution is set up that way for it to be okay. So I just wanted to add that and

we'll stand on our original. Thank you, guys.

Thank you, mister Hurd. Next, James Raymond on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. My name is James Raymond. I'm a retired deputy attorney general, but now speak only as a concerned citizen in strong support of SB 2471. I'm not here to persuade you with the legal merits of this bill's novel solution to the corruption of our election system unleashed by Citizens United. Tom Moore of the Center for American Progress, CAP, and others have already done an admirable job of that.

This bill is set on firm legal grounds. There may be colorable arguments on either side. You won't get an argument from me on that point. But arguments to the contrary that is unconstitutional are actually distractions of pretext, and they are advanced by those whose real agenda is to prevent big, dark money is to preserve, I'm sorry, is to preserve big, dark money in our elections.

Please don't lose sight of the fact that when the legislature wants to fight for an issue that may be challenged in our courts, it's the AG's role to defend the legislator's position, not to be a foil for the governor's special interests.

Despite our AG's dim view of the bill, three legislative committees have already heard it and have passed it, all with unanimous Aye votes and only two excused, not to mention a 25 to 0 Aye vote in our Senate. What could account for such strong support from the legislature in spite of naysaying from the governor's AG? Well, this brings us squarely to the elephant in the room, and I don't mean the Republicans.

You and your colleagues are being asked to approve a bill that has real potential to stop the lion's share of campaign funding relied on by some key Hawaii legislators, not to mention the governor and lieutenant governor. It sounds very much like conflict of interest, yet it's extremely well documented that We The People want Citizens United and the big dark money that comes with it rendered moot.

My fear is that when push comes to shove, as the bill moves through the process, that all those enthusiastic eyes excuse me All those enthusiastic eyes may fade. Will legislators who rely on PAC money protect their campaign funding? Or perhaps their relationship with the governor? Or will they work with their colleagues to override a, governor's likely veto and represent we the people. Please keep in mind that just voting aye for this bill is not enough for it to succeed.

You must rally your colleagues to actively support it in the house and to override governor's veto if needed. This position that this is a position that will show your constituents that you represent them and not corporate special interest. They will be watching like never before. I ask you to join your sister states and we the people in the fight to save democracy and pass this bill, not because it is risk free and our AG is solidly behind it.

It is not risk free, and she is not solidly behind it.

I ask you to pass this bill and start writing the legacy your descendants will learn about your role in the fight to save our democracy. I remain available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Matt Lopresti. Not present. Next. Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Not present. Next. Josh Frost. There you are. Welcome.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair, committee Members. I really appreciate you guys putting this on the agenda. I know you've got a lot on your plates of all the bills that I'm well, first, let me say I'm here as an individual. I'm not representing the ACLU or any other organization. The ACLU or the Citizens United ruling has been something that I've spent time on in my own capacity since 2010.

I've helped draft resolutions against it and and done my own reading. You have my testimony. You've heard from people that frankly are better suited to talk on this, the details than I am. So I wanted to sort of talk about some of the questions that that may come up or that have come up in other conversations. The bill will absolutely impact nonprofits of every color and variety.

It will impact, labor unions, and their ability to spend all on the same, footing. Just like this is United United's, ruling impacted all those organizations, so will this bill. That said, unions will still be able to spend money to communicate with their members just as they do now. Right? They can send political flyers to their own members.

That wouldn't be prohibited. It it would be election spending, that's prohibited. Unions and nonprofits, would arguably be, better positioned if the bill were to become law because they have a built in constituency in which to raise money, which they could then spend on elections. What the bill does is says you can't spend out of your treasury on elections. That doesn't mean you can't go out.

You could still a corporation could still create a PAC. Right? But they couldn't contribute directly to the PAC or to the c four. Right? They that organization would then have to go out and solicit money from whoever to raise money to spend in elections.

Unions are already an advantage in this. They have a built in membership and constituency. Nonprofits like Sierra Club, Common Cause, and others have built in constituencies that would allow them to raise funds to then spend on elections. There are lots of things that I think we, you know, all think are troubling about our democracy at the moment. In my opinion, Citizens United, if it hasn't already been murdered, democracy is seriously in jeopardy.

And I think Citizens United can be traced as one of, if not the main reason, why we're in the situation right now. So despite concerns from the HE, and I know, you know, some of the labor unions, whatever, I implore you to please move the bill forward.

Thanks very much. Christina Holt on Zoom. Please proceed. Thank

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. My name is Tina Holt. I'm coming to you from Hilo today as an individual and strong support of SB 2471. This is a slam dunk. It's not even a partisan issue.

Polling consistently consistently shows over 70% of Americans across party lines want limits on corporate political spending. Because people across the political spectrum have lived through disaster after disaster, after Citizens United, we all know what happened. And something that makes this particular bill kind of infuriating in the best possible way is how simple it is. And often the most simple solutions are the best solutions to our issues. It rests on over two hundred years of corporate law.

The foundation that has always said that the state gets to decide what powers corporations get to operate within that state. We get a state, give them everything that they need to do business, and the state never ever intended to give them the power to buy our elections. So this bill just, like, clarifies and helps us remember the power that that we have, honestly.

An earlier testifier commented that this should be a campaign finance bill, not a corporate law bill, but I think that that misunderstands where the problem started. The courts found political spending hiding inside broad grants of corporate power, and this bill removes it from there.

That's not regulating elections. It's further defining the entities that the state created, being corporations, LLCs, nonprofits, etcetera. Another testifier warned that this will be challenged, in the court on first amendment grounds. And, and I say, good. Let them try.

The first amendment protects natural persons, and it does not protect unnatural persons. This bill does not touch natural persons at all even. It just defines in our state what a an artificial person is. Again, which is just a legal thing, a legal idea that is created by the state. The state created it, the state defines it, and that has never been seriously disputed in over two hundred years of corporate law.

So for the even if it made it all the way to the Supreme Court, for the Supreme Court to strike this down would force them to unravel the entire foundation of corporate law in every state across the country. That would be insane. Like even at the level of insanity that we're seeing on our Supreme Court right now. So again, let's just be clear. This doesn't silence corporations.

They can still form packs. It just brings the money into the light so that we can see where it's coming from, where it's going, and who is funding these things. They can participate in the political process through entities that are purpose built for that. Entities that are purpose built for that. I'll just wrap up by saying, like, I'm I'm only I'm 35 years old.

I did all the things right that I was told to do growing up. I went to school. I work hard. And like most people in my age range, the promise that we were sold, one job, one house, one family is way out of reach. Not because we failed, not because we like avocado toast.

It's because the system was being tilted against us while we were just trying to get our education and survive. Citizens United passed in January 2010. I was just 19. We were in the throes of the great recession. Working families were losing their homes, their jobs, their savings, their futures.

The wealth gap was exploding. When ultra wealthy were vacuuming up every single thing they could get their hands on. And that is the world that Citizens United came into being under. We have such an incredible opportunity to change the landscape going forward. So please pass s v 2471.

Let Hawaii be the one that shows the entire country what we can do when we stand together and tell corporations enough already. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Theresa Arburster?

Hello. Hi, Chair and committee Members. I'm Theresa Armbruster, and I oppose this measure because it does not reaffirm anything. In the past, corporations in this state were always given the same rights as individuals. And in in this session alone, they're trying to redefine what a corporation or nonprofit or any organization is.

We're trying to redefine it as artificial. And I still agree with, the interpretation that, corporations and all these entities are groups of individuals and therefore they do maintain the same constitutional rights. And I, as, there's 207,000 entities here and I will contend that not all of these are big, bad corporations that want to have undue influence in our elections. There are many that are small and when they formed, they do want to have a collective voice.

There may be some measures, ballot measures that may directly affect their organization or their association, so they should have the right to have a say on that ballot measure and this is gonna take away that power from all these.

And, also, I just wanna I still have a question. If there's gonna be 207,000 different entities here that are gonna be affected by this, when are you gonna spring this on them? After the bill comes in and say, oh, by the way, all your powers are revoked. You only have powers that the state says you have now. And specifically, you cannot get engaged in any election or ballot measure activity.

And if you do, we're gonna just disband you and take away all your privileges. I don't think that's good business ethics, for one thing. Is that showing a mohawk to our to all these entities that are in our state? Many of them you wanna take their money for their dues and and all the good that they do for the state, but no. You can't have a say in elections.

I really don't think that's fine. I'm only an individual, but this is my 2¢worth. And, also, I do, I do know that, that, there are gonna be legal challenges. And if we get sued, you're gonna waste all of our tax dollars paying all these gigantic legal fees. And so I don't think that's good stewardship of our tax dollars, and I really do not think it's wise to ignore all the legal advice of our attorney general.

So for these reasons, I ask you to vote no on this and seek some other form of campaign spending reform. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? Question, sir. Rep Shimizu.

Attorney general. You know what? I don't know if you saw the testimony from Hawaii building and construction, and they feel like as a organization, they will be limited in their campaign, support efforts. And I I guess I needed or wanted clarification on the scope of what this bill would prohibit as far as an organization like that doing the traditional campaign support for any any candidate that they endorse?

Well, this bill is pretty comprehensive. I'm afraid I'm not exactly familiar with how the entity you've referenced is organized. But assuming they're a nonprofit, whether they're incorporated under Chapter four fourteen t or unincorporated under four twenty nine, both are in this bill.

Yeah. So, like, if they go sideway, then is that is that pretty good?

You know, I'd have to reread the bill, but, you know, it's part of it is if it's doing it in its capacity as an entity,

it could pose some issues. I have another question, but I'll defer it for everybody.

Okay. Garcia. Thank you, Jeff.

For the

do you respond to the common arguments we've heard today that this is about states' rights and that this isn't really pertaining to Citizens United, but in in that it's actually just defining what a

AG as well. So how

a corporation is here in Hawaii. Thank you for

the question. So I think the common pitfall and mistake that everyone's falling into right now is it's so Beholden to the state's corporate making powers that it ignores the fact that any exercise of the state's power still has to comport with the limits of the constitution. So, for example, if the legislature were to pass a law saying that all businesses have to discriminate against native Hawaiians, take away the power to serve native Hawaiians, do you think would that pass constitutional muster?

I think we all know

the answer to that question. Now speaking from personal experience, because right now I am defending three constitutional challenges in federal court for a bill you guys passed last year at one forty three, formerly HB 712, relating to the three forty p program. And what happens in these proceedings is it the court doesn't get into where the state's powers comes from because the principles of federal federalism are pretty cut and dry.

What the main inquiry and the issue that gets litigated is, what does this bill purport to do? What does it do?

Does it pass the smell test? Does it walk like a duck? Does it quack like a duck? Then it's gotta be a duck. And so the first question that's gonna pop up if this proceeds to litigation is what does this bill do?

What effect does this have on speech? And under the First Amendment framework because with the First Amendment, the core principle of freedom of speech is that it's supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, a marketplace, so to speak, where goods and ideas can come in. It's not so much focused as to where the ideas come from. It's just about whether the ideas can get in or not.

And so even if you make this distinction between who the speak this whole distinction that corporations are not people, that doesn't matter.

Even if we make the distinction that it's the state that's granting the power as opposed to preexisting right and we're taking it away, the idea itself, the expression is being prevented, and that's what's going to that we're afraid is going to run a follow-up for a second.

Thank you. Revolotti?

Hi. I have a series of two sets of questions for sorry. Your name, sir? Chris. Mister oh, Chris.

Mister Chris. And then I have questions from mister Moore following this. First set of questions. Let's see. I'm interested in the process with which the AG came to the opinion that it came.

Was this something that was rooted or vetted amongst a team of attorney generals, or was this a memo that was analyzed under the aspect of one under the purview of one attorney and then moved up the chain of command. How did the opinion get formulated?

We've had several of our best people take a look at it. We've had several opinions on it.

Okay. Do those opinions include someone with a more corporate law background that could bring the, framing of the state's rights and the corporate, insights into the the analysis that your office conducted?

Not quite sure if I'm familiar with the backgrounds of all the deputies who are involved. So I would have to follow-up with that.

Okay. I think that's important because, yes, we acknowledge that this is a novel approach, but really, there should have been a team of attorneys probably looking at this to be able to look at it from the different, as you said, perspectives, whether it's the constitutional first amendment or if it's coming from the other, framing that, mister Moore and legal experts across the country are formulating this opinion on.

So that's something I think it would be interesting for you to give us feedback as to what's the background of attorneys who came up with opinion. My second set of questions, and I thank you for sharing with that because I think that's really important. Did your team look at what past legislatures state legislatures have done with respect to Citizens United?

I'm afraid I don't

know the answer to that.

Okay. So if I were to tell you, would you be surprised that two years after, Citizens United passed, there was a Senate Resolution 68, that actually passed out of the Senate to, urge Congress to propose amendments to address citizen's agenda. Would you be surprised if I were to

No. I think I read that somewhere, actually.

Okay. And I think it's really great. So I actually disagree with one of the, testifiers here who says that, you know, we have lawmakers here, former lawmakers here who are beholden and we don't wanna see this change because, actually, I would urge you guys to look at Senate Resolution 68 from 2012. Then lawmaker Josh Green was the primary introducer of that.

Would it surprise you to know that in 2013, HCR 10 was adopted by the house and the leader on that bill, and there was, like, there was dozens of of lawmakers who adopted that amendment and and introduced that amendment.

That would have been a representative Takayama. Would you be surprised by that?

No. I'm not.

Okay. How about, there's actually a number of bills, 2015 and 2017 or not bills, resolutions, calling because the legislature felt frustrated and saw what was happening with Citizens United, and that our only mechanism at that time was these resolutions. Would you be surprised that in 2016, actually both House and Senate adopted House Concurrent Resolution 29, again, urging Congress to do something to address Citizens United. Would you be surprised by that?

Not surprised.

Would you be surprised that it also included introducers who are Republican and Democratic?

Not surprised.

Okay. I wanna go over this because this is really important because this is expressing the ways in which the legislature has been looking for a policy solution. The last time action was taken before 2026 was 2019. Would you be surprised that it was a Senate Concurrent Resolution introduced by Karl Rhoades? I'm not surprised.

Yeah. I'm not sorry about that. But do you know what his his proposal in that was? It was to convene a national constitutional convention to open up the the the United States Constitution so we could address Citizens United. Do you know what Senate what Senator Rhodes did with that?

I do.

He actually deferred that bill because he recognized that that was not an avenue. Now fast forward ten more years, we have this piece of of solidly researched legislation that is moving in multiple states and in red states like Montana, is it is it not conceivable at all to the attorney general's office that this is a potential, a real potential once it if the legislature passes it, that the arguments on the side that it's being advanced by the Center for American Progress are more than defensible?

No. We don't think so. If we thought it was defensible, we would speak out this against this bill.

Okay. Thank you. I think that's that's disappointing because I think, you know, we ask corporations and we empower corporations to do think a lot of times. And let me just say, like, for example, the prepaid health care act is something that we we've asked them to do and they comply. If we define their their their, powers as as as has been reserved to us in our own state constitutions.

I would hope that the Attorney General's office, if that is this if that is how the legislature speaks and it survives, then one of the first defenses that the attorney general's office has to take is that anything that is passed by the state legislature is presumably constitutional. So isn't that true that you would you would have to defend it because you presume it's constitutional because we have enacted it as as a legislature? Is that not part of the arguments?

No. I understand our department's role to enforce and uphold our laws as opposed to the presumption of constitutionality. I won't get into the weeds, but I mean, right now, I'm just thinking of presumption against preemption, and there are certain conditions for that. So I won't get into it, but I would hope certainly hope that the courts look more favorably upon a state's legislatively enacting laws.

Thank you. Okay.

I have a series of questions for mister Moore. I'm sorry. Thank you for indulging. Sure.

Any other questions on this side?

the question. Rep Shimizu? No. No.

I have

Attorney general, thank you for being here and patiently answering questions. You know what? You you said it stated in your testimony regarding foreign corporations. And and my understanding that as far as foreign corporations, there there are existing limits and, requirements, that are already in place. Are you aware of that?

I'm afraid, I'm not too familiar with those existing parts.

Yeah. I wish we had somebody from campaign spending commission here, but, you know, as a candidate, we we have to abide by campaign finance requirements. And there are campaign finance requirements and there are limits that a foreign corporation can donate to any any candidate. So if those limits are established in our current laws, would they would those similar requirements be able to be translated to a non foreign corporation?

That's a good question. I'm hesitant to you know, I'm not trying to stop the question. Sure. I don't have a definitive answer for you right now at this point. So I do apologize for that.

Okay.

Would you be able to get an answer at at a future moment in time?

Sure. We'd be happy to look into it. Although, I I think we would just wanna know

if what specific provisions you've had in mind that you're referring to right now that would probably help us. I mean, it's it's current law as far as foreign corporation donation. So probably could look that up sooner than I could. Yes. So could you respond to that?

Sure. Okay.

K. Let's do you have another question?

For mister Moore.

Okay.

Mister Moore, are you still there?

And and in your responses, mister Moore, if you could in your responses, mister Moore, if you could try to be as succinct as possible, that'd be great because we are we have a lot of bills on the agenda. And I know this is an area of your keen interest and expertise. So if you could just keep it succinct, that'd be great. Please proceed.

Fair warning.

Thank you. Mister Moore, first set of questions is about the concerns raised in the DCCA testimony about enforcement. As I understand this, how is this gonna be enforced the you know, to make sure that corporations are complying with not using their treasuries to contribute to elections.

Just as this is a very different way of of of approaching this, you know, in not doing regulatory moves, but instead of it's a power granting move. The enforcement is very, very different also. It is this ultra vires doctrine, which has not been used much in the last hundred years, but is as strong as it ever was, and it was fearsome in the nineteenth century.

And, basically, it says, look, if if you if there's some action that a corporation takes that's that's beyond its powers, and in this case, it would be exercising political spending powers if you don't have that power to do that anymore, the state can basically give you the corporate death penalty. There are all kinds of other things that can happen too, but the attorney general can go in and, you know, sue you and and say that you've you have to lose your charter.

But the way that it mostly gets enforced is by private parties who go to court and say, hey. This corporation, did an alter Verraz Act. These consequences have happened. Hey, court. Make a determination about that, and then we'll proceed on this case.

And so those are case by case determinations that are made in court. And the only way that the state government, which kind of that apparatus, needs to deal with that is when a court order comes out and says, I guess, these guys have lost all their privileges, or these guys have had the charter yanked by the attorney general, or these this corporation has had its privileges reinstated because they did what the court said.

It is not a major undertaking by the by the executive branch of the government to keep track of all this. They do not have to track payment contributions or anything like that.

Okay. Second question is concerning foreign corporations. You've heard this testimony about concerns about foreign corporations. Can can you expand expand up on on that and how that this isn't presenting a problem that the attorney general's testimony is presenting?

Well, there's a couple different ways to think about this. One of the things the attorney general mentioned in their testimony was, that the state of Hawaii doesn't have any authority to tell a foreign corporation, you know, an out of state corporation what it can do in the state of Hawaii, and that is absolutely wrong. This is a power setting exercise, and, basically, whatever powers the state of Hawaii sets for domestic corporations, foreign corporations have to go with that as well.

And the statute for that is four one four d two seventy five. It's basically says that that they got exactly the same rights, privileges, powers that a domestic corporation has.

So and and most states have this. This is this is, you know, a very, very common provision. So it's it's there's nothing there's nothing in neutral about it, and it gets invoked all the time.

One last question. And this has to do with the unions, because I think there's a concern. We have a number of testifiers representing unions, some are saying that their ability to participate in freeze in in election speech is gonna be curtailed. My understanding is that labor unions, at the end of the day, are still gonna be able to have their own packs. They will be able to solicit money from their members.

They will still be able to to to participate. Can you explain that further?

Sure. One way to think of it is just just rolling the clock back to the day before Citizens United was decided. The debt that day, unions could they could endorse candidates. They could send membership they could send messages to their membership about things. They could do voter registration drives.

They could do nonpartisan voter, you know, get out to the vote efforts, all kinds of things like that. They just couldn't write a check out of their treasury to a PAC, you know, or to a candidate. You know, Citizens United, after Citizens United, they could write that check for for political things. Before Citizens United, that kind of political activity was done by their PAC.

And those are voluntary contributions they have to ask their members to give instead of the mandatory contributions that are sitting in their their main checking account.

And basically, this just goes directly back to that. And I agree with the other testimony earlier that any kind of membership organization has a has a pretty good advantage here because they can solicit every single member of the union or every single member of the Sierra Club to to give to the pack, where business corporations and others, the class of folks that they can solicit are much more limited.

So it is definitely a big change in the ways a lot of labor organizations do business, the way they've adapted to the Citizens United, but they they should be able to adapt very well.

Okay. Just one last question. So I just really wanna emphasize this because I think what is really important for the public and for lawmakers to understand is that what this bill is actually doing is shutting down the the corporate treasury, which in any situation will always outweigh actually the union's base. Right? I mean, that is that's what this this bill is ultimately doing.

It's it's shutting down those huge unlimited corporate funds that the unions cannot ever actually compete with. Is that a correct way of understanding this?

Yeah. That's right. I mean, it's, basically, they're the numbers are are are iffy because it's hard to tell how much dark money exactly is being spent. But, most of the research shows that labor unions have been vastly vastly outspent in the Citizens United Era, where they were not before. Yeah.

They were outspent by a bit before Citizens United, but, you know, it's the amount of money that corporations and dark money c fours have been able to marshal to spend in politics just to, you know, dwarfs what labor's been able to do. So it's, you know, they've they haven't labor has adapted well, and there are certain kind of organizational managers just, you know, write a check for it and sometimes they beg your membership for it. But on take two steps back, and and they're getting killed.

So it's it is not clear to me that that their opposition is their is their best path forward.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair, for indulging. Sure. Sure.

Grateful to have the discussion. Okay. Let's move on. If that's okay. No more questions.

We'll move on to the next measure. Thank you to all the testifiers on this very important measure. Let's move on to Senate Bill 2568. House Draft 1 relating to offenses against public servants. This measure elevates the offense of harassment to a misdemeanor when committed against a public servant because of or during their performance of official duties.

First up, we have the judiciary.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the committee. My name is Terrence Lee. I'm a staff attorney for the judiciary's administration. The judiciary is in strong support of this measure, which is part of our legislative package. And just wanted to quickly emphasize, to the committee that the intent of this bill, is to provide a wider array of sentencing options to the court, in situations where a person has been convicted of harassment of a public servant.

And if the court happens to find that the circumstances are such that, stronger higher penalties, are warranted, that the court has that available to them. Certainly, also if the court finds that circumstances dictate that lower penalties are warranted or no jail time, for instance, certainly can do that under this bill as it can under president-elect. We are very thankful to the committee for putting this measure up for hearing today, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Education. Not present. Next, Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Yasmin Chaney.

Welcome.

Good afternoon. Yasmin Chaney for the Commission on the Status of Women. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure as public servants play a vital role in upholding essential services and ensuring the effective functioning of our government. And their ability to perform these roles without fear of harassment is critical to public trust and safety. We thank the committee for its consideration and support.

Thank you very much. Office of the Public Defender? Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2568 ? If not, questions, members?

Yes?

I'm just curious.

Thanks for taking that tact. I appreciate it.

What is the tipping point or the line cross where First Amendment rights crosses the line into harassment?

Yeah. So I'm not a constitutional law expert, but I would point out that what this bill does is it takes the existing harassment offense and it it simply raises the grade of the the the offense so that higher penalties can be imposed. And so from market perspective, this bill doesn't pose any constitutional issues any more than the current harassment offense that appears in our our pinnacle today.

Understand. Understand. Okay. Thank you. Get some case there.

Thank you. Yep.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2151, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1relating to emergency management.

This measure clarifies state and local authority during a state or local state of emergency, defines catastrophic harm and severe weather warning, amends the definition of disaster and emergency under Chapter 127a, allows the legislature to terminate a state of emergency and county councils to terminate a local state of emergency. First up, Ted Kefalas, Grassroot Institute. Not present. Next, Drew Hara. Welcome.

With Earthjustice.

Great. Thank you, Chair.

Chair, Members, Drew Hara Earthjustice. So we submitted testimony in support of this measure. We'll stand on that. Just wanted to emphasize a couple things, make a few additional comments in response to testimony and opposition from our emergency management agency.

You're you're testifying in support.

We are testifying in support. Yes. Thank you for that clarification. So what this bill there's concerns that this bill would somehow hamstring or or limit how you must authority. And I just wanna clarify that that's not the intent of this measure and and that would not be the effect of it.

The amended definitions of emergency, disaster, and catastrophic harm are really intended to bring this measure back in line with the legislature's original intent for our emergency management statute one twenty seven a as stated in the policy and purpose section of one twenty seven a dash one.

And also in terms of preparedness, training, response, education, those are all powers that will also be untouched under one twenty seven eight twelve, which are available to the governor and the mayors, to coordinate with our state and county agencies and our federal agencies outside of emergency periods. In order to prepare for evolving situations or be forward looking in our disaster response approach. So, all of that would still be well and good under this provision.

Really, specifically, this is intended to bring back constitutional balance of powers in direct response to the Supreme Court's Nicholas decision issued at the end of last year.

Available for questions and, again, in support of this.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Margaret Majia, the Hawaii Christian Coalition. Not present. On Zoom?

No. No. Not present. Anyone? Teresa Armbruster.

Teresa Armbruster. Teresa Armbruster. Teresa Armbruster, you're next. Yes.

She's out there too. Margaret. But anyway

Well, hopefully, Margaret will come in, so I'll ask her to come up after you. Go ahead, Purcell. Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair Tardis and committee Members. I'm Theresa Armbruster. And I oppose this in the form that is right now, even though I appreciate some of the changes that were made in, previous amendments, but some of the major concerns is that still needs major amendments in 01/1427 a 14.

And in particular, if it was up to me, I would repeal the whole section of one twenty seven a 13, But it still needs major amendments in some areas, especially addressing the quarantining and separation groups based on the governor's opinion that some of them may have been exposed or groups have been exposed.

And I think there needs to be more looking into that just not based on opinion, but and then also about being able to seize or destroy property and also about seizing firearms, being able a warrantless attempt to go on a private property without permission or even notice.

And, also, let's see. There's other things. That was just some of them. But what we could do is if if you're not gonna change it or rewrite this whole section, some of the, major amendment that can not go against our constitutional rights because each one of these would be an infringement on the rights if it's not kept in check.

So, I would make sure you explicitly put in that section that emergency laws shall not suspend constitutional rights, shall not infringe on due process, and shall be narrowly, narrowly defined for that declared emergency.

And also, in one twenty seven a 14 oh, and also in one twenty seven a 13, gotta remove all the phrases, say, in the governor's opinion because that is too subjective. There needs to be some more facts or evidence to to justify some of these actions that are in one twenty seven a 13. So I really would recommend that. And also in 01/2014, removing the sole judge for for, governor and mayor.

Aye, because, you know, in other states, a lot of times, even before they can declare an emergency, it has to be it has to be, approved by the legislature.

So, I would, I would even suggest exploring that before they can even declare an emergency. You should have a consensus on that. I know some things you may have to declare it right away. It depends on the situation.

But I would, explore that option also about, even the extensions that would be, legislative approval because that's how you keep some more of this in check as opposed to these ongoing proclamations and extensions and not just the termination, but these extensions can, you know, keep going on and on.

So I would really look more at that because that's how it's gonna be more balance of power, more legislative oversight. But, also, I really do wanna make sure that one twenty seven eight thirteen that you explicitly put that it's not gonna violate our constitutional rights. And so I just thank you very much for this, and I just hope that we can really make these amendments before and not just keep it as is. So thank you very much.

Thank you, miss Barbara Brewster. Back to Margaret Michia. I'm glad we found you.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Okay. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. My name's Margaret Mejia, and I'm submitting testimony on behalf of Hawaii Christian Coalition. We oppose SB 2,151 relating to emergency management. I've been told by legislators and attorneys that this bill was written to curb the powers of the governor.

However, the exact opposite is true. Chapter one twenty seven a grants the governor sweeping powers, and without repealing that statute, SB 2151 cannot curb the governor's powers. First, it should be acknowledged that since March 2020, governor former governor Ige had over 40 emergency proclamations, and governor Green had over 90. So that's over 130 emergency proclamations, and that's way too many emergencies. Second, it should be noted that s p two one five one contains the following wording.

It says in the governor's opinion four times, page five, line 13, page five, line 16, page six, line two, and page 10, lines twenty and twenty one. The governor deems necessary is on page seven, line 13. In the opinion of the governor, page eight, line 19. The mayor deems necessary, page 12, line seventeen and eighteen. The governor or mayor shall be the sole judge, page 14, line 19, and believed to have been exposed, page five, lines eleven and twelve.

Because of the words that were chosen here, it looks like the legislator is putting the governor's opinion and the mayor's opinion above the law. The governor cannot predict the future. However, this bill contains words like imminent threat, page four, line three, page four, line seventeen and eighteen, page 14, line 16, Imminent danger, page 14, line 16. Likely to cause, page four, line 20. This wording should be removed.

Also, suspending laws should not be tolerated. Suspending laws is on page six, line 21. Page seven, line 12, line 13, line 15, line 16, line 18, and line 20. All of section four on page eight is in the opinion of the Governor. Page 12, lines three and four, page 12, line 11, and page 13, line three.

For the people of Maui and for all the people of the state of Hawaii, the governor should not be allowed to turn off water mains in case of a fire. Page nine, line nine, page 13, line 11. After thorough review of the existing statute, chapter one twenty seven a, Hawaii revised statute, SB 2,151, and the Hawaii constitution, We strongly urge the legislature to repeal and replace chapter 127A in its entirety. Chapter 127a is critically flawed and fundamentally dangerous in its current form.

Its overall structure concentrates extraordinary unilateral authority in the executive branch in ways that are gravely imbalanced, inconsistent with meaningful legislative oversight, and incompatible with the separation of powers.

The statute grants the governor sweeping powers during a declared emergency, including suspending current laws, requiring quarantines even for people who are believed to be exposed to be to any infectious disease in the governor's opinion, and authorizing entry on private property without a warranty, seizing firearms, authorizing taking over infrastructure facilities regulating or prohibiting business transactions, enabling the governor to force vaccinations.

These provisions violate fundamental rights protected under the Hawaii Constitution, including due process and equal protection, Article one, section five, including the right to privacy, Article one, Section six, and protection against unreasonable searches, seizures, and invasions of privacy, Article one, section seven.

Similarly, they violate rights under The United States Constitution, including protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the fourth amendment, due process protections for life, liberty, and property, fifth and fourteenth amendments, the right to keep and bear arms, second amendment, freedoms of speech and the press, first amendment, particularly in the case of media or communication restrictions, and through broad implementation of emergency rules, law suspensions, or movement evacuation controls, potential restrictions on the freedom of assembly and association. Ma'am. Yes.

So SB 2151 acknowledges structural deficiencies in Chapter one twenty seven A. I do appreciate the the amendment from super majority to simple majority, and we're willing to work with you on future amendments to this bill. But we can only support this bill if further significant amendments are made. And I just wanted to end with Article three, section one of the Hawaii constitution. State shall be vested in the legislature, which shall consist of two houses, a Senate and a House of Representatives.

Such power shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution with this constitution or the constitution of The United States. So effective management is a rightful subject of legislation, but suspension of law should not be tolerated. And there's just some other amendments. I'm open for questions and also open to work with you folks on on amendments. Thank you very much.

I appreciate your testimony, and and we did receive your written testimony, so I appreciate that very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes. Please come on up one at a time and introduce yourself, please.

Aloha. My name is Alice Abellanita. I'm a citizen of the state and I'm on this bill. It's one of the most disturbing bills I think I've ever read. And it it talks about the lack of due process that they're giving the the governor sole sweeping power to make a judgment on what he deems to be an emergency, and no one should have that kind of power.

That's why we have the legislative branch, like she said. I agree with everything that she brought up, and it's in the bill. If you read it, there is disturbing you he's he's be being able to, seize property, quarantine without due process, and he can, take your firearms and his whole sole discretion. This this is not okay. It's not okay.

And you know what? You folks swore an oath to the constitution. And the this bill is violating the constitution in so many ways. It's very disturbing. And so I don't even know how it's gotten this far.

He has declared over 90 emergency populations, and even the one from Lahaina is still going. He just keeps they're supposed to expire after sixty days. So why why does he have and a lot of his, proclamations are not even an emergency. An emergency would be like Lahaina or or the storm. But you know what?

He he's suspending laws, and he's procuring money. And where's the money going? Because, like, he he declared an emergency on March 9, and nothing was done to help the people in Wailua. So you know what? He's got too much power.

So does the mayor. We need to rein him in. And I you know what? I would a friend of mine on the Big Island is submitting an inquiry to his impeachment. So that's where I would I would challenge you to do that.

Look at he needs to be reined in. This is not okay. We, the people, you know, I back the constitution. So thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate you being here. Ma'am, come on up and introduce yourself.

Hi. I'm Bernal Ocou. I just wanted to say that I agree with the previous testifiers. And, also, I feel like because it it doesn't have the protection for the constitutional rights of the people that are in an emergency situation. And, also, because it seems like when there is an emergency, it doesn't seem like the government is there.

It's more the other people that are there helping other people. So I agree with them. This is giving the governor too much power, and he is not actually there anyway when we have an emergency and we need help. So it feels like it is overreached. And

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members. Sure. Rep Garcia.

For miss Alice, please.

Yeah. Thank

you for being here, Manuel.

You know, you mentioned and I wanna first start start off by saying that I agree that the 127a is very broad and that the governor, in my opinion, has abused his authority in

Yeah. Already has those powers. So so the bill isn't giving him any new additional powers.

He already has those powers, which is and in fact, what this bill does is is is it actually gives authority to us, the legislature, to reign in those powers. Is that aware?

But, well, it's being abused. It was abused by governor Egan. It's been abused by governor Green. So something needs to be changed on the 01/27 a.

So and I do understand that, but what I'm saying is that there are are stipulations in there where he is giving like, he's able to see its property.

But that's already the law. That's already the law.

Well it's needs to be changed then because that's disturbing.

I hope hold on. I agree with that. But this bill isn't establishing those powers. So my question is why are we opposing it based on the assumption that this bill is giving the governor powers to go into properties without warrants or giving you the governor's powers to violate the second amendment? I agree. Those things are bad, but he already has those powers.

And this bill is simply saying the legislature now has to have the authority to rein in that those those proclamations by voting them as not right. So it actually gives checks and balances. So last question. Is it your opinion that this bill should die? Yes or no?

I didn't read about the part where it's it's giving the legislature power back. Really? You know? But you know what? I and I understand what you're saying.

But with the abuse of governor Ige on his emergency proclamations and then now with governor Green over 90 proclamations that are not even emergencies, something needs to give. Something needs to be changed on 01/27. And that's fine. And I agree with what she said about changing the amendments.

Thank you.

But yeah. Thank you, dear.

Thank you very much. And I have a follow-up, Chair.

Sure. Thanks for your time.

For miss Margaret, Carmody Christian Coalition, thank you so much for being here. I honestly start off by saying I respect the organization and truly appreciate the work that you folks do here at Cal.

Like similar, I guess I'm gonna just ask the this one question. Would because you're asking us to vote no on this bill. Right?

Correct.

So you would like to see the bill die. Correct?

Correct.

Okay. So if the bill dies, then the governor's powers would remain as is, which is he has sole authority, he has broad power, he has no checks and balances, and the legislature has no ability to override his decisions. So would you rather prefer him to have unchecked power?

No. He definitely needs checked power. However, I believe, we met with the caucus. We met with other representatives and presented amendments, and they were not received. So, yeah, I would love to see imminent danger, imminent threats removed, a more a better description of disaster.

And it was great that the the one amendment on simple majority, that's that's a good amendment. But, yeah, I would I'd like to see the bill die.

So what you're saying is you like what's there, but you would like to see it go further in repeating the governor's powers, which I agree with and that it's way too much power. And I don't know. I mean, I guess just my basic reading of the bill, it's it's giving the power to the legislature to say, governor, you have way too much power. I'm gonna now override your emergency proclamations.

Now I get the amendments to the disasters and and and that, but, I'm just curious as to why it wouldn't be supporting it with amendments versus opposing.

Because if the bill dies, the governor has unchecked power.

Well, are you gonna amend it?

I well, I'm not the chair, but I would love to have it amended for sure. I'm not the Chair. Chair, would you amend the bill?

But Well, like I said in my testimony, if you amend the bill, we would support it. But as it's written, we we we took one step with the simple majority, but we got two miles to go.

Right. I get that. But if the bill dies, we're taking a step back.

Okay. Well, you need to refill all of 127 a, in my opinion.

Alright. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for those questions. Any other questions, members? If not, thank you. We're gonna move on to the next measure. Thank you to the testifiers for being here today.

Next measure, Senate Bill 3083 relating to protective orders. This measure requires notification to the security forces of each branch of the military when a protective order is issued in a case involving a military affiliated individual. It requires the judiciary, department of law enforcement, and county police departments to establish certain policies and procedures. Lori Moore, military and community relations office, department of business, economic development, and tourism.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Zoe Wilkes testifying on behalf of MACRO for Lori Moore. Hawaii is home to one of the largest military populations in the nation. Active duty service members, reservists, national guard members, veterans, and their families are integral members of our communities. When domestic violence occurs in these households, victims often navigate both civilian and military systems that have not had an established arrangement for communicating with one another.

This measure requires the judiciary, county police departments, and the Department of Law Enforcement to work in consultation with designated military security forces to establish interagency policies and procedures while safeguarding victim confidentiality and ensuring compliance with applicable federal and state laws. This measure would meaningfully improve communication, strengthen protections, and support victims across systems rather than leaving them to navigate those systems alone. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? If not, we'll move on to the last measure on the agenda for which we're taking testimony, Senate Bill 709, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to mental health. This measure requires the Department of Health to respond to reports of persons with severe mental illness who need assistance, assess whether they meet criteria for assisted community treatment, and coordinate the assisted community treatment order process when appropriate.

It provides that that denial of a petition for involuntary commitment serves as notice to the Department of Health to evaluate the individual for assisted community treatment. It requires the Department of Law Enforcement to adopt rules establishing training and certification standards and procedures for crisis intervention officers.

It requires the Department of Health to approve the content of such training, clarifies the scope of treatment permitted under assisted community treatment orders, requires the Department of Attorney General to assist with the preparation filing and presentation of requests for a court or administrative order to provide treatment over a patient's objection. First up, we have Department of Law Enforcement. Not not present.

Next, we have attorney general.

Good afternoon, Chair committee Members. Ian Suter with the department of attorney general providing testimony and support. The department believes this bill will provide impactful clarification for laws relating to mental health intervention, which will have a meaningful effect on the ability of law enforcement and health care professionals to provide care to those in need. We are recommending amendments to the sections regarding the department's involvement in proceedings to obtain authorization to administer treatment over objection.

Our proposed language will clarify that the authorization for AG assistance pertains to court proceedings for treatment over objection.

This addresses the concerns of facilities wanting the AG to provide said assistance in conjunction with the assistance we're already providing in, obtaining orders for involuntary hospitalization. Thank you, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, the Hawaii State Department of Health.

Aloha. I'm Kenny Fink with the Department of Health providing testimony in support of this measure. Sections 3, 5, 6, and 7 are generally from Senate Bill 3078, which was an administrative bill. The content of those sections are a priority for the administration, which we support. I just wanted to speak briefly about sections two and four.

The admittedly, the Department of Health has not done a great job in pursuing ACT petitions for patients within its care. And, we've acknowledged that, and we are working hard to address that. We have increased, significantly the number of petitions, for, those upon being discharged from the Hawaii State Hospital, and we're looking to explore the process to do that for those, you know, that are seen, you know, repeatedly through the HIV valve crisis center.

It's helpful to have multiple points of contact to be able to make the case for someone to, you know, need to have an ACT order involuntary treatment. Right?

Our, let's say, lack of having done that previously in a consistent manner was not due to any legal deficit or lack of law, but to frankly a lack of execution, and we need to own that. These two sections don't give us any authority that we don't need. So for that reason, for sections two and four. So for sections two and four, section two regarding crisis outreach. We already do crisis mobile outreach and provide appropriate responses.

This will require an ACT petition. Seeing someone at one point in time, if they are in crisis, there are other tools that are more appropriate for that single encounter, whether it's an MH two, you know, you know, MH one or potentially MH four. There may those are the more appropriate paths for that single point of contact. And we're just trying to utilize our resources in the most appropriate manner requiring the ACT, you know, part is, I think, not appropriate in that particular setting.

There are other tools, that should those individuals be identified, referring them to other community partners for ongoing care or intensive mobile treatment will be more appropriate.

As we get into Section four, there already is laws, I understand under HRS 334 -121.5, that, already requires, through involuntary hospitalization, the assessment for an ASD petition. So we think that section is not necessary as well. So respectfully, we wanna indicate our support for sections three, five, six, and seven and as our testimony indicates, withdraw that sections two and four are not necessary.

Thank you very much. Next, Lou Erteschik.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Members. I'm Lou Erteschik. I'm the director of Disability Rights Center. You had my written testimony.

And if you look at my written testimony, I had a lot of strong objections to this bill. And in response to that, actually, I had a really good meeting with Ian and Mike Champion to try to get a better handle on what they're trying to accomplish with with this bill, and and and they did hear me out. And they and they did it.

And I think if you look at their their testimony submitted today, surely the testimony from the attorney general reflects exactly the point that I was raising that, the

prior version involved them more in these administrative order to treat, which which to me didn't make any sense. Whereas if if the intent is to involve them only in court proceedings, you know, I may have some hesitance about that, but I certainly have I'm certainly less opposed to to a situation like that. And also I when I met with them, I said a lot of this is in current law. You don't really need this authority.

And so apparently, they they're they're suggesting that we delete some of those sections.

So I think if you look at the testimony, it's probably improved over over the version that's in front of you. I think I still do have a a couple of concerns. One is, and I understand that the goal is to make assisted community treatment a little more holistic rather than just administering medication, and I think that's good. But I think the current law already has enough language in it to do that.

I'm not sure that I have I'm a little troubled by the addition of the language and and what constitutes assisted community treatment when they talk about blood tests and urinalysis and supervising where they live.

This sounds more like the kind of stuff you do when there's a criminal that you put on probation and you make these conditions of probation. This is supposed to be a civil proceeding. These are not defendants. So I'm not sure that that language is appropriate to add into the bill.

The procedural concern that I wanna raise, which I did raise in the prior committee is that and I'm no expert in the three reading rule or the gut and replace rule, but this bill, 10/2009, was heard last session in the Senate.

It was sent to Ways and Means. It was never heard this year. What happened was that I think it was an administration bill that never got heard by either chamber. And then the administration went to Senate Ways and Means. They found this vehicle and and they and they basically inserted the contents sort of what you see now into that bill, and then it and then it crossed over to the house.

So this particular version was not heard this year at all. So again, I'm not an expert on that, but I would suggest. And just lastly, I think there's a generalized concern that not just me, but other people when the advocacy done, because I'm reading testimony from some of my colleagues. And I think a lot of us, we could debate the merits of ACT, whether it's good or it's bad.

But there's a lot of us, certainly myself who believe that because these people are not granted an attorney in the proceedings, and that was a decision the legislature made a few years ago.

So I'm not here to beat a dead horse, but because they they don't have an attorney in the proceedings, we believe that the whole thing is fundamentally flawed. And so when you see a bill that on a surface seems kinda minor and and not that big a deal, on the one hand, when we deal with the bill in front of us, that's true. It's not that big a deal.

But but on the other hand, if you have a system that's potentially unconstitutional to begin with, then anytime you add any little piece to that in and of itself, you're adding to an unconstitutional system. And I I think that that certainly is how I would look at it, and that may be what some of my colleagues are referring to as well.

So thank you.

Thank you very much, Lou. I appreciate your testimony. Next, Jim Gottstein Gottstein on Zoom.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the committee. My name is Jim Gottstein, and I've lived on Maui for six years. I submitted written testimony in opposition to SB 709, and I wanna emphasize some things in it. But first, let you know that I was lucky not to have been made permanently mentally ill by the system.

Also, I have won five Alaska Supreme Court appeals ruling various aspects of Alaska's involuntary psyche psychiatric proceedings unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. I recently joined the Hawaii Disability Rights Center PAIMI advisory council as an attorney member. One of PAIMI's two PAIMI stands for the Federal Protection Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, which I suspect you all know in lieu of the head of that.

I appreciate you defining the acronym because we try not to use acronyms in this committee if we can help it, but please proceed.

And one of, Pammy's two purposes is to enforce the rights of individuals with mental illness. However, I'm speaking in my personal capacity. In order to constitutionally drug people against their will, the state has to prove it is in their best interest, and there is no less intrusive alternative. The state doesn't get to evade this constitutional restriction by failing to fund feasible less intrusive alternatives.

The current ubiquitous use of neuroleptics, misleadingly marketed as antipsychotics, often forced into people against their will, reduces the recovery rate of people diagnosed with serious mental illness from a possible eighty percent to five percent and reduces lifespans by around twenty years on average while catastrophically diminishing the quality of life for most.

I know this is hard to believe, but that is why I included the report on improving mental health outcomes as an attachment to my written testimony. It is meticulously referenced with links to the sources, and it has never been rebutted. It also lays out what sorts of approaches should be taken instead. For constitutional analysis, these other approaches are less intrusive alternatives that have to be provided instead of the forced drug.

As the report on improving mental health outcomes shows, forcing psychiatric drugs into people cannot properly be proven to be in their best interest, and there is almost always a less intrusive alternative.

SB 709 goes further in the unconstitutional, very harmful, and counterproductive psychiatric drugging against people's will in the community. Lou spoke to this a little bit. So I urge the judiciary committee to reject this bill. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions.

Thank you very much, mister Gottstein. Final testifier, Raylene Reynold Yeoman on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

Rep Shimizu?

Attorney general, please. I was wondering if you are familiar with the amendments that were offered by director from Department of Health leading sections two and four.

Attorney general, please. I was wondering if you are familiar with the amendments that were offered by director from Department of Health leading sections two and four.

And also the amendment from director from Department of Law Enforcement, just advising the training requirement and if Niki was okay with that.

I am familiar with with the proposed amendments. I can say, you know, it's not included in our testimony, a position on on those things. But I can say that, you know, I understand the the basis for those things. And I agree as director Fink had indicated. It is duplicative.

Section four is duplicative of powers that are already there mechanisms and entryways for for treatment, as well. And and and they already have a a crisis intervention system that is designed to be able to respond to individuals in crisis as well.

And I believe the the amendment from DLE is, you know, kind of more of like an administrative one, making sure that, you know, it's within their authority so that they can better execute the ability to to certify and create trainings for these these individuals. So, I see no issue with those amendments.

Thank you. Okay. Other questions? I do have a question for mister Erteschik. Yes.

So I understand your testimony correctly. Europe you have no objection to the amendments recommended in the testimony from the attorney general.

I would say I'm certainly much less opposed than I was because I think I mean, it does change current law a little, and I don't know if it's really clear. My understanding is that the attorney general does not typically represent the community hospitals. And so and so this is what I learned in my meeting with these folks.

So they're they're he wants to remove or administrative.

Yes. As long as if it moves administrative, it solves most of the concerns that I have. Yes. Right. Okay.

That's basically

How about, the Department of Health, their removal their recommendation to remove section two and Section four?

Oh, that's exactly what I was suggesting.

It should be done. You're you're okay.

I do support that, and you you have the rest of my concerns for your consideration. Yeah.

We'll we'll have to work on the legal representation issue that's not in this bill, but I appreciate that is a remaining concern from even last year. So

It it is. And I do hope that at some

point It's a valid concern and

This has been a lingering issue for several years as you can appreciate it.

We'll have to work on that in a separate measure, but I just wanted to make it clear.

In terms of what's in front of us, yes. Right. Yes.

Okay. Good.

Try to say, I have one question for Department of Health.

Sure.

Doctor Fink. First, I really appreciate that you're owning the Department of Health's, you know, execution challenges and that, hopefully, placing more folks coming out of the state hospital on ACT is happening. When I look at section five of the bill and I see, you know, the outlining of residential services, alcohol and substance abuse treatment, you know, I think all of those things were already embedded in the language, but I think calling it out is a good thing.

So are you saying now that, individuals who may be cycling through the jails into the into state hospital are now getting ACTs that are identifying these things in their plans?

I can say that we are increasing the number of petitions for ACT orders. I would need to get back to you on the content of the treatment plans in those orders.

Okay. I think I think that would be really helpful because I think that's actually exactly the piece that we need to make sure that when these individuals are leaving the system, the plans are outlining exactly the services they're supposed to be getting.

Again, I think the law already said that, but if we have to call it out and then make sure they get those services so they're just not released out into the public without the services, which is what was happening in some cases, that we need to really make sure that these things are followed up on. Because all of these things are those wraparound services that all of we we paid for in the AMHD contracts, as I understand it. Is that correct, chair?

I mean, director?

To the extent those contracts include the the application of the ACC order in providing that treatment plan, then that would be correct.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Representative Takayama. Just a quick question,

doctor, while you're still up there. Can you quantify the number of ACTs you've obtained, say, in the last year?

I'm going to look over to people who have more detail. From the state hospital, the last check was 15 petitions, maybe higher. It takes I'm gonna

a As part

of the essence of

Would you mind asking that question to my colleague?

Please come up and introduce yourself and chair Takayama could ask the question again.

Hi. Courtney Matsu, deputy director for Behavioral Health. As doctor

Matsu, Doctor

Matsu, question was, could you quantify the number of ACTs you've obtained in, say, the last year, 2025 or so?

So I think a a better indicator would be to consider from perhaps around October until now because prior to that, the number of ACT petitions that had been filed from the state hospital in the preceding years have been less than five.

I'm sorry.

Less than five.

Okay.

Maybe one per year perhaps. Since then, we've relooked at our procedures, and they've identified folks who are who they feel would benefit from an app petition and have

filed

it it's a lengthy process, so I I believe four might have been filed. I would need to double check on that. But to for that whole app order to be executed, it it takes a long time. And

And are they usually granted? Or what are the, I don't know, percentage? Or what's the likelihood that your petitions are approved?

They they've all been filed. And And

then we haven't we don't have enough of

a past record to tell us what your percentage success or grants petitions being granted.

Yeah. We just haven't had enough time for it to go through the process because it, you know, it it does go through AGs, the courts. They need the hearing, and it it's it's been a lengthy process for that.

Okay. So you you said about five in the last six months. Is that correct? Since October?

I wanna say, yes. I'm not I I can get back to you to confirm Alright.

Thank you.

Thank you, doctor. Thank you, Chud.

Yeah. If you could give us those details after you go back and look at it and get the information and send it to me, and I can share it with the members. Because we're trying to get a handle on how you're currently operating As we're considering making more changes.

Okay.

That'd be great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers on all these measures. Let's go to the top of the agenda. We have quorum so we can do decision making. Senate Bill 2253, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1.

Members, I want to address the issue that, was brought up in questioning with the prosecuting attorney about what I think is unintentional confusion that's caused by the language in the bill. And I think we can address this by on page two after line seven, add the sentence quote. This is par sub paragraph five. Nothing in subsections three or four shall be construed to limit the availability of multiple convictions, cumulative sentences, or separate offenses otherwise permitted under law for conduct described in subsection one a or b.

That's my recommendation to this bill.

Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2253 SD2 HD1 with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.