HB399 amends Hawaii Revised Statutes section 604-1 to increase the number of district judges in the First Judicial Circuit from fourteen to fifteen. The bill keeps the existing structure of district courts in the First, Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits, but makes a targeted staffing change only for the First Circuit. It also preserves the existing authority for one district judge to handle landlord-tenant and small claims matters, while allowing the chief justice to reassign that judge as needed when case urgency or volume requires it.
The measure is part of a broader judiciary package and is framed as a court-administration bill rather than a substantive change to criminal or civil law. It takes effect upon approval and updates the statutory description of district court composition and session locations, including language allowing district courts to hold sessions at any place in their circuits as deemed necessary to promote justice. In practical terms, the bill affects judicial staffing, case assignment, and court capacity in the First Circuit, which includes the state’s most heavily populated and case-intensive jurisdiction.
Impact
HB399 directly amends section 604-1 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by creating one additional district court judgeship in the First Circuit, changing the authorized number of judges there from 14 to 15. It does not alter jurisdictional rules, penalties, or substantive rights, but it does affect how district court work is distributed and may improve the court’s ability to manage landlord-tenant, small claims, and other district court matters. The bill also reinforces the chief justice’s administrative authority over judge assignments and circuit sessions.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 4-1, then advanced unanimously through Senate Ways and Means and both House and Senate conference votes. The lack of committee testimony in the record limits insight into detailed public reaction, but the strong vote margins indicate the measure was generally viewed favorably as a practical judiciary staffing adjustment.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the need for an additional judgeship, which can raise questions about judicial workload, court efficiency, and state spending. The lone dissent in Senate Judiciary suggests at least one member had reservations, though the record provided does not explain the objection. Because the bill is administrative and limited in scope, there is no indication of broader ideological conflict; any disagreement appears to have centered on whether the First Circuit warranted another judge and the fiscal or operational implications of expanding the bench.
Relating to the authority of the Wood County Central Hospital District of Wood County, Texas, to provide brain and memory care services to residents of the hospital district through the creation and operation of brain and memory health care services districts.