HB824 proposes to appropriate state general funds to the Legislative Reference Bureau to purchase artificial intelligence software and related analytic services. The AI tool would be used to review the Hawaii Revised Statutes and Hawaii Administrative Rules and identify provisions that are obsolete, duplicative, or inconsistent with other statutes or regulations. The bill frames this as a government efficiency measure intended to reduce regulatory redundancy and modernize the review of Hawaii’s legal code.
The bill also requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature, including any proposed legislation, by 20 days before the start of the 2027 regular session. In effect, the measure creates a one-time or limited-term review process using AI to help generate recommendations for statutory or regulatory cleanup, rather than directly changing any specific law itself.
Impact
HB824 would not itself amend particular statutes or administrative rules, but it would create a funded process for identifying laws and regulations that may be obsolete, duplicative, or inconsistent. It would authorize an appropriation for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 for procurement of AI software and analytic services, with the Legislative Reference Bureau responsible for carrying out the review. The practical impact would be to place the Bureau in a new role as a technology-assisted regulatory review body and to potentially lead to future legislation or rule changes based on its report.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally favorable in concept, emphasizing efficiency, modernization, and reduction of unnecessary regulatory burdens. The bill text cites examples from other states that have used AI to streamline codes, suggesting a policy interest in using technology to improve government operations. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the available materials, but the framing of the measure is clearly pro-efficiency and reform-oriented.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the use of public funds for AI procurement, the reliability and transparency of AI-assisted legal review, and whether automated tools should be used to identify changes in statutes and administrative rules. Critics could question the cost, the accuracy of AI in interpreting legal redundancy or inconsistency, and whether such a review should be done by human staff instead. Supporters are likely to include those favoring regulatory streamlining, administrative modernization, and data-driven government reform, while concerns may come from those wary of outsourcing legal analysis to software or of using AI to influence legislative cleanup priorities.
A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.
Relating to nonsubstantive additions to, revisions of, and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the 88th Legislature to other Acts of that legislature.