Relating To Criminal History Record Checks.
SB1310 makes a targeted change to Hawaii’s criminal history record check laws to align state law with federal fingerprint-based background check requirements for access to federal tax information. The bill responds to a Federal Bureau of Investigation review that found the phrase “agents of contractors” in existing law to be too broad and insufficiently specific. To address that issue, the bill removes that term and instead expressly identifies contractors, contractor’s employees, and subcontractors as persons who may be subject to fingerprint-based checks when they have access to federal tax information held by the Department of the Attorney General.
The bill also updates the Attorney General’s employment and contracting authority in section 28-17, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to clarify that the department may deny or terminate employment, or refuse or terminate contractor services, if a background investigation shows a risk to the security of federal tax information. It preserves procedural protections by requiring notice and an opportunity to rebut the findings, and it leaves existing appeal rights intact. In addition, the bill amends the broader criminal history record check statute, section 846-2.7, to conform the Attorney General-related category and to maintain that authority beyond the 2027 reenactment date for that section.
More broadly, SB1310 is a technical and conforming measure rather than a policy expansion. It does not create a new background-check regime for a new class of workers; instead, it clarifies the scope of an existing one so Hawaii can continue to meet federal requirements tied to handling tax information. The practical effect is on the Department of the Attorney General and on outside workers—contractors, contractor employees, and subcontractors—who have access to federal tax information and may now be clearly subject to fingerprint-based screening under state law.
The general sentiment reflected in the available legislative history appears favorable and noncontroversial. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill with amendments by a 4-0 vote, suggesting broad agreement that the statutory language needed to be narrowed and clarified to satisfy federal review. No committee testimony or floor debate is provided, but the bill’s framing as a compliance fix and the unanimous committee vote indicate support for maintaining the state’s ability to conduct required background checks.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the scope and precision of who may be screened. The FBI’s concern was that “agents of contractors” was overly broad and undefined, and the bill resolves that by naming specific categories. Any policy concern would likely center on balancing security screening with employment and contracting rights, but the bill addresses that by retaining notice, rebuttal, and appeal procedures. Overall, the measure appears aimed at legal compliance and administrative clarity rather than substantive expansion of criminal history checks.
SB1310 amends sections 28-17 and 846-2.7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to clarify that the Department of the Attorney General may conduct fingerprint-based criminal history record checks on contractors, contractor’s employees, and subcontractors who have access to federal tax information. It removes the broader and undefined term “agents of contractors,” thereby narrowing and specifying the class of covered persons to better satisfy federal FBI requirements. The bill also preserves the department’s authority to deny or terminate employment or contractor services based on a background investigation showing a risk to federal tax information security, while maintaining notice, rebuttal, and appeal rights. The amendment is made permanent against the 2027 reenactment of section 846-2.7, ensuring the Attorney General’s authority continues without interruption.
The available legislative record suggests generally positive and low-conflict sentiment. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill with amendments on a 4-0 vote, indicating unanimous support among those voting. The bill is presented as a technical compliance measure needed to align state law with federal requirements, which typically draws less opposition than substantive policy changes. No recorded testimony or debate is included, but the vote history suggests the measure was viewed as necessary and routine.
The central issue is the breadth of the background-check authority and whether the statute identifies covered persons with enough specificity. The FBI objected to the phrase “agents of contractors” as overly broad and undefined, prompting the bill’s narrowing language. Any concern from affected contractors or workers would likely relate to privacy, employment consequences, or the reach of fingerprint-based screening, but the bill preserves procedural safeguards by requiring notice and an opportunity to rebut findings, as well as existing appeal rights. No other significant controversy is evident in the provided materials.