SB435 would amend Hawaii’s election laws governing the digital voter information guide and the way voters are notified that the guide exists. The bill requires the Office of Elections to mail a conspicuous notice with each primary and general election ballot, printed in 32-point font as a separate insert, and to send the notice by email to voters with special needs who receive alternate-format ballots. It also requires the office to place a prominent notice on its website that explains the available guide formats and provides one-click access to the guide.
The bill also updates the content and timing rules for the guide itself. It keeps the existing requirements that the guide include candidate statements, explanations of state constitutional amendments, county charter amendments, initiatives, referenda, and practical voting information such as mailing deadlines, deposit locations, same-day registration, accessible voting locations, and voter service center hours. It adds a deadline for public release of the guide: no later than 21 days before a primary election and 50 days before a general election. The bill also preserves accessibility requirements under federal disability standards and existing language protections, and it bars early disclosure of guide contents before public release.
In addition, SB435 includes an appropriation from general revenues for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to cover the cost of printing and inserting the additional instruction sheet into mail ballot packets. The measure would therefore affect the Office of Elections directly, while also impacting voters, candidates, county corporation counsels, the attorney general’s office, and public libraries that provide printed copies of the guide.
The general sentiment reflected in the available history is favorable. The bill’s findings describe the digital voter information guide as an important resource that has been underpublicized, and the stated purpose is to improve voter awareness and usage rather than to change the substance of election choices. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill with amendments by a 5-0 vote, suggesting broad support for the concept.
The main point of contention appears to be implementation rather than policy direction. The bill imposes new mailing, website, accessibility, translation, and timing requirements on the Office of Elections, and it requires funding to carry them out. The amended effective date of April 23, 2057 is unusual and may reflect a drafting placeholder or delayed effective date, but no specific opposition is shown in the available materials.
SB435 would amend section 11-122, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to require more prominent voter notification about the digital voter information guide, to specify the guide’s availability deadlines, and to reinforce accessibility and confidentiality rules. It would also create a general-fund appropriation for the Office of Elections to print and insert an additional instruction sheet in mail ballot packets. The bill affects election administration procedures, ballot mailings, website notices, accessibility compliance, and the preparation of candidate and ballot issue materials by state and county offices.
The available discussion and vote history indicate generally positive sentiment toward the bill. The measure is framed as a voter-access improvement that helps voters find and use an existing election resource, and the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced it unanimously, 5-0, with amendments. No committee testimony or recorded floor debate is provided, so there is no evidence of organized opposition in the materials supplied.
The likely areas of concern are administrative burden, cost, and compliance logistics. The Office of Elections would have to produce larger mailed notices, maintain conspicuous website alerts, coordinate email notices for special-needs voters, and meet specific release deadlines for the guide. County corporation counsels and the attorney general would also have to deliver translated explanatory materials on a fixed schedule. The bill’s appropriation language suggests lawmakers anticipated added costs, but the exact funding amount is left blank in the text provided.