HB402 makes a narrow procedural change to Hawaii’s jury-selection process. It amends the definition section for chapter 612 to add “juror qualification form,” and then revises section 612-13 to give the Judiciary, rather than the statute itself, control over the form’s format and the method used to deliver and return it. The bill removes the current requirement that the clerk mail the form and return instructions, replacing that with language allowing the court to determine the means of delivery and return.
The bill also preserves the core contents and enforcement structure of the juror qualification form. The form must still collect basic identifying information and other information relevant to jury disqualification or exemption, include a declaration that responses are true, and warn of penalties for willful misrepresentation. It continues to allow another person to complete the form for someone unable to do so, does not require notarization, and permits the clerk to return incomplete or unclear forms for correction. Failure to complete and return the form can still lead to contempt proceedings after the person is summoned to the clerk.
Impact
HB402 would update chapter 612 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by shifting administrative flexibility over juror qualification forms to the Judiciary. The practical effect is to authorize non-mail methods for distributing and collecting juror qualification forms, which could support electronic or other alternative processes if approved by the court. The bill does not change who must respond, what information must be provided, or the penalties for noncompliance; it mainly modernizes the procedure for jury administration.
Sentiment
The available record suggests generally neutral-to-supportive treatment of the bill as part of a Judiciary package. The measure’s stated purpose is administrative modernization, and there is no recorded floor vote or committee testimony indicating opposition in the materials provided. However, the House Judiciary Committee ultimately recommended deferral, which indicates the bill was not advanced at that stage despite its limited scope.
Contention
The main point of policy tension is the shift from a statutory mailing requirement to court-determined delivery and return methods. Supporters would likely view this as a flexibility and efficiency measure that could accommodate electronic or other updated processes, while any concern would center on access, reliability, and ensuring all prospective jurors can still receive and return the form easily. No specific stakeholder objections are included in the record, but the committee deferral suggests the Judiciary Committee may have wanted further consideration of implementation details.
Housing: landlord and tenants; reuse of certain tenant screening reports; allow. Amends title & sec. 1 of 1972 PA 348 (MCL 554.601) & adds secs. 1e, 1f, 1g & 1h.
Housing: landlord and tenants; prohibition of the use of prospective tenants' credit scores as a sole deciding factor for lease eligibility and allowance for landlords to accept reusable screening reports; provide for. Amends title & sec. 1 of 1972 PA 348 (MCL 554.601) & adds secs. 1e, 1f, 1g & 1h.