Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 216, 29 May, 2025; 1:15 PM, 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 13 March, 2025; 9:30 AM., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 216, 4 March, 2025; 4:25 PM, 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 4 March, 2025; 2:15 P.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 4 March, 2025; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 216, 27 February, 2025; 2:00 PM, 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 216, 27 February, 2025; 3:00 PM, 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 4 February, 2025; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 4 February, 2025; 2:00 P.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division 4 - Room 409, 4 February, 2025; 4:00 P.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 4 February, 2025; 8:30 A.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 30 January, 2025; 3:45 P.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 216, 30 January, 2025; 3:00 PM, 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 29 January, 2025; 9:30 A.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 28 January, 2025; 2:00 P.M., 925, all

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 216, 28 January, 2025; 4:15 PM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm proud of how we've developed the culture of innovation at the Judiciary.
• to report the Judiciary is...
• I'm pleased to report the Judiciary is strong, resilient, and thriving.
• It is wonderful to hear that the state of the Judiciary is strong and thriving.
• problems of people you led the Judiciary problems of people you led the Judiciary with with with

Keywords: State of the Judiciary Address by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll call Judiciary A to order.
• <00:06:44.600> A and and judiciary A and and judiciary A not<00:06:46.040> ahead<00
• But, I would remind the committee that it came to us with a reverse repealer.
• But, I would remind the committee that it came to us with a reverse repealer. >> Sure.
• I think there's some work that needs to be done, as we saw in the committee.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A (Part 2) - Room 409, 3 March, 2026; 4:15 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 1752, which had already passed Judiciary A, gone to Appropriations, and returned with an amendment. The chair explained that the amendment froze a rate increase that had been included by LBR and instead set the amount at $150,100 on a two-year schedule for further review. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the bill on a title-sufficient-do-pass motion. The committee then considered House Bill 1603, described as a cleanup measure related to last year’s squatters law. Counsel explained that it removed language stating that a squatter who commits trespass or remains on another person’s property shall not accrue property rights based on that conduct. After a brief question about what the bill removed, the committee passed it on a title-sufficient-do-pass motion. The main discussion centered on House Bill 1224, a strike-all for the Keeping Kids Safe Online Act, which the chair described as a revised version of the Walker Montgomery law. The chair said the original House bill raised serious constitutional concerns, especially around age verification, First Amendment issues, and overbreadth, and noted Justice Kavanaugh’s comments in the Walker Montgomery litigation suggesting the prior law was likely unconstitutional. He said the strike-all would create a task force, include a reverse repealer, and use language modeled on laws in Florida and Virginia, with the goal of producing a bill that could withstand legal challenge. Several senators questioned whether the committee should move forward with a bill that might still be vulnerable, while others emphasized the need to protect children online and referenced Mr. Montgomery’s advocacy and the book Anxious Generation. The chair said industry representatives from Google, Facebook, TikTok, and NetChoice had expressed willingness to discuss a workable compromise, and he indicated the committee could still go to conference and potentially return to the House version if needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome, everyone, to the Judiciary Committee meeting this Friday morning, February 6th, here in 016.
• <00:05:15.520> would SB 2446 relating to the judiciary would SB 2446 relating to the judiciary
• Gabbard, and members of the committee. Gabbard, and members of the committee.
• that reason, we ask that the committee that reason, we ask that the committee defer<00:26:14.880
• Committee for Legal Women Voters.

Bills: SB2444, SB2446, SB2450, SB2453, SB2461, SB2457, SB2462, SB2313, SB2528, SB2532, SB2571, SB2678, SB2529

Keywords: real property, exemption, attachment, execution, consumer protection, financial security, inflation adjustment, head of family, senior citizens, Intermediate Court of Appeals, judges, Hawaii judiciary, court membership, legal system, presidential preference primary, elections, political parties, Hawaii voting, 2028 election, voting

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 2444 would raise the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution, which the Attorney General said could create vague retroactivity language and litigation risk; the committee noted the exemption had last been adjusted around 1978. SB 2446 would add a seventh associate judge to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Judiciary staff testified in opposition, saying recent internal restructuring and a pending vacancy had improved output and that it would be prudent to wait and see the effect before adding another judge. The Public Defender supported the goal of faster appellate resolution but said it would defer to the court’s assessment and had no objection to revisiting the issue later. The committee also discussed current appellate timelines, with staff saying at least 225 days is built into the process before a case reaches a merit panel, and that a two-year delay from panel assignment was realistic under the current structure. The committee then heard SB 2450, which would establish a presidential preference primary for the 2028 cycle. The Chief Election Officer said the election would cost about $4 million, less if combined with the regular primary. Several opponents argued the bill would add bureaucracy, duplicate or undermine party-run processes, and waste taxpayer money; one speaker estimated the total cost could be closer to $6 million when county costs are included. Supporters and committee members discussed that the measure would not require parties to use the results and that Hawaii remains one of the few states still using caucuses. The committee also asked whether counties could staff the election and whether the results would be useful given Hawaii’s current primary timing. SB 2453 would require the Office of Elections to include a notice with each ballot that a digital and printed voter information guide is available, with the notice in 32-point font as a separate insert. The Chief Election Officer said the insert would cost about $90,000 and asked for an effective date of January 1, 2027 because mailing preparations for the primary would already be underway. The Disability and Communications Access Board, League of Women Voters, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, and others supported the bill. The committee also began hearing SB 2461, which would have the Office of Elections prepare a questionnaire for candidates and publish responses online and in the voter guide; the Chief Election Officer said the office did not think it should be the agency to shape campaign questions, though he said it could work if the questions were specified in statute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2457, which would require a criminal conviction before seized property could be forfeited. The Attorney General and Honolulu Police Department opposed the bill, arguing it would prolong cases, increase storage costs, and make forfeiture less effective against crime, especially where owners flee, die, or hide assets through shell companies. The Public Defender strongly supported the measure, saying forfeiture should be tied to convictions and that people challenging forfeiture often lack counsel. The Honolulu Prosecutor also opposed the bill, but said it supported transparency, due process, and even a right to counsel; it argued conviction-only forfeiture would fail in cases involving fugitives, deceased suspects, or hidden ownership structures. The committee questioned what would happen to property if an owner could not be found, and the prosecutor said the outcome would depend on the type of property and could involve abandonment or interpleader proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, welcome to Senate Judiciary. We've got several matters set Judiciary.
• Appreciate you considering committee. Appreciate you considering committee.
• Dees, welcome to the Senate Judiciary. Uh, good morning, committee Judiciary.
• front of Senate Judiciary today and Judiciary today and Judiciary today and HB265 was brought to my attention
• Chairman, and the committee. The uh this particular committee. The uh this particular committee.

Bills: HB265, HB146, SB254, HB202, HB3, HB42, SB18

Keywords: resisting arrest, penalties, criminal justice, law enforcement, public safety, youthful offender, capital murder, victims' rights, SB254, Alabama, statute of limitations, civil procedure, civil action, sex offense, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, survivor rights, tolling, disability, minor plaintiff