House committee reverts bill to earlier draft after debate over when Hawaiian-language text should control

The House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs voted to revert Senate Bill 109, Senate Draft 2, to the language in Senate Draft 1 and set a defective date, after testimony raised concerns about uncertainty if Hawaiian-language versions of statutes were made controlling in all circumstances.

The bill, described to the committee as relating to the Hawaiian language, would require that the Hawaiian version of a law be binding in certain circumstances. Pua Ayu of the Department of Land and Natural Resources told the committee the department was “supportive with the intent of the bill.”

Johanna Choctam, program administrator for the judiciary’s Honolulu Hawaiian program, said the judiciary supports the bill but urged changes to avoid treating non‑substantive revisions as altering which version should control. “The version of a law designated as binding should not change if there are no substantive changes to the law,” Choctam said, noting codifications or renumbering do not alter substance.

Deputy Attorney General Hokulei Lindsey told lawmakers the attorney general’s office supports the bill’s intent but warned Senate Draft 2 “added additional uncertainty.” Lindsey said SD2 could make a Hawaiian translation control even after later English amendments, and recommended adopting Senate Draft 1 or making the change prospective for laws enacted after a clear date so there is a “bright line.”

Representative Musa asked whether conflicts between Hawaiian and English versions have been a common problem. Lindsey replied that the situation had not commonly arisen under current law and that SD2 could create new interpretive conflicts by making earlier Hawaiian texts controlling despite subsequent legislative actions in English.

After discussion, Chair Rep. Tarnas recommended reverting to the SD1 language and adding a defective date. The committee voted to adopt the recommendation to revert to Senate Draft 1 and to set a defective date; the clerk’s roll call recorded multiple ayes and one excused member. The committee report will reflect the change.

Why it matters: The measure touches the state’s bilingual statutory record and could change which-language version courts rely on when interpreting law. Committee testimony focused on avoiding unintended legal uncertainty and on whether a prospective approach (affecting laws enacted after a specified date) would be a clearer, administrable rule.

The committee sent the amended recommendation forward; further language and the defective date will appear in the committee report and subsequent versions as the bill proceeds.