Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Advocates and opponents clash over bill to narrow emergency powers; committee defers decision
Loading...
Summary
The House Public Safety Committee heard hours of testimony on SB 2151, which would change how the governor declares and the Legislature can terminate emergencies. Earthjustice supported amendments to narrow definitions and lower the legislative threshold to end proclamations; many public commenters opposed the measure as too broad. The committee deferred action to March 25, 2026.
The House Public Safety Committee on March 20 heard extended testimony on Senate Bill 2151, a proposal to revise the state’s emergency-declaration framework and the Legislature’s authority to terminate proclamations. Drew Harrow of Earthjustice said the group supports the measure with amendments to tighten definitions and increase legislative oversight while preserving legitimate emergency response capacity.
“[T]he amendments that we have proposed would add new definitions for the terms emergency and disaster,” Drew Harrow said, adding the changes would “bring this bill in line with House Bill 2,581.” He told the committee the bill is not meant to “divest HyEMA or our county emergency management agencies of any of their abilities,” and urged replacing a two-thirds termination threshold with a simple majority to make legislative termination more attainable.
Why it matters: SB 2151 affects when and how the governor may suspend laws or exercise extraordinary powers under chapter 127A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and how readily the Legislature can terminate a proclamation. Supporters framed the bill as a targeted update to increase transparency and clarity; opponents warned it could preserve or expand law-suspension authority and risk infringement of constitutional rights.
Opponents filled the hearing room and the speaker list. Margaret Mejia of the Hawaii Christian Coalition urged the committee to reject the bill in its current form, saying it “largely preserves and potentially entrenches the core flaws of chapter 127A” and urging automatic expirations and mandatory legislative review. Kim Cordery called the bill’s disaster definition “too broad,” and Theresa Ambruster asked the committee to narrow triggering events and add automatic time limits.
Several commenters tied their objections to pandemic-era measures. Sheila Medeiros, who submitted written testimony and spoke in person, said the audience opposing the bill includes people labeled “nonessential” during COVID and warned against restoring expansive emergency powers. Gary Cordery told the committee the two-thirds termination bar is “far too high” and described statutory language as subjective and insufficiently evidence-based.
Committee members probed legal mechanics and precedent. Representative Yamamoto and others asked Earthjustice about past litigation, including a Mauna Kea challenge. Harrow described the expedited, three-judge-panel process under HRS chapter 127A and said individual challenges have secured relief in some cases but that rescission of a proclamation can truncate broader adjudication.
There were no votes on SB 2151. Chair Belotti said the subject is complex, that he would review submitted testimony and comparative approaches used in other jurisdictions, and that the committee will defer decision-making to a March 25, 2026 meeting at 11:00 AM.
The committee accepted testimony from a broad range of civic groups and residents; no formal amendment or vote was taken at the March 20 hearing.
