Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs state digital‑accessibility rules but AG seeks edits to avoid unlawful delegation claims
Summary
SB 2852 would require the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to adopt digital accessibility rules for places of public accommodation. Disability advocates urged robust definitions and phased compliance; the Attorney General recommended wording changes to withstand legal challenges.
The House Judiciary committee advanced Senate Bill 2852 to conference with amendments that the committee adopted from the Attorney General’s office to reduce the risk of courts finding an unlawful delegation of legislative power.
SB 2852 directs the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to adopt rules requiring places of public accommodation to make digital information and communications accessible to people with disabilities. Disability advocates — including the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities, the Disability and Communication Access Board, the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii and independent advocates — testified in favor, urging clear statutory definitions of "place of public accommodation," timelines for adoption and phased compliance dates for small and large entities.
James Gashel of the National Federation of the Blind said the bill’s HD1 emphasis on regulation is appropriate to give the Commission authority to adopt technical standards through rulemaking and public hearings, rather than embedding every technical standard in the statute. Several witnesses urged adoption of definitions pulled from prior SB1496 drafts (which included digital premises in definitions) and proposed dates for rules adoption and later compliance.
Deputy Attorney General Sarah Anne Mau advised adopting amendments to avoid creating an impermissible delegation by automatically incorporating future federal standards without adequate legislative control; the committee accepted AG-recommended wording to strengthen the bill against constitutional challenge.
The committee noted that the HCRC and AG proposed amendments would improve legal durability and that final technical details — such as specific compliance dates and definitions — can be refined in conference committee or by the agency’s chapter 91 rulemaking.
Outcome: SB 2852 advanced to conference committee with AG technical edits; advocates pressed for clear definitions and phased compliance timelines to be restored or included via rules.
