Hawaii Senate Bill SCR21

Hawaii 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/4/25
• Refer: 3/6/25
• Report Pass: 3/18/25
• Engrossed: 3/19/25
• Refer: 4/4/25
• Refer: 4/17/25

Caption

Requesting The Department Of Corrections And Rehabilitation To Make Available To Correctional Facility Staff Members Throughout The State Clinical Counseling Services That Are Separate And Distinct From The Existing Mental Health Resources Available To Inmates.

Impact

The proposed changes under SCR21 are designed to impact existing state laws related to regulatory compliance and local governance. By limiting the scope of local ordinances that conflict with state regulations, the bill aims to prevent a 'patchwork' of rules that can diverge significantly from one locality to another. This is expected to simplify the operational landscape for businesses, making it easier for them to adhere to a standardized set of requirements. However, the bill also raises concerns regarding the erosion of local control, with critics arguing that it undermines the ability of municipalities to address specific community needs.

Summary

SCR21 aims to address the balance between state regulations and local authority by proposing amendments in key areas impacting business operations across the state. The bill seeks to streamline the regulatory framework, reducing the fragmentation that can arise when local governments enact varying regulations. It emphasizes a unified approach to state governance, appealing to businesses that operate in multiple jurisdictions and seek clarity in compliance requirements. Supporters laud the bill as a means to enhance economic growth by fostering a more favorable business climate.

Contention

Debate surrounding SCR21 has highlighted notable contention points. Proponents argue it is a necessary move towards regulatory consistency that will ultimately benefit economic development and business operations statewide. Conversely, opponents—including local government advocates—express concerns about potential overreach, suggesting that the bill could limit local governments' flexibility in addressing unique challenges, particularly in areas such as environmental protection and public health. This tension encapsulates a broader discussion about the appropriateness of centralized versus localized governance in the context of business regulation.