Hawaii Senate Bill SB2390

Hawaii 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/22
• Refer: 1/24/22
• Report Pass: 2/9/22
• Refer: 2/9/22
• Report Pass: 3/4/22
• Engrossed: 3/8/22
• Refer: 3/10/22
• Report Pass: 3/23/22
• Refer: 3/23/22
• Report Pass: 4/8/22
• Report Pass: 4/29/22
• Enrolled: 5/3/22
• Chaptered: 6/17/22
• Passed: 6/17/22

Caption

Relating To The Judiciary.

Impact

The proposed changes to the Intermediate Court of Appeals are expected to alleviate some of the pressures of a growing workload within the judiciary system. By increasing the number of judges, the court is better positioned to address its backlog of cases, leading to potentially quicker resolutions for litigants. The bill indicates a commitment by the state to maintain a functional judiciary that is responsive to the needs of its citizens. Furthermore, it emphasizes a proactive approach to judicial resource management, ensuring that the judicial system remains effective in serving the community.

Summary

SB2390, an act relating to the judiciary in Hawaii, proposes to amend the existing law governing the Intermediate Court of Appeals by increasing the number of associate judges from five to six. This bill reflects the legislative intent to enhance the court's capacity to manage its caseload effectively. The financial implications of the bill include an appropriation of $478,326 for the fiscal year 2022-2023 to fund the establishment of one additional associate judge position, along with necessary support roles including a judicial assistant and law clerks. This investment aims to streamline judicial processes and improve the overall efficiency of the court system in Hawaii.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB2390 appears generally supportive, as there is recognition of the need for sufficient judicial resources in light of increasing demands. Legislators and stakeholders who back the bill view it as a necessary step toward promoting justice and efficiency in the court system. There is likely to be bipartisan acknowledgment of the importance of maintaining a competent judicial framework, although details on specific voting sentiments were not extensively documented in the discussions surrounding the bill.

Contention

While overall sentiment is positive, the bill may still be met with some scrutiny regarding the appropriateness of the funding allocated and whether it sufficiently addresses the challenges recognized by the judiciary. Critics might argue about the necessity and justification for additional positions, particularly in times of budget constraints. Discussions may arise around the broader implications of expanding the court system and whether this approach effectively addresses the underlying issues of judicial delay.