WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 10

REQUESTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE HAWAII REVISED STATUTES TO IDENTIFY PROVISIONS IN WHICH THE TERM "IMPAIRED" OR A SIMILAR TERM IS USED TO DESCRIBE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY AND TO SUGGEST DISABILITY-INCLUSIVE APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jenna Takenouchi

HR 10 directs Hawaii's Attorney General to identify and recommend replacing stigmatizing disability language like "impaired" throughout state statutes with disability-inclusive terminology.

To be offered.
#attorneygeneral #disability #hawaiirevisedstatutes #impaired #modernizelanguage
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 10

Legislative bill overview

HR 10 requests Hawaii's Attorney General to conduct a comprehensive review of Hawaii's Revised Statutes to identify outdated or stigmatizing language—specifically uses of "impaired" or similar terms—when describing people with disabilities. The bill then asks for recommendations on disability-inclusive language amendments to replace such terminology throughout state law.

Why is this important

Language in legal statutes shapes how society views and treats people with disabilities. Outdated terms like "impaired" can reinforce stigmatizing stereotypes and affect how individuals are treated in legal proceedings, employment, housing, and social services. Modernizing statutory language to use person-first or identity-first disability terminology aligns state law with contemporary disability rights standards and may improve dignity and outcomes for affected populations.

Potential points of contention

  • Cost and scope concerns: Critics may question whether a comprehensive statutory review is a justified use of Attorney General resources when the state faces budget constraints or competing legal priorities.
  • Implementation burden: Even if problematic language is identified, actually amending statutes across multiple bills and legislative sessions could be time-consuming and require significant legislative action.
  • Terminology disputes: Disability communities themselves disagree on preferred language (person-first vs. identity-first); the review process may reveal conflicting preferences rather than clear consensus on appropriate replacements.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.