WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HCR 193

REQUESTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COURT SECURITY AND DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY WORKING GROUP TO ADDRESS SYSTEMIC STAFFING SHORTAGES, EXPANDED STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THE ESCALATING FISCAL AND ACCOUNTABILITY RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTING AT STATE COURTS.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Terez Amato and 5 co-sponsors

Hawaii requests a working group to study court security staffing shortages and fiscal risks from private security contracting to recommend state capacity improvements.

The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 8 Ayes: Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Hashem, Kahaloa, Takayama, Cochran, Garcia, Shimizu; Ayes with reservations: none; 0 Noes: none; and 2 Excused: Representative(s) Belatti, Sayama.
#courtsecurityanddepartmentoflawenforcementcapacityworkinggroup
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HCR 193

Legislative bill overview

HCR 193 is a Hawaii resolution requesting the establishment of a working group to study and address staffing shortages in court security and law enforcement at state courts. The resolution specifically directs attention to expanded legal responsibilities, fiscal risks, and concerns about relying on private security contractors rather than dedicated state personnel.

Why is this important

Court security directly impacts public safety, judicial proceedings, and access to justice. Understaffing can compromise courtroom safety for judges, staff, and citizens, while excessive reliance on private contractors raises questions about accountability, consistency, and cost-effectiveness. The working group's findings could reshape how Hawaii allocates resources to its judicial system.

Potential points of contention

  • Cost of state versus private security: While the resolution criticizes private security costs, establishing permanent state positions may require significant budget increases that could face fiscal resistance
  • Scope of "expanded statutory responsibilities": Unclear which specific new duties courts face and whether they genuinely require additional security or represent administrative bloat
  • Private security industry concerns: Security contractors and their advocates may argue they provide flexible, specialized services that permanent state staff cannot match
  • Implementation timeline and authority: The resolution doesn't specify which agency leads the working group or enforce its recommendations, potentially limiting practical impact

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

Sign in to ask a question.