STAND. COM. REP. NO. 903

                                   Honolulu, Hawaii
                                                     , 1999

                                   RE:  S.B. No. 1151
                                        S.D. 1




Honorable Norman Mizuguchi
President of the Senate
Twentieth State Legislature
Regular Session of 1999
State of Hawaii

Sir:

     Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred S.B.
No. 1151 entitled: 

     "A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CIVIL RIGHTS,"

begs leave to report as follows:

     The purpose of this bill is to add "sexual orientation" as a
protected status in the laws against discrimination in public
accommodation and real property transactions, and "familial
status" as a protected status in the anti-blockbusting law.

     Your Committee finds that Hawaii's Civil Rights Commission
has received complaints alleging sexual orientation
discrimination in housing and public accommodations, which it has
had to reject because state law currently provides no recourse to
victims of such discrimination.  Hawaii law currently forbids
discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation.
However, while section 368-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, states
that it is against public policy to discriminate in housing or
public accommodations based on sexual orientation, sexual
orientation is not listed as a protected status in Hawaii laws
against discrimination in public accommodation and housing.  Your
Committee further finds that due to an oversight in current laws,
familial status, which is generally protected under housing and
public accommodations anti-discrimination laws, is not a
protected status for the purpose of the anti-blockbusting law.

     Your Committee received testimony expressing concerns about
the constitutionality of this measure based on a recent opinion

 
 
                                   STAND. COM. REP. NO. 903
                                   Page 2


of the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals.  The opinion held
unconstitutional Alaska's anti-discrimination in housing law,
which (like Hawaii's) protects against marital status
discrimination, because it prohibited a commercial landlord from
discriminating against an unmarried couple as he wished to do
based on his religious beliefs.  Hawaii's current anti-
discrimination laws would also be unconstitutional under this
Ninth Circuit opinion, because Hawaii's laws also apply to
discrimination based on marital status, familial status, and
other grounds.  However, the Ninth Circuit opinion may still be
vacated or reversed at this point:  Alaska has moved for
rehearing, and if rehearing is denied Alaska intends to petition
the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.  Thus, it will
not be known until well after the end of this legislative session
whether the opinion will stand.  Your Committee believes it will
be best not to rely on this opinion as a basis for either
removing protected classes from Hawaii's anti-discrimination laws
or declining to add protected classes to conform with Hawaii's
anti-discrimination laws, until the appeal process has been
concluded.

     Testimony in support of this measure was submitted by the
Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, the Hawaii State Commission on
the Status of Women, the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, the
League of Women Voters of Hawaii, PFLAG O'ahu, Hawaii Women
Lawyers, Hawaii Women's Legislative Coalition, and Lambda Aloha.
Testimony in opposition to this measure was submitted by the
Christian Voice of Hawaii and the American Center for Law and
Justice of Hawaii.

     Upon further consideration, your Committee has amended this
measure by making a technical, non-substantive change for the
purposes of clarity and style.

     As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your
Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your
Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B.
No. 1151 as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second
Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 1151, S.D. 1, and
be placed on the calendar for Third Reading.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                   STAND. COM. REP. NO. 903
                                   Page 3


                                   Respectfully submitted on
                                   behalf of the members of the
                                   Committee on Judiciary,



                                   ______________________________
                                   AVERY B. CHUMBLEY, Co-Chair



                                   ______________________________
                                   MATTHEW M. MATSUNAGA, Co-Chair