The Senate Committee on Judiciary convened on April 12, 2025, to discuss the qualifications of Sonia Toma for a judgeship in the Second Circuit Family Court. The meeting featured testimony from various stakeholders, including representatives from the Hawaii State Bar Association (HSBA) and concerns raised by committee members regarding Toma's suitability for the position.

The session began with a witness expressing strong criticism of Toma, alleging that she had failed to act appropriately in a previous case involving child protective services. The witness claimed to have provided overwhelming evidence to Toma, who was the chief attorney general at the time, but felt that her actions amounted to fraud. This testimony set a contentious tone for the meeting, highlighting significant concerns about Toma's past decisions.

Following this, the HSBA representative defended Toma's qualifications, stating that the board had thoroughly vetted her application. The representative emphasized that the board, composed of over 20 seasoned attorneys, had not received any negative comments regarding Toma's candidacy. However, a committee member challenged this assertion, questioning the limited number of responses to the HSBA's survey and suggesting that it did not adequately represent the broader legal community's views.

The HSBA representative clarified that while not every board member interviews all judicial nominees, Toma had undergone a comprehensive interview process with the entire board. The committee member expressed concern about Toma's lack of experience in family court, particularly in handling cases related to child protective services, which are complex and require specialized knowledge.

As discussions progressed, the committee member raised issues about the vetting process and the potential lack of representation for victims in the evaluation of Toma's qualifications. The representative from HSBA acknowledged that the board's perspective might not encompass all voices, particularly those of individuals directly affected by Toma's past decisions.

The meeting concluded without a definitive resolution, leaving open questions about Toma's candidacy and the adequacy of the vetting process for judicial nominees. The committee plans to continue its review of Toma's qualifications and the implications of the testimonies presented during the hearing.