HONOLULU — The House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs on March 28, 2025 deferred Senate Bill 1285, a proposed change to the administrative driver's‑license revocation process, after ADLRO officials and others warned the bill could eliminate an existing pre‑revocation review and raise constitutional due‑process issues.

The bill would have established tiered administrative revocation periods and altered when revocations occur in relation to review hearings. Alexandra Scanlon, a hearing officer at the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office, testified that ADLRO “are against amending the current statute to take away the automatic review before a license is revoked.” She warned that removing the review could create “due process issues” and expose the program to legal challenge.

Scanlon told the committee the ADLRO process has been examined by the Hawaii Supreme Court, which treats a driver’s license as a property right entitled to constitutional protection and has previously found the existing administrative review and contested hearing process sufficient to protect against erroneous deprivation. She said ADLRO handles roughly 4,000–5,000 cases a year and that the current automated review system produces written decisions within existing statutory timelines.

The Department of Transportation and the Hawaii Public Health Institute provided comments. DOT said it supported measures to improve road safety but did not move to override ADLRO’s due‑process concerns at this hearing. Rick Collins of the Hawaii Alcohol Policy Alliance, a program of the Hawaii Public Health Institute, told the committee that while addressing impaired driving is important, “there just currently isn't any scientific evidence to show that mandatory license revocation, as a stand alone policy will reduce DUIs or fatalities on our roadways.” Collins recommended the committee consider alternative, evidence‑based approaches such as lowering the per se BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05.

After hearing testimony that emphasized constitutional protections, the chair recommended deferring the measure. The committee recorded its decision to defer SB1285 rather than advance it from committee.

Why it matters: SB1285 would have changed a process that ADLRO and the judiciary contend provides an immediate administrative review to prevent erroneous deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest — a driver's license. Deferral leaves the existing review procedure in place while legislators consider due‑process implications and possible alternative policies for reducing impaired driving.