R Street Testimony in Support of HI HB 2181, automated court reminders

Testimony from:
Lisel Petis, Policy Director, R Street Institute

Testimony in Support of HB 2181: “Relating to the Judiciary.”

February 4, 2026

Hawai’i House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee

Chairman Tarnas and members of the committee,

My name is Lisel Petis, and I am the policy director of criminal justice and civil liberties at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization. R Street engages in policy research and analysis dedicated to common sense solutions that make government work smarter and more effectively. Given our commitment to pragmatic policies that improve fairness, public safety, and government accountability, we have a strong interest in House Bill 2181.^[1]

Today, nearly 98 percent of Americans own a cell phone, and automated reminders have become not just available, but expected in daily life.^[2] Dentists, restaurants, and even hair salons routinely use automated reminders to reduce missed appointments and reservations—and they have proven effective. As these tools become a standard part of how we manage appointments, courts have a meaningful opportunity to do the same, particularly given the more serious consequences of missing a court date. Especially given research shows that most people who miss court because they forgot, lacked transportation or child care, or experienced a personal crisis, not to evade the law.^[3]

Currently in Hawai’i, defendants must proactively “opt in” to receive court reminders—an extra step that often becomes a barrier to access.^[4] Behavioral science shows that even small hurdles like this can dramatically reduce participation.^[5] In fact, several opt-in reminder states show enrollment rates of only two to 30 percent.^[6] 

In response, states are increasingly shifting to automated, default enrollment court reminder systems. At least six states have passed legislation mandating these reminders, with several more pursuing similar measures this year.^[7] Where implemented, automated reminders have resulted in enrollment rates of 70 to 90 percent and have reduced failure-to-appear (FTA) rates by 20 to 40 percent on average.^[8] These simple nudges—reminding individuals of their upcoming court date and the consequences of not appearing—are highly effective.

The benefits go beyond the individual. Automated court reminders improve system efficiency by reducing wasted court time, minimizing the burden on attorneys and victims who appear for unattended hearings, conserving law enforcement resources used to serve bench warrants, and reserving jail space for individuals who present a genuine risk to public safety—not those who simply missed a court date.

While there are modest upfront costs to developing or integrating an automated reminder system, the long-term savings are significant. Most courts have implemented such programs for between $35,000 and $600,000, with ongoing costs under $1 per case.^[9] In contrast, a single court nonappearance can cost taxpayers up to $1,500 per occurrence, once you account for staff time and other resources.^[10]

As a former prosecutor, I understand the frustration of arriving in court only to find that a defendant has failed to appear. As a former victim advocate, I’ve seen how distressing it can be for victims when court proceedings are delayed and a defendant’s whereabouts are uncertain. And now, as a policy researcher, I recognize that this simple, evidence-based tool can significantly improve both the efficiency of the court system and the fairness of its outcomes.

I urge the committee to support House Bill 2181 and take a critical step toward a more just and effective pretrial system. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you,

Lisel Petis
Policy Director
R Street Institute
lpetis@rstreet.org