Proponent describes Office of Digital Oversight and 'black screen' protocols in Initiative 267 review

On March 19, legislative staff and proponents reviewed Initiative 267 in House Committee Room 109. The measure would create structural and operational tools to mitigate harms from automated systems, including a state trust for identifying information, a triad review panel to authorize access to protected data, a non-circumventable incident-reporting system and 'black screen' hardware protocols to disconnect emergent automation, proponents and staff said.

Legislative staff read the memorandum summarizing the initiative's purposes and then posed numbered substantive questions. Staff asked about single-subject compliance; how an initiative could take effect given constitutional timing rules; whether the Office of Digital Oversight (ODO) and enterprise statutes exist in current law or rely on companion measures; and how a triad review panel (a prosecutor, defense attorney and magistrate) appointed in each judicial district would be funded and whether it raised separation-of-powers issues.

Proponent responses and operational claims
Proponent Ben Gellhouse said elements could be modular and noted he intended the board of operators (a government-owned utility concept) to exercise rulemaking and operational authority. He described hash sentinels that would scan egress traffic to detect unauthorized use and characterized the black screen protocol as a hardware kill-switch controlled by government for non-vital systems. On appropriations, staff noted the initiative's appropriation note relies on enterprise mitigation revenues for startup costs even though the enterprise itself is not created by the same measure; proponents acknowledged a phase-in and the potential need for an initial general-fund loan.

Legal and practical concerns
Staff repeatedly raised constitutional and practical questions: whether funding and administrative structures are specified clearly enough; whether the ODO should be created explicitly in statute and placed within an executive department; how two-step human verification would work before an adverse automated action; and whether judicially supervised access mechanisms could raise separation-of-powers issues. Proponents said some drafting details would be fixed in subsequent drafts.

Outcome
No formal action was taken. Staff offered to walk through technical comments; proponents said they had considered them and declined further immediate discussion. Staff will transmit technical and drafting recommendations back to proponents for revision.

Sources: Legislative council staff and proponents at the March 19, 2026 initiative review hearing in House Committee Room 109. Quotations are attributed to speakers on the record.