I don't see it as meeting the intent or an immediate problem to show good cause.
This is either a nightmare or a really really bad joke.
I called chair Nishimoto's office and asked 1. when was the request submitted to the house speaker on the house floor, 2. when was the request granted, and 3. what was the "good cause" shown?
Paraphrase: "We don't know anything about that. You should call the speakers office." As I explained my frustration about not being able to submit testimony, I was told, "Well "late" testimony was accepted and you can see it online". My response was yes, I see the late testimony, including mine, but obviously it was useless relative to the committee vote since the committee members voted on the bill prior to the testimony being available. You mean they're going to go back now and read it and then maybe recall the meeting and re-vote on the bill? Never happened and never will. So what's the point of having testimony? I was told, "Well, it will still be up for vote in the future and people can look at the testimony at that time". So why have any committee testimony at all, especially if the bill is scheduled in a manner that doesn't allow testimony prior to the vote? Why not just postpone testimony until the ultimate final vote? Ugh.
I then called speaker Saiki's office. Same questions. Yes, the judiciary chair did submit the request either the night before or that morning, and since those requests must be submitted prior to 11:30 AM the 1:43 PM notification sounded about right as to how things would likely play out in that scenario.
Now for the "good cause" part. This is classic. First I was told that I needed to call Nishimoto's office and ask them!!
I told the Saiki phone rep that the Nishimoto phone rep told me to call Saiki. The phone rep agreed that that was a legitimate source of frustration. He then said he could only speculate that the reason given for the request to shorten public notice is that there is a deadline for "second decking" on Friday (the office rep at least thought it was Friday), and thus all bills have to have been through committee by that point. I asked why, given that that date/deadline is and has been no secret, and is binding on ALL bills, how is it that this bill somehow escaped notice of all the sponsors and committee members and was left off the agenda when it obviously had to be on the agenda if it was going to move forward? No explanation for that. So the "explanation" amounts to: "Oops. We forgot. Or something."
That's how it works around here folks. Now suck it up and watch them further infringe your rights in any old way they choose. Rules, schmules.