Where is the quote from a Hawaii official saying they “handled” the original birth certificate. Saying you’ve “seen” it is one thing. Saying you’ve handled it is something else. “Seeing” it could mean on a computer monitor. “Handling” it suggests holding it in hand. Even then it could have been a copy of the original spit out on a printer.
Then it wouldn't be an "original", would it? The same is true if it was a file on a computer, it's a copy, not the original. Now, more recent BCs may have been purely electronic, the statement by the Hawaii official spokeswoman seems to indicate that they are, but not one dating to 1961. It was strictly paper in those days. Paper and typewriters, no laser printers, for "original" documents. OTOH, people are sometimes sloppy with their use of language, even in official writing. They did say it was "on record" rather than "on file", which would lend credence to the "electronic record" notion.
But so what? If it's electronic, a certified copy can still be made and sent to a court, if any court can find it's spine and issue a subpoena for it.
I tend to think it's not, or they wouldn't be issuing Certifications, they'd just print a copy of the digitized long form and be done with it. The reason for the short form/abstract (Certification in Hawaiian terms), is that they can store, as characters not images, a small subset of the information on the original BC, saving lots of computer storage, and still print something very quickly, and at little cost in manpower, with the latter probably the most important factor.