When the news first broke I sent out “Court Says Hawaiʻi House of Representatives Violated Hawaiʻi Constitution”.
If you’re interested in the fine print and details of such things – I’ve put together below, a broader legal update summarizing in “laymen’s terms” a few key implications of the decision.
If you’re not into “legalese” and just want to help, here are two actions that need your support, today if possible.
#1) Please reach out to YOUR District Representative and ask them basically, “Who’s side are you on?”
As a sample, and to help with messaging, I’ve posted here on my blog, “Helping the 8 citizen plaintiffs: One action that costs nothing, and is HUGELY important”.
#2) The second important action is to join the 276 individuals who’ve contributed an average of $63 apiece in support of the “Protect Open, Honest Government in Hawaiʻi” GoFundMe campaign.
If you’ve already given, mahalo plenty. If not, please help if you can. The campaign is about $2,500 short of reaching it’s goal and it would be FABULOUS if that could happen TODAY.
I’m not a lawyer (though I did complete a semester at U.H. Richardson School of Law AND I’ve spent 16 years making laws at the County and State level) AND have read the constitution, reviewed the written court record, attended Judge Ashford’s hearing, AND consulted with various real attorneys to better understand some of the most important ramifications of the courts action:
Eight citizen plaintiffs: Former state Sen. Laura Acasio, Kaʻapunialiʻiona Lanikiʻekiʻe Kanaloa Aiwohi, Sergio Josephus Alcubilla III, Tanya Aynessazian, Douglas L. Cobeen, Karen K. Cobeen, Michaela Ilikeamoana Ikeuchi, and Robert Hale Pahia – took the Hawaiʻi State House of Representatives to court for holding secret meetings and making secret decisions — and won.
1) This ruling is precedent setting. It’s the first and only time our courts have interpreted the constitutional mandate that “[e]very meeting of a committee . . . held for the purpose of making decision on matters referred to the committees shall be open to the public.” The court interpreted this language to apply broadly to legislative matters.
2) The court’s order only applies to the closed-door legislative committee meeting at issue. However, the ruling is highly persuasive in that it can be relied on in future cases challenging closed-door decision-making activities conducted by State House and Senate committees.
3) The House first argued it has “legal immunity,” and claimed, in essence, that only the House can tell the House what to do, not the court—as in, the House makes and operates under its own rules. The court, however, determined that the legislative branch does NOT have carte blanche authority to do whatever it likes. Legislative actions MUST follow the State Constitution.
4) The House also argued that the House Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedure is an “advisory committee” which is different from purely legislative committees that pass bills which then become law. Shutting down this argument, the plaintiffs succinctly pointed out—and the Judge agreed—that EVERY legislative committee is advisory in nature. Meaning, committees merely advise the legislative “body,” which then accepts or rejects that advice via public votes by the entire House and/or Senate.
5) When requesting a “remedy” to address the Houseʻs secretive conduct, the plaintiffs asked for one thing: a declaration that it was unconstitutional to hold the House Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedures meeting out of the public eye. The plaintiffs could have gone so far as to ask the court to “throw out” the rules decided in that committee meeting. But, because all of last yearʻs legislative activity took place under those rules, such a remedy could have called all of last yearʻs legislative decisions into question. Such a sweeping remedy would be “too disruptive.”
So what happens next?
The political reality is 26 members of the House constitute a majority and this majority will ultimately drive any and all decisions relating to this.
26 or more individual members of the House must unite in their commitment to actively honor the courts decision, follow the Hawaiʻi State Constitution to the letter of its plain language, and fully embrace citizen participation in the legislative process. AND they must ensure House Rules are amended to require ALL members of the House are required to do the same.
Please reach out to YOUR District Representative TODAY – it cost nothing but perhaps 5 minutes of your time.
Sincerely,
Gary Hooser
http://www.garyhooser.com









