HRS mentions a 60 day limit without going through the house/senate.  It's been about 63 days since Ige's 1st proc.  But IDK if every new proc resets this clock.  He just had one a few days ago (proc .

GOVERNMENT & REGULATIONS
PUPU PLATTER 212

By A. Kam Napier
Editor-in-Chief, Pacific Business News
6 hours ago
Unlawful lockdowns?
I get calls from business leaders asking what we can do, or what they can do, to stop the government overreach into Hawaii’s economy and get us all opening faster.

HRS mentions a 60 day limit without going through the house/senate.  It's been about 63 days since Ige's 1st proc.  But IDK if every new proc resets this clock.  He just had one a few days ago (proc .

I was thinking the same thing. I was reading through the chapter and I didn't see anything that explicitly covered how it worked past the 60 days. Maybe the governor just has to declare an emergency again which restarts the clock?

Emergency Order 28 extended Wisconsin's original March 24 lockdown, which would have expired on April 24, until May 26. The sorts of
restrictions this entailed are by now familiar but are worth emphasizing, lest we forget the unprecedented extent to which COVID-19 control
measures have interfered with the liberties and livelihoods of people throughout the country.

Palm's order banned "all forms of travel" except those she deemed essential; required "all for-profit and non-profit businesses" she did not
consider "essential" to "cease all activities" except for "minimum basic operations" and work done at home; prohibited "all public and private
gatherings of any number" involving people who were "not part of a single household"; closed all places of "public amusement and activity,"
whether "indoors or outdoors," except for golf courses; continued the closure of bars and restaurants (except for takeout and delivery) as well
as salons, spas, K–12 schools, and libraries; imposed a 10-person limit on religious gatherings, including weddings and funerals; and required
all residents of the state, except for members of the same household, to maintain a distance of at least six feet from each other. Palm said
violations were punishable by a $250 fine, up to 30 days in jail, or both.

The question before the Wisconsin Supreme Court was not whether these sweeping restrictions were sensible, proportionate, or necessary. It
was whether Palm had the legal authority to impose them.

OR also won against their mayor's orders because it exceeded 30 days (I think its only 30).

You should post this topic on SSH

Just declaring a new emergency with the same predicate (Covid-19) would be illegal.  You can't make new a new proclamation without a new emergency, especially now that there is more known about the virus and we are entering the time of year when heat and humidity should stop new cases nearly completely. 

Do you really think Ige is stupid enough to try such a transparent end-run around the law?

Odds are this would lose in court and the Legislature is fine with it.  So the two checks on the Governor's power wouldn't do anything.

1.  the law isn't explicit on the issue
2.  the law gives the Governor and Mayors a lot of power
3.  the legislature passed the law and don't seem to have a problem with the multiple proclamations.
4.  Legislature could change the law right now if they really wanted to.
5.  No way the Hawaii Supreme Court would oppose it.  After all they're too busy releasing prisoners.

I don't think he is stupid enough to go past the 60 day limit crossing his fingers that no one knows.

What section states that it has to be a separate emergency? I checked the section about declaring an emergency and found nothing to support your claim. Maybe it is in a different section?

"§127A-14  State of emergency.  (a)  The governor may declare the existence of a state of emergency in the State by proclamation if the governor finds that an emergency or disaster has occurred or that there is imminent danger or threat of an emergency or disaster in any portion of the State."

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0127A/HRS_0127A-0014.htm

It's simple logic.  There's a time limit for a reason.  If he tries to reset the clock, he's violating the law.

Do you honestly think Trump can deploy troops for 60 days without Congressional approval, then deploy more under the premise that it's a different deployment, just to bypass the law?

I see no difference.  An immediate extension of the expired emergency declaration requires legislative consent. 

You can fill volumes with what the laws do not say is illegal.  I think the law is clearly enforcing a time limit for emergencies unless the leg gets a chance to weigh in.  Trying to sidestep that with a "renewed" declaration would be transparently illegal based on the intent of the law.

I get the crux of your argument and I agree that it would be abuse if someone could perpetually declare an emergency, however nothing clearly spells this out. This is a shortcoming in the language of the law. I think the legislature should rewrite it to include a way to extend it but also a more clear limitation on how long it can be extended.

Along this same lines, the power to quarantine seems to be outside the bounds of what a governor can do in a quarantine. According to the law, the governor can quarantine someone if he believes the person has the disease in question. Yet we are quarantining people who have no signs and no direct reason to believe have the virus. To me that is the bigger legal question than whether we can go past 60 days.