Updated: The Legislature sometimes amends a bill with entirely new contents. The Supreme Court says those bills must get a full public vetting.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Legislature should not be allowed to gut the contents of a bill and replace it with new provisions, sometimes unrelated to the original bill, because the practice “discourages public confidence and participation.”

It’s a significant ruling, putting an end to a long-held legislative maneuver just months before lawmakers are set to reconvene in January.

The tactic has long aroused the ire of good government groups calling for more transparency in the legislative process and comes more than three years after those groups first challenged the practice in court.

The ruling was split 3-2, with Associate Justices Paula Nakayama, Sabrina McKenna and Michael Wilson in the majority. Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald disagreed with the majority opinion, and in a dissenting opinion said that the three justices did not properly interpret the state constitution. Circuit Judge Shirley Kawamura, who filled in on the court due to a vacancy at the time, joined Recktenwald.

I recall a few instances where laws impacting 2a got "tweaked" last minute.  Wonder what loopholes they will find now. . .

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/11/hawaii-supreme-court-ends-legislatures-gut-and-replace-tactic/

My favorite part is that it was a 3:2 decision.  Obviously 40% of people are fine with having a bill being repurposed for other means but still bearing the name for something different. 
I propose a new crayon bill.  we obviously need legislation to stop small kids from eating crayons because it is bad for their health.  Might as well throw something in there mandating one hour of tranny story hour at the local libraries as well.  Maybe print your own ballots for elections so you can fill them out with a crayon.  We are doing this for the well being of children.... the children.  I feel safer already.

My favorite part is that it was a 3:2 decision.  Obviously 40% of people are fine with having a bill being repurposed for other means but still bearing the name for something different. 
I propose a new crayon bill.  we obviously need legislation to stop small kids from eating crayons because it is bad for their health.  Might as well throw something in there mandating one hour of tranny story hour at the local libraries as well.  Maybe print your own ballots for elections so you can fill them out with a crayon.  We are doing this for the well being of children.... the children.  I feel safer already.

Right.  You'd think that folks would be aware of "bait and switch".  That name was just lipstick on a warthog. 

I mean I am sure there's a good reason behind the practice, maybe very small, somewhere.  But I would think that the majority of the cases were politicians sliding in pet projects, pet interests, etc. 

This is huge. Esp with more 2a type of lawsuits being won by hifico.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My favorite part is that it was a 3:2 decision.  Obviously 40% of people are fine with having a bill being repurposed for other means but still bearing the name for something different. 
I propose a new crayon bill.  we obviously need legislation to stop small kids from eating crayons because it is bad for their health.  Might as well throw something in there mandating one hour of tranny story hour at the local libraries as well.  Maybe print your own ballots for elections so you can fill them out with a crayon.  We are doing this for the well being of children.... the children.  I feel safer already.

A good judge doesn't rule on feelings but on what the law says. No matter what their opinion of the method or law. 

Right.  You'd think that folks would be aware of "bait and switch".  That name was just lipstick on a warthog. 

I mean I am sure there's a good reason behind the practice, maybe very small, somewhere.  But I would think that the majority of the cases were politicians sliding in pet projects, pet interests, etc.

Even if is a poor practice if its legal, its legal.  Vise versa if its illegal, its illegal. The courts only purpose is to interpret the law,  not make the law. 

Thank goodness for these Good Government Groups.

Problem with Hawaii is the Legislature were doing these gut and replace tactics because Hawaii people let them do it.  Years of complacency of people either fed up with the status quo or people blindly following what their union tells them to do instead of thinking critically for themselves.

Judge Mark Recktenwald dissented by saying the 3 Judges didn't interpret the State Constitution properly.  Well that could have merit.

But to think that there are provisions in the State Constitution that allows for this tactic only shows how complacent and non-caring the public have been conditioned to become.

Hopefully with these new conditions in place, Hawaii's public will again be hopeful for a more transparent government and will realize they hold the power to a better political environment instead of the current toxic atmosphere we now have fostered in a big part by unions and Hawaii's demokratic party.

Thank goodness for these Good Government Groups.

Problem with Hawaii is the Legislature were doing these gut and replace tactics because Hawaii people let them do it.  Years of complacency of people either fed up with the status quo or people blindly following what their union tells them to do instead of thinking critically for themselves.

Judge Mark Recktenwald dissented by saying the 3 Judges didn't interpret the State Constitution properly.  Well that could have merit.

But to think that there are provisions in the State Constitution that allows for this tactic only shows how complacent and non-caring the public have been conditioned to become.

Hopefully with these new conditions in place, Hawaii's public will again be hopeful for a more transparent government and will realize they hold the power to a better political environment instead of the current toxic atmosphere we now have fostered in a big part by unions and Hawaii's demokratic party.

I just hope that stuff like this opens more eyes to A) what has been happening and B) higher level of accountability moving forward.  Not going to hold my breath, but hopeful. 

This is huge. Esp with more 2a type of lawsuits being won by hifico.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Now if there can be accountability on the 100,000 for vs 10 against testimony. . .

I just hope that stuff like this opens more eyes to A) what has been happening and B) higher level of accountability moving forward.  Not going to hold my breath, but hopeful.

The HIFICO live streams have brought this up before. So some 2a people should be aware of it, if they watched the live streams. 

Now if there can be accountability on the 100,000 for vs 10 against testimony. . .

"We're better organized".

But when HQKB has 40 people submit testimony for a bill, "their testimonies made a huge difference".

Both quotes from Rhodes.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Legislature should
not be allowed to gut the contents of a bill and replace it with new provisions,
sometimes unrelated to the original bill, because the practice “discourages public
confidence and participation.”

Really?  That's their conclusion?  That the only reason the practice should stop is based on lower public confidence and participation?

 

How about, because LEGALLY, ETHICALLY and MORALLY, the process should not include a "bait and switch" option to get unpopular and unvetted laws passed disguised as something else?

This is the result of lawyers running the state and country.  If there's no explicit law prohibiting bad behavior, then there's no consequences for doing it.  Just ignore the fact that you sold someone a turkey sandwich, then replaced the meat with bologna.  It's still a turkey sandwich on the outside.   

Nothing dishonest or unethical about that practice.  Why the people have put up with this practice for so long amazes and angers me.  If they got away with it once, there's nothing preventing it from happening over and over again -- which is what happened.

Really?  That's their conclusion?  That the only reason the practice should stop is based on lower public confidence and participation?

 

How about, because LEGALLY, ETHICALLY and MORALLY, the process should not include a "bait and switch" option to get unpopular and unvetted laws passed disguised as something else?

This is the result of lawyers running the state and country.  If there's no explicit law prohibiting bad behavior, then there's no consequences for doing it.  Just ignore the fact that you sold someone a turkey sandwich, then replaced the meat with bologna.  It's still a turkey sandwich on the outside.   

Nothing dishonest or unethical about that practice.  Why the people have put up with this practice for so long amazes and angers me.  If they got away with it once, there's nothing preventing it from happening over and over again -- which is what happened.

Belive some here have demonstrated that they either lack or don’t understand those basic concepts. 

Really?  That's their conclusion?  That the only reason the practice should stop is based on lower public confidence and participation?

 

How about, because LEGALLY, ETHICALLY and MORALLY, the process should not include a "bait and switch" option to get unpopular and unvetted laws passed disguised as something else?

This is the result of lawyers running the state and country.  If there's no explicit law prohibiting bad behavior, then there's no consequences for doing it.  Just ignore the fact that you sold someone a turkey sandwich, then replaced the meat with bologna.  It's still a turkey sandwich on the outside.   

Nothing dishonest or unethical about that practice.  Why the people have put up with this practice for so long amazes and angers me.  If they got away with it once, there's nothing preventing it from happening over and over again -- which is what happened.

The justice system interprets the law.  Not make it.  They don't weigh in on morals, or ethics.  Its about what the law says.  That's it.  If you don't like it complain to the politicians not the justice system.  The justice system shouldn't be political.

Belive some here have demonstrated that they either lack or don’t understand those basic concepts.

Some people don't blindly ignore peoples jobs.   You don't complain the chef isn't valeting your car.  The job of making laws based on whatever morals or ethics is politicians.  The Justice system only enforces the law.  They don't make it.  Mixing the two is dangerous. 

The tide sure feels like it has turned lately, but we should stay sharp. They won't go down without a fight.

Belive some here have demonstrated that they either lack or don’t understand those basic concepts.

Like a moth to a flame burned by the fire

Like a moth to a flame burned by the fire

that's the way love goes...

The tide sure feels like it has turned lately, but we should stay sharp. They won't go down without a fight.

Yeah, they’ll find other ways around it. Sad that some here don’t get the concept of accountability. Totally and “utterly” missing the point.

Yeah, they’ll find other ways around it. Sad that some here don’t get the concept of accountability. Totally and “utterly” missing the point.

Concepts are hard.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk