Just a couple of updates.

–> Earlier this week, I wrote about SB2420, one of three Senate bills targeting Hawaii’s relatively independent, merit-based judicial selection process (see “Senate bills hit judges in retaliation for court ruling on Hawaiian Homes funding“).

While two bills calling for the election of judges died in the Committee on Judiciary and Labor, SB2420 was reported out of committee and was poised for passage on Tuesday. However, apparently running into stiff opposition from some senators, the bill was amended by inserting a defective date. Selecting a date long in the future was a way to potentially get senators who were reluctant to vote in favor of the bill to do so, because it would guarantee that the bill would have to come back to the Senate if it eventually was passed by the House.

The bill was listed Thursday on the Senate’s Order of the Day for adoption on third reading. Instead, it was sent back to committee, effectively killing it for now.

None of these bills got much public attention, but all three generated substantial interest and concern in the legal community and in the Judiciary, and had drawn almost unanimous opposition during public hearings in the Senate.

The bills are believed to have been introduced and pushed in the Senate in response to legislative anger over a recent court decision that found the state to have violated the state constitution by failing to adequately fund the Department of Hawaiian Homes, and further ordered the state to provide the department a total of at least $28 million to cover its administrative and operational budget, some $18 more than had previously been appropriated.

“These bills were apparently meant to threaten the independence of the Judiciary, just as legislative leaders seemed to feel threatened by what they saw as the courts’ intrusion into their primary mission of controlling the state’s purse strings.”

The Senate, flexing its political muscle, signaled that it has lots of ways to make life miserable for the Judiciary if it really wants to.

While these bills are dead, at least for the time being, the bad thing is that the message they sent was likely received loud and clear.

Just how this plays out remains a problem to be dealt with going forward.

See also:

“Ian Lind: Why Is This Unpopular Idea Still Alive At The Legislature?”

“Ian Lind: Lawmakers Return To The Bad Old Days Of Backroom Deals“

–> And then there was my post about a University of Hawaii library policy that allows non-students to present a “Kingdom of Hawaii ID” in place of a state or military ID, or a state drivers license (“University of Hawaii policy recognizes bogus Kingdom of Hawaii ID“).

Ben Gutierrez at Hawaii News Now followed up with university officials (“No Hawaii state ID? Kingdom of Hawaii ID accepted at UH libraries“).

Although several comments had predicted the university would respond defensively, that really wasn’t the case.

Instead of being defensive, their response was just lame.

Bottom line: The university can’t say when or why the policy was adopted. Nor can they say whether or how it was authorized. Or even whether it is legal.

And they didn’t seem much concerned about it.

My substantive comments weren’t reported in the story.

But I’ve got several concerns. First, the university is supposed to be where students learn the process of separating fact from fiction. Agreeing to place the fictional “Kingdom of Hawaii ID” on the same status as a State of Hawaii ID runs directly counter to that mission.

And just which “Kingdom of Hawaii” does the university recognize? Since each of the groups claiming to represent the defunct kingdom is a private enterprise, it could violate state ethics laws to elevate one over any of the others by granting its documents official recognition. And if the state’s university is going to recognize each of the crazies who have declared themselves king, queen, or royal regent, then we’re in real trouble, indeed.

So I’ll still be looking for a more substantive answer to the “what, when, and how” this policy was approved and adopted by the university.