I’m a bit late posting today, as I was a little “under the weather” yesterday and slept in this morning. I hope all will understand.
![[text]](/images_2009/peacock0325.jpg)
This was the view in our front yard yesterday morning. The three are part of a slowly growing peacock family in the neighborhood. And yesterday we spotted a peacock grazing along the side of Kamehameha Highway near Coral Kingdom in Hakipuu, between Kualoa and Waikane. Maybe we’re just part of a larger trend.
A Pennsylvania court case has again raised issues that were litigated here in Hawaii 15 years ago.
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, an activist filed suit after being fined by the state Ethics Commission for distributing a press release regarding a complaint he filed with the commission. The commission took the position that the press release violated a provision requiring complaints to remain confidential. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the commission action on First Amendment grounds.
I sued the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission over precisely the same issue back in 1992. At that time, state law barred anyone from discussing a complaint before the commission made a ruling on the case. I was then publishing a newsletter about Hawaii politics. I filed a complaint about undisclosed campaign expenditures by the University of Hawaii faculty union and then wrote about the complaint. That prompted the union to seek a commission ruling on the applicability of the confidentiality statute. Since violations could be considered a felony, I sued.
As a result, the state law was declared unconstitutional, and that decision was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court. Here’s a link to the 9th Circuit’s decision in the case of Lind v Grimmer.
The case has been cited relatively widely, as a quick Google search shows.
KITV reported last night that the city’s new spay & neuter contractor could be in trouble after failing to deliver island-wide services.
I wish we all knew more about the behind-the-scenes battle in the Senate over HB 444. During yesterday’s floor debate, a couple of things struck me. Resentment was expressed over a senator’s political ambitions, which in context appeared to target Sen. Gary Hooser, who made an early announcement that he’s running for Lt. Governor next year. There was grumbling about forcing the issue while some claimed to be working on possible amendments. And although I’m tempted to reject the “concern about procedure” arguments as smokescreens, I respect people who spoke on both sides of that issue and would like to know more about how it was seen within the Senate.
But despite all that, it was a sad to watch Democrats claim to support the substantive issue while voting to doom the bill. Someone needs to step up with a reasonable public explanation, which so far is lacking.
I notice that in Oregon, execs at one university are voluntarily taking pay cuts in light of the fiscal situation, while those on other campuses are being urged to follow suit. And the Chronicle of Higher Education reports on how universities and colleges are coping with the need for budget cuts.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I admire your disinclination to draw inferences or jump to conclusions about how the civil unions recall motiojn played out in the Senate. My own immediate reaction is that Hanabusa did whatever was in her own best intrests and used Taniguchi for cover. How or why he let himself be party to that, I do not know and probably never will. I am not even remotely surprised that Hanabusa threw the proponents under the bus at the first hint that it would be better for her; I am utterly sho9cked, and terribly disappointed, that Taniguchi appears to have gone along. What a narrow-minded, provincial rock we occupy.
Ian,
I think your comments on the previous day’s blog were a pretty good overview of what went on. I have partial information with more details, but it only confirms your take.
ohia, I share your disappointment in Brian’s capitulation to Hanabusa. While I doubt Jack Bauer had to strap Brian to a chair and threaten to shot him in the leg, I think the Senate President has enough tools to force almost any senator to submit once she has decided to pull out all stops. Eventually, “everyone breaks.” I am impressed Brian resisted for 3 weeks, up until the eve of the caucus he was reaffirming his commitment to vote “yes with reservations.”
In our sexist society, legislators are said to “have no balls” if they submit too easily. Going along with the metaphor, let me suggest “balls” are a good place to attach electrodes.
Brian has both “balls” and principles. He was also the key person who needed be turned in order for Colleen to prevail. Pressure was applied, he WAS turned. He feels terrible, as he should, but he remains a good man and a fine legislator.
One more thing. The talk about the attempt of certain senators to work out amendments to the bill. I am aware of at least three different versions under discussion. Two were being called “RBs Enhanced,” the other “Civil Unions Dehanced.”
Contrary to some impression about inflexible “gay activists” or even Senator Hooser himself, drafts were reviewed closely by leaders among the CU advocates. Both of the RB enhanced versions were found to omit far too many rights. The CU Dehanced version attempted to remove explicit mention of “marriage,” while still granting the same rights and responsibilities. Some senators went so far as saying all the 1853 mentions of “marriage” or “spouse” currently found in HRS should be individually listed and granted in toto to civil unions.
While this approach was the least offense in terms of substance, it is grossly impractical for several reasons.
1) HB444 takes a much simpler approach. Everywhere there is a mention of marriage or spouse, those same rights shall apply to those in a CU. If a new law passes impacting marriage (or divorce), it automatically applies to CUs as well. If some law escaped notice, the general principle covers it.
2) Cataloging each right would result in efforts to focus on and debate a lot of those rights. Most people will agree with this one or that one, but those resistant to equal recognition will now have 1853 potential points of contention. No way the bill could pass.
3) No one would be fooled into thinking the Legislature was not trying to give every right and responsibility of marriage to civil unions. So the current argument of the red shirts, “Civil Unions is just marriage under a different name,” would NOT be satisfied by the convoluted exercise.
4) Unless the Senate were willing to “pull the bill” from JGO to pass the amended version, the bill would still have to shift the vote of one of the deadlocked committee members. Neither Slom nor Gabbard would budge for any bill giving gays anything approaching equal rights. Bunda is the least hardline of the “no” votes, but even Bobby has only expressed a willingness to add a few extra rights to RBs. Nor does Bunda have an incentive to rescue Hanabusa from her dilemma. And Bunda fully recognizes that any senate bill crossing over would have to be reconciled with the FULL CIVIL UNIONS House version, presenting the possibility that the House version would triumph and civil unions would pass.
Delaying the decision would not provide a solution to these problems. Hooser probably waited too long as it was, allowing Hanabusa more time to soften up the senators. He had 10 votes in support of the pull in the previous caucus meeting, which means senators willing to tell Colleen to her face they were voting against her. Had the vote been held back then, he may have prevailed.
Justice may have prevailed.