Blogger extraordinaire Ryan Ozawa (Hawaii Blog) points to another attempt in the Senate to pull HB444 (civil unions) out of committee for a full floor vote.

Ozawa cites an email from Sen. Les Ihara urging supporters of the bill to make their voices heard now and cites an agreement with Sen. Brian Taniguchi.

“Senator Taniguchi has said that he will support a vote on HB444 if enough senators want to have the vote,” Sen. Ihara wrote in an e-mail to constituents. “I think that means 12 senators — a majority of the democratic caucus. I told him that I would make a motion to recall HB444 only if there are enough votes for it to pass; that means nine votes.”

“I’m going out on a limb here,” Ihara’s email said.

Meanwhile, backers of the bill have been circulating links to videos of former Gov. Ben Cayetano on civil unions and same-sex marriage, and a discussion of legal questions on HB444.

So it’s not over ’til it’s over.

Mark your calendars. The Intermediate Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments next Wednesday, May 13, in the case of Charmaine Tavares Campaign v. Barbara Wong in her capacity as the Executive Director of the Campaign Spending Commission. This is the Maui case that resulted in striking down the commission’s attempt to impose an overall $1,000 cap on campaign contributions by corporations. Arguments are scheduled to begin at 10:15 a.m. in the Supreme Court courtroom in Aliiolani Hale.

Following that hearing, an audio recording will be available online at the Supreme Court web site.

Here’s the court’s own summary of the points on appeal.

Brief description:
Barbara U. Wong (Wong), in her capacity as Executive Director for the Campaign Spending Commission seeks reversal of the Second Circuit Court’s declaratory judgment that corporations are permitted to make direct contributions to a candidate or that candidate’s committee, up to the limits specified in HRS § 11-204(a)(1)(c) (Supp. 2005).

Plaintiff-Appellee Charmaine Tavares Campaign (Tavares) received a $2,000 campaign contribution from Plaintiff/Intervenor-Appellee Quong Enterprises, L.L.C. (Quong). Wong informed Quong and two other corporations that they had violated HRS § 11-204(b), by making monetary contributions in excess of $1,000. Tavares sought declaratory and other relief and Quong intervened, both alleging that Wong incorrectly interpreted HRS § 11-204. The Second Circuit Court concluded that the language of HRS § 11-204(a)(1)(c) is plain and clear, permitting Quong and the other contributors to make direct contributions to Tavares not exceeding an aggregate amount of $4,000. On appeal, Wong argues, inter alia, that the Second Circuit Court failed to recognize the ambiguities in HRS § 11-204 and that the court’s ruling defeats the purposes of the campaign spending law to provide transparency in the flow of corporate contributions and require accountability on the part of contributors and candidates. In addition to the Answering Brief filed by Tavares and Quong, the Attorney General of the State of Hawai?i filed an Amicus Curiae Brief highlighting the constitutional implications of this case and arguing that the Second Circuit Court’s judgment should be affirmed.

The announcement lists Attorney General Mark Bennett and deputies Russell Suzuki and Robyn Chun representing the commission, and attorney William F. Crockett for the Tavares campaign.

I’m not sure how this works, because when the case went to trial on Maui, Bennett entered the case with an Amicus Brief arguing against the Campaign Spending Commission’s position and in favor of the Tavares Campaign. In that brief, the Attorney General argued that there is “absolutely no support” for the commission’s position in the plain language of the statute or its legislative history.

Strange situation, or so it seems to this non-lawyer.