Following an 8-day trial last summer, First Circuit Judge Jeannette Castagnetti issued a long written ruling in November 2015 which found the state had violated the Hawaii Constitution by failing to provide “sufficient funds” for the administrative and operational budget of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

Echoing a 2012 Hawaii Supreme Court decision, Castagnetti pointed to chronic underfunding of the department, and directed that more than $28 million needs to be appropriated for the current year in order to meet the constitutional requirement. That’s some $18 more than the agency is slated to receive.

The Supreme Court had determined that the Legislature had flunked the constitutional funding test required by a 1978 constitutional amendment, and now Castagnetti had put a dollar figure on the funding shortfall.

Legislative leaders were apparently astounded and angry that a court would have the audacity to hold them accountable for refusing to fulfill their constitutional obligation to native Hawaiians.

Their response was two-fold. They agreed to put up $50,000 ($25,000 each from House and Senate) to hire former Attorney General Mark Bennett to go to court supporting the state’s request that the judge reconsider her ruling.

And they apparently decided to put pressure on the Judiciary by pushing a set of bills directly attacking the political independence of the courts by requiring the election of judges and, separately, requiring the Senate to sign off before any judge could be reappointed to a subsequent term in office.

My column in Civil Beat today traces the ties between the issue of proper funding of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the bills regarding selection of judges (“Ian Lind: Lawmakers Return To The Bad Old Days Of Backroom Deals“).

I wrote:

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 took the lead, and the bills went to public hearing. But the leadership never copped to the intent of their measures, whether as bargaining chip or punishment of the Judiciary for trying to bring the Legislature into compliance with the constitutional mandate to provide sufficient funds to Hawaiian Homes so that the department can service its beneficiaries.

By the way, the request for reconsideration was largely denied in an oral ruling by Judge Castagnetti on February 29, 2016, which makes very good reading.

Meanwhile, at least one of the judicial selection bills is poised to pass the Senate.

Check out the Civil Beat column if you have a chance.