I’ll just say it…I strongly disagree with both the need, and the advisablity, of moving to a full-time, year-round legislature in Hawaii.
The idea was pushed again by Civil Beat this week in a commentary by Colin Moore (“Hawaii needs a continuous legislative session”).
I agree with Colin on most things.
But, in my view, he fails to make a compelling case for change, and his proposal for a year-round legislature seems a solution in search of a problem.
Moore begins by acknowledging Hawaii ranks high in the “professionalization” of our state legislature, a measure that political scientists have developed to compare legislatures having very different “rules, organization, and resources.” On this scale, more professionalization is considered a good thing.
“Using this metric, Hawaii turns out to have one of the nation’s most professionalized legislatures, ranking seventh on the index,” Moore writes.
And, although technically part time, Moore says Hawaii legislators still tend to focus on their legislative jobs.
“The most comprehensive survey of how lawmakers spend their time found that a majority of Hawaii legislators dedicate over 70% of their working hours to legislative tasks,” Moore reports. “When they’re not in session, policymakers are meeting with constituents and stakeholders about future bills, attending community events, and, of course, campaigning for reelection.”
But, despite that, Moore still say we “need” a year-round legislative session, and cites several reasons to support an endless session.
I’ll try to flag them in the order they appear.
–The 60 working days in the current legislative session “simply isn’t enough time to govern a place as unique and complex as Hawaii.”
–Too many decisions get delayed until a last minute “race against the clock” at the end of the session, and in last minute confusion can cover-up “a multitude of sins” as “good bills are killed and mistakes are made….”
–The system can be confusing to new members or the public.
–And most of the 3,000+ bills filed each year die because there isn’t enough time to consider them.
Now I’ll evaluate these arguments.
I’m not aware of any research confirming that longer legislative sessions produce better laws, or avoid any of the messiness of plain old politics, which is an inherent part of any legislative system.
Moore praises the New York state legislature for its long sessions and high professionalization. In 2023, the New York Legislature convened on January 4, and adjourned on June 10, two days later than scheduled.
That’s longer than Hawaii’s legislative session, which opened January 18 and adjourned on May 4.
However, that difference disappears when considering working days in which the legislature is actually in session. Hawaii’s legislative session includes 60 session days. And New York, which earns Moore praise? It was scheduled for 60 session days, but was extended for two days, for a total of 62 session days. The Hawaii legislature can, and has, extended it sessions when necessary to get vital bills passed, and special sessions are sometimes available when additional work is necessary.
And even this ignores the fact that there’s a lot of work done prior to each session. The Finance and Ways and Means committees, for example, start their budget hearings weeks before the session officially starts, not to mention other matters relegated to interim committees, which I’ll touch on later.
Okay. So what about those final days where hundreds of bills have to be passed, creating a “race against the clock”?
This is not something unique to Hawaii, and longer legislative sessions don’t appear to eliminate last minute rush. Again, I haven’t seen any proper research directly on point, but remember that old adage: Work expands to fill the time allotted. And news reports from other states indicate the final closing days of legislative sessions are always hectic and chaotic, no matter how long the session has gone on. Yes, last minute bargaining and all it entails is part of the process, probably a necessary part of the political process, and including, yes, errors that may later have to be fixed.
How about bad bills slipping through? Well, of course, “bad” and “good” depend on one’s perspective. And those procedural ploys also allow political cover for bad bills to be killed, on occasion.
Yes, the legislative process is confusing. Like any profession, you have to learn the rules, written and unwritten, and gain some experience before getting in position to make a difference. And that’s apart from the unwritten rules of “politics.” No one ever said it’s easy to garner the majority of votes needed to pass legislation when each person voting has their own constituencies, backgrounds, aspirations, and beliefs.
Look at it this way. Organizing one of the houses of the state legislature by being elected House Speaker of Senate President is Politics2. Hawaii’s legislature is made up of 76 members elected from separate districts. Each member has his/her own constituencies and their interests to balance, making their own judgements about what policy positions or compromises will be necessary to be elected (or reelected).
And the race for leadership positions then requires getting a majority of members, with all of their diverse interests, commitments, and electoral considerations, on the same page at the same time, using whatever political resources are available. Herding cats looks simple compared to this.
I’m frankly more amazed that anything is accomplished than that the process can and will get “messy.”
And about those bill that don’t even get a hearing. Many of them are not actually intended to lead to new laws. Some are authored at the request of a constituent or special interest group. They may be trial balloons to generate discussion and nothing more. Many are silly ideas. Do they all deserve public hearings? In my experience, no way. And the necessary process of sorting through the annual mountain of bills is not an argument for an endless session.
Some state legislatures have strict limits on the number of bills any single member can introduce. That at least forces each legislator to prioritize their bills, and be more honest with constituents about what efforts they are willing to sign on to. Limits come and go, and are a product of legislative rules. Look there for solutions to this issue, to the extent that it is actually a problem.
Moore adds two other reasons in support of a year-round session.
“First, research shows that professional legislatures with longer sessions have a better sense of public sentiment and changes in public mood,” Moore writes, and includes a link to a 2003 journal article.
The article itself is behind a pay wall, but the published abstract is looking at the impact of professionalization, it makes no reference to session length as a variable. An earlier published article by the same author on the subject also fails to consider length of legislative session as a variable separate from its role as one of several factors used to measure “professionalization,” where Hawaii ranks unexpectedly high.
Moore argues that a longer session would give legislators “more time talking to constituents,” allowing a better sense of public opinion on key issues.
But this ignores the fact that legislators actually have far more time to meet constituents, and explore or develop new proposals, once the annual session is over. If you’ve ever tried to get a meeting with a legislator during the session, you understand the problem. And this is especially true for neighbor island legislators, who are obviously limited in meeting with constituents when they are at the capitol on Honolulu.
It is true that increased staff in the off-session would give legislators the ability to respond to constituent complaints more effectively, but that can easily be accomplished without moving to a year-round legislative schedule.
And Moore then argues, without supporting evidence, that “legislatures that spend longer in session are more likely to craft policies that address the specific challenges of a state, rather than applying off-the-shelf policies from other states and national lobbying organizations.”
When Hawaii has adopted a version of existing uniform legislation, it is common to appoint interim committees to review and come up with proposals to adapt the proposed bills to Hawaii’s special needs. Members of those committees don’t have to split their attention between all the different committees they sit on during the session, which is a distinct advantage. I haven’t seen any evidence that relying on work in the interim, between sessions, has hampered Hawaii’s success in amending uniform legislation to fit into the local scheme of things.
And then there would be substantial costs in expanding to year-round operations, and a good segment of the public already begrudges spending what is necessary to support a 60-day session.