Two recent cases are the first to be filed relating to Honolulu’s rail project.

The first, filed by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, is relatively straightforward. It argues that state law regarding burials and historic resources requires an inventory to be done where burials can be expected to be found. And the law also requires that this be done before decisions are made so that the information can be taken into account in a timely fashion.

Here’s a link to the full complaint.

The legal argument appears to hinge on one point. The lawsuit argues that the rail project can’t be arbitrarily divided into segments or construction phases in order to delay or defer the required archaeological survey until well after construction is started on the project.

The complaint argues that all four phases “are connected and part of a single project,” and none of the individual phases “has independent utility.”

The failure to complete a survey of burials along the route is a clear violation of law, according to the complaint.

The second lawsuit challenges city contracting policies for the rail project. Here’s the link to the full 51-page complaint, some of which is taken up with listings of rail contracts.

It’s a bit technical, but also straightforward. State procurement law originally allowed contracts to be awarded even if fewer that three bids were received. The law was later amended to delete this provision, making it clear that a minimum of three bids are required. However, city rules were never updated to reflect the amendments to the law, and some city contracts, including lucrative rail contracts, have been awarded without the legally required competition.

The lawsuit argues that the city does not have the authority to issue rules that are contrary to state law.

It cites a 2005 city audit.

“…our audit reveals that certain sole source, emergency, and professional services purchases approved by the city have either violated the state procurement code or city policies. THere are indications of a pervasive level of procurement code violations. ANti-competitive practices are contrary to law and costly to taxpayers.”

I have a feeling Mayor Carlisle’s bravado (“We’re confident we can successfully address these arguments in court”) is going to be seriously challenged in these two cases.