Kupu‘āina Live! Webcast #15

Webisode #15 2003-03-23 Kupu‘āina Live!

In today's Kupu‘āina Live! We explain why the recent SuperFerry ruling isn't something to necessarily worry about in drafting "ceded" lands legislation. We also talk about what we consider to be a "sneaky" change in the language of SB 1677, that most people don't know about.




Mahalo for your support.

What's going on at the capitol?

As we wrote last week, SB 1677 was heard in joint committee with Water, Land & Ocean Resources (WLO) and Judiciary (JUD).

Late last night, Kupu‘āina received a credible tip that the language of SB 1677 was being revised. Instead of requiring a two-third majority approval vote for the sale of "ceded" lands, reportedly, the revised version would allow sales but require a two-thirds dis-approval vote of the legislature.

A two-thirds dis-approval vote is a VERY BAD idea and the exact opposite of what is proposed in SB 1677. Local newspapers have reported, and legislative insiders have said, that a two-thirds approval is difficult to achieve. Acknowledging this, we can conclude that a two-thirds approval vote is difficult and therefore, sales of "ceded" lands will be difficult. However, if only a two-thirds disapproval is required to prevent sales of "ceded" lands, then we can conclude that, since a two-thirds majority vote is difficulty to achieve, then it will be difficult to stop a sale of "ceded" lands.

I spoke with a few people this morning. Apparently, a few others have heard the same thing. Information isn't available online yet. Mark Bennett testified in opposition to this bill, yet it was passed. No indication was given at the committee hearings on 3/13/09 that the changes made to Bill 1667 included a "two-thirds disapproval."

As we get more information, we'll be sure to keep you updated.

SENATE BILL 1085 passes

Senator Sam Slom was the only state lawmaker in the Judiciary and Government Operations (JGO) committee to vote NO on Senate Bill 1085 yesterday morning shortly before 10 am. The Committee chair, Brian Taniguchi and Vice-Chair, Dwight Takamine in addition to committee members Robert Bunda and Clarence Nishihara voted to pass SB 1085. Senator Mike Gabbard was not present for the vote.

When the vote was made, Senator Taniguchi noted that the bill would be passed with only technical amendments. We assume this means that non-substantive changes will be made.

The next step for Senate Bill 1085 is to be heard by the full senate. In a previous phone conversation with Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, it was suggested that SB 1085 will pass the Senate and be sent to the state House of Representatives.

Moments after the senate committee passed SB 1085, Kupu‘āina organizers met with the Speaker of the House of Representatives Calvin Say. Calvin Say suggested that SB 1085 will be scheduled for hearings with different committees. He did express concern however about the senate passing two different bills addressing the same issue. The House can not do likewise. The other bill being SB 1677. The House will need to pass just one of those bills.

Speaker Say said that he would like to see both SB 1677 and SB 1085 heard together in committee so that the House can determine which of those two bills it will support and proceed forward with.

Between the two bills, coalition organizers prefer to see SB 1085 pass out of the legislature. SB 1085, in the coalition's opinion, is more of a re-affirmation of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court's January 31, 2008 landmark decision in OHA v. HCDCH.

Coalition organizers hope SB 1085 will be heard on the Senate floor by Tuesday, March 10. We will keep you updated. PAU.

Legislative Updates regarding ceded lands.

The Associated Press, via Maui News has an article that shows the riff between Democrats in the State House of Representatives and the relevance of that riff to the ceded lands issue.

Early into the article, House Speaker Calvin Say is identified as the reason why House bills designed to protect the ceded lands did not move forward. The article states, "Reps. Scott Saiki, Mele Carroll and Faye Hanohano, all Democrats, said it appears that House Speaker Calvin Say does not want the bills to progress . . . ." But the article does not end there. It further suggests that there is some sort of political "ping-pong" action going on. The AP article suggests that one politician points to another politician, who then either points back to the first politician or to a third politician. In the end, the ping-ponging however goes on between House committee chairs generally and the Speaker of the House, Calvin Say. Here's what the article also says,

"Saiki said the chairman of House Water, Land and Ocean Resources Committee (pictured left, Rep. Ken Ito), where the three bills are waiting after winning approval from Carroll's panel last week, has indicated that there will be no hearing on the measures any time soon."

The article also reports that, "A call for comment from Say was referred to House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, who said that because the bills were referred to four committees, there is no way to complete the legislative process in time for the Supreme Court's oral arguments Feb. 25."

But the article also reports that perhaps it's the House Speaker, Calvin Say who decides which bills get heard. "Carroll said she asked Ito when his panel would hear the measures, and Ito replied that he'd have to check with Say." In one of our own meetings with Calvin Say, he told us that it was up to the individual committees as to which bills get heard in committee. If Representative Say is under the impression that Rep. Ken Ito is deciding which bills are being heard in Ito's committee, and Ito is under the impression that Say is going to tell him which bills to hear in Ito's committee, then it seems like someone doesn't know what the other is doing. Hopefully, this type of process is not indicative of how our state House of Representatives works.

---

Bills and Resolutions.

The Senate Bill (SB 1677) introduced by Senate President Colleen Hanabusa was passed out of the Senate today. SB 1677 however, is not a moratorium bill. Senate Bill 1085 is a moratorium bill, even after its amendments. Senate Bill 1085, started off as a full-moratorium bill that re-affirmed the Hawaii Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year. The amended version has a limited 5 year moratorium and then after the expiration of 5 years, a two-thirds vote is necessary. Both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin report today on the Senate's passage of SB 1677.

From here SB 1677 will now go to the House of Representatives. We presume that it will start off in the House Hawaiian Affairs Committee, then be also be referred to the same committees that the other moratorium bills were referred to. BUT, we hope that we're wrong.

What has not been reported in the two Honolulu dailies is that, the Senate today passed two resolutions. Senate Resolution 25 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 40.

These two resolutions urge the Governor to withdraw and establish that the senate (or Legislature for SCR 40) policy is to support the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision from January 31, 2008.
Not surprisingly, the two lawmakers who voted against the resolutions were Senators Fred Hemmings and Sam Slom.

Resolutions are not binding, but they do express the policy of the legislative body. it could be used to demonstrate to the U.S. Supreme Court that the government of the State of Hawai'i is actively dealing with the claims of Native Hawaiians.