Associated Press: Hawaii’s top court rules against ‘gut and replace’ bills

Associated Press: Hawaii’s top court rules against ‘gut and replace’ bills

“This is a good decision, not just for the people, but also we think for the Legislature itself; for real, thoughtful decision making,” said Sandy Ma, the executive director of Common Cause Hawaii, one of the two groups that filed the lawsuit. Bills became law without lawmakers and the public having sufficient opportunity to understand and debate their contents when the Legislature used “gut and replace,” Ma said. The ruling will restore trust in the legislative process because sometimes people think lawmakers have engaged in horse trading when a bill has been gutted and replaced without public discussion, Ma said.

HONOLULU (AP) — The Hawaii Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of two government watchdog groups who sued to stop the Legislature’s use of “gut and replace” tactics on legislation.

The court ruled that lawmakers violated the state constitution when they stripped a bill of its original content and substituted it with something entirely different and afterward failed to hold a sufficient number of readings for the amended measure.

The lawsuit specifically challenged a 2018 law that started out as a bill requiring the state to make annual reports on recidivism. The state Senate passed the legislation. But when it got to the House, lawmakers changed it to be about hurricane shelter space at public schools.

The ruling invalidates this law. The court said it would apply to future lawmaking but not to other previously enacted legislation.

“This is a good decision, not just for the people, but also we think for the Legislature itself; for real, thoughtful decision making,” said Sandy Ma, the executive director of Common Cause Hawaii, one of the two groups that filed the lawsuit.

Bills became law without lawmakers and the public having sufficient opportunity to understand and debate their contents when the Legislature used “gut and replace,” Ma said.

The ruling will restore trust in the legislative process because sometimes people think lawmakers have engaged in horse trading when a bill has been gutted and replaced without public discussion, Ma said.