What happens next?

On May 29, First Circuit Court Judge James Ashford ruled that the Hawaiʻi House of Representatives violated the Hawaiʻi Constitution.

This ruling is precedent setting, in effect. It’s the first and only time our courts have interpreted the constitutional mandate that “every meeting of a committee … held for the purpose of making decision on matters referred to the committees shall be open to the public.” 

Bottom Line: The House Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedures acted improperly and unconstitutionally when it made decisions entirely in secret, holding no public meetings whatsoever.

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat is focusing on transparency, accountability and ethics in government and other institutions. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

While the court’s order only applies directly to the one closed-door committee meeting at issue, the ruling is highly persuasive in that it can be relied on in future cases challenging closed-door decision-making activities conducted by s tate House and Senate committees.

So what’s the House going to do, and when are they going to do it?

To date, there’s been no statement from House Leadership at all.

The Hawaiʻi House of Representatives has essentially been found guilty of breaking the law, and the response from House leadership is silence.

There’s been no apology, no acknowledgment of the validity of Judge Ashford’s decision, and no promise to follow the law going forward.

One would hope that, at the minimum, these three actions would soon be forthcoming. But to date, there’s been zip, nothing, nada.

Speaker Nadine Nakamura is the face and voice of the House of Representatives.

She’s no doubt consulting with the attorney general and members of “House leadership” about the real-world meaning of Judge Ashford’s ruling, and options for how to implement it.

Therein lies the elephant in the room.

You can be sure those who hold the reins of power in both House and Senate are concerned this court decision will impact the pervasive secretive decision-making that now occurs in almost all legislative committees.

So what are the House’s options in the aftermath of the court’s ruling?

The political reality is 26 members of the House constitute a majority and hold the power to direct House leadership’s response on this and every issue that comes before the House. 

The speaker and leadership follow the will of the majority, or the majority replaces them.

Twenty-six or more individual members of the House could unite in their commitment to actively honor the court’s decision, follow the Hawaiʻi Constitution to the letter of its plain language, and fully embrace citizen participation in the legislative process.

Or, a majority of House members could instruct House leadership to ignore Judge Ashford’s ruling, assert the legislative branch doesn’t have to follow the court’s direction, appeal the ruling to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, stretch out the process, delay compliance, and drive up the legal costs for the eight citizen plaintiffs..

It’s important to note that a 26-member majority could consist of both Democrats and Republicans who unite on this one issue.

It’s also important to note that this is an election year, and one question voters will be asking House candidates across all the Islands is, “Whose side are you on?”

And you can be sure the plaintiffs and their supporters are keeping a list.

If a majority of House representatives (26 members) demand that Speaker Nakamura and House leadership do the right thing — then it will happen.

If not, a full-throated fight for transparency, open government and full public participation will continue through the coming election season and inevitably into the 2027 legislative session.

Either way, you can be sure that every single committee of the House and Senate will be under close scrutiny in the future to ensure our constitution is followed.

You can be sure of this because multiple citizen plaintiffs took the Hawaiʻi House of Representatives to court for holding secret meetings and making secret decisions — and won.

First and foremost, we should thank those citizens.

Then, we must join and help them — as advocates, as grassroots donors to help pay their expenses, and as future plaintiffs ourselves if necessary to enforce the Hawaiʻi Constitution through another round of court actions.

My hope is that a majority in the House will choose, without more citizen suits, to do the right thing by embracing transparency and welcoming citizen involvement in our democracy.

If you agree, please contact your district representative today and ask them to be part of the 26 who support following the law, and who demand that House leadership act accordingly.

Because as we all know, hope without action is delusion.