A former state senator from Hilo is suing the state House of Representatives, accusing the legislative body of violating the state Constitution by holding a Rules Committee meeting behind closed doors.
The lawsuit by Laura Acasio was filed in Honolulu Circuit Court on Jan. 30, two days prior to her assuming a position in the administration of Hawaii County Mayor Kimo Alameda as administrator of the Office of Sustainability, Climate, Equity and Resilience.
Acasio is one of eight plaintiffs in the civil litigation, which was filed on their behalf by Maui attorney Lance Collins and Honolulu attorney Bianca Isaki.
The others are Tanya Aynessazian, Douglas L. Cobeen, Karen K. Cobeen, Michaela Ilikeamoana Ikeuchi and Robert Hale Pahia — all Hawaii County residents; Ka‘apuniali‘ionalaniki‘eki‘e Kanaloa Aiwohi of Maui; and Sergio Josephus Alcubilla III of Honolulu.
Each plaintiff is described in the suit as “a registered voter” who “would have attended the House committee meeting if it had been open to the public.”
The complaint quotes Article III, Section 12 of the Hawaii Constitution, which states, “Every meeting of a committee in either house or of a committee comprised of a member or members from both houses held for the purpose of making decision(s) on matters referred to the committee shall be open to the public.”
The suit seeks a permanent injunction declaring the House’s “manner of the adoption of the rules of the House of Representative was in violation of an applicable constitutional mandate” and for the court “to retain continuing jurisdiction to review defendant’s compliance with all judgments and orders … .”
It also seeks reimbursement for costs of the litigation.
The lawsuit has been assigned to Honolulu Circuit Judge Shirley Kawamura, but no court hearing has yet been scheduled.
Acasio told the Tribune-Herald on Monday that Article III “does bring into consideration the decision-making out of the public’s eye.”
“I’m passionate about this, and I have been in the Senate, so I’ve experienced how these practices affect good lawmaking,” Acasio said.
The suit alleges “the Rules Committee convened in one or more meetings not open to the public” prior to or on Jan. 16. That’s the date House Resolution No. 6 was introduced to the House proposing to adopt the rules proposed by the Rules Committee. It was adopted via floor vote on Jan. 17.
A Dec. 31 memo from House Speaker Nadine Nakamura (D-Kauai) advised all members of the chamber that “in preparation for the opening of the 33rd Legislature, the House is considering updates and changes to the House Rules and the House Administration and Financial Manual.” In the memo, Nakamura solicited proposed changes and amendments to “assist the Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedures in making recommendations to the House.”
According to the memo, Nakamura appointed Vice Speaker Linda Ichiyama (D-Oahu) to chair the Advisory Committee. Other members of the committee are Reps. Sean Quinlan (D-Oahu), Chris Todd (D-Hilo) and Lauren Matsumoto (R-Oahu).
In the final paragraph of her memo, Nakamura wrote: “Pursuant to House Rule 20, meetings of the Advisory Committee are organizational and internal, serving the purpose of making recommendations to the full House.” Members were to propose amendments by Jan. 10, five days prior to the opening of the legislative session.
House Rule 20 stipulates that organizational meetings “need not be open to the public.”
While focusing specifically on the House, the lawsuit also takes aim on a procedure both legislative chambers adhere to in committee hearings in which testimony is taken in public, the committee then holds discussion in private, then the chair reconvenes the hearing to make recommendations on the pending legislation, often without explanation, and the vote is taken.
The litigation describes the procedure as “a particular, pervasive custom and practice of decision-making.”
“We’re seeking clarification on the process … specifically in this case, around House rule making, the Committee on Rules,” Acasio said. “The Committee on Rules was formed … for the purpose of decision-making. However, to our knowledge, those decisions were made behind closed doors and not open to the public. And again, Article III of the Constitution says that they shall — not may, they shall — be open to the public.
“So, the crux of this is to determine whether the practice of holding meetings for decision-making behind closed doors is in line with the language of the Constitution.”
The Hawaii attorney general’s office said the state was served the lawsuit on Feb. 4 and declined to comment on it, per its usual practice with pending litigation.
House Speaker Nakamura, however, replied to the Tribune-Herald’s request for comment with a written statement.
“The House is confident that its Rules and committee processes comply with the Hawaii Constitution and is focused on the work of the House during the 33rd legislative session,” Nakamura wrote. “We continue to prioritize pressing matters, including addressing the disruption of federal funding, though the full extent of its impact on our state remains uncertain.”
Email John Burnett at jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
