Girlfriend in a coma
March 6th, 2009 by Derrick DePledgeActivists who want to save a civil-unions bill stalled in the state Senate will hold a candlelight vigil on Saturday night at the state Capitol.
In an e-mail circulated this week, Kim Coco Iwamoto, a member of the state Board of Education who is transgendered, said the vigil is for those “feeling sad, hurt, angry, frustrated about the hate speech you have been hearing from those who oppose equality for gay and lesbian families.”
From the e-mail:
The civil union bill is still ALIVE - but it is in a coma in committee. We need to support those Senators who are willing to give the bill life on the Senate Floor.
Yes, we can. There's still hope, keep hope alive.
Our story today on civil unions described “one prominent senator” who vowed in private caucus to force a vote to pull the bill. Sources said it was Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser, D-7th (Kaua’i, Ni’ihau), but Hooser would not confirm it yesterday on the record.
Out of caution, since the caucus was private, we didn’t go with Hooser’s name. The Star-Bulletin did. Our bad.
Some sources now say that if Hooser follows through without the consensus of the majority, it could hurt his leadership post.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Those at the vigil should direct their thoughts to Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who appears to have been outmaneuvered by Senators Mike Gabbard, Bobby Bunda, and Norman Sakamoto.
It was Hanabusa who recruited Gabbard to switch political parties in an effort to strengthen the hold of her faction in the Senate. Democratic Party activists, including some of those most active in supporting civil unions, vigorously opposed Gabbard's admission to the Party, pointing out his longtime opposition to equality, his strident support for George Bush's war in Iraq and his history of polarizing tactics. In a sitdown meeting with both Gabbard and Hanabusa, the Party leadership was assured by Senator Hanabusa that Gabbard would not become a problem in the Party. Gabbard himself said the activists were worried about the old Mike Gabbard, that he wanted to move onto a new phase in his life.
Hanabusa rewarded Gabbard with the chairmanship of the Energy & Environment Cte, plus a seat on the Judiciary Committee, where he would have a major say in deciding constitutional matters. She buttressed his position with Senator Bunda, another social conservative long aligned with the religious right. These two, plus Sam Slom, ensured a deadlock on any troublesome Civil Unions bill. It is difficult to imagine a brilliant legislative strategist like Hanabusa did not anticipate this exact outcome in taking the unusual step of fashioning a six man committee.
There had been 7 men on the committee, but one asked to be re-assigned to WAM. If anything, such a transfer would have focussed attention on the "dangers" (or benefits) of a potential tie vote on the committee. Hanabusa chose NOT to assign a seventh, tie-breaking vote. This is highly unusual.
Was the six man committee a blunder on Hanabusa's part, an effort to kill the bill in committee, or a means to ensure its fate would remain undecided and subject to her later intervention? After the turnout the red shirt mob, both at the rally and at the hearing, Hanabusa appears to have decided to kill the bill. Whether it was out of concern for the political safety of "her" senators or for the safety of her own campaign for Governor is unclear. (Only half the senators are up for re-election in 2010 and few of those would be vulnerable to a backlash vote on this issue, so therre is little risk for the senators as a whole. If Hanabusa intends to run for Governor in a crowded field, it does her no good to offend the social conservatives in the primary. And civil unions provides a great rallying tool for the otherwise uninspiring GOP candidate, Duke Aiona.)
Hanabusa appears to be acting primarily out an interest in advancing her own political ambitions.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am
brillant and Hanabusa should never appear in the same sentence!
March 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Just before the hearing on HB444, Senator Hanabusa herself was saying the bill could be pulled from committee and passed by a vote of the chamber. Shortly after the hearing, she backed away and now appears to be encouraging the view such a move would be inappropriate. What has changed?
The mobilization of the red-shirted, red meat mob. The Catholic hierarchy lends its prestige to the mob, as well as its paid lobbyist, but the shock troops are provided by a small number of conservative Protestant "born again" churches, organized from the pulpit. The Catholic base, except a few of the "radical traditionalist" anti-Vatican II crowd, appear to be ignoring the Bishops efforts to stir them into a frenzy. In 1998, the Mormon Church pledged "unlimited funds" to finance the anti-gay constitutional amendment. This year, the Mormons are visible absent and it appears the Church is NOT organizing opposition to "Civil Unions" so long as it is not called "marriage."
Shouldn't the Senate listen to the concerns of the thousands speaking out passionately in opposition to civil unions? It depends. As they listen to the arguments of the redshirters, are they convinced by the logic? Do the arguments lead to good policy? Are they compatible with the obligation of Hanabusa, and all legislators, to "support the Constitution of the State of Hawaii"? Or is there just a lot of uniformed, misguided, unfounded fear, biblical citations and political threats, repeated over and over with great passion?
If Hanabusa and other Senators are CONVINCED by the arguments of the red-shirt crowd, they SHOULD try to kill the Civil Unions bill. If they believe the arguments have little merit, they should ignore the threats and stand up to the mob.
Legislators should not "feed a mob." In rewards that style of organizing and ensures it will be used with greater frequency in the future. And that's what the red-shirted crowd are, a mob.
Let's examine the tool Hanabusa is tempted to use in her effort to appease the mob. They are elevating the argument that pulling a bill from committee would undercut the authority of the committee chairs. And the committee chairs are essentially to the health of a well-functioning Senate.
Let's be clear. A call to pull from committee is not an attempt to "bend the rules." It is an option fully consistent with the rules. The rules of the Senate are designed to facilitate orderly deliberation of thousands of bills each session. Bills are assigned to committees according to their subject matter or fiscal impact. Under such a system of division of labor, the committees are delegated authority to hold hearings, make amendments and vote which bills shall advance for consideration by the full senate.
The committee structure also provides a convenient means for killing bills which are not favored by the collective leadership of the seante, providing "plausible deniability" when bills die due to "the preferences of an individual chair" or the "unforeseen" balance of votes on the committee. So, in addition to being a system of efficient "division of labor," it provides for an evasion of responsibility. If bills are pulled from committee with much frequency, it would obviously disrupt the efficiency of the Senate, but also remove the ability of the leadership to "bury a bill in committee."
It is also true that important committeees are given to important senators are part of the negotiations to share power among major "players" and establish the leadership of the Senate. Pulling bills from committee can be seen as undermining the authority of the committee chair.
But in this case, the Chair of the committee, Brian Taniguchi, supported passage of the bill. Pulling the bill would not undermine HIS authority, but the authority of the 3 members of the committe who opposed the bill: Bunda, Gabbard and Slom. It would eleveate THEIR rights to decide the bill over the other 3 members who supported it: Taniguchi, Takamine and Nishihara.
More importantly, it would empower those 3 senators over a strong majority of the Senate, 18 members who had explicitly pledged to vote FOR the bill if it were to reach the floor. And it would empower the 3 senators over the strong majority of the House who had already overwhelmingly passed the bill.
The Rules of the Senate allow for a bill to be pulled from committee under exactly such conditions. And SHOULD be invoked, WOULD be invoked, unless the Senate President has decided to kill the bill.
And reward the mob.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Opponents of the move to "pull the bill" are warning it "will establish a precedent." Let's examine that claim.
The Senate rules do NOT require a SUPERMAJORITY to pull a bill from committee. Only a third, meaning 9 out of 25 senators. This is a fairly low threshold, meaning it is NOT intended to be very difficult to do.
For the reasons cited above, it is in the interests of efficient operation of the Senate that this be a rare occurrence. Would pulling HB444 make it more likely there will be frequent demands for pulling other bills in the future? Not successful demands.
The Senate itself decides when the bills get pulled. HB444 would establish a very HIGH bar for pulling a bill. Let's look at the circumstances. A strong majority in the other chamber passed out the bill, a strong majority in the Senate has pledged to vote for the bill IF given the chance, a 15 hour hearing was held in the Senate on the bill, allowing ample time for all voices to be heard, 1500 testimonies were received, both the chair and vice chair of the committee support passage of the bill, the committee was deadlocked in its vote.
Very few bills would match these conditions. Any senator concerned about protecting the prerogative s of committee chairs, or the "sanctity" of the committee structure, could preface their remarks with an explicit concern about establishing precedent and then safely vote in favor of pulling this bill because of the highly unusual circumstances.
Any future request to pull a bill could be measured against this precedent and 99.9% would fall short.
The argument against pulling the bill, under examination, dissolves into smoke.
The only reason for a senator to cite this argument is because they view it as a means to go along with the apparent decision of Senator Hanabusa to dispose of this troublesome bill. If Senator Hanabusa were to discount this argument, very few seantors would hide behind it.
The argument provides a convenient cover for those who want to renege upon their commitment to support civil unions. Apparently at the top of the list, appears to be the Senate President.
But because the yhave decided to FEED THE MOB and reward them for their tactics, the redshirt crowd will not fade away. Mike Gabbard has already announced his desire to place on the 2010 ballot a constitutional amendment to "settle the matter for once and for all." Perhaps Senator Hanabusa will belatedly add another senator to JGO in order to block his attempt. But Gabbard has gotten a taste of mob action. The "Old Gabbard" is back. And this time, he is not isolated within the minority, Republican Party. Thanks to Senator Hanabusa's moves, he was allowed to leap the firewall and enter the wide open Democratic Party where, uncontainned, he stands ready to lead his culture war.
Thank you, Senator Hanabusa!
March 7th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Someone remind me -- didnt Hanabusa pull a vote to the floor on a Judge when Clayton Hee was Judiciary Chair? Wasnt that just the other year? So -- doesnt that take her argument about not undermining Chairs and committee's away? Kolea, youve hit it -- this is now all about Hanabusa's future political career.
Just Do the Right Thing.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
PLUS -- the Red-Shirt mob are all going to vote for Duke Aiona, by the way, no matter what. And if the Rs actually get it together, they're going to run a bunch of their own religious-freaks in all those seats. Reminder, people, the 'Red Shirts' are not the D-base.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I'd like to point out an error in kolea's account. He refers several times to "the Rules of the Senate" as providing for the ability of a third of the senators to pull a bill from a committee. In fact, this right is written into the State Constitution, which is a much higher authority than the Senate Rules.
From Article III, Section 12:
"Twenty days after a bill has been referred to a committee in either house, the bill may be recalled from such committee by the affirmative vote of one-third of the members to which such house is entitled."
Those interested in understanding the intent for inserting such language in the Constitution can find the debate in the Proceedings of the 1950 Constitutional Convention, Vol II, pp 221-226.
During the debate, they discuss the problem of bills being "iceboxed" in committees and prevented from reaching the floor and what number of legislators should it require to pull a bill out of committee for consideration by the entire chamber: one-fifth?, a majority? They settle upon a third. Opponents of the "power to pull" speak of the virtues of "iceboxing" bills, and warn of the potential for a minority to disrupt the efficient functioning of the legislative process if too many bills are recalled from committee.
After a full debate, the "power to recall" a bill from committee is approved 33-24-6.
After reviewing the debate in the 1950 Constitutional Convention, I have little doubt the framers of our State Constitution established the power to pull a bill for situations like the one currently facing the Civil Unions bill in the State Senate.
Senator Hanabusa is a very good attorney. If the Proceedings are brought to her attention, I am confident she will agree.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Hipoli:
No, the Senate did not pull a judicial conformation from the Judiciary Committee when Clayton Hee was chair. The nomination went to the floor with a recommendation to not confirm (or, to not give advice and consent).
The Senate's advise and consent function is different than it's law-making function. Like the one you referred to, even nominations with a negative recommendation in committee go to the floor. The committee effectively acts in an investigative capacity for the Senate with regard to the nomination but the Senate as a whole must decide the ultimate fate of the nomination.
See, lawyers just might be good for something after all.
PS: Just do the right thing.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Lawyers have their occasional usefulness, indeed.
Just Do the Right Thing.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
The constitutional provision is a right of a minority of legislators against the overdominance of the majority. The majority does not have to wait 20 days before pulling a bill from committee. They can do it whenever they want to. That's why we call it majority rule.