Attaining more openness and transparency in government is almost always a battle because public officials find it more comfortable to operate out of view of the often-skeptical citizens they serve.
That’s why it’s so extraordinary that the state Judicial Selection Commission stepped up on its own volition to restore a measure of openness in our legal system that Gov. Neil Abercrombie took away.
The screening panel, whose nine members are named by the governor, Legislature, chief justice and state bar association, will make public the lists of finalists it sends to the governor for appointments to the circuit court and appeals courts and to the chief justice for the district courts.
The decision nullifies Abercrombie’s attempt to break with the openness practiced by former Govs. Linda Lingle and Ben Cayetano and keep the lists secret.
The move followed Abercrombie’s hints that he might appeal last week’s ruling by Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto, in a lawsuit filed by the Star-Advertiser, that he must release the candidate lists.
The Judicial Selection Commission has a constitutional right to keep its work confidential, but decided that its rules are broader than the state Constitution requires.
"As a public body, I think we have a duty to the public to be more informative and educational than before," said Chairwoman Susan Ichinose.
In addition to releasing the names of finalists, the commission will disclose "statistical and historical information that summarizes patterns and trends in judicial selection."
That’s exactly what’s needed to give citizens a voice in vetting judges who have so much power over our lives, as well as information to evaluate whether the commission is giving the governor a diverse field of qualified candidates to pick from and whether the governor is choosing on qualifications over politics.
The commission deserves applause for taking a principled stand for the public good by accepting more accountability than it has to, an example other public officials should follow.
As for Abercrombie, he has no principle left to stand on.
The Office of Information Practices and Sakamoto ruled he’s wrong on the law, and they along with the state Supreme Court, the past two chief justices, the Hawaii chapter of the American Judicature Society and now the Judicial Selection Commission have repudiated his thin rationale for secrecy — that naming finalists has a "chilling effect" on attracting quality judges.
Appealing Sakamoto’s well-thought ruling would be pointless now that the selection panel will release the nominee lists, and dragging this divisive side issue into a second year would be yet another of the blunders that have distracted attention from Abercrombie’s agenda.
The governor should promptly release the lists of finalists for his first three judicial appointments, as Sakamoto ordered, and move on to more pressing concerns.
Reach David Shapiro at volcanicash@gmail.com or blog.volcanicash.net.
