Editorial: Gut-and-replace in court

With the start of the 2020 Legislature just under six weeks away, a welcome spotlight is being cast on the bad practice of “gut and replace.”

That attention came this week in the form of a federal lawsuit by former University of Hawaii regent Jeff Portnoy, against the Legislature over a new law that downsized the UH regents board to 11 members from 15. Portnoy’s complaint argues that Act 172 unconstitutionally interfered with the UH’s autonomy, and that because the bill’s original content was replaced by non-related content at the last minute, it didn’t receive the constitutionally required three readings in both House and Senate.

(Portnoy is an attorney who has represented local media outlets, including the Star-Advertiser.)

“Deceptive practices that radically change bills before the final vote deny the public any meaningful voice in the legislative process and reflect a fundamentally undemocratic disregard for citizen voters,” the complaint said.

In response to Portnoy’s gut-and-replace allegation, state Sen. Donna Kim retorted: “That happens a lot, but it didn’t happen in this case.”

This isn’t the first legal attempt opposing gut-and-replace. In September 2018, Common Cause Hawaii and the League of Women Voters of Honolulu sued to demand a stop to the practice. That suit was dismissed earlier this year in state Circuit Court, but plaintiffs vowed to appeal.

Common Cause had noted: “Over the years, legislators used ‘gut and replace’ to transform conservation, health care and tax relief for low- income people into bills that helped the private sector and special interest groups.”

Even diligent legislative participants and observers are hard-pressed to follow 11th-hour, closed-door deals. In the public interest, lawmakers should cease this shady maneuver, with or without court order. All citizens, not just the well-heeled and connected, deserve fully transparent law-making.