The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case involving what is known as a “gut-and-replace bill” that passed the state Legislature in 2018 and was enacted as Act 84.

The case involves SB 2858 under the general title of “relating to public safety.” It started out as a bill requiring annual reporting to improve recidivism rates and inmate rehabilitation. But halfway through the session, a House Committee on Public Safety changed it to require hurricane shelters in new state buildings.

The high court’s decision could end a longstanding practice by the Legislature to take a bill and replace its contents with an entirely different matter. It took the matter under advisement, so a ruling was not made Wednesday.

Attorney Robert Brian Black, representing The League of Women Voters of Honolulu and Common Cause, argued that the right of the people of Hawaii to participate in the legislative process is at stake.

Switching the contents of a bill to something entirely different makes it difficult for the public to follow and comment on it, Black said.

“For constitutional purposes, a bill is not just a bill number,” he said.

He said: “Appellants are not aware of any jurisdiction that constitutionally defines a bill without any thought to the bill’s content,” the maneuver has been “consistently rejected by courts,” and it “defeats the purpose of the three readings mandate.”

Black said there were three readings in the House after the measure in question became a hurricane shelter bill, but only one in the Senate.

“The purpose of the three readings mandate is to provide a full debate in public and thorough discussion of the bill’s meaning and scope … so that legislators consider the effect of the bill.”

The two nonprofits sued the state Sept. 5, 2018, in First Circuit Court, arguing that using an overly broad title and not having three readings of the bill in both houses of the Legislature violated the state Constitution. Judge Gary Chang granted the state summary judgment. The nonprofits appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Black argued that amendments must be relevant to the original bill.

Justice Michael Wilson addressed Attorney General Clare Connors, who represents the state and the Legislature, saying it seems “that it doesn’t matter how many amendments there are as long as there are three readings.”

Connors said, “It does matter how many amendments there are so long that by the third and final reading that bill is in its form to be passed and then there is 48 hours’ notice.”

Wilson asked: “I don’t understand how that gives the opportunity for the public to participate? You could change the subject completely and the public doesn’t have an opportunity to participate.”

Connors responded: “You are right, Justice Wilson. There could be amendments just like this where we start out with a broadly titled bill, like this one. … So in this case, everyone was on notice from the very beginning that there could be a complete substitution.”

Justice Sabrina McKenna asked her about how much concern she had on whether legislation would be affected if the court were to adopt the appellants’ arguments and about a statute of limitations challenging previous acts.

“Plaintiffs might have a good political issue, then the constitution needs to be amended,” Connors said. She warned that it would have a significant impact on the Legislature if it had to have three readings after a bill is amended and could raise a number of issues involving the separation of powers doctrine by allowing parties with other concerns to call on the court to change the Legislature’s practices.

Colleen Hanabusa, attorney for the Legislature, argued that the Constitution does not require amendments to be germane to the original bill. She said if the appellants’ arguments were adopted, the courts would be called upon to decide whether an amendment is germane.

She said the framers of the Constitution left it up to each chamber of the Legislature as to what is constitutional.

Hanabusa said in the 1968 Constitutional Convention debates, a delegate referred to photocopying as an example of how times were changing, suggesting there was no longer a need to “read” the bills for lawmakers to know what they were voting on.

She said the Legislature’s current online system actually makes it easier for the public to follow a bill and to receive notifications and updates concerning it.