There’s little wonder why the state Legislature’s gut-and-replace practice — deleting a bill’s contents, then replacing them with other unrelated legislation — raises eyebrows.

In a commentary piece published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser weeks before the 2020 legislative session’s start, Republican House members knocked the practice, noting: “We have seen various forms of it, and unfortunately, the public is left playing a game of whack-a-mole — a bill that died in one committee that somehow pops up later in another bill,” they wrote.

For years, open-government groups and others have called on the Legislature to do away with this bad game, which can often leave non-politicos in the dark in regards to public input opportunity. Since, collectively, lawmakers have failed to budge, the matter is now before the Hawaii Supreme Court.

The court heard arguments this week from Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, in a case challenging Act 84 (2018). While the law began as a bill about reporting on jail recidivism rates, it morphed during the last days of session into legislation requiring hurricane shelters in new state buildings.

Representing the two groups, Brian Black, of The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, argued that in this instance, the gut-and-replace maneuver fell short of two state constitutional requirements: that it get three readings in each chamber on separate days, and that “each law shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.”

While Black asserted that amendments must be relevant to the original bill, attorneys for the state and Legislature countered that because bills are drafted with general titles — such as “relating to public safety” — wiggle room, such as that which resulted in Act 84, is acceptable.

In addition, while the court has yet to make a decision, up for debate is a separation-of-powers question. Some maintain that any challenge to gut-and-replace should be limited to a political setting — excluding the Judiciary. But as such challenges have stalled, the practice has become known as a vehicle for advancing unpopular or special-interest legislation.

Gut-and-replace is now in stark relief, given that the Legislature recently wrapped up a session in which lawmakers used it to move measures tied to COVID-19 response.

At the very least, this court challenge shines a welcome bright light on the practice. And if the lawsuit succeeds, it could force change that improves transparency for the public’s benefit.