The Hawaii Supreme Court is being asked to put a damper on a common practice at the Legislature that allows state lawmakers to skirt a deadline for introducing bills each year.
Used for decades by many lawmakers, the practice involves introducing bills that lack substantive language — effectively blank bills — that can be amended later and made law after a full complement of required public readings.
During this year’s legislative session from Jan. 21 to May 8, more than 200 such bills called “short form bills” were introduced.
And at least a couple became law.
A nonpartisan advocacy organization for participating in democracy, the League of Women Voters of Hawaii, filed a lawsuit last year in state Circuit Court arguing that one short-form bill that became law in 2025 should be invalidated on grounds that it violated a provision in Hawaii’s Constitution pertaining to required relevant titles for bills and the Legislature’s introduction deadline.
The case, which holds implications for broad use of short-form bills, was dismissed by a Circuit Court judge. However, LWV recently asked the state’s high court to consider an appeal, given what the nonprofit describes as novel questions of “fundamental public importance” concerning the minimum constitutional procedure required for enacting laws in Hawaii.
“The people of Hawaii deserve a clear explanation of the standards for those constitutional mandates,” LWV, represented by the Honolulu-based nonprofit Public First Law Center, said in its appeal filed Oct. 15. “The legislative process lies at the core of our democracy. The people of Hawaii must know their rights if they are expected to participate meaningfully in that process.”
Subject matters
In its original complaint, LWV argued that Senate Bill 935, which became Act 290 last year, ran afoul of a clause in Hawaii’s Constitution that reads, “No law shall be passed except by bill. Each law shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.”
SB 935’s title was “Relating to Government” and the purpose of the proposed act was “to effectuate the title of this act.”
Sen. Dru Kanuha (D, Kona-Kau-Volcano) introduced SB 935 on Jan. 17, 2025, ahead of a Jan. 23 bill introduction cutoff for the session set by House Speaker Nadine Nakamura (D, Hanalei-Princeville-Kapaa) and Senate President Ron Kouchi (D, Kauai-Niihau).
On Feb. 18, the Senate Ways and Means Committee chaired by Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz (D, Mililani-Wahiawa-Whitmore Village) amended the bill without discussion, filling SB 935 with language from a proposed draft that had been recently posted on the Legislature’s webpage for the bill, and then scheduled an initial public hearing for the amended bill on Feb. 26.
The new 35-page version of the bill called for reducing retirement payments for new judges, increasing retirement compensation for sheriffs and deputies, and cutting the number of years required for certain public workers to qualify for retirement benefits.
A final draft that became law reduced retirement payments for judges confirmed after June 30, 2031, from 3% of their average final compensation per year of service as a judge to 1.75%. It also appropriated $300,000 for a study on shortening the vesting period for benefits.
LWV argued in Circuit Court that the Legislature’s bill introduction deadline was established in part to allow the public to familiarize itself with all legislation for a session, and to prepare testimony.
Because substantive content of SB 935 was produced after the deadline, the public didn’t have an appropriate chance to be aware of or testify on the proposed law dealing with public employee pensions, LWV argued.
The state Department of the Attorney General defended SB 935’s enactment. Lauren Chun, a deputy solicitor general with the department, wrote in a court filing that a bill’s title is sufficient if it fairly indicates a “general subject” that isn’t calculated to mislead.
“Plaintiff asks the court to mandate the level of specificity for a bill’s title and mandate the content necessary to constitute a ‘bill’,” Chun wrote.
Chun also argued that siding with LWV would constitute judicial usurpation of authority vested firmly in the legislative branch of state government.
“A court cannot impose standards for determining whether any proposal is sufficient for the Legislature to consider as a ‘bill’ without encroaching on the Legislature’s sole constitutional authority to enact laws, determine its own procedural rules, and set and enforce its own bill introduction deadlines,” Chun said in the filing.
In its appeal, LWV said the Circuit Court’s ruling ultimately makes bill titles superfluous because lawmakers could give every bill a “Relating to Government” title because every law is related to government.
”It is a fundamental issue of public importance whether bill titles can be too broad to provide meaningful notice to the public,” LWV said in its appeal. “If the right to ‘review every bill that will ever be introduced’ means that the public has a worthless opportunity to look at thousands of documents that are simply numbers and titles until amended, that should be stated clearly.”
Popular practice
Hawaii lawmakers introduced at least 124 short-form bills in 2025, and at least 201 earlier this year, according to records that also show over 400 short-form bills were introduced in each legislative session from 2006 to 2008.
Many short-form bills have titles saying only that they are related to government or the state budget. Others have more specific titles. For example, SB 2623 “Relating to Licensing” was introduced in January as a short-form bill. Later, it was amended and became a law largely to clarify regulations over registered pharmacy technicians.
Another short-form bill that became law this year was SB 2645 “Relating to Fire Prevention.” This bill’s final form adjusted personnel funding for the Office of the State Fire Marshal, set the State Fire Code as the minimum statewide standard for fire safety, and limited the frequency of fire and safety inspections at state facilities by the office to no more than once every three years.
Both bills were introduced by Kanuha, the Senate’s majority leader, who is tasked with introducing most short-form bills in the Senate. In the House, more than several lawmakers introduce short-form bills.
Nakamura, the leader of the House, said short-form bills are a tool that can address concerns or issues that arise after the bill introduction deadline.
“For example, when a natural disaster occurs during session, like the recent Kona Lows, a short-form bill can serve as a vehicle to deliver critical funding and assistance to affected communities in a timely manner,” she said in a statement. “This process is one way that the Legislature can meet urgent, unforeseen needs to better serve our state.”
Kouchi, the Senate’s leader, did not comment on the the use of short-form bills in response to a request.
Still, in some past instances it appears that short-form bills were created specifically for legislation that was in the works but wasn’t ready by the introduction deadline.
There also has been long-established public perception that short-form bills are sometimes used to avoid public awareness.
For instance, the ACLU complained in 1980 about a short-form bill “Relating to Education” that the organization didn’t initially pay attention to because there was no indication the bill could be related to civil liberties. Later, the bill was amended to repeal a state law prohibiting teachers from using corporal punishment on students.
“It was only an 11th hour effort, sparked by an anonymously telephoned tip, that ACLU was able to prepare and present testimony that helped defeat the bill,” Ken Ellingwood, an ACLU official at the time, was quoted as saying in a Honolulu Star-Bulletin article.
There also have been attempts by lawmakers to use short-form bills as vessels to revive initiatives in other bills stuck in the clutches of defeat.
Fate awaits
The state Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept LWV’s appeal, which seeks a more expeditious final ruling by skipping over the state Intermediate Court of Appeals.
Hawaii’s high court has previously decided a case dealing with another highly criticized legislative practice known as “gut and replace” that was challenged by LWV’s Honolulu chapter and Common Cause Hawaii.
In that decision, the court ruled that a constitutionally mandated number of public readings of a bill only count for amended bills if amendments are germane to the bill’s original subject matter.
Similar to the impact of the gut-and-replace ruling in 2021, a decision in favor of LWV in its attempt to invalidate changes made to state pension law via the 2025 short-form bill wouldn’t outlaw the use of future short-form bills. But it could make it easier to invalidate future laws stemming from some short-form bills by challenging them in court.
“A bill title that sweeps across a whole universe of subjects and that has yet to be drafted — an empty placeholder — provides the public with zero notice,” LWV said in its appeal. “Our constitution demands more.”
