HONOLULU — The state Legislature is asking the Hawai‘i Supreme Court to clarify how its ruling against the Hawaii Superferry affects other specialized laws. Lawmakers have questioned whether laws that apply specifically to one county, such as Honolulu’s 0.5 percent
HONOLULU — The state Legislature is asking the Hawai‘i Supreme Court to clarify how its ruling against the Hawaii Superferry affects other specialized laws.
Lawmakers have questioned whether laws that apply specifically to one county, such as Honolulu’s 0.5 percent tax for a planned rail system, could also be declared unconstitutional.
The Hawaii Supreme Court on Wednesday granted the Legislature’s request to argue for reconsideration of its Superferry ruling.
The court last month overturned a law allowing the ferry to run between Maui and O‘ahu before an environmental impact report is completed. The service was shut down and its only vessel is now en route back to Mobile, Ala., where it was built.
Attorneys for the Legislature will file briefs supporting Gov. Linda Lingle’s efforts to persuade the court to change its mind.
The Legislature’s attorneys said when the court ruled March 16 that a law allowing the Superferry to operate was unconstitutional special interest legislation, it put the legality of other laws in doubt.
Lawmakers want the court to clarify when they can pass laws aimed at specific groups, the constitutionality of short-term laws, and the viability of language in laws designed to sustain court challenges when other parts of the law are struck down.
Honolulu Councilman Charles Djou has said that unless the Hawai‘i Supreme Court reconsiders its decision, he will ask the court to declare unconstitutional other laws that apply specifically to the county.
Besides the Honolulu rail tax, Djou pointed to county-specific laws requiring stricter liquor licensing and overtime for vehicle towing.
The Legislature convened in special session in 2007 to pass a law enabling the Superferry to operate while an environmental assessment was drafted. This law was meant to get around a previous Hawai‘i Supreme Court decision that an environmental study was needed before the vessel could operate.
The Supreme Court rejected the law because it said the Hawai‘i Constitution prohibits legislation that favors or discriminates against “a specific individual, class or entity.”
