03-18-2009, 01:29 PM
Putting aside the emotions of the case and getting down to the basics - What happened?
1. The SuperFerry wanted to operate between Oahu and Maui. That required some improvements to the harbor by and funded by the State. The law requires an EIS for that type of improvement and operation.
2. The State in interpreting the law felt that a provision in the law allowed for the improvements and operation without an EIS because of the way the law was written. They also believed the law allowed for continued operation.
3. People with standing sued claiming the law did require an EIS. The case ended up before the HI Supreme Court.
4. The HI Supreme Court as the interpreter of the laws, ruled that although the wording did create the loophole the State claimed, the same law didn't allow the State to use that loophole because another section contradicted the section with the loophole. That contradictory section required an exemption be spelled out in law (which it wasn't), not just because they felt it shouldn't apply to them. So the State and the SuperFerry needed to conduct an EIS.
5. The governor and legislators passed a law to write that exemption into law and modify another section of the law to create special requirements. In writing the exemption, they so narrowly defined the operation that it raised a legal question.
6. People with standing sued.
7. Again the HI Supreme Court as the interpreter of the laws, ruled that in so passing the law, the Act itself violated the State’s Constitution because it created a party of one. Thus the Act was unconstitutional and is void. The State and SuperFerry needed to conduct an EIS as outlined in laws in keeping with the courts original ruling.
Now, understand the HI Supreme Court was not ruling on the SuperFerry or environmental issues, or economic issues, or anything else that is being discussed. They first ruled on when an EIS (not the SuperFerry) is required under state law, and they now ruled if a specifically worded legislation (not the SuperFerry) violated the state constitution. In both rulings it was about the law, not the subject of who.
1. The SuperFerry wanted to operate between Oahu and Maui. That required some improvements to the harbor by and funded by the State. The law requires an EIS for that type of improvement and operation.
2. The State in interpreting the law felt that a provision in the law allowed for the improvements and operation without an EIS because of the way the law was written. They also believed the law allowed for continued operation.
3. People with standing sued claiming the law did require an EIS. The case ended up before the HI Supreme Court.
4. The HI Supreme Court as the interpreter of the laws, ruled that although the wording did create the loophole the State claimed, the same law didn't allow the State to use that loophole because another section contradicted the section with the loophole. That contradictory section required an exemption be spelled out in law (which it wasn't), not just because they felt it shouldn't apply to them. So the State and the SuperFerry needed to conduct an EIS.
5. The governor and legislators passed a law to write that exemption into law and modify another section of the law to create special requirements. In writing the exemption, they so narrowly defined the operation that it raised a legal question.
6. People with standing sued.
7. Again the HI Supreme Court as the interpreter of the laws, ruled that in so passing the law, the Act itself violated the State’s Constitution because it created a party of one. Thus the Act was unconstitutional and is void. The State and SuperFerry needed to conduct an EIS as outlined in laws in keeping with the courts original ruling.
Now, understand the HI Supreme Court was not ruling on the SuperFerry or environmental issues, or economic issues, or anything else that is being discussed. They first ruled on when an EIS (not the SuperFerry) is required under state law, and they now ruled if a specifically worded legislation (not the SuperFerry) violated the state constitution. In both rulings it was about the law, not the subject of who.