277 P.3d 279
Haw.2012Background
- Hawai`i Constitution Article XII, Section 1 requires the legislature to make sufficient sums for DHHL purposes (admin/operating, development, loans, rehabilitation).
- 1978 Constitutional Convention history established judicial standards for DHHL’s admin/operating funding but left future sums for the other three purposes unclear.
- Plaintiffs filed First Amended Complaint in 2007 alleging the State breached Article XII, Section 1 by underfunding DHHL and by leasing land for revenue instead of supporting beneficiaries.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment, holding the political question doctrine barred review of “sufficient sums” for all four purposes.
- ICA remanded, holding “sufficient sums” for admin/operating was justiciable but not for the other three purposes; the Hawai`i Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Court ultimately held the constitutional mandate allows judicial determination for admin/operating expenses but not for the other three purposes, which are barred as political questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'sufficient sums' for admin/operating expenses are justiciable. | Nelson argues convention history provides standards to measure funding. | State contends no judicially discoverable standards exist for any purpose. | Yes, admin/operating sums are justiciable. |
| Whether 'sufficient sums' for the other three purposes are justiciable. | Nelson contends standards exist to ensure funding for lots, loans, and rehabilitation. | State argues political questions bar judicial review. | No; the political question doctrine bars judicial determination for those purposes. |
| What standards govern measuring 'sufficient sums' for admin/operating vs other purposes. | Convention history provides baseline standards for admin/operating funding. | Standards are not sufficiently defined for non-admin purposes. | Convention history supports a judicially discoverable standard for admin/operating; not for the other three. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yamasaki v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 69 Haw. 154 (Haw. 1987) (nonjusticiable political question when boundaries of trust unsettled (HRS 10-13.5 context))
- Board of Education v. Waihee, 70 Haw. 253 (Haw. 1989) (textual constitutional interpretation is judicial fare; not always political question)
- Kaho
ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawaii 302 (Haw. 2007) (constitutional interpretation is generally justiciable; not barred by politics doctrine) - Hanabusa v. Lingle, 119 Hawai`i 341 (Haw. 2008) (context-specific reasonableness standard for wait times (captioned in notes))