Regardless of your opinion about the vote issue, or the outcome of the court's decision on that vote, we should all be impressed with the careful analysis and speed with which U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra rendered a 52-page decision on complex constitutional issues in a lawsuit regarding the native Hawaiian vote, in less than four business days after oral argument in this case.
Some critics urged that regardless of how Ezra ruled, he should do so quickly, before the originally scheduled announcement of the Hawaiian vote results on Queen Liliuokalani's birthday, Sept. 2. Our federal courts have been criticized for taking "up to a week" to rule on important constitutional issues which were not submitted for court determination until oral argument on Aug. 30, only one business day before the queen's birthday.
The U.S. District Court rendered its detailed decision on Sept. 6, reflecting extensive analysis on major constitutional issues. The vote result was withheld for two additional business days to permit emergency appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which were resolved within that time.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals decided the issues related to the announcement of the Hawaii vote within six business days of the attorney's oral arguments on these issues. Any criticism of court delay is unfounded in this case, and encourages a reckless approach to judicial determinations on issues of major constitutional importance.
Our constitutional rights are too precious, and the Hawaiian people's quest for justice too important, to sacrifice for the sake of one week's time. Our federal courts handled this case with a speed, diligence and care that is a model for any court in our nation. Justice, not speed alone, is the hallmark of our constitutional rights. Bowing to public pressure, or issuing hasty, ill-prepared decisions, have caused travesties in our nation's history, including the mass imprisonment of 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry, losses of free speech, and civil rights deprivations.
This decision grows out of a lawsuit filed on July 18 by four plaintiffs against 22 state officials, alleging violations of numerous constitutional rights and federal laws. A preliminary injunction hearing was set for Aug. 30. No party filed a request for an earlier hearing date, despite the opportunity to do so. Indeed, Judge Ezra offered to expedite this case by asking if the parties would consent to expedited briefing schedules or dispensing with oral argument. The parties declined, apparently due to the complex legal issues involved.
The court received hundreds of pages of legal arguments from the parties on issues of major importance that will impact the future of civil rights, Hawaii sovereignty, voting rights, supremacy, free speech, timeliness and standing.
Because of the uniqueness of the Hawaiian sovereignty issue, no precedent exists on many of these issues. Briefs continued to be filed with the court until Aug. 30, creating a formidable stack of legal memoranda, exhibits and pleadings for review and analysis. The court could not fairly reach a decision without researching all of the issues and writing a decision that could guide the parties not only in this case, but in the Appeals Court and future cases for decades to come regarding these issues.
The court's decision is immediately published for the use of parties and courts throughout the nation; this thoroughness and reasoning is crucial to provide justice to these parties and the public.
The only way the court could have satisfied critics who requested the court's decision before Queen Liliuokalani's birthday was for the court to issue its decision on the day oral argument - Aug. 30 (the preceding Friday). That would have required the court to have prepared a written decision on this issue before considering all the briefs and arguments submitted, without the ability to analyze or research any of the issues raised at the oral arguments. That would be unjust.
Regardless of your opinion of the Hawaii vote of the outcome of the court's decision, this process should serve as a shining example of the quality of care that should be exercised by our courts, particularly with constitutional issues. In the future, our courts deserve reasonable time and respect for rendering justice, without public pressure for a hasty, ill-prepared result.