[ OUR OPINION ]

---

Container law should
be fair to counties

THE ISSUE House Republicans want counties to take on the duties for the beverage container law.

HAWAII'S beverage container law has yet to be fully implemented, but House Republicans want to change the program so that counties do the work while the state collects and controls the funds to run it.

County officials would not be blamed if they looked askance at the proposal. They already are tangled in a similar situation where county police departments carry out and pay the costs for enforcing state traffic laws without reaping some of money the state collects in fines.

If GOP legislators want to dump the responsibilities for setting up collections and recycling on the counties, they should also give over the money completely, no strings attached.

Republicans, including Governor Lingle, opposed the law approved by the Democrat-dominated Legislature in 2002. The law places a 6-cent fee on each beverage container, of which 5 cents is refunded when the empty bottle is returned. The extra penny is to be used to operate the program, but the GOP wants to eliminate that.

The container law is designed to reduce litter, encourage recycling and lessen the burden on landfills, but the state has been slow to get it rolling, drawing complaints about delays in establishing redemption centers and informing consumers about the program.

Now House Minority Leader Galen Fox says Republicans want the law amended to transfer the program to the counties, which makes sense because trash collection and landfill operations are already part of county functions. Each could tailor programs to fit their needs since they would differ in rural areas and in urban ones.

However, the GOP plan would have the state collect and distribute funds to counties based on resident and visitor populations. This would place counties in the position of having to beg for the money and would subject allotments to political wrangling.

The best system would be for the state to leave the law in place, but give the counties a free hand in operations, and that includes butting out of the money picture.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Bush invites gridlock
with judicial nominees

THE ISSUE The president says he will resubmit 12 nominees who were opposed for judgeships by Democrats during the last Congress.

PARTISAN warfare will resume in the next Congress when President Bush renominates controversial candidates for federal appeals courts. Senate Democrats joined in confirming most judicial nominees in the last Congress, but used the filibuster to block confirmation of nominees they consider to be extremist. By sticking with the most ideologically contentious nominees, the president is inviting gridlock.

Bush's list of 12 candidates he says he will send to the Senate for confirmation includes seven whose nominations were blocked on the Senate floor when Democrats said their conservative views were outside the mainstream. Three others who were filibustered chose to decline renomination.

They include California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown and William G. Myers III, both nominated for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with jurisdiction over Hawaii. Brown has drawn criticism for her blunt opposition to affirmative action. Myers, now solicitor of the Interior Department, is opposed by environmentalists because of his long career as a lobbyist for the ranching and mining industries.

The Senate should not be a rubber stamp for presidential nominations, especially judges, who are appointed for life. The Senate has confirmed a greater percentage of Bush's 229 judicial nominees than the confirmation rates for former Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush, rejecting only 10 of the current president's nominees in his first term.

President Bush said after his election that he would reach out to opponents, but his renomination of those deemed by Democrats as extreme indicates otherwise. While Republicans increased their strength in the Senate from 51 to 55 seats, they must gather 60 votes to break a filibuster.

The acrimony should not delay consideration of eight less controversial nominations for district judgeships, including that of Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Michael Seabright in Hawaii.