Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Thursday, February 22, 2001Republicans
win rare victory
in LegislatureThe issue: Republicans have forced House Democrats to allow debate on measures they pull out of committee.
HAWAII Republicans have won a historic victory and given new life to democracy in this state. Flexing their political muscles in the state House of Representatives, they have forced the Democratic majority to agree to floor debates on bills that the Republicans, using their newly acquired 19 votes, pull out of committee.
Not since statehood have Republicans had the votes to bring to the floor bills that Democrats had bottled up in committee. To their credit, they did not shrink from using that power.
When the Democrats responded by immediately moving to recommit the bills to committee, the Republicans showed they could play hard ball, too. They began using roll-call votes and other procedural maneuvers to stall action, delaying hundreds of bills and requiring an extension of a legislative deadline.
The tactics forced the Democrats to negotiate a compromise in order to allow the House to conduct business. The agreement allows the minority to recall bills "in a reasonable manner for a reasonable number of bills."
It requires Republicans to first ask committee chairmen to hold hearings on the bills in question before seeking to pull them out of committee.
The agreement doesn't obligate the Democrats to vote on the merits of bills that are pulled out. They can vote to table the measures or send them back to committee.
House Minority Leader Galen Fox said the Republicans are pleased they will be able to debate the issues on the floor. He said that is the issue the Republicans were fighting for.
GOP Rep. Charles Djou said one reason for the hang-up was that the Democrats didn't want their votes recorded on any bills pulled by the Republicans, fearing that the record could be used against them in future election campaigns.
Republicans have been trying to revive bills such as a repeal of the 4 percent excise tax on food, medical services and rent, and to force a floor vote on the bill raising the sexual age of consent.
Democrats defeated the proposed elimination of the excise tax on food, medical services and rent -- a perennial GOP position -- but the fact that the measure reached the floor at all was a victory of sorts for the minority.
The strong bid for the governorship made by Linda Lingle in 1998 that fell just short of victory evidently encouraged Republican candidates and helped the GOP expand its membership in the House last November. For the first time in decades, Republicans are a factor to be reckoned with in the Legislature.
Hawaii's one-party system may now be described as a one-and-a-half party system. This is a definite improvement.
High court
protects states
in job disputes
STATES have gained an important protection against federal dominance in a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Supported by Hawaii and other states, Alabama successfully challenged a federal law that allowed disabled Americans to file employment-discrimination lawsuits against state governments.
Congress typically exempts not only itself but the entire federal government from laws aimed at eliminating job discrimination. Those laws fly in the face of the 11th Amendment, which gives states broad protection against lawsuits except in cases involving violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress has the right to enact anti-discrimination laws but only against private employers, not against states, unless a constitutional guarantee is involved.
The Alabama case encompassed two lawsuits brought by employees accusing state agencies of discrimination because of medical problems -- breast cancer in one lawsuit and respiratory ailments in the other.
Advocates of the disabled criticized Hawaii's attorney general last year for signing on to a friend-of-the-court brief siding with the state of Alabama. However, the case involved more than the rights of the disabled. It also involved the issue of the limits of congressional authority over state governments.
The high court, in a 5-4 vote, ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 does not comply with the 11th Amendment. The equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not compel states to make special accommodations for disabled workers, the majority said.
States are allowed to "quite hardheadedly -- and perhaps hardheartedly -- hold to job-qualification requirements which do not make allowance for the disabled," the court said. "If special accommodations for the disabled are to be required, they have to come from positive law and not through the equal-protection clause."
The ruling does not diminish the law making it illegal for private companies to discriminate against qualified workers who have disabilities. Also, disabled state employees alleging discrimination can seek relief through state laws or with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but they cannot sue for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Supreme Court's ruling is the latest to follow its current trend of limiting the power of the federal government over the states. It hopefully will discourage Congress from enacting more laws meddling with state programs and employment practices that comply with the U.S. Constitution.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
Frank Bridgewater, Acting Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
