[ OUR OPINION ]
GOP gains big wins
in Hawaii, CongressREPUBLICANS have reason to celebrate in Hawaii and across the country after yesterday's elections. Linda Lingle put Washington Place into GOP possession for the first time in four decades, and a furious campaign schedule by President Bush helped Republicans increase their majority in the U.S. House and regain control of the Senate. While his party's wins will make things easier for the president, Lingle faces the daunting task of dealing with a Legislature that remains heavily Democratic.
THE ISSUE Republicans gain important victories in Hawaii and in congressional elections.
Lingle's victory is historic. She will become Hawaii's first Republican governor since William F. Quinn, who was elected governor of the new state in 1959 and served until losing his bid for re-election to John Burns in 1962. Quinn had been the appointed governor of the Territory of Hawaii. Lingle also will be Hawaii's first woman governor.
Lingle ran on a platform of change aimed at improving conditions for business to thrive so Hawaii can spring from the economic stagnation in which it has been mired for more than a decade. Her proposals deserve consideration by a Legislature under greater Democratic control than in the past session. Republican seats in the 51-member House will drop from 19 to 15, two fewer than needed to force bills out of committee and onto the House floor. The GOP increased its seats in the 25-member Senate from three to five.
Democrats in the Legislature may be tempted to thwart the new governor's initiatives, but such a strategy would entail risks. Lingle proved adept during her eight years as mayor of Maui at achieving bipartisan cooperation while gathering public support to counter resolute opposition. Democratic intransigence could backfire in the 2004 elections. Hawaii voters did not elect Lingle and mostly Democratic legislators with an expectation of political gridlock.
Voters often hold governors responsible for their states' economic conditions. President Bush's high popularity -- stemming from his position of leadership in the war against terrorism -- was a more important factor in congressional elections. The party in power at the White House normally loses seats in an off-year election because of the absence of political coattails existent in the previous election, but Bush had no coattails in 2000; Al Gore won a greater popular vote.
The GOP's control of Congress should not be regarded as a mandate for the Bush administration. Senate Democrats retain their ability to filibuster, forcing the president to seek bipartisan support for his measures. If he refuses to compromise, he will have difficulty complaining to voters in 2004 about gridlock with a Congress that has a Republican majority in both chambers.
BACK TO TOP |
Balance is needed
for advocacy adsADVOCACY organizations have launched legal challenges against both state and federal rules aimed at controlling political advertising. New federal disclosure requirements that resemble existing state rules ideally should leave First Amendment rights intact without opening floodgates to unregulated "soft money." The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide how to achieve that fragile balance in its current session, while a federal judge in Hawaii considers similar arguments.
THE ISSUE Rules regarding advertisements on political issues are being challenged in court.
Hawaii Right to Life filed a lawsuit last week against the state Campaign Spending Commission, complaining that rules governing "electioneering communications" -- issue ads that refer to political candidates -- are too restrictive. Disclosure requirements include the names of all donors.
A new federal law that includes identical terminology went into effect today. Several interest groups have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington that is headed to the Supreme Court.
The high court ruled in 1976 that the government can regulate groups that place "express advocacy" ads but not "issue advocacy" ads -- those devoid of "magic words" such as "vote for" or "reject," with candidates' names. Since then, the court has included among "express advocacy" ads those that "in effect" give an "explicit directive" of support or opposition to particular candidates. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hawaii, has expanded that to include language that is "unmistakable and unambiguous, suggestive of only one plausible meaning" in regard to candidates.
In its lawsuit, Hawaii Right to Life says it scrapped plans to distribute voter guides and run radio ads identifying where candidates stood on the issue of physician-assisted suicide because of the state regulation. The suit alleges that the rules are unconstitutionally broad and vague.
The organization's planned ads probably would not have qualified as "issue advocacy" because of the inclusion of candidates' names. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that an anti-abortion organization in Massachusetts failed that test for the same reason. However, the court also ruled that federal regulations in effect at that time were so burdensome that they interfered with the group's constitutionally protected political speech. Hawaii requirements are less onerous, but the courts must determine whether they are at an acceptable level.
BACK TO TOP
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, Editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, Assistant Editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, Assistant Editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comMary Poole, Editorial Page Editor, 529-4790; mpoole@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, Contributing Editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
