State wants
amendment voteHonolulu Prosecutor Peter
Carlisle vows to fight for a
rejected constitutional rule
The state will ask the Hawaii Supreme Court next week for permission to put a proposed constitutional amendment -- struck down Tuesday by the court -- back on the ballot in November.
The proposed amendment, approved by Hawaii voters in 2002, would allow prosecutors to charge suspects with felonies without presenting evidence or witnesses to a grand jury or judge.
"We believe that what will happen is there will be another vote, which requires that another election be held since that election was invalidated," said Richard Bissen, first deputy attorney general.
The high court found that the ratification process for the amendment was flawed because the state failed to comply with constitutional requirements on the publication of voter education materials that explain amendments.
Bissen said the high court's decision requires a special election within 120 days from the date its judgment is filed.
"Our department will be filing a motion with the Hawaii Supreme Court requesting some remedy so that this matter, rather than a special election, will be put on for the general election in November," Bissen said.
He urged lawmakers to approve a measure to implement the provisions of the amendment pending voter approval.
But the Legislature might need to start over, said attorney Brook Hart, who opposes the amendment.
Hart said two-thirds of both the state House and Senate will again have to agree to put the proposed amendment on the ballot. And he is not sure the current Legislature will do that.
"If legislators had a full assessment of the matter, they might reach a different conclusion than they reached two years ago," Hart said.
He said lawmakers were told 38 other states had similar provisions, when in fact there were only 11.
Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, a longtime advocate for the amendment, vowed to fight to have the Legislature consider the amendment again this session.
"The Hawaii Supreme Court has convinced itself it did the right thing by invalidating a constitutional amendment. I, on the other hand, am convinced what they did was degrade and demean the most fundamental right of a democracy: the right to vote," he said.
Carlisle said the court's decision is "a mindless genuflection on the altar of the law and permits a pragmatically purposeless procedure to thwart the wills of a sovereign people."
Carlisle said the court overturned the amendment on procedural grounds.
"We are going to drum up support and show how the democratic process has been thwarted and how people are outraged by that," Carlisle said. "This time, I will do my best to give notice of this amendment by posting it in libraries, in the right newspaper pages and hanging it on public bathroom doors if that's what the Supreme Court wants."
Star-Bulletin reporter Sally Apgar contributed to this report.
