---

Legislators’ ruse
threatens rail bill

THE ISSUE Some legislators say Gov. Lingle's planned veto of the rail transit bill might be invalid because of an error in her notice of intent.

GOTCHA tactics in Hawaii politics reached a new low when Democratic legislators suggested that a technical error would nullify Gov. Lingle's veto of a bill allowing counties to trigger increases in the state excise tax to fund transportation projects. If the measure dies, it will be because legislators chose gamesmanship over reconciling their differences with the governor.

Lingle favors the measure in general terms but is opposed to the state administering the tax increase, as the bill provides, instead of the counties. Mayor Hannemann proposed a sensible compromise that would ensure that a share of the revenues be directed to the state Tax Department, instead of the general fund, to pay for administrative costs.

As required by state law, the governor advised the Legislature in writing on Monday of her intention to veto the proposed tax increase and four other bills by the July 12 deadline. Instead of trying to work out a compromise, legislators cleverly detected a flaw in her notice of intention: A bureaucratic snafu resulted in the notice referring to the bills by the wrong numbers.

Lingle called the flaw "your worst nightmare," which is rather surprising given her journalistic background. We make mistakes in these pages more often than we would like and then print corrections without losing too much sleep. We know occasional mistakes are inevitable.

Some legislators are adamant that the law forbids corrections to be made in the veto process, so any veto of the bill would be invalid. The legal system is not so fastidious. To invalidate Lingle's veto, a judge would have to find that legislators were such numbskulls that they failed to understand that the veto was directed at the bill in question. That is highly unlikely.

On the other hand ...

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Shield law is needed
to protect journalists

THE ISSUE Time magazine has agreed to furnish documents to a grand jury about a reporter's confidential sources.

TIME magazine's capitulation to the Bush administration in agreeing to provide documents about a reporter's confidential sources should reverberate through all media. The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to intervene makes all journalists fair game to be forced to reveal their sources in court. A federal shield law for reporters might be the only protection that could ensure a free media.

Time agreed to turn over the documents -- over the objection of reporter Matthew Cooper -- to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame. The New York Times, whose reporter Judith Miller faces up to four months in jail for refusing to testify before the panel, expressed disappointment with Time's decision.

The new rules create a dilemma for much of the media, which are owned by publicly traded companies. Facing heavy court fines for refusing to disclose information, some corporate officials might feel their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders requires their buckling to government. Time magazine is owned by Time Warner Inc., which also owns CNN.

James C. Goodale, a former general counsel of The Times Co., disagrees. "A public company must protect its assets even if that means going into contempt," he told the Times. "It has an obligation under the First Amendment to protect those assets, and it's in the interest of shareholders to protect those assets."

Attorneys general from 34 states, including Hawaii, asked the Supreme Court to consider the Cooper-Miller case, but the court declined. Without a federal shield law, the laws in 33 states and court recognition of reporters' privilege in Hawaii and 17 others could be made meaningless.

The day after the high court refused to hear the case, a federal appeals court upheld contempt orders against four reporters who refused to disclose their sources to Wen Ho Lee, an atomic scientist suing the government for violating his privacy. For now, the hunt is on for journalists and their sources.

---

---

---