A PROLONGED power struggle between state lawmakers and Gov. Linda Lingle could jeopardize decisions made in the last six months by the University of Hawaii Board of Regents, including approval of the university's budget.

Because the Supreme Court ruled that Lingle violated state law when she held over six regents after their terms had expired in June, it stands to reason that the actions of an illegally constituted board also could be illegal.

The university will now have to review all of the 15-member board's decisions made since July and determine which can be challenged. It appears the budget vote is one of them because the board would not have had a quorum without the six held-over members.

The case, brought by two state senators, involved a constitutional amendment voters approved in 2006, creating an advisory council to recommend nominees for the board from which Lingle could choose, and a law that implemented the amendment, passed in 2007 over Lingle's veto.

The law, initiated by the Democrat-dominated Legislature, was a blatant attempt to wrest power from the Republican governor. Before then, governors had sole discretion to choose nominees for Senate confirmation, and that arrangement seemed adequate to legislators as long as the governor was a Democrat.

Earlier this year, the council gave Lingle a list of 22 names. Of the six she nominated, five were confirmed. The single rejection was that of Kitty Lagareta, Lingle's friend and former political adviser who had served on the board since 2003.

The governor then chose to hold over Lagareta and five other regents whose terms expired in June, contending that the law did not specify a deadline for nominations. She argued that other laws and precedent suggested she could hold over members for as long as two legislative sessions, which would leave the six in place until the end of her administration.

Though without a distinct deadline, the law requires the governor to appoint new members by the time regents' terms expire.

The board oversees operations of the 10-campus university system and its decisions can have considerable consequences. Remaining on the board's agenda, for example, is selection of a new university president.

The tug-of-war for power between the legislative and executive branches has always been contentious but more so since Lingle was elected. The amendment and law were supposed to dilute the influence of politics from the appointment process, but has heightened the battle instead.

The court, delivering an unusually swift ruling just hours after hearing arguments in the case, gave Lingle 30 days to choose her nominees. They will serve until confirmed by the Senate next year, when voters will see if politics is again inserted into the process.