VIEWPOINT: Legislature rules allow one legislator to scorn the wishes of many

By LANCE D. COLLINS
John Locke wrote in “Second Treatise on Civil Government” that the legislature is the “first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths.” Its duty is to preserve society and every person in it.

In the United States, we have adopted representative democracy as the method to exercise society’s legislative power. In other words, the legislative power does not reside in the legislators themselves but is delegated to them by the people.

Because all members of a large group cannot always meet together to make decisions, rules of procedure are created to determine when a group is sufficiently represented at a meeting that its members may act for the entire membership. In a democracy, a majority of the group is necessary to act for the entire group and the equality of the members is presumed.

The custom and practice of our state Legislature defies the rule of the majority and gives the powers of the majority to a minority. It is the duty of each elected representative to represent their constituents and they are bound to exercise those duties and responsibilities. They simply cannot divest themselves of their duties by delegating it to others.

But this is what happens in our Legislature. It is efficient and proper for a majority to elect leaders who will preside over them and ensure the proper conduct of proceedings. In the American system, inquiry and investigation occur in committee as opposed to the entire body. This is a preference for legislative specialization over legislative generalization and allows legislators to become actively engaged in particular subject matters as opposed to the British system where active engagement is left to the leadership.

However, our Legislature turns both the rule of majority and the committee system on its head. The fate of Senate Bill 1789 is a good example of the failure of both majority rule and the equality of legislators. The bill would have opened up the process of regulating cable access television stations to the public, rather than leaving it solely in the hands of the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

Sens. Shan Tsutsui, J. Kalani English and Roz Baker drafted and proposed Senate Bill 1789. It was heard and passed out of two Senate committees and passed out of the Senate unanimously. It was then transmitted to the House. Originally, the House leadership referred the bill to three committees.

Because of strong public support, it soon was discovered that Rep. Kyle Yamashita, who had refused to hold hearings on companion bills, was again mounting a backroom campaign to kill the Senate’s bill. While Yamashita’s committee was the second referral, the chairman of the first committee indicated that he would allow it to pass only if Yamashita concurred.

After two weeks of massive statewide pressure, Reps. Mele Carroll, Angus McKelvey, Joe Bertram and Joe Souki were able get the Senate bill re-referred to the Finance Committee. The next day, Yamashita introduced a concurrent resolution as his alternative to the Senate bill.

After more weeks of intense public pressure, the Finance Committee held a hearing and voted to pass the Senate bill. However, as the days went by, the committee report was not filed. Repeated telephone calls to the House Finance Committee staff returned answers in riddle form as to why the report was not being filed. Then, an internal deadline passed and no report was filed. Then Yamashita’s resolution was heard by the Finance Committee, which voted to pass the resolution and immediately filed the committee report.

Even after the internal deadline, the majority of the House could have passed the Senate bill. Yet, as the days went on, the bill remained in legislative limbo. Then, once multiple deadlines had passed and it was clear the bill was dead, the House leadership then blamed the so-called mishap on the Finance Committee staff.

Why should any bill with statewide popular support be subject to the veto of one legislator and in a manner that prevents full public scrutiny? Why should the people of South Maui, West Maui, East Maui and Central Maui or the representatives of every district other than Yamashita’s be prevented from expressing their will on this matter?

Yamashita’s back-room killing of SB 1789 is a prime example of the utter decadence and moral perversion of the legislative power of society. The rules of procedure must not be used to cloak bad positions and create inequality among elected representatives.

• Lance D. Collins is an attorney specializing in parliamentary law and open government. He has a law office in Wailuku and has been a legal representative for Akaku: Maui Community Television.