Money Unlimited
How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.
by Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker.

Pro Publica
The Best Watchdog Journalism on Campaign Finance

WisconsinWatch.org
Walker’s official work time declines as national fame grows (a three part series based on Gov. Scott Walker’s official calendars), By Kate Golden and Amy Karon.

CaliforniaWatch.org
With campaign donations, bond underwriters also secure contracts
Will Evans

Critics struggle to end ‘pay to play’ in school bonds
Will Evans

For those interested, here’s a link to the state’s legal memo in opposition to the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. It has a lengthy and detailed history that tracks the political and legal development of the current plan. Very interesting.

With the candidate filing deadline just three weeks away, there is obviously a lot of pressure on the court to quickly render a decision that allows the elections to go forward.

If the current reapportionment plan stands, there are two interesting races shaping up out on our side of the island.

Jessica Wooley, who currently represents Kaaawa and the rest of House District 47, now lives just inside the boundary of the newly redrawn District 48 and has taken out papers to run in the new district, where she will apparently face House Majority Leader Pono Chong in the August Primary Election. Former Republican Rep. Colleen Meyer, who was defeated by Wooley in 2008, has also taken out nomination papers.

Senate District 25, already in the news because of the internal flap in the Democratic Party over former Lingle cabinet member Laura Thielen to run as a Democrat, looks to be heating up even more.

In an email to friends this week, Nancy Caraway solicited campaign support for Levani Lipton, who has already filed to run in the 25th Senate District.

Here’s what Caraway, who is married to Gov. Neil Abercrombie, said about her friend, Lipton.

Raised windward, Harvard Kennedy School
Directs int’l development aid organization
Levani is the most authentic, committed, smart young leader in Hawaii today!
That is saying a lot. And she’s even more
This is her first run for public office.

Former Senator Fred Hemmings has also taken out papers to run in the district. I guess Fred found out that retirement wasn’t all that much fun.

Incumbent Sen. Pohai Ryan has not yet taken out nomination papers.

None of the potential candidates have held a fundraiser to date, according to a check with the Campaign Spending Commission’s database.

So election districts are still subject to change, candidates are already campaigning, and everything could change depending on the court’s decision on Friday.

Sounds like exciting times ahead!

SB2858 had been proposed by the Office of Information Practices and incorporated into the Governor’s package. It was passed as SB2858, SD1, HD2, CD1.

From the bill’s official description: “Creates a process for an agency to obtain judicial review of a decision made by the Office of Information Practices relating to the Sunshine Law or the Uniform Information Practices Act, and clarifies standard of review.”

Here’s what opponents had to say in a letter to legislators and in a Civil Beat commentary.

• Opponents called it the “most serious erosion” in the 24-year history of Hawaii’s Freedom of Information Law.

The problem with this claim is that the bill makes no change in any of the the definitions of public information or public records, or in requirements for open meeting or records. It doesn’t take any type of information or government record and move it out of public view. Over the 24-years since Chapter 92F was passed and the OIP created, there have been other amendments that certainly diminished the public’s right to know.

For example, the exemption allowing meetings with a board’s attorney originally allowed private discussions only of matter involved in actual or potential litigation, as I recall. Section 92-5 was later amended to its current expanded form, which allows a closed meeting “(4) To consult with the board’s attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities.”

That’s certainly a greater threat to openness. And how about the provision regarding investigations of misconduct by public employees? If I recall correctly, the law originally required disclosure of information in any case resulting in disciplinary action. But it was amended to allow public disclosure only when the discipline resulted in suspension or dismissal of an employee, and there is no requirement for public disclosure in a case involving a police officer unless it results in the officer’s discharge.

So does anything in SB2858 actually reduce the public right to know as much as these and other substantive changes that have occurred over the past 24 years? In my view, the answer is, “no way.” The rhetoric was way overheated.

• Opponents describe the bill as creating “a complex, cumbersome process allowing a government agency to appeal to already overburdened courts an official decision mandating disclosure of a record to which the public is entitled.”

The problem is that having to appeal to the courts is already part of the process. Openness advocates have had to go to court many times under the existing law in order to enforce OIP opinions, which are not self-enforcing. If SB2858 had been voted down, it wouldn’t have eliminated the need for requesters, whether private individuals or the media, to go to court.

• They say it would “weaken OIP’s powers, waste limited resources of OIP and other agencies, and make it even more difficult for citizens to obtain government records in a timely manner.”

Again, the problem here is that OIP itself believes the bill will strengthen its powers and allow it to more efficiently allocate its limited resources. It’s hard for critics to argue that they know better than the agency what the impact will likely be.

• And bill opponents commented positively on opposition expressed by county officials. “Three members of the Maui County Council, including the chair and the vice chair, and Kauai’s county attorney testified against the bill as did Honolulu’s Managing Director Douglas Chin.”

Pay close attention here. Why did the counties opposed SB2858? Because they all testified it would give OIP more power, and take away county discretion in applying the sunshine and open records requirements of the law.

For example, this is from testimony submitted by the Honolulu Managing Director: “We believe the bill does not give proper weight to the privacy and public policy interests recognized in statute that limit the application of the Sunshine Law and the Uniform Information Practices Act.”

Maui County Council Member Riki Hokama testified in opposition because the bill “would establish the OIP as a ‘judge and jury,’” and allow OIP to “dictate to an elected county council how to conduct business before the community it serves and is accountable to.”

All of the county testimony was based on their understanding that the SB2858 strengthened OIP’s powers and authority, and would require more openness at the county level.

And isn’t that what openness advocates actually want?

• And, finally, opponents said the bill “would permit—perhaps even invite—litigation.”

That’s certainly possible. However, the sunshine law already allows court challenges to be brought by agencies. Has that somehow opened the floodgates to litigation? I think it would be hard for anyone to look at the actual record and say that the law resulted in excessive litigation and the overall blocking of public access to meetings, minutes, etc. Based on the actual 24 years of experience, it appears that the fear of “inviting litigation” is overblown.

It should also be noted that the bill was amended to incorporate additional protections for the public suggested in testimony from the League of Women Voters.

It’s fair to say that this wasn’t a bill that independent openness advocates would have proposed. But, in the end, neither is it the “end of the world” measure portrayed in the closing days of the session, especially after looking more closely at arguments made against it.