Charlie Foster posts “County sues self. Wins!” at his Planet Kauai blog:
However, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that theamendment violated the state constitution. Article VIII, Section 3 ofthe Hawai`i Constitution states that “all functions, powers and dutiesrelating to the taxation of real property shall be exercisedexclusively by the counties.” The county argued, and the courtaccepted, that by “counties” the constitution means “county councils”or “county governments.”
This strikes me as an arbitrary readingof the constitution – though the court does dress it up in “originalintent” garb, claiming that committee notes reveal that the truemeaning of “counties” is something more specific than what the documentactually says.
Here we have a case in which the countydid in fact properly exercise its power concerning the taxation of realproperty – in this case by a ballot initiative amending the countycharter. In order to take the win away from the voters of Kaua`iCounty, the court has invented a rule. It has said that, while theconstitution says counties have the exclusive power to regulateproperty taxes, what the constitution really means is county councilshave that power.
I think the court’s reasoning is flawed and itsconclusion wrong. And I base this not on any opinions I have regardingthe political issues involved. I actually have no strong feelings oneway or another about the tax policy that would result from theamendment and that was ultimately blocked by the court. I have no ideawhich would result in the best policy. Instead, I’m offended at thearbitrary (one almost suspects result-oriented) reasoning by which thecourt created ambiguity in the constitutional text where none reallyexisted.
It’s worth reading his whole analysis.