In August, by a3-2 vote, the Hawaii Supreme Court determined that the term “county” inarticle VIII, section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution means “countycouncils.” The majority held that only county councils may establish property tax policies, and that voters of the county have no power to do so directly by amending their county charter.
The majority first determined that it was perfectly acceptable for government officials to be both the plaintiffs and the defendants, and sue each other in a friendly lawsuit in which the County Attorney represented both sides. The majority also approved of the county council hiring a private law firm to prosecute the case in which it was a defendant, with $250,000 of public funds.
The dissenting justices accused the majority of “subvertingthe judicial process” by ignoring standing and justiciability requirements by rearranging the parties after oral arguments,and by attributing the arguments of the defendants to the plaintiff. Disclosure: I had a dog in this hunt, as I was counsel for thehomeowners/intervenors who challenged the collusive lawsuit.
Hereare all the inversecondemnation.com posts on the case: opinion, briefs,oral argument transcripts, commentary, and the Wall Street Journal’stake on the case.