Hanabusa v. Lingle

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi considered a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the governor to nominate University of Hawaiʻi Board of Regents candidates from a list presented by the Candidate Advisory Council. The court held that the petitioners, state senators, had standing because the governor’s conduct allegedly impaired their constitutional advice-and-consent role. It further held that the terms of six regents expired on June 30, 2008 under Act 56 and directed the governor to nominate replacement candidates.

Holdings

1. The petitioners had standing because the alleged usurpation of their constitutionally vested right and duty to advise and consent to Board of Regents appointments constituted a sufficiently personal and legally cognizable injury in fact.
2. The terms of Byron Bender, Michael Dahilig, Ramon de la Pena, Marlene Hapai, Catherine Lagareta, and Jane Tatibouet expired on June 30, 2008 under Act 56, sections 1 and 5.
3. The governor's application of HRS § 304A-104(a)'s holdover provision to the six regents contravened Act 56, sections 1 and 5 and was contrary to the modified constitutional appointment process.
4. The governor's constitutional and statutory duty to nominate and appoint Board of Regents members is nondiscretionary and subject to a reasonable-time standard; it may be compelled by mandamus when unreasonably postponed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petitioners, as state senators with constitutional advice-and-consent responsibilities, had standing to seek mandamus relief.
2. Whether Act 56 caused the terms of the six identified Board of Regents members to expire on June 30, 2008.
3. Whether the statutory holdover provision authorized those six regents to continue serving after their terms expired.
4. Whether the governor's duty to nominate and appoint replacement regents was a nondiscretionary duty subject to a reasonable-time standard and enforceable by mandamus.

Disposition

writ_granted