COMM. 010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• SUPREME.COURT OF HAWAII-21 • Opinion of the Court • I . certain'ininimum qualifications for his appointment, like ' • every other department head of the county. All of the challenged provisions of the revised charter relative to the departments of water supply. police and liquor control are found valid and enforceable: We hold that these provisions relate directly to the organization and government of the County of Maui. and. under HRS § 50-10, they super- • sede all laws of the State on the same subject in•conflict k therewith. Because the conflicting statutes are, not of1 statewide concern or affect the fiscal powers of the county, the provisions of the revised charter are not invalid under article VII of the State Constitution and HRS § 50-15. However, the constitutional protection afforded county 1 • governments against legislative intrusion is far from total.: The constitutional amendments made to article VII. on local ' 1 . government, did not grant to the political subdivisions corn-• _ • j. , plete home rule; such amendments, as appellants state, only 4 1 gave the local governments limited freedom from legislative control. Thus, we hold that these amendments do not enable a .` political subdivision to adopt provisions in its charter which tee repugnant to existing or future laws in the areas.of person- . • nel and procedure which were stricken by the Committee on \ . Local Government from the proposal finally adopted by the i people. ' While the.framers of the State C�i?st-itution did pro- 1 vide in article VII, section 2'that "[cliarter provisions with • I 1 respect to a political subdivision's ex ecutive` 7egislative and i a administrative structure and organization shall lie superior to . statutory provisions.subject to the authority of the legislature 7 \I to enact general laws allocating and reallocating powers and : ;� functions."they also provided in section 5 that"[t]his article i , 1 •°shall not limit the power of the legislature to enact laws of E a 6. state- wide concern." From an examination of the framers'_� iStanding Committee Report No. 53 (majority), we think it is clear that they intended the final authority on all civil service j i,, V.. , ,,,�u.._.,w,....c..,.........._.,,....-....�-w--.+cam..-. ...._,i..-..�.a..,.......o. • _ •_•�,,,,,>,,.,,., r..p..�