HONOLULU — Hawaii Gov. David Ige has approved the state’s last payment to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, bringing an end to a legal battle that began when the newspaper sued to force officials to disclose the names of judicial nominees.
A payment of $45,000 is the state’s last installment in the reimbursement of the paper’s lawyers’ fees, reports the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (http://bit.ly/1Q1JaIf ).
The paper sued Gov. Neil Abercrombie when he refused to release the names of applicants for state judge positions, reversing the practices of his predecessors.
The lawsuit cost taxpayers $115,272.
State open records law dictates that government documents are presumed public unless officials show a compelling reason to withhold them. Abercrombie had argued that releasing applicants’ names could discourage people from applying, but Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto ruled in November 2011 that officials did not provide any proof of this.
After the ruling, Abercrombie released the names and the Judicial Selection Commission amended its rules to say the applicants’ names are made public when they are sent to the governor.
But the state administration fought against paying the newspaper’s legal fees in a drawn-out dispute that was twice appealed, racking up more legal costs before the state finally agreed to pay.
“The Star-Advertiser was able to see this through to the end, even while the governor ordered appeals that delayed the outcome,” said Star-Advertiser President and Publisher Dennis Francis. “But the state’s reaction to our suit is bound to give pause to those who might think about pursuing open records in government on their own.”
Abercrombie said Thursday he was still convinced that the law allowed him to withhold the names. He said he dropped his appeal of Sakamoto’s ruling because of the judicial selection committee’s rule change.
He said the fee dispute was handled by the state attorney general’s office.
“The state has every right, and in fact an obligation, to explore whether or not it owes any funds to anybody,” Abercrombie said.
“And if that involves going to court, and if that involves a ruling that comes ultimately against us, it’s because we were trying to protect the public interest, and not merely trying to carry out the wishes of a private client.”