By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

Gov. Linda Lingle was noticeably and publicly unhappy this year over the Legislature's failure to pass her proposed constitutional amendment that would break up the statewide elected school board.

The Legislature's refusal, Lingle argued, amounted to a rejection of the "peoples' right to decide" on this important issue.

Whatever side one takes on that matter, it is tough to argue that the Legislature is unwilling on principle to "let the people decide" major constitutional issues.

In fact, an unusual number of proposed changes to the Hawai'i constitution were approved this year, including four administration-supported proposals dealing with the criminal justice system.

The changes, if approved by the voters, would repudiate Hawai'i Supreme Court decisions in several important areas, including:

• Public disclosure of the identities and other registration information about certain convicted sex offenders once they are released from prison.

• Protection of confidential information between a crime victim and his or her therapist or counselor during court cases.

• Allowing prosecutors to file felony criminal charges by filing written statements to the court rather than going through the process of a preliminary hearing or grand jury hearing.

• Making it somewhat easier for prosecutors to make their case in instances of continuing sexual assault, particularly as it involves a minor.

All except the last one were administration proposals and all four are enthusiastically supported by the administration and Atty. Gen. Mark Bennett.

The interesting thing here is that each of these changes to our Constitution arises out of Hawai'i Supreme Court decisions that have frustrated law enforcement officials. In other words, the voters are being asked to undo, through the state Constitution, what the Supreme Court has wrought.

At one level, these can be related to what can only be described as a polite, but quite obvious, tension between the administration and the Supreme Court.

That tension became public last year when Lingle called the Supreme Court "dysfunctional." It was tough language and it reflected the opinion of some, including those close to Lingle, who feel the court has been too ready to make law rather than interpret it.

Since that time Lingle and Chief Justice Ron Moon have smoothed over their differences, at least publicly. But there is a lingering sense that many in the Lingle administration — and in the law enforcement community — continue to feel that the Hawai'i Supreme Court goes too frequently off track.

Bennett and others in the law enforcement community will argue forcefully that the changes are less a rebuke to the Supreme Court than a simple effort to restore a bit of rationality to the criminal justice system.

It is an appealing argument. As voters become better informed on these amendments, they will in fact be forced to make considered judgments on the work of the Hawai'i Supreme Court.