A controversial push to legalize certain political advocacy by Honolulu's prosecutor remains in limbo after defense attorneys and civil rights groups raised strong objections.

Seven City Council members sponsored the legalization bill after the state Supreme Court ruled in March that City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle had lacked the legal authority to spend taxpayers' money to promote a 2002 constitutional amendment.

But the council balked during the bill's first committee hearing in mid-May, after the American Civil Liberties Union vowed to sue if the measure were approved. Honolulu's chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League also objected, as did several defense lawyers.

Bill 45 would provide "specific authority to the prosecuting attorney to expend public funds to advocate in elections on issues involving crime, crime prevention and the criminal justice system."

ACLU of Hawai'i legal director Lois Perrin said the measure was unconstitutional, and promised that her group would seek a court ruling to prove that.

"To allow a government official to use government resources to influence the result of an election is to attack the core of our democratic society," she said.

Carlisle said he believed he was obligated to push for effective law enforcement, and that such opposition should not stop the bill.

"The two things the ACLU does well is file lawsuits and threaten to file lawsuits," he said. "We can't allow that to get in the way."

The council's Executive Matters Committee agreed to seek further legal advice before taking any action.

Carlisle said his office had spent about $2,400 to promote the 2002 constitutional amendment, which permits county prosecutors to send defendants charged with lower-level felonies to trial based on written reports reviewed by a judge.

Before the change, the only two ways to send felony cases to trial were to hold preliminary hearings or obtain grand jury indictments, based on testimony from police and other witnesses.

Carlisle said the streamlined system, called "information charging," had saved much time and money by freeing hundreds of police officers and civilian witnesses from having to come to court to testify.

But some defense attorneys and other opponents say the system has taken away safeguards against unwarranted prosecutions.

Besides the money used to promote the amendment, other public resources used included paper, copying equipment, telephones and a Web site.

Carlisle said he had rejected employees' requests for overtime pay for time they spent promoting the measure.

The high court struck down the amendment in 2004, ruling that the state failed to follow ratification procedures for notifying the public about the proposal. But voters re-approved it that year.

The separate high court ruling over the use of public funds in the 2002 election stemmed from a lawsuit against Carlisle by the late journalist and political commentator Robert Rees.