‘Gut and replace’ can be effective tool
‘Gut and replace’ can be effective tool
I’d like to respond to your Sept. 28, “Our View” regarding one of the arguments for having a constitutional convention or “con con.” You state that the con con should be held to remove the practice known as “gut and replace.” You accurately define “gut and replace” as a “strategy used by legislators to significantly or completely change a bill’s content and purpose deep into the legislative process.”
When the April 2018 major flooding occurred, it was too late in the legislative process to introduce a bill to provide $125 million in state funding to address the devastation on Kauai and Honolulu. The money committees took a previously introduced bill relating to the state budget proposing to fund a live stock feed mill and waste stream recycling facility on Oahu (that was not going to be funded), gutted it, and replaced it with language to ensure that funds would be immediately available to address rockslides, road and stream debris clearance, infrastructure, and other flood-related needs.
The state Legislature approved this “gut and replace” bill within 10 days of the flood. It was then immediately hand-delivered to the governor’s desk for his approval.
I agree that “gut and replace” should not be used frequently. But there are some situations, such as the one described above, when this tool is needed and legitimately serves a public purpose.
Nadine K. Nakamura, State House of Representatives, District 14
