Opinion ID: 6491692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The HGEA’s Reasonableness Argument Is Discemable.

Text: The majority contends that “the reference in a footnote of the opening brief to a ‘reasonable basis test’ posed no discernable argument as to why the prohibition itself, ie.[,] HRS § 84-13, was unreasonable” and that the HGEA instead “rests on the breach of Article 7B of the collective bargaining agreement.” Majority opinion at 90-91 n. 20, 170 P.3d at 341-42 n. 20 (emphasis in original). The HGEA, however, does more than just cite a test; it applies the test by arguing that article 7.B of the collective bargaining agreement and HRS § 89-3 inform the puipose of the forum and, thus, the reasonableness of the restriction. Specifically, the HGEA maintains that: The state ban in this present case does not even satisfy a “reasonable” basis test, since the restriction and limitation imposed is contraiy to the purpose for which union bulletin boards were created and in violation of the contractual commitment made to [the] HGEA.... “The State may not exclude speech where its distinction is not ‘reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum[.]’ ” [Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.,] 515 U.S. [819,] 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 [ (1995) (quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 809, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985)).] The purpose of a union bulletin board in [article] 7B is for union representational purposes under Section 89-3, HRS. (Some brackets added and some in original.) Moreover, as the language of the HGEA’s argument demonstrates, the HGEA goes further than simply asserting that article 7.B was breached by the state; it also contends that the article speaks to the purpose of the forum. In particular, the HGEA argues that “the restriction and limitation imposed is [ (1) ] contrary to the purpose for which union bulletin boards were created,” as evidenced by article 7.B., “and [ (2) ] in violation of the contractual commitment made to [the] HGEA.” (Emphasis added.) The conjunctive “and” establishes that the HGEA’s argument is not narrowly confined to the issue of breach, as the majority maintains, see majority opinion at 90-91 n. 20, 170 P.3d at 341-42 n. 20, but rather extends to the purpose of the forum. Hence, while I find the HGEA’s reasonableness argument ultimately unpersuasive, I believe that the argument is indeed discernable.