Opinion ID: 2581001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inasmuch as the appellees were entitled to summary judgment, we disagree with Ko Olina's arguments on cross-appeal.

Text: On cross-appeal, Ko Olina contends that the then governor failed to comply with article III, section 16 by returning the bills on June 24, 2002, inasmuch as the governor must give ten days' notice before returning the bills. As such, Ko Olina maintains that, to have properly vetoed the [t]hirteen [b]ills, the [then g]overnor's notice should have been given on June 21, 2002 so that the ten days' notice period expired on July 8, thus allowing the [then g]overnor to return such bills with his objections to the [l]egislature on July 9, 2002, prior to the expiration of the forty-five day period. (Footnote omitted.) We disagree. The plain language of article III, section 16 requires the governor to (1) give notice at any time before midnight ten days prior to the forty-fifth day after adjournment sine die, and (2) return the bills he or she intends to veto no later than the forty-fifth day after adjournment sine die. Accordingly, the appellees were entitled to summary judgment.