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

Heading: The HGEA Reasonably Raised The Unconstitutional Conditions Issue In Its First Point Of Error.

Text: The majority asserts that the HGEA’s unconstitutional conditions argument was never raised as a point of error on appeal, because the HGEA failed “to clearly identify the issue as a point of appeal,” citing HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). Majority opinion at 91 n. 23, 170 P.3d at 342 n. 23. The rule does not, however, say that an issue must be “clearly identified],” id. (emphasis added). Instead, HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) provides that an opening brief must contain: A concise statement of the points of error set forth in separately numbered paragraphs. Each point shall state: (i) the alleged error, committed by the court or agency; (ii) where in the record the alleged error occurred; and (iii) where in the record the alleged error was objected to or the manner in which the alleged error was brought to the attention of the court or agency. Where applicable, each point shall also include the following: [[Image here]] (C) when the point involves a finding or conclusion of the court or agency, a quotation of the finding or conclusion urged as error; [[Image here]] Points not presented in accordance with this section will be disregarded, except that the appellate court, at its option, may notice a plain error not presented. Thus, as a textual matter, I do not believe that the rule calls for an issue to be clearly identified and, absent such language, believe that it suffices for an issue to be reasonably identified in a point of error. Indeed, the majority’s clear identification standard, see majority opinion at 91 n. 23, 170 P.3d at 342 n. 23, would be unadvisable because it would, consistent with the plain language of the rule, require this court to disregard all points of error that are anything less than clear and further require this court to notice plain error in order to address such points, see HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). Accordingly, in my view, an issue is properly raised under HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) when this court can at least reasonably identify the issue within a point of error. In its first point of error, the HGEA asserts that the circuit court “erred by upholding a State ban on election & campaign postings on an authorized union bulletin board which abridges the right of ‘free speech’ guaranteed to government employees.” The HGEA advanced its unconstitutional conditions argument—which it asserts is grounded in the right to freedom of speech—in the circuit court, 4 and the circuit court implicitly rejected this contention in its ruling, which the HGEA quotes at length in its first point of error. To be sure, the HGEA does not assert as a separate point of error that the circuit court erred in concluding that a government employee’s right to freedom of speech was violated specifically by virtue of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. It does, nevertheless, generally contend that the right was violated, and further explains, in the argument section of its opening brief correlating to its first point of error, that one of the bases for that alleged violation is the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Accordingly, I believe that the HGEA’s unconstitutional conditions argument is fairly subsumed within its first point of error.