The Maui County Council Vice-Chairwoman has introduced a resolution urging Hawaii's governor to create a task force to establish protocols for safely resuming organized sports. As a "Home Rule" state, Hawaii gives significant authority to local governments. While states have primary authority during public health emergencies, local governments with home rule authority can act to protect residents' health in the absence of state action. However, once states set statewide responses, local actions must step aside. Networks of mayors worldwide are sharing COVID-19 response strategies, and US mayors should be able to implement best practices while collaborating with state leaders.

1. MAUI STANDS STRONG – MAUI STANDS UNITED
GOVERNOR URGED TO CREATE TASK FORCE ON RESUMING SPORTS
The Maui News, February 19, 2021
<https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2021/02/governor-urged-to-create-task-force-on-resuming-sports/>
Maui County Council Vice-Chairwoman Keani Rawlins-Fernandez has introduced a resolution for
today's council meeting to urge Gov. David Ige to create a task force to establish protocols to safely
resume organized sports and recreational activities in Hawaii.
Vice-Chairwoman Keani Rawlins-Fernandez Resolution sends a clear message that the Maui County Council
afrms and confrms the validity and legality of the Emergency Orders issued by Governor David Y. Ige and
continuation of this process is in the best interest of the people of Maui County and the State of Hawaii. The
Resolution reinforces and upholds the approval process adhered to by Mayor Michael Victorino.
Hawaii is a 'Home Rule' State. Excerpts from:
AS COVID-19 PROLIFERATES MAYORS TAKE RESPONSE LEAD, SOMETIMES IN CONFLICTS
WITH THEIR GOVERNORS
By Sheila R. Foster, Faculty Advisor, Georgetown Law
Project on State and Local Government Policy and Law (SALPAL)
<https://www.law.georgetown.edu/salpal/as-covid-19-proliferates-mayors-take-response-lead-sometimes-in-conficts-with-their-governors/>
The COVID-19 crisis has shown dramatically why local government, where mayors and health
ofcials are on the frontlines of responding to global health threats like pandemics, is increasingly
where efective governance happens in America. But as the nation's mayors fex their muscles, they
sometimes run into confict with governors, who have primary authority in a public health
emergency under most state laws. We've seen that this week, but also have seen how a proactive
response by mayors can drive policy change at the state level. After all, viruses don't respect city
limits.
The power of local governments—including cities, counties, and towns— is therefore dependent on
the authority given to them by their respective states. In legal terminology, this power is either
restricted under “Dillon’s Rule” (named after Judge John Dillon) or more expansive according to
“Home Rule” authority. According to Dillon’s Rule, a local government can exercise only those
powers explicitly granted to them by the state government. If there is any doubt as to which powers
are given to local governments, the presumption is that they lack the power to act. Home Rule, on
the other hand, is a constitutional or statutory delegation of local autonomy and limits the degree of
state interference in local afairs. The scope of home rule authority varies from state to state, but
localities that have it tend to exercise it and test its powers in areas ranging from local gun control
measures to minimum wage laws to bans on trans fat in retail food sales.
There are very few “pure” Home Rule or Dillon's Rule states, meaning that few apply one rule to
every local government. Most states are hybrid states in which both Dillon's Rule and Home Rule
apply to diferent local governments or to diferent functions of local governments. Local
governments eligible for home rule in these hybrid states tend to be populous cities and counties,
and often must either be legislatively granted home rule or must enact a self-executing local home
rule charter.

2. In the absence of state action, local governments that have Home Rule authority can exercise that
authority to put in place orders that protect the health, safety and welfare of their residents. In other
words, cities can step into the breach before state authorities exercise their authority in an
emergency. However, once the state has acted and set the terms of a statewide response, local
governments must essentially step aside. The state's action, and the scope of its action, efectively
preempts local action by occupying the emergency feld during the crisis at hand. This strikes the
right balance by giving power to localities, particularly those densely populated urban centers likely
to contribute to the risk of disease spread, to institute measures to protect their residents. At the
same time, it preserves the right of states to occupy the feld of responding to a particular
emergency, especially when the emergency traverses local government boundaries and poses a risk
to the entire state as the COVID-19 crisis does.
Today, networks of Mayors around the world are sharing information and evidence-based strategies
for responding to public health threats in urban environments. U.S. Mayors should be able to bring
those best practices home and have the authority to implement them as part of a system of
federalism in which subnational governments are the “laboratories of democracy,” as Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis said of state governments almost a century ago. Instead of preempting
mayors, state leaders should view the actions put in place by mayors as opportunities to coordinate
responses and for collaborative policymaking. Whether acting independently or collaboratively,
mayors play an indispensable role in responding to global threats like pandemics and in improving
our collective ability to withstand these threats.
Silversword at Haleakala Maui
Joe Marquez, The Smoking Camera Photography