State lawmakers will ask the state Supreme Court to clarify a ruling last month on Hawaii Superferry because of its potential effect on legislative power.

The court ruled that a state law which allowed the ferry to operate during an environmental impact statement was unconstitutional because it was a special law that applied only to Superferry. The Lingle administration has until April 13 to ask the court to reconsider its ruling.

State House and Senate leaders will file a friend-of-the-court brief to the state's motion, asking for clarification on the breadth of the general law provision of the state Constitution, the constitutionality of repeal or "sunset" clauses in legislation, and the proper application of severability clauses in legislation.

Lawmakers are concerned that an overbroad interpretation of general law could restrict the Legislature from responding to future situations involving specific interests or areas of state land. Lawmakers also are concerned that the court's ruling tossed out the entire Superferry law, which, among other provisions, had a clause that prevented Superferry from suing the state over environmental and legal decisions.

"We think that given the impact this decision could have on the Legislature as a co-equal branch of government, we should have an opportunity to present our arguments and concerns," state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, D-21st (Nanakuli, Makaha), said in a statement. "Our interest is solely in the effect this decision could have on existing and future legislation."

Lawmakers contend that the court's ruling has caused significant uncertainty.

Lawmakers have identified legislation pending this session that could be influenced by the Superferry ruling, including bills related to Native Hawaiians living at Kahana Valley, a moratorium on the development of agricultural land on the North Shore and surrounding areas, and the sale or exchange of state land at Sand Island to business operators leasing the parcels.

Dick Mayer, a retired economics professor on Maui critical of Superferry, said he understands the lawmakers' request and does not oppose the idea as long as it does not challenge the entire ruling. "I hope the court clears it up," he said. "I think the Legislature needs clarification as to how it applies to future legislation.

"I agree with the Superferry portion of it and, as long as that is not being reconsidered, I'm pleased."

State Attorney General Mark Bennett declined to comment yesterday on the scope of the state's motion, describing it as a work in progress.

The Lingle administration had been concerned immediately after the ruling about the effect on the operating agreement with Superferry and the state's shield against lawsuits.

State harbors officials, however, have said more recently that the operating agreement with Superferry is still in effect.

A Maui Circuit Court judge had lifted an injunction halting the operating agreement and Superferry's use of Kahului Harbor after the Legislature passed the law allowing the Superferry to operate during the environmental review. The Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional, but sent the case back to the Maui court.

Since Superferry voluntarily suspended operations, environmentalists have not gone back to Maui court to restore the injunction.