A legal challenge led by two state senators to Gov. Linda Lingle's authority to decide who will serve — and for how long — on the University of Hawai'i Board of Regents can be read as yet another squabble between Democrats in the Legislature and the Republican governor.

And there would be some validity to that analysis. It is without question that the Democrats who control the Legislature have been more the zealous in their efforts to keep Lingle and her executive powers within check. Sometimes this has reflected genuine policy disagreements. Other times it looks like political gamesmanship.

But this case might be more than politics as usual. Depending on how it works out, it could throw into question basic operational decisions concerning the university. It might even put a pall on the university's efforts to choose top administrators, scholars and leaders.

Why? Because the basic argument of the two senators — Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and Education Committee Chairman Norman Sakamoto — is that six Lingle regents now sitting on the UH board are there illegally. Lingle chose to hold over six of her appointees after their terms ran out. The Senate directly rejected one of those appointees, Kitty Lagareta, for another term.

In the other cases, Lingle decided to keep the incumbents in place pending their replacement from a list produced by a new citizen advisory council.

That, said the senators, is illegal because Lingle had names available from the advisory council to fill the slots held by those regents whose terms had expired. After she chose not to do so, the two senators asked the state Supreme Court to force Lingle to fill the vacancies with new names.

In a somewhat rare move, the court issued an order commanding the governor to fill the vacancies or explain why, legally, she does not have to at this point. Attorney General Mark Bennett has argued that Lingle has a legal and constitutional right to keep the incumbents in place until replacements are nominated and confirmed.

If the high court agrees with Bennett, the issue is moot. But if it agrees with the senators, every decision on hiring, contracts, educational policy or other business conducted by the current board is legally clouded.

This would create a tremendous headache. A new board would have to go back and "re-create" the decisions of the now-invalid board. And people looking to sign contracts with the university or work would have to entertain the question: Who is really in charge around here?

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.