It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
Blanks count as "NO" votes -- fix needed
I'd like to open a discussion about the rule now in place that says that blank votes have the effect of counting as NO votes. For both the ballot question whether there shall be a con-con, and for any individual amendments actually proposed, the ruling of the Court is that the ballot item passes only if it gets a majority of all votes, where the number of votes equals YES + NO + BLANK.
One topic for discussion is the fact that the vote in November whether to have a con-con will be decided according to that rule; and therefore there will need to be a publicity campaign before the election to let people know they should not leave their ballot blank merely by neglect or default. Ten years ago there were more YES than NO votes on the question whether there should be a con-con; but special interest groups (including most notably OHA) demanded an interpretation from the Court, which ruled that the counting must be as described above.
The more important topic is the question whether we should amend the Constitution to make the rule in the future be something like this:
In any vote on a Constitutional amendment, or on the question whether there should be a Constitutional Convention, or on a ballot initiative or referendum or recall question, such measure shall be deemed to have passed into law if it receives more YES votes than NO votes, and ignoring any totally blank ballots or ballots left blank on the individual question.
Here's a letter from The Garden Island News (Kaua'i), Sunday August 10, 2008, which recalls the history of this issue in a way my memory tells me is accurate.
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2008/08/10/opinion/edit01.txt
ConCon shenanigans
Over the past few weeks I’ve written about several issues that, hopefully, will encourage you to vote “Yes” on the Constitutional Convention question in the coming election. I have always closed by reminding you of the 1996 Supreme Court ruling that requires you to vote either yes or no on the question. A blank vote, by direction of the courts, counts as a “No” vote. This decision was the result of a suit filed by special interest groups and legislative action to prevent a con-con. Here’s how:
In the 1996 election the people voted 164,000 to 160,000 in favor of a con-con. Some 45,000 voters did not mark their preference. By this count and normal election procedures, the measure was approved. A special interest group consisting of unions, state officials and others challenged the count in the state Supreme Court. They won and the 45,000 votes were deemed as no votes.
In 1997, another group in favor of a con-con filed suit in the federal 9th Circuit Court claiming the ruling violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The court issued a stay (stop order) and, ultimately, reversed the state court’s decision in March of 1998.
Between the issuance of the stay and the Supreme Court’s final decision, the Legislature jumped into the issue. Two months before the Supreme Court’s final decision and, knowing that the Hawai‘i court’s ruling was likely to be overturned, they placed a second con-con referendum on the November 1998 ballot. The original group, meanwhile, had petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court for a re-hearing. In June, while the U.S. Court was considering their petition the governor signed the bill into law (Act 131). The following day, the U.S. Courts denied the re-hearing petition and affirmed their original decision. Unfortunately, the state had managed to circumvent the court’s decision, violated your First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and rendered the Supreme Court’s decision moot (meaning they never officially published their final reading).
Fed up with the whole mess, in November of 1998 the voters rejected the second con-con referendum. Screwed again by the representatives you elected. You can, however, introduce an amendment correcting the Hawaii Court decision but only if you first vote “Yes” on the con-con.
But remember, under current law you must vote “Yes.” If you don’t vote on the issue, it counts as a “No” vote. An interesting aside is that should the same thing happen this year, another group filing to overturn the vote would likely win again in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Al Rabold
Kula
One topic for discussion is the fact that the vote in November whether to have a con-con will be decided according to that rule; and therefore there will need to be a publicity campaign before the election to let people know they should not leave their ballot blank merely by neglect or default. Ten years ago there were more YES than NO votes on the question whether there should be a con-con; but special interest groups (including most notably OHA) demanded an interpretation from the Court, which ruled that the counting must be as described above.
The more important topic is the question whether we should amend the Constitution to make the rule in the future be something like this:
In any vote on a Constitutional amendment, or on the question whether there should be a Constitutional Convention, or on a ballot initiative or referendum or recall question, such measure shall be deemed to have passed into law if it receives more YES votes than NO votes, and ignoring any totally blank ballots or ballots left blank on the individual question.
Here's a letter from The Garden Island News (Kaua'i), Sunday August 10, 2008, which recalls the history of this issue in a way my memory tells me is accurate.
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2008/08/10/opinion/edit01.txt
ConCon shenanigans
Over the past few weeks I’ve written about several issues that, hopefully, will encourage you to vote “Yes” on the Constitutional Convention question in the coming election. I have always closed by reminding you of the 1996 Supreme Court ruling that requires you to vote either yes or no on the question. A blank vote, by direction of the courts, counts as a “No” vote. This decision was the result of a suit filed by special interest groups and legislative action to prevent a con-con. Here’s how:
In the 1996 election the people voted 164,000 to 160,000 in favor of a con-con. Some 45,000 voters did not mark their preference. By this count and normal election procedures, the measure was approved. A special interest group consisting of unions, state officials and others challenged the count in the state Supreme Court. They won and the 45,000 votes were deemed as no votes.
In 1997, another group in favor of a con-con filed suit in the federal 9th Circuit Court claiming the ruling violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The court issued a stay (stop order) and, ultimately, reversed the state court’s decision in March of 1998.
Between the issuance of the stay and the Supreme Court’s final decision, the Legislature jumped into the issue. Two months before the Supreme Court’s final decision and, knowing that the Hawai‘i court’s ruling was likely to be overturned, they placed a second con-con referendum on the November 1998 ballot. The original group, meanwhile, had petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court for a re-hearing. In June, while the U.S. Court was considering their petition the governor signed the bill into law (Act 131). The following day, the U.S. Courts denied the re-hearing petition and affirmed their original decision. Unfortunately, the state had managed to circumvent the court’s decision, violated your First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and rendered the Supreme Court’s decision moot (meaning they never officially published their final reading).
Fed up with the whole mess, in November of 1998 the voters rejected the second con-con referendum. Screwed again by the representatives you elected. You can, however, introduce an amendment correcting the Hawaii Court decision but only if you first vote “Yes” on the con-con.
But remember, under current law you must vote “Yes.” If you don’t vote on the issue, it counts as a “No” vote. An interesting aside is that should the same thing happen this year, another group filing to overturn the vote would likely win again in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Al Rabold
Kula
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kaunaloa on -
Blank equals no is, quite simply, another tool utilized by entrenched local interests to ensure things don't change -- it's tactically briliant, using the ignorance and apathy of the voting public to advance their own agenda!
I don't know other states' election laws on this point, but if i recall correctly in nonbizarro wrold, blank equals blank and simply doesn't enter into the tally one way or the other.
It's an absolute indictment of the local body politic that 10 years after the fact this grotesque technicality STILL is in existance ...
I mean, taken to its logical conclusion, the state house reps. who are running unopposed better be careful, since if, say, they get 500 votes, but there were also, say, 560 blank ballots on that question in that district, does that mean they were "beaten by blank?!?!"
/seriously, some political party [w/o naming names] who would directly benefit from such an outcome might want to look into that ...
-
Permalink Reply by Kaunaloa on
-
Blank equals no is, quite simply, another tool utilized by entrenched local interests to ensure things don't change -- it's tactically briliant, using the ignorance and apathy of the voting public to advance their own agenda!
I don't know other states' election laws on this point, but if i recall correctly in nonbizarro wrold, blank equals blank and simply doesn't enter into the tally one way or the other.
It's an absolute indictment of the local body politic that 10 years after the fact this grotesque technicality STILL is in existance ...
I mean, taken to its logical conclusion, the state house reps. who are running unopposed better be careful, since if, say, they get 500 votes, but there were also, say, 560 blank ballots on that question in that district, does that mean they were "beaten by blank?!?!"
/seriously, some political party [w/o naming names] who would directly benefit from such an outcome might want to look into that ...
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel de Gracia II on -
Make it like the United Nations, you have three votes: Yes, No, and Abstention :)
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon Becker on -
Robert's Rules state specifically that blank votes are not to be counted. Isn't there some rule that the legislature shall abide by Robert's Rules. And isn't it common law that blank votes do not count? Doesn't that make it unconstitutional for the Court and the Legislature to make a contrary rule without a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deprive the people of this common law right?
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Conklin on -
Mahalo for your mana'o Gordon Becker. Roberts Rules of Order is not mentioned in the Constitution; and even if the Legislature were to adopt Roberts as its guide for parliamentary procedure, that would not be binding on how the Constitution is to be interpreted. The Constitutional provision for amending the Constitution says that any amendment must be ratified by a majority of all votes cast upon the topic. The Supreme Court decided that "all votes cast" included votes that were blank. Therefore, the court said, you must add up YES + NO + BLANK and then the proposed amendment must receive 50% + 1 of that total. The net effect is that BLANK votes count as NO votes. I believe that was a bad interpretation, and that if someone leaves a proposal blank, then he is not casting any vote upon that proposal, and therefore blanks should be ignored; and therefore if YES outnumber NO, then the proposal passes. But that's merely my own opinion. The Con-Con can rewrite the rule to make it very clear, thereby depriving the Supreme Court of the opportunity to misinterpret it. However, I also respect the contrary opinion of some who would argue that it should be very difficult to amend the Constitution; and therefore there should be an absolute majority of all who voted in the election (including blanks) required to pass an amendment. That's a reasonable view; but one I disagree with.
About
Photos
© 2009 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
