It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
Residency requirement
A topic to be considered for con-con is whether there should be a requirement that a candidate for public office must live in the district he seeks to represent, and for how long a time before the candidacy such residency should be required. Also, if residency is to be required, then how should residency be defined? For example, is merely owning or renting an apartment in the district sufficient, or must the person actually sleep there at least half the nights in the year?
We recently saw an example of dubious residency in the case of Duke Bainum who has really been living in Arkansas for several years but returned to rent an apartment in "his" district the day before filing candidacy for city council. There have been several dubious residencies challenged in recent years for the Legislature.
Today the Maui News reports that a county clerk has decided that the residency rule for Maui County Council is defined not by where the candidate has actually been living, but rather by his "state of mind" or "future intentions."
Think I'm kidding? Below is the URL and some excerpts from The Maui News of October 14, regarding the residency of Sol Kaho'ohalahala who has been living in Lahaina for a long time but claims to be a resident of Lana'i (because that's where his heart is?)
On one hand, if the voters choose someone to represent them, even though he lives outside the district, that's the voters' choice which should be respected. On the other hand, do we want carpetbaggers? It's a good topic needing discussion, debate, and decision.
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/509731.html?nav=10
Maui News, October 14, 2008
Ruling: Lanai residency is a state of mind
By ILIMA LOOMIS
** excerpts by Ken Conklin
WAILUKU - Sol Kaho'ohalahala's residency on Lanai resides in his "state of mind," or his intention to live there, according to a ruling that qualified him to run for the island's residency seat on the Maui County Council.
In a ruling released Monday, Maui County Clerk Roy Hiraga said Kaho'ohalahala qualified as a candidate from Lanai in part because he intends to return there to live in a family home. Hiraga rejected challenges to Kaho'ohalahala's residency.
State law "makes it abundantly clear that physical presence or absence from a particular place is not the deciding factor in determining the residence of an individual," Hiraga wrote.
Instead, a person's "state of mind" determines his or her residence, and it was clear Kaho'ohalahala intended to live on Lanai, Hiraga said.
The law specifically says a person can't lose residency status if he or she leaves home to work for the state or federal government, Hiraga noted in his ruling.
For example, a Hawaii resident serving overseas in the military would retain residency in the state.
Kaho'ohalahala didn't lose his Lanai residency while he was working for the Kahoolawe commission because he was a state employee, Hiraga noted.
In a sworn statement submitted to Hiraga, Kaho'ohalahala said his residence was at a family home in Lanai City, and that he intended to make it his permanent home.
We recently saw an example of dubious residency in the case of Duke Bainum who has really been living in Arkansas for several years but returned to rent an apartment in "his" district the day before filing candidacy for city council. There have been several dubious residencies challenged in recent years for the Legislature.
Today the Maui News reports that a county clerk has decided that the residency rule for Maui County Council is defined not by where the candidate has actually been living, but rather by his "state of mind" or "future intentions."
Think I'm kidding? Below is the URL and some excerpts from The Maui News of October 14, regarding the residency of Sol Kaho'ohalahala who has been living in Lahaina for a long time but claims to be a resident of Lana'i (because that's where his heart is?)
On one hand, if the voters choose someone to represent them, even though he lives outside the district, that's the voters' choice which should be respected. On the other hand, do we want carpetbaggers? It's a good topic needing discussion, debate, and decision.
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/509731.html?nav=10
Maui News, October 14, 2008
Ruling: Lanai residency is a state of mind
By ILIMA LOOMIS
** excerpts by Ken Conklin
WAILUKU - Sol Kaho'ohalahala's residency on Lanai resides in his "state of mind," or his intention to live there, according to a ruling that qualified him to run for the island's residency seat on the Maui County Council.
In a ruling released Monday, Maui County Clerk Roy Hiraga said Kaho'ohalahala qualified as a candidate from Lanai in part because he intends to return there to live in a family home. Hiraga rejected challenges to Kaho'ohalahala's residency.
State law "makes it abundantly clear that physical presence or absence from a particular place is not the deciding factor in determining the residence of an individual," Hiraga wrote.
Instead, a person's "state of mind" determines his or her residence, and it was clear Kaho'ohalahala intended to live on Lanai, Hiraga said.
The law specifically says a person can't lose residency status if he or she leaves home to work for the state or federal government, Hiraga noted in his ruling.
For example, a Hawaii resident serving overseas in the military would retain residency in the state.
Kaho'ohalahala didn't lose his Lanai residency while he was working for the Kahoolawe commission because he was a state employee, Hiraga noted.
In a sworn statement submitted to Hiraga, Kaho'ohalahala said his residence was at a family home in Lanai City, and that he intended to make it his permanent home.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kaunaloa on -
just when i think you can't do worse for lunacy than the city & county the neigbor islands prove me wrong!
:-)
on-topic, ken and i already disagree on term limits, and i think we may split the same way here. I have no problem with a strict residency requirement, as the term REPRESENTATIVE government to me surely implies that part of said representation is you experience [that's physically experience, not simply share a "state of mind"{!!}] life with your constituents. I think the fact that my state rep. [Della] actually lives near me, & that the mayor of the island actually lives in pearl city, etc. etc. are GOOD and NECESSARY things for an optimally functioning government.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on -
Excellent point. We need to have in the constitution exactly what constitiutes residency for elections. There are many ways to do this. Some stricter than others. But allowing a "rental" on the final day of filing (and who knows if the person actually resides there) is outrageous and is only beneficial to the rich and powerfully connected.
The main reason I support a concon is to break up th existing power structures and limit the rich and powerful in their ability to control the rset of us.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike on -
"The main reason I support a concon is to break up th existing power structures and limit the rich and powerful in their ability to control the rest of us."
That is a great reason to support con-con. You cant help but feel used when your "representative" dont even live in your area. He or she couldn't possibly share the same concerns and woes you have when they are (physically) elsewhere. The way the law regarding how residency is decided is seriously flawed.
About
Badge
Photos
© 2009 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
