No spending of government money to take sides on legislative, judicial, or ballot proposals (proposed amendment)

[Ken Conklin]

No state, county, or local government or agency shall spend government money to advocate for or against any person or proposal that is the subject of ongoing legislative or judicial activity or which will be on the ballot in any general or special election within three months. Government money can be spent to educate the public about ballot issues, but only when the content of the educational materials is fair and balanced as evidenced by approval from both leading supporters and leading opponents whose individual or institutional names are identified in those materials.

[Richard B]

I am surprised that this hasn't been adressed in the past. This is how it should always be. The con con issue is a perfect example. There are several government and entertainment figures on TV and radio spots pushing for a no vote on con con with no substantial reasons why. Whenever I ask someone about their con con the most common response is "What is that?". Even people who like to think of themselves as being "model citizens" who care about their community don't know a whole lot about what it is or how important it is. I didn't realize how important a con con can be until just recently and am having to spend a lot of time researching the issues so I can be comfortable with my vote. I also have only recently realized that we will be voting on proposals such as this and not just for new leaders. I am not alone out here, there are a lot of people like me who are only now wanting to get involved. Ignorance is no excuse but at this point it almost seems like not knowing anything about an issue is better than not knowing enough to make a good choice.

[Ken Conklin]

Richard B said:

... it almost seems like not knowing anything about an issue is better than not knowing enough to make a good choice.

Thank you for your candor Richard. I'm singling out this portion of what you wrote because it is an illustration of why there are so many blank votes on Constitutional amendments. And the trouble is that the Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that a blank vote counts the same as a "no" vote. That's why we need to fix the Constitution to say that a proposal passes whenever the number of YES votes is larger than the number of NO votes, and blank votes will be ignored. A majority of the voters simply don't go to the polls to vote at all. And we ignore them, we do not construe their absence as a NO vote. Likewise, I think that if a voter does his civic duty and goes to vote, but if there are specific issues where he feels he is not well-enough informed to make an intelligent decision, then he should be allowed to leave it blank without feeling guilty that he has effectively voted no.