To Con Con Or Not To Con Con?

[Ed Case]

Aloha! It's great to get going on a real Con Con discussion.

In that spirit, I've summarized below in discussion form the main arguments I've heard so far for and against a Con Con. I agree with some and disagree with others, but mainly hope this'll spark your own thoughts and comments about whether to Con Con or not to Con Con.

PRO: Our Hawai'i Constitution establishes our fundamental principles and goals in governing ourselves, the basics of how we do so, and the overall organization and operation of our state and local governments to carry out our compact. At our half-century mark of statehood and moving into our next half-century - times of tremendous change for Hawaii looking backward and forward - and considering it's been thirty years since our last Con Con, it's time for us to again take a big-picture and inclusive look at what should be preserved and what can be improved.

CON: All that may be, but that's an undertaking we can and should do through and with our existing state and county governments, and they've been doing so with initiatives like the Hawai'i 2050 Sustainability Task Force. Plus, our Constitution shouldn't be opened up for wholesale change and should be amended only very rarely, if and when proposed by our legislature.

PRO: A Con Con is first about having an inclusive and broad discussion of where we've been and where we want to go, and neither that discussion nor any real solutions are happening in our government today. Any proposed changes to our Constitution still have to be approved by the voters. And our Constitution was always meant to be adjustable to new and different times; the voters have approved 104 amendments since statehood (49 proposed by the legislature and 55 by the 1968 and 1978 Con Cons) and rejected many others.

CON: Our Constitution's not broken. What are specific issues are so compelling that we should go through this time and expense?

PRO: Even if one agrees our Constitution's ok as is, that doesn't mean it's not high time for a Con Con. In any event, there are many issues arising from our Constitution that need much broader discussion (whether or not one agrees on their merits) and possible proposed amendments than our existing government can or appears willing to provide, like: protection of minorities from discrimination; party voting requirements; structure of the legislature (unicameral, multimember districts, term limits, salaries); campaign financing and contributions; government ethics; structure and operation of the state executive branch (Governor's line item veto, Lieutenant Governor's office and responsibilities, number and function of departments); the judiciary (judge selection); budget and finance (balanced budgets, debt limits, revenue and expense projections, surplus uses); initiative, referendum and recall; tax/spending requirements; allocation of powers between state and county governments, operation of county governments; public access to government; rights to minimum health, housing and other needs; decentralization of public education; UH autonomy; prevention of urban sprawl and overdevelopment; protection of our environment, agricultural lands, and other endangered natural resources; energy conservation and diversification; OHA and Native Hawaiian issues including allocation of public trust resources; public employee collective bargaining; and Con Con and Constitution amendment requirements.

CON: Those are all difficult hot-button issues that shouldn't be taken up in a Con Con, which would be hijacked by special interests, lead to a loss of treasured provisions and protections now afforded by our Constitution, and result in a worse Constitution. It's not worth the risk.

PRO: That's fear of discussion and change or outright opposition to either, and disrespects the voters' right and ability to decide whether to approve or reject any proposed amendments the Con Con may propose to them. There will surely not be any fewer special interests in and around a Con Con than in Hawaii government today. As to the risk, that depends on whether one thinks things in Hawaii are fine today and we're well-equipped to handle the challenges of the future, or whether we should at least consider how we can do better.

CON: But a Con Con is too expensive in these uncertain economic and budgetary times, maybe over $10 million; we can't afford it now.

PRO: A once-in-thirty-year Con Con at that price is a bargain, especially comparing it to the annual state legislature appropriation of more than $35 million. But it wouldn't even need to be that high. If you simply ran this Con Con the same as the '78 Con Con (a pretty extensive undertaking) and adjusted for inflation, it would be around $6.5 million. And if we adjusted Con Con requirements and made use of existing government personnel and resources as well as the many individuals and groups would contribute on a volunteer basis, the cost would be much lower.

CON: Nobody good would run for election to the Con Con. We have a hard enough time getting enough candidates for other public offices, so this would end up being just a bunch of legislators and single interest advocates.

PRO: That was not the case with our past Con Cons, which saw many good candidates and delegates, only a minority of which were sitting legislators, and gave rise to new generations of government leaders for our state. There is no good reason to believe that that wouldn't occur again.

CON: We're doing fine in fostering needed changes and bringing along the next generation of political leadership for our state; we don't need a Con Con to spur any of that.

What do you think?

[Peter Kay]

Kaunaloa,

I must admit that many, many times I share your frustration with the way things go. I believe the best antidote is thoughtful, transparent action. Hence, this web site!

Personally, I have faith in numbers. The more people we get involved, the more moderate a movement we will get. Now of course much of this depends on how well informed we all are but in general, I believe that if we participate in respectful, spirited debate and are given a chance to listen to both sides of any issue, we'll make the right choices.

Thanks too for the kind words for our group. We're excited about the potential here!

[Kaunaloa]

disclosure -- I am a malihini; I have lived on O'ahu for 5 years. I tend to be FLABBERGASTED at "we should look to government for the answer" entitlement mentality that pervades our fair state. I am deeply concerned that having a ConCon in the current political environment will spawn something akin to the debacle that is the EU "constitution" -- tens of thousands of words that, unlike the U.S. constitution [which spells out the rights of the people and the limited, specific role of the government], instead lists area after area where the government can and surely will impose itself on people's lives in every manner. I realize this could very well be a minority view within this forum and/or within the state, but having watched this government at both the county & state level, I am simply apprehensive about the potential of "opening the floodgates."

Having said that, let me commend you Peter, [and Ed and Della and others] for having the courage and vision to go out and solicit opinion via this New Media forum. I may not agree politically with some of the items aired here, but it is refreshing to see folks being transparent about political items, from which the state as a whole should surely benefit ...

[Peter Kay]

Kaunaloa,

I'd like to hear more behind your position. Why do you think that way?

[Curtis Muraoka]

Kaunaloa
I would say it's more like nothing to lose and much to gain. Are you saying Hawaii is peachy keen? Why fix what ain't broke?
I would love to live in your Hawaii!
If we just fix the BOE alone, it would be ConCon well spent...
C'mon. The people need to flex some muscle. Enough of the shibai from entrenched politicos.
Nuff said.

[Kaunaloa]

Aloha, I think of the many good points Ed posted, one stands out to me the most -- "would be hijacked by special interests, lead to a loss of treasured provisions and protections now afforded by our Constitution, and result in a worse Constitution. It's not worth the risk."
or, for brevity's sake, the citizens have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. I understand that via the provisions of the current constitution, this must go on the ballot in the autumn. However, I see little upside to voting yes and would really like to hear, beyond the posted arguments, how a ConCon would truly improve the station of the aloha state's residents.

[Curtis Muraoka]

Is it still true that a simple majority (blank votes don't count) is not enough to approve a ConCon? The Unions blocked it in court in 1998. I would hope that trick isn't in the bag anymore.

[steve-o]

Peter, I would be willing to be the East Hawaii contact. Hilo and Puna especially.

[Peter Kay]

Great point Steve-o! Would you be willing to lead a neighbor island group? Let me know what island (or a generic "neighbor island") group. I'll create it. You lead. K?

[steve-o]

It is evident that the population on the neighbor islands have doubled or more since the last convention in 1978. Meanwhile, the power structure still remains on Oahu, and specifically, Honolulu. It is imperative for neighbor-islanders to vote yes on the upcoming ballot, so we can gain more access to government decision making. If you leave your ballot blank, it will count as a no vote. Maybe we can change the way ammendments are voted on during the convention? About the cost factor: Is it too expensive to convene? Actually, it is too expensive not to convene. More than enough savings will be realized in streamling and improving the effectiveness of government functions to offset the money spent on the convention.

[james gerard]

i hope that the people decide that pursuing a CONCON will be beneficial to our state and its residents