Della's Question of the Week #3: Should the election of delegates occur by special election in 2009 or at the 2010 general election?

[Della Au Belatti]

At the recent Democratic State Convention, I had hoped that Democrats would discuss this question as part of the Committee and General Floor deliberations. Unfortunately, debate on the ConCon was generally stifled and we were never able to deliberate this question – so, I thought I would throw it out for discussion at HawaiiConCon.org.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Some will say this question is a little premature because we haven’t even voted on the ballot question yet. However, for those who have concerns about cost, whether incumbents will run as delegates, and the thoughtful & deliberative nature of a ConCon, the answer to this question could significantly impact all these concerns.

If voters decide to hold a convention, then the 2009 Legislature will get to determine WHEN the election of delegates occur. According to the Article XVII of the Constitution, “delegates to the convention shall be chosen at the next regular election unless the legislature shall provide for the election of delegates at a special election.”

This sets up two scenarios. First, a special election could be held in 2009 to elect delegates, the ConCon conducted in 2010, and voters would vote on proposed amendments in the 2010 general election.

Second, delegates could be elected in November 2010 at the general election, the ConCon conducted in 2011 or 2012, and voters would vote on proposed amendments in the 2012 general election.

Here’s my quick thought on pros and cons for these two scenarios. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this question in the comments section to this question!

2009 Special Election, 2010 Convention, & 2010 Consideration of Proposed Amendments:
PROS: (1) This schedule is more responsive to the apparent desire of the electorate to have a ConCon convened. There is no need for the ConCon process to be prolonged for 4 years.
(2) We’ll be voting on our next governor in 2010. This would be a good time to also be considering any proposed changes to the Constitution.

CONS: (1) A special election drives up the cost of a ConCon. If delegates were elected at the 2010 general election, we would not have to pay additional costs for a special election in 2009.
(2) The 2009-2010 time schedule is a compressed time schedule that does not allow sufficient time for the research and development of good proposals or public education efforts to engage as many people as possible in the pre-Convention & Convention activities.
(3) With a 2009 special election, incumbents may be more likely to run as delegates for ConCon.
(4) Low voter turnout during special elections would mean that delegates are elected by a more narrow sector of our community, instead of the bigger numbers that tend to turn out in regular elections.

2010 Election of Delegates, 2011 or 2012 Convention, & 2012 Consideration of Proposed Amendments:
PROS: (1) This schedule will allow time for meaningful, thoughtful & deliberative pre-Convention activities that engage citizens and community groups statewide to identify and discuss issues and proposals.
(2) No special election means no additional costs for a special election. Less money would likely be expended if election of delegates occurred with the 2010 general election.
(3) This time schedule may discourage more incumbents from running as ConCon delegates.
(4) Consideration of delegates and proposed amendments during the course of normal elections (especially races where we'll be electing a new governor and a president) would mean that more voters will turn out instead of the low voter turnout typical of special elections.

CONS: (1) This process drags out the time from when a ConCon was called for by voters and when voters actually decided on the amendments generated by the ConCon from 2 to 4 years.

So what do you think about these pros & cons HawaiiConCon.org members?

[Della Au Belatti]

Poor turnout during special elections is one of my biggest concerns with the 2009/2010 timeline.

I could be persuaded by the argument that ConCon delegates deserve a special election separate and apart from the regularly scheduled elections - but I also have a little bit more faith that the importance of the ConCon delegate selection process could be conveyed to voters (just as pressure could be put on incumbents not to run) - and that the free-for-all that will likely come with the election of delegates will be exciting enough to catch and capture voters' attention.

I also like the 2010/2012 timeline if it means as a community we can spend the time doing the research (ie. looking at what other jurisdictions have or don't have in their constitutions), thoughtfully deliberating over proposals, and having community meetings statewide and building the technological tools we need to engage as many people in the entire ConCon process (ie. from the selection of delegates, development of proposals, actual convening of the ConCon, ratification of proposed amendments by voters).

[Kaunaloa]

would certainly like to see a special election -- that would highlight that this is something out of the ordinary and thus deserves 100% of the attention on the ballot.

only drawback; turnout for special elections tends to be much smaller than general elections, and given our poor turnout nos. for the generals in the 1st place i'd hate to see, say, only 100k votes or whatever cast to determine those who are going to be altering the constitution for all million of us ...

[Curtis Muraoka]

I belive a Special Election is the way to go. After 30 years, if this is going to be done right, it should be the only electioneering making the news.
As for whether incumbents would run, I think it would be quite possible to shame them publicly for taking away a citizen's seat at the table of democracy. Present company excepted, I don't think I would like ANY career politician who would dare run. Runs by elected officials should be clearly thought of as political suicide by any self-respecting policymaker.
As for cost, what about a Con Con Lite with just half the delegates, and some abbreviated approach to prioritizing and proposing solutions to the biggest issues of the day?

[Della Au Belatti]

From those who have voted (only 27 so far!), any comments on why you're for a special election in 2009 instead of the general election in 2010?

Also, if you haven't done so yet, please weigh in on this week's poll - you've got one more day to vote!

[Garland Davis]

I agree with digitaleye. If held at the General Election there would be a blurring of issues between office seekers and the CocCon issues.

[Della Au Belatti]

I hadn't thought about this Digitaleye. So if all that the electorate was focused on was the election of delegates, careful attention and scrutiny could be placed on those delegates - the choice of delegates wouldn't be lost in all the other races that might be occuring in the regular course of elections.

What do others think about these choices?

[digitaleye]

I believe a special election in 2009 would be best as it would allow for more focus on the issues during a time when politicians weren't more interested in themselves and their own issues geared towards getting themselves elected or reelected. Local broadcast networks and the monopoly cable operator might be more inclined to contribute to the cause by providing free air time for Con Con related programming & PSAs during a time when it wouldn't compete with paid campaign propaganda. The same goes for local print media. There would also be more airtime available on local PEG Access channels as they would not be airing their in-house created campaign programming ad nauseam. Perhaps the many, many, many nonprofits in this state whose supposed mission is to provide for more volunteerism might actually volunteer to help cut costs for a special election!? ;)