Della’s Question of the Week #8: How many delegates should be elected to a Constitutional Convention?

[Della Au Belatti]

Turning away from substantive issues, this week’s question is prompted by Lt. Governor Duke Aiona’s ConCon Cost Task Force. At the Task Force’s June 26, 2008, meeting, State Budget and Finance Director Georgina Kawamura’s representative reported on some initial cost projections based on 25, 51, 76, and 102 delegates.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

I believe the rationale for these proposed numbers are based on the number of state senators (25), state representatives (51), combined number of state legislators (76), and two delegates per state representative district (2 x 51 = 102).

Thoughts or comments on these suggestions?

[Curtis Muraoka]

Aloha Jim

I'm unclear about how the number of delegates influences the cost of running. Is it because the areas represented are more confined with the larger number of delegates, but campaigning has to be broadened if areas represented are larger?

Also, I am intrigued by the potential of virtual campaigning, caucusing and on line voting. Wouldn't these impact costs as well?

Curtis

[Jim Shon]

At 51, the cost of running as a delegate is twice as high as running for one slot of 102. So the larger delegate number is more inclusive and less expensive to campaign for. Today a House seat (of which there are 51) probably will require about $30K. While a con con election might well be more of a low key event, but still could challenge individuals to raise the money or use their own personal resoures. As for the overall cost of the convention, if you are going to do it, do it right. To skimp on it suggests the con con is not worth investing in. One important cost item often neglected would be a technology budget, to facilitate distance teleconferences and testimony from the N. Isles. You need a crew of tech people, servers, wireless, webmaster, etc. Another relateively high cost would be for the election itself. If it were a mail in vote, every registered voter would get the ballot. In 1978, during the May special election, only 34% of the voters came out to vote.

[Curtis Muraoka]

Aloha Kaunaloa
I don't think just pulling a number out for the sake of compromise is a sound approach. Much depends on the potential work load the delegates are expected to face. Some depends on available funding.

I think the workload will not be as big as 1978 because, as I have stated previously, the Hawaii constitution has grown up quite a bit via legislative policy. The real function as I see it is taking on elements that entrenched interests have walled off via the legislature.

Therefore, I will stick with 51. But hey, I'm just one little voice, and it's not like that means a hill of beans at this point.

[Kaunaloa]

i see very well reasoned points for 51 and for 102. i'll raise this one more time -- would 76 thus be a workable "1/2 a loaf" compromise?

[Curtis Muraoka]

Dear Rep. Belatti:

The 1968 Con Con was the model for the 1978 version, and '68 was modeled after past Con Cons, including in other states and those associated with our Founding Fathers.

The point is that no format is written in stone. There are three elements that seem to bear most consideration in deciding delegate numbers:

1) Is there even a need to Con Con? I say yes, but not to the point of broadly solidifying constitutional language, or even creating new structures, as was the case in '78. I think the effort must be focused, and therefore a smaller number than 102 seems more suitable to me.

2) Money is tight, and will get tighter. Money is a dirty topic to some, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Most opposing a Con Con have stated that it's too expensive. I believe it was Prof. Rohter who floated a hypothetical salary of $4000 per month per delegate. Add a bare bones staff, and with 51 delegates you might be able to come in under $1million for a three month payroll. Use state facilities for meetings and hearings, and that's even better. Now, if you model after the 1978 convention, you are talking Cadillac rather than practical, and the cost shoots up into territory the naysayers can use to squash approval.

And, 3) Those pesky Right/Left/Pro/Anti Special Interests nafarists. However, venues for exchanging ideas have changed drastically. This forum, as Peter has cogently pointed out, is potentially a caucus in itself. It is easier, but not easy, to spot a wolf or wolves sporting sheep disguises if the heard is small and actively shepherded, no? Not that delegates are sheep-like in the least. I just think 102 in this environment would be like herding cats.

As a policymaker, I urge you to share your insights as to why certain constitutional elements are untouchable in session, while others are freely tinkered with as needed.

I think any anti-tinkering and nefarious individuals would be cloaked in a crowd much more effectively; trying to hide in plain sight as a singular representative of his or her constituency is pretty hard.

To be perfectly candid, Hawaii voters do not pay attention as they should. A crowded field makes that worse. House and Senate races sometimes garner votes only in the hundreds. Some of these have been won by less than a handful of votes. The BOE elections are basically won via name recognition or HSTA endorsement.

Also, as I have stated above, I believe the focus of this Con Con should be to address issues that have been willfully set aside by the Legislature for the last 30 years. There are certain fundamental pieces that have remained untouched due to powerful lobbies.

I'm advocating minimally invasive surgery because the patient, our Constitution, is not gravely ill. A little nip here, and a tuck there, lance a couple of boils, and She's good to go until the next Con Con opportunity in 2018.

[Della Au Belatti]

Interesting observations - while I appreciate what Kaunaloa and Curtis are saying about 51 being a way to limit the effect of special interests, I'm not certain that limiting number of delegates reduces influence of special interests by not "allow[ing] them to sneak in much more easily." In fact, if there are ONLY 51 delegates, then there are only 51 elected races to concentrate on. This would mean that the financial influence or power of special interests, whether it is those pesky nefarious groups on the Right OR Left, whether local or from the mainland (please note that ALL labels are use with the utmost respect and just a bit of wry humor), will be more focused, more concentrated, more deliberately placed on only 51 races vs. a more dispersed number of races, ie. 102 races.

Secondly, Susan's comments should also be considered. Just the practical implication of having very small committees reviewing entire articles of the Constitution raises issues of thoroughness and efficiency of a ConCon. While there can often be "too many cooks in the kitchen," I'm not sure if I would want too FEW cooks to provide input to what is the basic and fundamental document that creates our government.

I have looked at a bunch of historical materials, but haven't looked specifically at how 102 was arrived at for 1978 ConCon. This would certainly be a fertile area for research!

[Curtis Muraoka]

See? Two of everything isn't always good :^>

In light of a slowing economy, and the fact that the Leg has been tinkering with the Constitution for 30 years now via session action, I think there are lots of laws that have already been tested in the streets.

I like things to be simple, as in the notion that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Or, "Too many cooks..."

Or, as it sometimes is in politics, "Too many crooks..."

51 delegates provide broad representation, without too many hands. The President of the Con Con, whoever he or she is, should be focused on steering the body toward those issues the legislature has not, and will not take on. Labor unions, the State BOE, same-sex unions, indigenous rights, gun rights, term limits, and initiative/referendum/recall come to mind.

102 delegates will muddy the waters and allow special interest to sneak in much more easily. If each district has a single delegate, each will be vetted and watched more closely by their district.

That's my take.

[Kaunaloa]

sheesh, sorry for the screwed up double post!
:-(

[Kaunaloa]

"If your delegate sells out your interests, they will be remembered."

i surely hope that is enough of a deterrent!

/annnnd, would you go for 76 delegates for essentially "1.5" from each district?

[Kaunaloa]

"If your delegate sells out your interests, they will be remembered." "If your delegate sells out your interests, they will be remembered."

i surely hope that is enough of a deterrent!

/annnnd, would you go for 76 delegates for essentially "1.5" from each district?
i surely hope that is enough of a deterrent!

/annnnd, would you go for 76 delegates for essentially "1.5" from each district?