Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of Community Voices about the November ballot question regarding whether to hold a state constitutional convention.
The 17 people who met in March for the “Con-Con Salon” asked some of the basic questions that citizens may want to consider when it comes time to vote on Nov. 6 on whether to hold a state constitutional convention..
• How does our particular law of constitutional conventions work?
• What are the mechanics of organizing?
• What was the social, political, economic, and cultural mood in 1978 that led voters to be in favor of one and how does that inform today’s atmosphere?
More to the point of this November’s question, what are the specific arguments for and against holding one, the perceived benefits and risks, and if a con con is authorized, what are some of the possible agenda items that may come onto the table from both center-left and center-right?
The starting point for any deliberation, and for the Con-Con Salon, was achieving a common understanding of legal, procedural, and financial basics.
Our constitution can be amended, but it isn’t easy. There are two paths.
The Legislature can initiate a “con con” on its own and place it on the ballot for voters to decide. If nine years go by without the Legislature proposing one, it automatically goes on the ballot so Hawaii’s citizens can decide for themselves.
In this initial determination, voters must approve a convention by a majority of all ballots cast on the question. A blank or spoiled ballot counts as a “no.”
If voters approve one, the Legislature then defines many of the logistical particulars: the timing of a convention, the number of delegates, start and end dates, the budget for the convention and the provision of back-office implementation support.
Once assembled, con con delegates are free to organize their own rules of procedure and take up any issues they choose.
If a con con then produces proposed changes, those go to the voters on a subsequent ballot for approval but there is a high bar to passage. To pass, con con proposals must achieve a majority of “yes” votes from 50 percent of all voters in a general election or 30 percent of all registered voters if there is a special election.
If voters choose not to have a con con, nothing changes. Life goes on under our existing constitutional and statutory arrangements and the power to propose amendments or a new convention reverts to the Legislature.
For the 1978 convention, the Legislature allocated $2.5 million. Those projected expenses included the salary costs of 102 delegates, delegate per diems and travel, facility and equipment rentals, printing and binding, and other direct expenses. With the convention limited to 75 days and delegates paid starting the day after the election, monthly stipends were set at $1,000, not to exceed a total of $4,000.
Of the $2.5 million that was budgeted, actual expenses came to $2,032,401. Not included or calculated into the budget were the back office support costs incurred by the Legislative Reference Bureau, the tab for a delegate election, and other related expenditures totaling $568,599. So that $2.5 million turned out to be a reasonably accurate projection by the Legislature.
If 1978 serves as a template, the Legislature and the public can run an annualized inflation factor and anticipate the estimated new costs for a future con con. The true cost, however, rides on a variety of factors, many of which are interdependent with each other. For example:
Other questions for the Legislature will arise.
For instance, must everything be done in person or could the internet and/or secure websites be used to reduce some con con costs? Could the Legislature set a shorter time between the filing of papers to run for a delegate seat and the actual election of delegates? And could and should campaign spending contributions be limited to preempt avalanches of political action committees, super PACs and lobbyist monies?
All of these decisions sit with the Legislature.
In the meantime, and in the spirit of a lively and vibrant local democracy, consider asking candidates for office the following: “If voters are in favor of a new con con, what would be your decisions about length, number of delegates and costs?”
Others in this series:
Editor’s note: Peter Adler was the organizer and moderator for the Con-Con Salon. Jenna Leigh Saito helped capture the discussions in the notes that led to these articles.
Thoughts on this or any other story? Write a Letter to the Editor. Send to firstname.lastname@example.org and put Letter in the subject line. 200 words max. You need to use your name and city and include a contact phone for verification purposes. And you can still comment on stories on our Facebook page.
Community Voices aims to encourage broad discussion on many topics of community interest. It’s kind of a cross between Letters to the Editor and op-eds. This is your space to talk about important issues or interesting people who are making a difference in our world. Column lengths should be no more than 800 words and we need a current photo of the author and a bio. We welcome video commentary and other multimedia formats. Send to email@example.com. The opinions and information expressed in Community Voices are solely those of the authors and not Civil Beat.