Conventional wisdom tells us that most everything of consequence regarding who runs Hawaii is settled in the primary, when voters decide which Democrats will be coronated come fall.
Not this year.
Sure, there are intriguing races for governor, lieutenant governor and Congress that will pretty much be decided in the Democratic primary Aug. 11.
But the November general election ballot provides a rare opportunity to make changes of far more consequence than who holds top offices for the next four years.
And you better believe the holders of entrenched power in Hawaii are going to do everything they can to convince you that you don’t want to shake things up by voting to hold a state constitutional convention.
It’s a chance that comes along once a decade, and voters haven’t authorized a con con since 1978. Civil Beat’s early polling showed strong support for approving another one, and for good reason.
Consider these changes in state government that the Legislature would probably never allow the public to vote on, but that con con delegates could send to a future ballot:
Those are just some of the possibilities. The con con could be the forum for discussion of establishing a state lottery, legalizing recreational use of marijuana and even adopting affordable housing standards that actually have teeth in them.
Anything could be on the table, which is both the beauty of a con con and the source of much consternation about opening Pandora’s box.
Some people are saying Hawaii already has a strong constitution and we should leave well enough alone. Native Hawaiians are particularly concerned that some of the advances they made in the 1978 con con — such as establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs — could be reversed this time around.
While it’s true that con con delegates could do more harm than good, remember that any constitutional amendments they propose must still be approved by voters.
And then there is this disingenuous argument against a con con: Special interests with big bucks could attempt to co-opt the process to push their own agendas.
Sounds a lot like the dance of legislators and lobbyists that currently controls state government, no?
There’s really only one legitimate reason to vote “no,” and that is satisfaction with the current power structure in which the Legislature and the governor hold all the cards.
The November ballot question is only the first step in the con con process. If it’s approved, then the Legislature decides how and when to conduct a delegate election. State law already limits the amount of campaign contributions from non-Hawaii residents. If there is concern about undue influence of outside money in a con con, the Legislature can address that issue in the enabling legislation.
But the November vote will be the last step in the process if voters blow this opportunity.
There’s really only one legitimate reason to vote “no,” and that is satisfaction with the current power structure in which the Legislature and the governor hold all the cards. It’s an environment where causes that have widespread public support can die in backroom deals with no explanation and no public vote. And where all-powerful legislators can serve endlessly, their re-elections practically guaranteed by the financial support of special interests.
That’s the status quo that will likely be fiercely defended between now and Nov. 6. The first evidence of the coming campaign against a con con could come as soon as Aug. 1, the next deadline for political action committees to report their transactions to the state Campaign Spending Commission.
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for a sign of organized support for a con con from good-government organizations such as Common Cause.
Is Hawaii ready to hold a conversation of consequence about how its government works?
That’s the only question about a con con that voters need to answer in November.
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.
Civil Beat is a small nonprofit newsroom that provides free content with no paywall. That means readership growth alone can’t sustain our journalism.
The truth is that less than 1% of our monthly readers are financial supporters. To remain a viable business model for local news, we need a higher percentage of readers-turned-donors.
Will you consider becoming a new donor today?
The members of Civil Beat’s editorial board are Pierre Omidyar, Patti Epler, Jim Simon, Richard Wiens, Chad Blair, Jessica Terrell and Landess Kearns. Opinions expressed by the editorial board reflect the group’s consensus view. Chad Blair, the Politics and Opinion Editor, can be reached at email@example.com.