[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” specialty=”off” _builder_version=”3.0.86″ next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”145″][et_pb_fullwidth_header global_parent=”145″ _builder_version=”3.0.89″ text_orientation=”center” header_fullscreen=”on” header_scroll_down=”on” image_orientation=”center” background_layout=”light” content_orientation=”center” custom_button_two=”off” button_two_icon_placement=”right” custom_button_one=”off” button_one_icon_placement=”right” title_font=”|700|||||||” subhead_text_align=”center” subhead_font=”|700|||||||” background_image=”https:\/\/hawaii.concon.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/HawaiiStateCapitol.jpg” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null”]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_fullwidth_header][et_pb_fullwidth_post_title global_parent=”145″ _builder_version=”3.17.5″ categories=”off” comments=”off” featured_image=”off” disabled_on=”on|on|on” disabled=”on” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text]<\/p>\n
For Hawaii\u2019s August 11, 2018 primary election, Civil Beat<\/em> collected<\/a> position statements from candidates on a variety of issues, including Hawaii\u2019s Nov. 6, 2018 state constitutional convention referendum.\u00a0 In \u00a0this article, I analyze the candidates\u2019 constitutional convention position statements based on the Civil Beat data compiled as of August 2.<\/p>\n In its thoroughness, Civil Beat\u2019s collection of candidate written positions on an upcoming state constitutional convention referendum is unprecedented. When I met with Civil Beat\u2019s editorial board in early May and encouraged Civil Beat to report on candidates\u2019 positions on the upcoming convention referendum, I did not even dream that it would be so ambitious in collecting such information, so it\u2019s a wonderful surprise.\u00a0 Alas, whereas most candidates for governor and lieutenant governor answered Civil Beat\u2019s survey, most candidates for the State Legislature, especially incumbents, did not.<\/p>\n Yes And No Positions<\/strong><\/p>\n Of the 67 candidates taking a position on the issue, 55% favored calling a convention.\u00a0 Fifteen (18%) cleverly answered a question that wasn\u2019t asked or otherwise took a neutral stand.\u00a0 Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor expressed slightly less support (50%) than candidates for the Legislature (56%).<\/p>\n Given the outcomes of the last few convention referendums in Hawaii, the majority support for calling a convention is surprising.\u00a0 But it should not be taken too seriously.\u00a0 When a constitutional convention referendum is ahead in the polls<\/a>, as it is in Hawaii (in May, 73% of those expressing an opinion<\/a> for or against were for), candidates\u2019 public positions tend to be skewed favorably.\u00a0 Civil Beat\u2019s strong endorsement of a convention, presumably read by Civil Beat\u2019s readers, may also have skewed the results favorably. \u00a0Politicians, after all, tend to adopt positions in accord with the audience they are addressing.<\/p>\n As an analogy, consider the politics of legislative transparency.\u00a0 When campaigning, an overwhelming majority of candidates for the State Legislature favor legislative transparency.\u00a0 But bills implementing legislative transparency rarely get a legislative floor vote, let alone passed, because legislators don\u2019t want to have to vote publicly against a popular reform they oppose. Similarly, voiced support for a convention is probably greater than actual support.<\/p>\n Constitutional convention politics, however, has a very different rhythm and playbook than legislative transparency. Whereas there is virtually no organized public opposition to legislative transparency, there will be substantial public opposition to any convention referendum that is ahead in the polls.*\u00a0 But the opposition is waiting until after Hawaii\u2019s \u00a0August 11 primary election before launching its campaign.\u00a0 In 2008, the last time the convention referendum was on the ballot, the opposition–a who-is-who of powerful Hawaii interest groups and their coalition allies–didn\u2019t launch until September.\u00a0 After the opposition\u2019s launch, candidate positions will shift toward opposition.<\/p>\n As a rule, when candidates say they are neutral on a convention referendum\u2014e.g., they\u2019ll support whatever voters decide\u2014one can be confident that the candidate\u2019s actual position is to oppose a convention.\u00a0 This is especially true when the candidate is an incumbent legislator and knows enough to feel embarrassed opposing a constitutional provision designed by Hawaii\u2019s Framers to function as a check on the Legislature.\u00a0 In short, taking a neutral position is politically like recusing oneself from a vote on an issue on which one has a well-known conflict of interest.<\/p>\n I have divided my findings into four categories depending on type of office: 1) Governor, 2) Lieutenant Governor, 3) State Senate, and 4) State House.<\/p>\n There was no clear partisan pattern of support or opposition.\u00a0 This is surprising given that Republican leaders, led by the incumbent Republican lieutenant governor, supported a convention during the last convention referendum in 2008.<\/p>\n Yes And No Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n Some arguments against a convention appeared logically contradictory. \u00a0For example, consider two strong opponents for calling a convention.\u00a0 Republican Lieutenant Governor candidate Marissa Kerns argued that a convention would follow the wishes of the liberal majority in Hawaii and thus be bad for Republicans: \u201cI oppose con con. No way! We do not trust the Hawaii Democrat supermajority-controlled Legislature.\u201d In contrast, Democratic State House candidate Dylan Armstrong argued the opposite: \u201cIf we have a state constitutional convention now, the grassroots will have to massively coordinate and organize to prevent major loses to special interests \u2014 think the Koch brothers and A.L.E.C.\u201d The Koch brothers and A.L.E.C. are shorthand for conservative Republicans.<\/p>\n Some interpreted similar data in opposite terms, with one side taking a glass half-full and the other a glass half-empty perspective.\u00a0 For example, some were worried that a convention could take away environmental rights won at Hawaii\u2019s last constitutional convention in 1978, whereas other thought a convention could enhance those rights just as they have done in the past. For example, Democratic State House candidate Koohan Paik-Mander argued: \u201cThe last constitutional convention took place in 1978. It was not perfect, but from an environmental perspective, it did implement fundamentally important legislation \u2014 Article XI, or, the \u2018Public Trust Doctrine\u2019\u2026 If we were to lose it in the course of holding a state constitutional convention, it would hail a profound tragedy for protection of Hawaii\u2019s precious natural resources.\u201d In contrast, Green Party State House candidate Nick Nikhilananda argued: \u201cThe last convention incorporated some significant environmental, cultural and indigenous legislation and requirements. These need to be strengthened\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n Some paradoxically attacked the state constitutional convention process when that process won the rights the arguer was seeking to protect.\u00a0 For example, incumbent State House legislator Chris Dodd argued: \u201cI oppose holding a state constitutional convention because the risks outweigh potential rewards. We currently have very strong labor and environmental protections in our state, and a con con puts that at risk.\u201d\u00a0 Not mentioned is that those labor and environmental protections were primarily won at previous Hawaii state constitutional conventions.<\/p>\n Some candidates clearly did not want to answer the question. A classic dodge in this type of situation is to answer a question that wasn\u2019t asked.\u00a0 One sophisticated implementation of this type of response was to appear to express support for calling a convention but to make the support conditional on the convention referendum already passing\u2014a distinction most readers presumably wouldn\u2019t notice. \u00a0For example, Democratic State House candidate David Tamas stated: \u201cI would advocate for a constitutional convention to reorganize the statewide school district into school districts in each county with elected school boards in each county school district. The constitutional convention would also be the appropriate forum to reorganize what is the responsibility of the state government and the county government in order to give counties more \u201chome rule\u201d responsibilities. This reorganization of responsibilities would also require a restructuring of our tax code to make sure these newly organized government responsibilities are properly funded.\u201d<\/p>\n More often, candidates were direct in refusing to answer the question.\u00a0 For example, incumbent State House candidate Lynn DeCoite said: \u201cI support what the people want.\u201d\u00a0 Note that even if this were an answer to the question asked, it is a far more ambiguous answer than readers are led to presume and may mask hidden opposition behavior.\u00a0 For such an assertion begs the crucial question of what majority should be used to determine what the people want.\u00a0 In Hawaii, the majority required to call a convention is a highly controversial issue<\/a>, with state courts downplaying original intent as a way to interpret the required majority, state and federal courts disagreeing on the required majority, and the Hawaii Legislature acting to codify and otherwise support the majority most favorable to its own institutional interests, including implementing a special constitutional convention referendum in 1998 in part to head off a possible adverse U.S. Supreme Court decision on the issue.<\/p>\n The common political strategy of taking two opposite positions on the same issue was also occasionally used.\u00a0 For example, incumbent State House candidate Tom Brower started explaining his position with a simple endorsement of calling a convention.\u00a0 But he then devoted three paragraphs to explaining why calling a convention is a bad idea.\u00a0 I coded his position statement as a punt because his answer was clearly designed to appeal to both convention supporters and opponents depending on how the political winds were blowing and which audience he was speaking to.<\/p>\n One of the most contentious issues is whether the ordinary Legislature-controlled constitutional amendment process is an adequate substitute for the constitutional convention process, which takes agenda control out of the Legislature\u2019s hands.\u00a0 Democratic State Senate candidate Brenda Ford argued that it was vital for Hawaiians to have and use a legislative bypass procedure: \u201cWhen the Legislature refuses to pass laws that the people want, disregards issues that even legislators try to get passed, and refuses to have a statewide citizens initiative process, it is time for a constitutional convention.\u201d\u00a0 In contrast, \u00a0Democratic State House candidate Justin Hughey, a Hawaii State Teachers Association vice president, argued that there was no need for a legislative bypass amendment process: \u201cWhile I am in favor of the people ultimately deciding this question, I will always be against a con con\u2026. I believe changing the constitution through a legislative bill is the best way to make changes to our state\u2019s founding document. The Legislature can bring up specific issues, debate them, hold hearings, and, if a proposed amendment has enough support, pass a measure placing the question before voters, just like we are doing now with the constitutional amendment to raise property taxes on investment properties in order to adequately fund our public schools.\u201d<\/p>\n Data<\/strong><\/p>\n For all the candidates\u2019 positions on the convention issue, as well as my coding of their response, see the Hawaii State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse under the candidate sub-menu<\/a> under the pro & con menu.<\/p>\n #<\/p>\n –J.H. Snider is the author of\u00a0Does the World Really Belong to the Living? The Decline of the Constitutional Convention in New York and Other US States, 1776\u20132015<\/a>\u00a0and editor of\u00a0The Hawai\u02bbi State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/a>.<\/p>\n Source:<\/strong> Snider, J.H.,\u00a0Analysis of Candidate Position Statements on the Nov. 6 ConCon Referendum<\/a>,\u00a0Hawai\u2019i Free Press<\/em>,\u00a0August 3, 2018.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Published in Hawai`i Free Press<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" For Hawaii\u2019s August 11, 2018 primary election, Civil Beat<\/em> collected<\/a> position statements from candidates on a variety of issues, including Hawaii\u2019s Nov. 6, 2018 state constitutional convention referendum.\u00a0 In \u00a0this article, I analyze the candidates\u2019 constitutional convention position statements based on the Civil Beat data compiled as of August 2.<\/p> In its thoroughness, Civil Beat\u2019s collection of candidate written positions on an upcoming state constitutional convention referendum is unprecedented. When I met with Civil Beat\u2019s editorial board in early May and encouraged Civil Beat to report on candidates\u2019 positions on the upcoming convention referendum, I did not even dream that it would be so ambitious in collecting such information, so it\u2019s a wonderful surprise.\u00a0 Alas, whereas most candidates for governor and lieutenant governor answered Civil Beat\u2019s survey, most candidates for the State Legislature, especially incumbents, did not.<\/p> Yes And No Positions<\/strong><\/p> Of the 67 candidates taking a position on the issue, 55% favored calling a convention.\u00a0 Fifteen (18%) cleverly answered a question that wasn\u2019t asked or otherwise took a neutral stand.\u00a0 Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor expressed slightly less support (50%) than candidates for the Legislature (56%).<\/p> Given the outcomes of the last few convention referendums in Hawaii, the majority support for calling a convention is surprising.\u00a0 But it should not be taken too seriously.\u00a0 When a constitutional convention referendum is ahead in the polls<\/a>, as it is in Hawaii (in May, 73% of those expressing an opinion<\/a> for or against were for), candidates\u2019 public positions tend to be skewed favorably.\u00a0 Civil Beat\u2019s strong endorsement of a convention, presumably read by Civil Beat\u2019s readers, may also have skewed the results favorably. \u00a0Politicians, after all, tend to adopt positions in accord with the audience they are addressing.<\/p> As an analogy, consider the politics of legislative transparency.\u00a0 When campaigning, an overwhelming majority of candidates for the State Legislature favor legislative transparency.\u00a0 But bills implementing legislative transparency rarely get a legislative floor vote, let alone passed, because legislators don\u2019t want to have to vote publicly against a popular reform they oppose. Similarly, voiced support for a convention is probably greater than actual support.<\/p> Constitutional convention politics, however, has a very different rhythm and playbook than legislative transparency. Whereas there is virtually no organized public opposition to legislative transparency, there will be substantial public opposition to any convention referendum that is ahead in the polls.*\u00a0 But the opposition is waiting until after Hawaii\u2019s \u00a0August 11 primary election before launching its campaign.\u00a0 In 2008, the last time the convention referendum was on the ballot, the opposition--a who-is-who of powerful Hawaii interest groups and their coalition allies--didn\u2019t launch until September.\u00a0 After the opposition\u2019s launch, candidate positions will shift toward opposition.<\/p> As a rule, when candidates say they are neutral on a convention referendum\u2014e.g., they\u2019ll support whatever voters decide\u2014one can be confident that the candidate\u2019s actual position is to oppose a convention.\u00a0 This is especially true when the candidate is an incumbent legislator and knows enough to feel embarrassed opposing a constitutional provision designed by Hawaii\u2019s Framers to function as a check on the Legislature.\u00a0 In short, taking a neutral position is politically like recusing oneself from a vote on an issue on which one has a well-known conflict of interest.<\/p> I have divided my findings into four categories depending on type of office: 1) Governor, 2) Lieutenant Governor, 3) State Senate, and 4) State House.<\/p> There was no clear partisan pattern of support or opposition.\u00a0 This is surprising given that Republican leaders, led by the incumbent Republican lieutenant governor, supported a convention during the last convention referendum in 2008.<\/p> Yes And No Arguments<\/strong><\/p> Some arguments against a convention appeared logically contradictory. \u00a0For example, consider two strong opponents for calling a convention.\u00a0 Republican Lieutenant Governor candidate Marissa Kerns argued that a convention would follow the wishes of the liberal majority in Hawaii and thus be bad for Republicans: \u201cI oppose con con. No way! We do not trust the Hawaii Democrat supermajority-controlled Legislature.\u201d In contrast, Democratic State House candidate Dylan Armstrong argued the opposite: \u201cIf we have a state constitutional convention now, the grassroots will have to massively coordinate and organize to prevent major loses to special interests \u2014 think the Koch brothers and A.L.E.C.\u201d The Koch brothers and A.L.E.C. are shorthand for conservative Republicans.<\/p> Some interpreted similar data in opposite terms, with one side taking a glass half-full and the other a glass half-empty perspective.\u00a0 For example, some were worried that a convention could take away environmental rights won at Hawaii\u2019s last constitutional convention in 1978, whereas other thought a convention could enhance those rights just as they have done in the past. For example, Democratic State House candidate Koohan Paik-Mander argued: \u201cThe last constitutional convention took place in 1978. It was not perfect, but from an environmental perspective, it did implement fundamentally important legislation \u2014 Article XI, or, the \u2018Public Trust Doctrine\u2019\u2026 If we were to lose it in the course of holding a state constitutional convention, it would hail a profound tragedy for protection of Hawaii\u2019s precious natural resources.\u201d In contrast, Green Party State House candidate Nick Nikhilananda argued: \u201cThe last convention incorporated some significant environmental, cultural and indigenous legislation and requirements. These need to be strengthened\u2026.\u201d<\/p> Some paradoxically attacked the state constitutional convention process when that process won the rights the arguer was seeking to protect.\u00a0 For example, incumbent State House legislator Chris Dodd argued: \u201cI oppose holding a state constitutional convention because the risks outweigh potential rewards. We currently have very strong labor and environmental protections in our state, and a con con puts that at risk.\u201d\u00a0 Not mentioned is that those labor and environmental protections were primarily won at previous Hawaii state constitutional conventions.<\/p> Some candidates clearly did not want to answer the question. A classic dodge in this type of situation is to answer a question that wasn\u2019t asked.\u00a0 One sophisticated implementation of this type of response was to appear to express support for calling a convention but to make the support conditional on the convention referendum already passing\u2014a distinction most readers presumably wouldn\u2019t notice. \u00a0For example, Democratic State House candidate David Tamas stated: \u201cI would advocate for a constitutional convention to reorganize the statewide school district into school districts in each county with elected school boards in each county school district. The constitutional convention would also be the appropriate forum to reorganize what is the responsibility of the state government and the county government in order to give counties more \u201chome rule\u201d responsibilities. This reorganization of responsibilities would also require a restructuring of our tax code to make sure these newly organized government responsibilities are properly funded.\u201d<\/p> More often, candidates were direct in refusing to answer the question.\u00a0 For example, incumbent State House candidate Lynn DeCoite said: \u201cI support what the people want.\u201d\u00a0 Note that even if this were an answer to the question asked, it is a far more ambiguous answer than readers are led to presume and may mask hidden opposition behavior.\u00a0 For such an assertion begs the crucial question of what majority should be used to determine what the people want.\u00a0 In Hawaii, the majority required to call a convention is a highly controversial issue<\/a>, with state courts downplaying original intent as a way to interpret the required majority, state and federal courts disagreeing on the required majority, and the Hawaii Legislature acting to codify and otherwise support the majority most favorable to its own institutional interests, including implementing a special constitutional convention referendum in 1998 in part to head off a possible adverse U.S. Supreme Court decision on the issue.<\/p> The common political strategy of taking two opposite positions on the same issue was also occasionally used.\u00a0 For example, incumbent State House candidate Tom Brower started explaining his position with a simple endorsement of calling a convention.\u00a0 But he then devoted three paragraphs to explaining why calling a convention is a bad idea.\u00a0 I coded his position statement as a punt because his answer was clearly designed to appeal to both convention supporters and opponents depending on how the political winds were blowing and which audience he was speaking to.<\/p> One of the most contentious issues is whether the ordinary Legislature-controlled constitutional amendment process is an adequate substitute for the constitutional convention process, which takes agenda control out of the Legislature\u2019s hands.\u00a0 Democratic State Senate candidate Brenda Ford argued that it was vital for Hawaiians to have and use a legislative bypass procedure: \u201cWhen the Legislature refuses to pass laws that the people want, disregards issues that even legislators try to get passed, and refuses to have a statewide citizens initiative process, it is time for a constitutional convention.\u201d\u00a0 In contrast, \u00a0Democratic State House candidate Justin Hughey, a Hawaii State Teachers Association vice president, argued that there was no need for a legislative bypass amendment process: \u201cWhile I am in favor of the people ultimately deciding this question, I will always be against a con con\u2026. I believe changing the constitution through a legislative bill is the best way to make changes to our state\u2019s founding document. The Legislature can bring up specific issues, debate them, hold hearings, and, if a proposed amendment has enough support, pass a measure placing the question before voters, just like we are doing now with the constitutional amendment to raise property taxes on investment properties in order to adequately fund our public schools.\u201d<\/p> Data<\/strong><\/p> For all the candidates\u2019 positions on the convention issue, as well as my coding of their response, see the Hawaii State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse under the candidate sub-menu<\/a> under the pro & con menu.<\/p> #<\/p> --J.H. Snider is the author of\u00a0Does the World Really Belong to the Living? The Decline of the Constitutional Convention in New York and Other US States, 1776\u20132015<\/a>\u00a0and editor of\u00a0The Hawai\u02bbi State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/a>.<\/p>\n