It also launched the political careers of several young delegates, including former Gov. John Waihee, House Speaker Joe Souki, Sen. Les Ihara and Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris.

On Nov. 5, voters will decide whether it's time to scrutinize the state's Constitution once again.

If so, the next "con con" would be in 1998.

Bill Paty, president of the controversial 1978 convention, says it could pale in comparison to the next go-round.

One issue likely to dominate discussion would be the divisive same-sex marriage question.

"Unlike a constitutional amendment, which addresses a specific section of the Constitution, a constitutional convention allows a review of the entire Constitution, and having been president of the last constitutional convention in 1978, I can tell you that this will open up a Pandora's box of other issues such as term limits for officeholders, initiative, Hawaiian rights, county rights and so forth," Paty wrote in a letter to the Star-Bulletin in April. "Do we need this?"

Paty counsels caution but isn't against the notion of another constitutional convention.

"You are going to have a very divisive and contentious con con, but there's no way to escape it. ...But are you going to turn your back because you can't stand the heat?" he said.

Among supporters of the idea are Waihee, Harris and University of Hawaii constitutional law professor and 1978 convention adviser Jon Van Dyke.

sex marriage, gambling and Hawaiian sovereignty, which would scuttle equally important issues, said league president Jackie Kido.

The estimated $12 million price tag includes the election of delegates, the convention itself and paying the delegates, said League spokeswoman Arlene Ellis. The League came up with its recommendation after surveying a group of experts including state Auditor Marion Higa, state budget director Earl Anzai and tax activist Lowell Kalapa.

"The other consideration, of course, is how large is the convention to be," Ellis said.

" ... And all elections are very expensive."

League officials also argue that the sovereignty question should come into clearer focus before a convention is held and that one may well be unnecessary, since the Legislature has the authority to propose constitutional amendments. There are three on this year's ballot.

The Legislature derives its power from the Hawaii Constitution. All laws passed by the Legislature must fall within the framework of the broad parameters set forth by the Constitution, Ihara said. Legislators draft amendments when the proposals go beyond legislative purview.

State Rep. Jim Shon fears that "very well-financed economic interests might well attempt to strip our Constitution of its strengths, fairness and integrity."

In 1986, voters rejected another convention by a 60-40 margin so soon after the 1978 affair.

A yes vote on more than 50 percent of all ballots cast - including blank and invalid ballots - would trigger a 1998 convention.

If a convention is approved, delegates would be elected from throughout the state, with the Legislature determining the number of delegates, voting districts, when the convention would be held and other details.

Proposed amendments coming out of the convention would be on the ballot during the next election, Ellis said.

Voters statewide will be asked to decide on three proposed constitutional amendments.

One of them is aimed at speeding school construction.

Backed by Sen. Avery Chumbley, School Board chairman Mitsugi Nakashima and Department of Education officials, the proposed amendment would allow the state to appropriate money from the school's special building fund beyond the current three-year limit.

The state attorney general, however, argues that the amendment is unnecessary, that money from the educational facilities improvement special fund can now be spent over periods longer than three years in getting school construction signed.

Also being put before voters on Nov. 5:

A proposed amendment that would authorize the use of revenue bonds to fund insurance coverage under the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund.

A proposed amendment that would make general obligation bond funds available for a longer period of time without the Legislature reauthorizing the expenditure.

In providing matching funds, the federal government often requires funds to be available for longer than a two-year period.