UNLESS the state Supreme Court says no-go, the state Legislature must arrange for the Constitutional Convention approved by voters last November. The House Judiciary Committee has approved an election on March 14, 1998, of 51 delegates, one from each state representative district. Each highest vote-getter would win with no run-off. 1998 would be
too soon for Con ConThe convention would convene June 1. To vote on its proposals at the Nov. 3 general election and meet a requirement for certification of the proposals and their accompanying educational materials 90 days before the election would limit the convention to two months. It also would throw the ratification process into the 1998 governor election.
One delegate from each representative district has the virtue of simplicity, but raises the possibility legislators will dominate unless they voluntarily stay out. Having no run-off election will further enhance the edge for candidates the voters already know.
The Senate's Judiciary Committee is leaning toward the year 2000 for the Con Con, a far better choice. We need the extra preparation time and wider latitude.
A 2000 Con Con can develop more voter understanding, allow more preparatory research and may get a better focus on Hawaiian concerns that merit Con Con attention.
We wrote our Constitution in an idealistic convention in 1950, then put it into effect with statehood in 1959. We since have added 52 amendments via constitutional conventions in 1968 and 1978 and propositions put to the voters at almost every general election by the Legislature.
It is time to look at issues the Legislature never may submit - such as shifting more power down to the counties and whether to change the Legislature from two houses to one, just as the Con Con will be.
Our long-running Democratic majorities got into office espousing home rule. They have been busy taking powers away from the counties ever since. Power is heady. Those who have it almost always think they know best.
Counties today have only limited land planning power, limited taxing power and no power at all over schools. We are in a national mood to shift management away from Washington to the states. Shouldn't we also shift more to the counties?
Among other concerns:
School system governance. Should we localize it? Should we try again to let the governor appoint the Board of Education in order to have fewer cooks stirring the broth? Or should we give our elected board real power, like the power to tax?
What about same-sex marriage, in case it isn't settled otherwise by then?
AND what about ways to get rid of our smoke-and-mirrors budget games? What about setting long-term financial implications of legislative acts more clearly before the citizens? And what about the golden oldies like an elected attorney general, elected judges, initiative and recall?
These are important matters. The power structure may not want them debated, which probably is why the AFL-CIO has gone to the Supreme Court to get last November's vote for a Con Con voided. The Senate has asked the court to expedite its ruling. It would be unfortunate if it came after the legislative session adjourns at the end of April.
Along with preparation time for the Con Con, money is important. It needs an appropriation sufficient for adequate pre-convention issues research by the Legislative Reference Bureau and sufficient for voter education afterward.
I'd like to see it also provide for run-off elections when no candidate gets 50 percent. At least 20 years will have passed since our last Con Con. Haste in rushing this one through and stinginess in funding may serve the power structure, but not the general public.