DO we need another Con Con? That's one of the three state constitutional questions on our general election ballot. You've been smothered with gay marriage pros and cons. But you've likely heard little about the other two amendment proposals. Vote in favor of
holding a Con ConA cut-and-dried case for a "yes" vote is the one on whether to convene a tax review commission every 10 years instead of every five. Any review of our whole system takes lots of volunteer work by dedicated citizens -- and tends to be ignored by the Legislature. Ten-year reviews might just draw more consideration and attention.
The tougher vote is on whether to have a constitutional convention in 2000. An overall review of our government structure by delegates who may not be all professional politicians tends to cause shivers among those already sitting pretty.
Among those urging "no" votes are the government unions, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Sierra Club.
OHA is a product of our last convention in 1978 and is hardly in danger, but it may fear tampering around its edges on such matters as ceded land revenues, where it is claiming very big bucks, and traditional Hawaiian gathering rights, where the Hawaii Supreme Court has created a situation under which developers of undeveloped or underdeveloped lands can be sued from here to eternity.
Sympathy for Hawaiian causes is widespread, but a sense that activists are overreaching as well as warping history also is developing. OHA may not want to test this counter-trend -- even to push such sensible proposals as moving the Hawaiian Homes program under the wing of OHA's trustees, who are elected by only Hawaiian voters.
Government unions, of course, have it so good that anything a Con Con might propose might scare at least their leaders, however reasonable.
And environmentalists are sitting pretty, too. Why risk seeing some or all of the state Land Use Commission's powers being devolved to county control? The Hawaii public is overwhelming in wanting environmental protection, has been for years. As with government unions, any scale-balancing proposals would have to be moderate to be ratified -- but why risk even that?
The list of other possible risks to the status quo include:
Elected judges.
Once a convention is convened, any idea can be presented. But we can trust that delegates who want to see their product ratified by a majority of those voting at a general election will realize moderation is in order.
And we can hope the University of Hawaii and the Legislative Reference Bureau will come up before the convention with good pro-con material on major issues for the edification of all of us, including the delegates.
I'VE wavered a bit on whether we want a convention now. The cost is a consideration, but not overriding. The fact that Hawaiians haven't yet fully focused their ideas is another concern.
But a Con Con might speed that process -- and further constitutional amendments on Hawaiian matters still can be put on future ballots by the Legislature -- just as this year's three proposals have been.
A Con Con in addition can bring us to think harder about how our government works -- just as we had to in 1950, 1968 and 1978 for the three previous conventions, all of which I watched. I will vote "yes." If the "noes" win we may not get another chance until 2008.
A.A. Smyser is the contributing editor
and former editor of the the Star-Bulletin
His column runs Tuesday and Thursday.