Under the Sun
Cost and value aren’t
equivalent measuresAll the racket about the cost of a special election or elections to fill the late Patsy Mink's seat in Congress and the maneuvers to fill the vacancy quickly drown out sensible examination of the value of an orderly voting process. The appetite for speed on the cheap devours rational process these days, not only in this unexpected situation, but in others.
Seldom does a day go by without someone or another -- usually government officials or politicians -- throwing up a plan to streamline or expedite in an effort to save or trim. That's not to say that efficient use of time and money isn't worthy, but we ought to look at what fast and low-cost schemes will yield.
The state's attempt to stage special election No. 1 -- to elect someone to finish Mink's current term -- at the same time as the Nov. 5 general election has annoyed the public and, predictably, the Republican Party. The point, Attorney General Earl Anzai says, is to save taxpayers the $2 million cost of a separate election. Now that the state Supreme Court has rejected that idea, Anzai is proposing that the Democratic Party be allowed to choose a candidate to replace Mink on the general election ballot, again to save us from having to pay for special election No. 2, which will be necessary if Mink gets more votes than the Republican candidate.
The altruistic rationale that Hawaii needs a voice in the U.S. House for the few weeks that will be left in the current session after Nov. 5 belies the reality of congressional politics. Another justification is that if the person who wins special election No. 1 to complete the term also wins special election No. 2, he or she will have a few weeks of seniority. The pivotal word in this scenario is "if" -- to which I say, if my mother was a man she'd be my father. Meanwhile, the plan to pick a replacement for Mink sets aside the voter as well as other candidates who may want to run.
What these exertions have reaped so far is a suspicion that the Democratic Party is manipulating the process to its advantage and a confused, frustrated public. It is foolishness to think that the so-called savings would make more money available for public school textbooks, as one state legislator suggested. Tinkering with the elections isn't worth this chaos and stimulation of mistrust.
The need for speed and to cut costs is also the argument the Bush administration is advancing in its campaign to undermine the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969. The law is the calcium in the backbone of environmental protection, requiring federal agencies to assess in detail consequences of projects that may affect the environment, such as airports and highways, and make the information available to the public for discussion.
The administration and business interests claim the law slows development by allowing the pesky public and conservation advocates to put their two cents in. Their solution is to reduce the amount of time for public review and the number of issues taxpayers may consider. Never mind that federal studies have shown that project delays are more often caused by lack of funding or other complications.
Under the guise of increasing efficiency, the administration wants to eliminate the public's right to file legal challenges to force government compliance. To save money, it would allow corporations seeking to mine for gold or drill for gas on public lands to conduct their own environmental reviews and foot the bill for them. A citizen's power to demand the government obey the law should not be displaced in the name of efficiency, and to let a business interest determine the harm it may do is like leaving the fox to guard the hen house.
If government can spend less of our money, great. If it can do things better and faster, wonderful. But speed isn't the same as efficiency; democracy can be sluggish and messy. And cost should never eclipse reason.
Cynthia Oi has been on the staff of the Star-Bulletin for 25 years.
She can be reached at: coi@starbulletin.com.
