---

Sloppy lawmaking
wastes ratification

THE ISSUE The state Supreme Court has voided a constitutional amendment that would affect trials of sexual assaults of minors.

HAWAII voters last year approved a constitutional amendment to change the state's criminal laws, but for the second time in as many elections their ballots have been trashed because of procedural sloppiness. No excuse can be made for such foul-ups, which delay legal changes and result in legislators having to go through the motion again.

In the 2002 election, voters approved an amendment allowing prosecutors to present written statements of witnesses to a judge in order to bring charges against a defendant, avoiding a grand jury. However, the Attorney General's Office had violated publication requirements leading up to the election, and the state Supreme Court voided it. The amendment had to be resubmitted to voters, who approved it again.

Higher up last year's ballot was a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow jurors to convict a defendant of continuous sexual assault of a minor during a specified time if the jurors cannot agree on specifics of the multiple acts that count toward the minimum of three. Two-thirds of the voters approved it, but their ballots have been wiped clean by legislative error.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii challenged the amendment, complaining that it passed the state House as a bill, not a constitutional amendment, and thus was not subjected proper scrutiny. The ACLU took no stance on the substance of the amendment, which was supported by the Honolulu public defender as well as the prosecutor.

The legislation was prompted by a 2003 Supreme Court reversal of a sexual-assault conviction. It was changed to a constitutional amendment in the Senate only after the Attorney General's Office pointed out that a mere statutory change would be of no consequence.

The ACLU's successful challenge of the legislative processing of the measure may have averted the Supreme Court's reversal of a future conviction.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Canadian visitors face
travel obstacle

THE ISSUE Canadians visiting Hawaii will have to carry passports beginning at the end of next year.

THE Bush administration is sticking to its plan that all travelers from Western Hemisphere countries must show passports to enter the United States. However, the plan's implementation has been postponed by one year to Dec. 31, 2006, giving Hawaii's tourism industry time to cope with what could be an impediment to visitors from Canada.

As part of the nation's security against terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security settled on the plan in April. It calls for travelers, including returning Americans, to show a passport upon entering the United States by air from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, the Caribbean and South and Central America.

Canadians and Caribbean residents are upset about what they expect to be a drop in tourism by Americans, only 20 percent of whom carry passports. The requirement will be imposed on everyone traveling by air or sea into the United States beginning Dec. 31, 2006. It will extend to land border crossings a year later.

The Caribbean makes $2.5 billion in revenue from Americans, who comprised more than half of the region's 22 million visitors last year. The Canadian tourism industry expects the initiative will cost it $1.6 billion in lost revenue.

The plan also could hinder travel by Canadians to Hawaii, the only state to be significantly affected by the initial stage. Only 31 percent of Canadians carry passports, and Canada is now Hawaii's No. 4 tourism market, behind the East and West coasts and Japan. Canadians make up 4.7 percent of the visitor days in the islands.

The concern about terrorists entering the United States from nearby countries is legitimate. Prior to 9/11, an Algerian man with plans to bomb the Los Angeles airport was arrested trying to bring explosives across the border from Canada.

The year's delay will give Hawaii's tourism industry and travel agents time to encourage Canadians wanting to visit Hawaii to plan long enough in advance to meet the requirements.

---

---

---