Hawaii's founding document has no flaw so severe that it warrants convening an expensive convention to amend it. So just vote “;no”; on holding a Con Con

Have the proponents of a Constitutional Convention put forth arguments that can persuade us to vote “;yes”; on the question that will appear on our ballot in the upcoming election: “;Shall there be a convention to propose a revision of or amendments to the Constitution?”; I do not believe they have done so and I'd like to share why I think we should vote “;no.”;

Proponents of a “;yes”; vote have given arguments that I see falling into two groups.

Sound bites aren't enough

The first group is made up of what I call “;sound bite”; reasons. For example, supporters have said we need a Con Con because we haven't had one in 30 years, that it will reinvigorate public life, that it will provide a training ground for future political leaders and that our government is not responsive.

But these aren't compelling reasons to hold a Con Con. The period of time since the last one (in 1978) is of little consequence. The issue is not how much time has passed, but rather, whether the document is seriously flawed and in need of change.

I suppose it is possible that a Con Con might enhance political participation not just for the moment but for the long run, or that the talent pool of potential politicians might grow. It certainly sounds good to say that a Con Con could bring these results, for I think all of us agree that we could do with a livelier political arena. But these should not be the motive behind calling for a convention, which, according to our Constitution, is to be called to revise or amend the document and not for any other reasons.

How about the reason given that “;our government is not responsive”;? This also sounds good. But I'd like anyone who uses this reason to tell me specifically how they would change the document to incorporate that. How would it be enforced?

We need to be very careful about assuming that a Constitution can solve all problems. A Constitution should be a basic document that lays out powers and responsibilities in broad strokes. I don't want a document that includes a great deal of specifics that might deal with particular problems we think we have at this moment but which then turn out to be problematic when the circumstances change.

Consequences unclear

The second group of reasons does focus on “;issues.”; Education, crime, initiative and referendum, a unicameral Legislature, state-county powers, decentralization and streamlining government are among those raised. But in putting forth these reasons, the proponents have not done a good job of explaining why we must make these changes in our basic document. They have not told us exactly what language they want. They have not explained how such changes will really solve the problems they identify, nor have they clarified for us all the consequences of the changes they propose (both good and bad). In addition, they have used language in such a way as to imply a high level of confidence that a Con Con will, in fact, propose the kind of changes they support. For example, suppose we decentralize some aspect of our government. How many layers do we want? Might that not in fact be more expensive? And, what does it mean to streamline? Do we do away with the counties? That would certainly streamline government.

Alas, there is absolutely no way to know at this time what issues a Con Con will seriously entertain and pass on as proposals to put before the voters.

Some have argued that we need a Con Con because the Legislature won't act on the matters they want it to act on.

But where is the evidence of a groundswell of support for changing the Constitution in the ways they desire? I certainly haven't seen it, and the proponents have not shared such information with us if they have it.

The legislative process does involve many hurdles, it takes time and, yes, it is sometimes difficult to get things done. But think for a moment about what it would be like if every bill introduced into the Legislature passed or if every constitutional amendment proposed by a legislator was put before the voters. Hard as it might be to acknowledge, some ideas are not as good as others, don't have public support or are not fully thought through.

Cost a consideration

As far as I know, none of the Con Con supporters have squarely addressed the question of how we can justify spending millions of dollars when we are in the midst of the most serious economic and financial crises most of us have ever experienced. This is not an issue that we can brush aside easily.

No one has made convincing arguments that our Constitution is so broken that it is need of immediate repair, justifying the expenditure of tax dollars that could be put to use elsewhere.

Since statehood, we have had two Constitutional Conventions. The 1968 Con Con was absolutely necessary because of a fundamental flaw having a serious impact on governance: the districting plan for electing state and congressional legislators was in violation of the one person-one vote principle and needed immediate fixing.

The 1978 Con Con came about even though there were no such reasons. The delegates at that convention made many worthwhile changes. The document does not have any archaic language, now includes gender-neutral language, is written in a clear manner, is relatively short and is not cluttered with detail that is better left to the legislative branch. In sum, it is a very good document that can serve us well for a long time to come. Please join me in voting “;no”; on Con Con.