Column: Say no to constitutional convention

The estimated cost of a Hawaii Constitutional Convention (ConCon), if approved by voters at the Nov. 6 election is $56 million. Yes, that’s right: $56 million.

What would that amount be used for? According to March testimony given by the Legislative Reference Bureau, this amount is needed for 1) renting a large facility for all ConCon operations; 2) providing office space for the delegates; 3) hiring staff and providing appropriate compensation for delegates and staff. Are there any changes to our Constitution worth this amount of tax dollars at this time? I conclude the answer is a resounding NO.

Hawaii’s Constitution compares favorably with the constitutions of other states. It is fairly short, states broad principles, uses clear language, avoids excessive detail and does not include archaic language. Since the last ConCon, in 1978, the question of holding another Con Con has been on the ballot four times (1986, 1996, 1998, and 2008). Each time the result was negative.

There are two ways to make changes: 1) by a legislatively proposed amendment placed on the ballot or 2) by a Constitutional Convention. Those who want a ConCon sometimes argue that the Legislature does not propose what should be proposed. But they have an obligation to tell us their efforts to get a legislatively proposed amendment on the ballot. If they can’t, they have not done their homework.

Our November ballot, in fact, includes both of these methods: a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment regarding a state surcharge on investment properties and “Shall there be a convention to propose a revision of or amendments to the Constitution?” Since there are two methods, we need to think carefully about spending $56 million for a ConCon.

I believe there should only be a ConCon if the document is seriously flawed and makes governing our state very problematic; none of the pro-arguments make such a case.

Proponents of a ConCon should clearly inform us as to flaws and suggest exact changes to be made to solve them. They should also clarify intended (or possible unintended) consequences of such changes. Is this too much to ask of those who think it is worth spending $56 million?

Some claim a ConCon is needed so it might redefine, restructure and streamline the role of state government. That sort of language is just too vague.

Proponents also argue a ConCon can revitalize public life and/or be a training ground for new politicians. But this is totally inappropriate because our Constitution states the purpose of calling a ConCon is to revise and/or amend the document, not to assist those who want to get involved in politics.

We should not wait until a ConCon takes place to discover what issues rise up because it is not meant to be a fishing expedition; we ought to have a pretty clear idea of problems and possible solutions ahead of time.

A constitution is a document that establishes the basic principles of our state, determines the powers and duties of the government and guarantees certain rights to the people; it should not be easy to change. It is very different from laws passed by a legislature, which include all the detail needed for implementation and are easier to change.

While a constitution is a very important document, we should not change it unless there are strong arguments for amendments and/or revisions. If those favoring a ConCon cannot convince us, with detailed or specific arguments, that our document is broken, we should not be lulled into thinking it is. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Vote no on ConCon.

Anne Feder Lee, Ph.D., is a political scientist who had taught at universities in Ohio and Hawaii. She is the author of The Hawaii Constitution, a Reference Guide.