Volcanic Ash: Be honest about schools tax before it goes on ballot

The four counties make a fair point in their lawsuit trying to stop a poorly written constitutional amendment that would allow the state to raid real property taxes purportedly to finance public education.

The counties asked the Circuit Court to remove the proposed amendment from the general election ballot, arguing it’s vague, misleading and fails to meet legal requirements to inform voters of its true impact.

The Legislature and Hawaii State Teachers Association, the measure’s chief promoter, were deliberately vague in enacting this hastily conceived scheme to stick the counties with the tab for a state responsibility.

The property tax is a constitutionally protected county-only tax, requiring a constitutional amendment to enable the Legislature’s raid.

Legislators could have used a state tax — income, excise or hotel room — for more education money with no constitutional change needed.

But they avoided the political heat from raising their own taxes by using the property tax, reaping brownie points from the teachers union while putting the political and fiscal pain on the counties, which depend on the property tax for their own responsibilities.

Legislators rushed the measure through an unusual process that skipped the money committees of the two houses and a conference committee between the houses, causing the vague and misleading language.

Lawmakers and the teachers union implied the education tax would primarily target wealthy outsiders and be limited to single-family investment homes worth more than $1 million, but that’s not what the ballot measure says.

That ballot title reads: “CON AMEND: Relating to Public Education and Investment Property.” Nothing about taxes.

The ballot question reads: “Shall the legislature be authorized to establish, as provided by law, a surcharge on investment real property to be used to support public education?” Again, nothing clear about taxes, who would pay or how exactly the money would be used, which would be left to the future discretion of the Legislature.

State law requires “the language and meaning of a constitutional amendment shall be clear and it shall be neither misleading nor deceptive.”

This amendment’s wording allows virtually any property owner to be taxed in any amount, with no guarantee that additional funds for education would result.

Nothing in this language stops the Legislature from using the new money as a cover to reduce existing general funds for education. Voters aren’t told of the massive impact on county finances.

It’s deceptive language and bad policy that potentially creates another black hole where public money disappears on the magnitude of rail — and like rail, once it’s approved there’s no turning back.

If the court doesn’t remove it from the ballot for being vague and deceptive, it will be up to voters to strike it down until the Legislature gives us a measure that discloses the true impact in language we can understand.

Reach David Shapiro at volcanicash@gmail.com.