Forty years ago, ABC’s “Laverne and Shirley” was the No. 1 show on television, and in Hawaii, the landmark political show was the 1978 Hawaii Constitutional Convention.
Work for the revamp of the state’s controlling governmental document, the Constitution, had started in 1976 and ended with voters approving dramatic changes to Hawaii’s rules of government and politics.
All this is important because in the November election, voters will be asked if they want to hold another convention.
The one nearly a half-century ago changed a lot. Because of it, governors were allowed only two terms, primary elections were open (you don’t have to be a registered member of a political party to vote in that party), the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was established, politicians were forced to obey campaign spending limits, there were changes to the structure of the courts and an affirmation of the right to privacy.
Every 10 years since then, voters are asked if they want another convention and not once has it passed.
I think part of the reason is that in 1975, the state Legislature was so blatantly, unrepentantly ugly that voters were left thinking: Things have to change and we don’t want those already in office making the decisions.
Voters on April 11, 1975, had awoken to news that the Legislature had wrapped up business the night before
by awarding themselves
150 percent pension increases and a whopping $71 million increase for state employees’ pay.
Neither plan had been mentioned before; each was inserted in a midnight conference committee bill.
If citizens today are worried about “gut and replace” as a legislative tactic in today’s Legislature, the old scheme was more like “rape and pillage.”
Citizen outrage at the time was immediate: Leaders of the House and Senate asked then-Gov. George Ariyoshi to veto the bill, and on April 19, he did.
“We made an error in judgment,” said House Speaker James Wakatsuki.
The next year, the Legislature was already working on legislation to call for a ConCon while citizens’ groups advocated that incumbent politicians need not apply.
A 1976 poll showed that by 56 to 35 percent, voters disapproved of the job done by the Legislature.
A Honolulu Advertiser editorial asked why have a convention “if it is going to just be the same people.”
The interest in a ConCon, however, was great.
“By offering people the the opportunity to call for the convening of a constitutional convention, we are offering them a great voice in their government,” said then-Rep. Andy Poepoe, GOP House leader.
The League of Women Voters and Common Cause joined together to form “Citizens for a Constitutional Convention” to push for it.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin published a survey of nine community leaders all urging a yes vote for a ConCon, including the heads of the Democratic and Republican parties, then-Mayor Frank Fasi and Robert McElrath, chairman of the Hawaii ILWU.
There are obvious needs today for another ConCon — the need for a coherent policy on education funding is obvious instead of the controversial and dubious construct offered as a constitutional amendment today.
The challenges and fears of global warming and its impact on Hawaii must be met, and Hawaii government needs a two-handed shove toward a digital transformation instead of the tentative steps of Gov. David Ige’s administration.
Are we up for that?
Peter Adler, mediator and planner, has been holding community meetings discussing the issues involving a ConCon. He reports a dismayed public spirit.
“Others talked about deeper forces: a one-party monopoly for the last 50 years; ongoing demographic changes; income disparities; the lack of affordable housing and the steady pricing out of people born and raised here; voter fatigue and continuing low voter turnout; and a growing sense of squalor in our neighborhoods and on the street,” Adler wrote.
Still, hope in the future means hope in new people making new decisions. Perhaps trust in the voters will override the fear of voters.
Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays. Reach him at 808onpolitics@gmail.com.
