Editorial: ConAm proposal poorly conceived

The Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate a question on the Nov. 6 general election ballot is a sensible move. The court found that the wording of the question asking voters if they want to amend the Hawaii Constitution to allow the state to tax investment property in support of public education wasn’t sufficiently clear.

In addition, it appears clear to us that this proposed amendment would have afforded the 2019 Legislature — and any set of state lawmakers thereafter — too much leeway in deciding precisely how it may connect dots, in the name of public schools funding.

The measure’s supporters — the Hawaii State Teachers Association chief among them — had backed the ballot question as a ticket to securing an increase in funding for Hawaii’s public schools, with a large chunk eyed for higher teacher pay.

As the state Department of Education continuously grapples with shortages of classroom teachers, an estimated one-third of students are taught by long-term substitutes and emergency hires — many of whom aren’t qualified to teach their subjects and some of whom only have a high school degree, according to the teachers union.

The scrapped ballot measure asked whether the Legislature should be authorized to establish a surcharge on investment property to support public education.

Had it been supported at the polls, the HSTA wanted the Legislature to tax second homes valued at $1 million or more to raise revenue for public schools. Ostensibly, that connect-the-dots solution aimed to tap outsider investors while having very little effect on local wallets. Unfortunately, though, this seemingly simple fix would’ve yielded unwanted results.

Currently, only the counties can impose property taxes, which are their main source of funding. The state, meanwhile, pays for public schools using revenue sources such as the Hawaii general excise tax. The proposed constitutional amendment intended, essentially, to allow the Legislature to impose a property tax.

Opponents have rightly pointed out that the scope appeared to be an open-ended proposition, opening something akin to a Pandora’s box.

County mayors have argued that such a measure could end up cutting into their revenues and hurting their bond rating. What’s more, attorneys for Honolulu, Maui, Kauai and Hawaii counties persuasively argued that the wording of the ballot question was unclear and misleading.

The question, which has already been printed on ballots, specifically states: “Shall the legislature be authorized to establish, as provided by law, a surcharge on investment real property?” Now, due to the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling, any votes for or against the measure will not be counted and will have no impact.

Among the concerns raised during last week’s courtroom hearing was whether the clause “as provided by law” is confusing and vague. That use of the past tense seems to suggest that the Legislature already holds the power to tax property in support of public education. It clearly does not.

Another concern raised was that “investment real property” was not defined. It’s true that due the absence of any elaboration, many voters might not grasp that in addition to property owned by outside investors, residential property owned by local people could be taxed, if the amendment had passed and the Legislature opted for such scope.

The court found that the wording of the question failed to pass muster with state law requiring that the language of a constitutional amendment be “neither misleading or deceptive.”

What’s clear to us is that this constitutional amendment was the wrong vehicle for attempting to improve the quality of education in our public schools — a necessary goal, to be sure. Among the potential problems with this vehicle is that there’s no guarantee that the Legislature wouldn’t reduce existing school funding, or just stop increasing it at the rate of inflation.

Further, merely trying to pour more money into the Education Department’s coffers might be an illusory solution. (The department’s operating budget is nearly $2 billion.) The Legislature and other state leaders must take a hard look at how efficiently money is being spent now. It’s doubtful that most of the department’s shortcomings are tied to inadequate funding — but instead, how and where the money flows.

The statewide school district should more clearly spell out for the public how our tax dollars are being spent. If a thorough vetting shows that higher taxes are indeed key to solving problems, such as the chronic teacher shortage, then the Legislature should look within the state’s own current taxation system.

The high court’s invalidation of this ill-conceived “school surcharge” constitutional amendment puts the problems plaguing Hawaii’s schools system squarely back with next year’s Legislature. Lawmakers must dig deeper, and be wiser, as they prioritize support for education without causing unintended consequences with vague non-solutions.