I loved the recent commentary by Anne Feder Lee asking those who are clamoring for a Hawaii Constitutional Convention (ConCon) to spell out what exactly is flawed about the document we now have. And as Jack Tuholske, a law professor with Vermont Law School, has said, Hawaii is “in some ways way out in front and is a leader for environmental constitutional provisions.”
In this era when so many environmental regulations are under siege by the Trump administration, why would we risk jeopardizing what we already have firmly established in our current Constitution? If we truly care about nature, the smart vote on the proposal for a ConCon is NO.
As an environmental activist since my college years at the University of Hawaii-Manoa, successfully banning styrofoam from campus and standing with the Divest UH coalition and 350.org to convince the UH system to divest from fossil fuels, I have a strong passion for sustainability. My activism has continued beyond college, and if anything, has become more urgent because the threat to our planet and island communities has only escalated with climate change. Those with the power to do something about it just keep denying reality. This is not the time to let them get a foot in the door to destroy or weaken what protections we already have.
As stewards of the environment, the Sierra Club believes that it is important that voters recognize what’s at stake relative to the environment when they cast their ballots for this proposal.
Article XI, Section 1 of our state Constitution begins by stating:
“For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State.”
Beyond the stewardship of resources, Article XI, Section 9 of our state Constitution stipulates the following as a basic right:
“Each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources. Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations and regulation as provided by law.”
Hawaii is one of just five states, along with Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Montana, that enshrine environmental protections in their state Constitution.
These have translated into real protections for ordinary people. The people of Maui know this first-hand.
In December 2017, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled against Maui Electric Co., finding it liable for more than 400 violations of the Clean Air Act. The case arose over a 2015 decision by the Public Utilities Commission allowing the continuation of an existing agreement with the fossil-fuel burning power plant in Puunene, Maui. The plant sourced approximately 25 percent of its fuel from coal and petroleum. The Supreme Court noted that a healthy environment “is a substantive right guaranteed to each person,” and that “this substantive right is a legitimate entitlement stemming from and shaped by independent sources of state law, and is thus a property interest protected by due process.”
In a time where corporate interests and political corruption run rampant, why on Earth would we risk losing these protections?
When you receive your ballot in the mail, or when you go to the polls, please remember what we love about these beautiful islands and vote NO on ConCon.
Doorae Shin is the Plastic Free Hawaii program manager for the Kokua Hawaii Foundation, and secretary of the executive committee of the Sierra Club-Hawaii.
