Editorial: Election system needs reforming

For most voters, the election of 2018 is in the rear-view mirror, and 2020 is still a distance away, with the exception of the early hubbub from presidential candidates. It’s not time yet to start thinking about elections again, is it?

Some people think it is, and they may have a point. In Hawaii, the past campaign season exposed aspects that could be improved, and some outright flaws in the process that went unnoticed.

The legal wrangling over extremely close elections underscored how much more clearly state laws settling such disputes need to be. In particular, the faceoff between Trevor Ozawa and Tommy Waters over incumbent Ozawa’s City Council seat led to a protracted legal battle over the 22-vote margin and the collection of absentee ballots. This has left the East Oahu district unrepresented and has culminated in a court order for a revote; final ballots for the upcoming “all mail” election will be collected by 6 p.m. April 13, with the winner to be announced that night. We hope.

Setting aside the rematch that lies ahead, resolution should not have been this disruptive. Under current law, there is no trigger for an automatic recount, and perhaps there should be. State lawmakers appear ready at least to begin the discussion on that point.

The court only orders a recount for cause — some malfeasance or clear misstep — and not because, as in this case, the margin was very slim. Waters had asserted that the vote-counting of mailed absentee ballots did not follow the statute, but the court hearings laid bare how imprecise the statutory guidance is.

Some clearer language is needed on the timeline and the separate functions and roles of state and city staff and of the postal service. Also, a threshold for an automatic recount should be considered to resolve disputes more quickly and cleanly.

Legislation on this general topic is in the hopper now. It deserves a full, open debate, especially with vote-by-mail growing more popular.

Election reforms are complex and must be fully vetted. But the potential reward of a more vibrant democracy makes various ideas worth exploring:

>> State Rep. Sylvia Luke, for one, has expressed her favor for a move to a “top two” primary election system, similar to what California, Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington have adopted. In this system, candidates of all parties compete in a single primary race, with the top two, regardless of party, advancing to the general.

Advocates point to Hawaii’s political domination by the Democratic Party. They say this would ensure that the general election, which draws more voters, becomes the main event, rather than a rubber-stamping of the Democratic primary.

Opponents counter that a top-two primary could eliminate minority-party slots on the general ballot. However, a top-two primary also could take on a nonpartisan feel. Competitive Republican challengers who step up and make the cut have a real chance to win voters by General Election Day.

In a state where the GOP has become moribund, a measure of upheaval could yield positive change.

>> Hawaii has suffered from low voter participation and has tried many things to prod people to the polls. Same-day registration, easy access to absentee ballots, mail-in and early walk-in options have not achieved optimal results.

A further improvement would be automatic voter registration (AVR), an idea that also has been introduced at the state Capitol.

There are various approaches to this, but in Oregon, where AVR took effect in 2016, all drivers become registered voters at the point of receiving their license, unless they opt out. It has proved to be an effective way to usher new voters — especially younger ones — toward the ballot box.

There is no single reform that would correct Hawaii’s myriad electoral challenges. But it makes sense at least to invite new voters into democratic participation at the earliest opportunity. That would be a straightforward and logical next step.