Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />going to be no or it's going to be yes, but whoever initiates it is the one that's interested in it and <br />knows what the rules are going in. And that part of it I -, there was, I felt, some wisdom in it and <br />it appealed to me. Thank you. <br />HERKES: So if you want, if you want -. <br />HIGASHI: Moving on. I think it's something that I would want to explore. <br />HERKES: Yeah, because I -. <br />HIGASHI: A little bit more. <br />HERKES: If you wanted to vote against it, if you're in favor of it, then you rank the <br />petition that way. <br />HIGASHI: Well, the Hapuna Beach initiative was just as confusing. <br />IRVINE: It was the same way. <br />HERKES: Yeah: <br />IRVINE: And it's every time that you're voting for a change that it becomes a <br />problem. On the other hand, it does say down here that there's supposed to be an objective <br />summary of the substance of the measure. I could have written two sentences that would have <br />made it very clear how you were voting if that was what they wanted on the last ballot. <br />WURDEMAN: What happened is -. <br />IRVINE: You'd say you're voting for a ban on an irradiator. You are voting against <br />a ban on an irradiator. And that would have made it very clear to people. They didn't have that. <br />WURDEMAN: In the last election, there was an objective summary prepared, mostly by <br />me but with some other people's input, and it was sent up to Honolulu to be included on the <br />ballot and the elections people in Honolulu said no, there's no provision in State law for any such <br />thing, and they wouldn't put it on the ballot. <br />HERKES: That's the confusing part. <br />IRVINE: They had a -, they had little pieces of paper in the voting booth that <br />explained the other ballot issues, you know, it was separate from the ballot but it was in the <br />booth. <br />WURDEMAN: No, but we tried to comply with this, and they wouldn't let us. <br />17 <br />