MIN CHC 1989-02-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

VAN DYKE: Okay. Well, yeah. Thank you. I do want to mention that . Let me start with the Con-Con ballot in ' 78, which was statewide, then talk about the Honolulu Charter Review Commission. The ballot in both of those situations . . . the structure of the ballot became . . . took up an enormous amount of the group ' s time and became very controversial . In ' 78, they proposed about 178 different amendments to the State Constitution and grouped them in about 35 categories . So there were 35 separate decisions to be made. The delegates of the Con-Con obviously wanted them all to be adopted, and so they offered the voters this set of alternatives . You could vote yes on everything. That was an easy vote to say. Or you could vote no on specific things that you didn ' t like. And if you voted no on some, all the others were deemed to be yes . And so what happened is that there were a number of controversial ones , and so a lot of people voted no on a lot of them. But the nos did not get 50% on any one of them, and so all were adopted. And this of course pleased the delegates and, in my judgment, there were a lot of good provisions , so I thought it was a good tactic; but it was thought by many people as being unfair because it was obviously stacked in favor of a yes vote, because the people who did not vote on certain things because they didn' t care and understand it , they were deemed to have voted yes on all those provisions . So that might be something you' d wanna avoid because it seems a little shady to stack it in that fashion. Now in the Honolulu situation, what they did and, again they had some very controversial ones, they were getting rid of the district . . . the neighborhood boards and they were increasing salaries and changing the size of districts and adding positions and so on, to the staff. So basically they offered the voters an all-or-nothing package . You gotta take all our amendments or none of them. And in that situation, everybody had one or two of them they didn' t like, and so virtually everybody voted no . It was . . . the vote was 160,000 no and 50,000 yes , which is an unheard of landslide against the . . . this kind of a package . So that again I think would be something to avoid, that you wouldn' t want to list all your amendments separately. And then, in terms of how you write them, you have to of course have one version in which you layout specifically the exact language changes that you' re making. But then you would have a summary as well and you' d have an educational program in which you' d try to make available to people the different arguments in favor of the proposals . And in terms of language, I think just a kind of common sense summary of what exactly you' re trying to accomplish. And in the Honolulu situation for instance, they would publish full-page ads in which they listed everything and they had, you know, what the change was and what 119