My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CHC 1979-06-05
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1980
>
Minutes
>
CHC 1979-06-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2018 10:49:53 AM
Creation date
6/19/2018 9:45:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1979
Meeting date
6/5/1979
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1979-06-05
(Related)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\1980\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARTICLE V: MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman, Section 5-1 .1, 5-1.2, <br /> SECTION and 5-1.3. I don ' t believe there has been any <br /> 5-1.1 testimony indicating recommending any changes in <br /> 5-1 .2 those three provisions and after my review, I <br /> 5=1 .3 don ' t see any reason for any of the provisions to <br /> be changed, so I move, at this time, that we keep <br /> it as is. <br /> MR. YAGONG: I second it. <br /> MR. CADINHA: Are you referring to the whole <br /> Article V? <br /> MR. ISHIDA: No, just 1. 1 , 1.2, and 1.3. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded <br /> that we adopt Section 5-1. 1 , 5-1.2, and 5-1 .3 without any changes. <br /> Is there any discussion? <br /> MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. Regarding the Section <br /> 5-1.2 Qualifications, where it says that the mayor must be "a <br /> duly qualified elector of the county for at least three years <br /> immediately preceding his election. " There appears to be some <br /> question about the constitutionality of this provision of three <br /> years. There was a case in 1972 that was decided by the Hawaii _ <br /> Supreme Court, in the case of York vs State of Hawaii whereby the <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court held that the three year residency require- <br /> ment for employment fri the state was unconstitutional. And I had <br /> done some other research, with the assistance of my research <br /> assistant, who has reviewed court cases throughout the mainland <br /> and they go in all directions, but, generally speaking, it <br /> appears that any kind of residency requirements over one year <br /> would probably appear to be unconstitutional. That is the gist <br /> of what the research seems to indicate. <br /> MR. '"ISHIDA: As written, is: it invalid? <br /> MR. ODA: For three years? I think so. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Are you recommending that that <br /> provision be deleted? <br /> MR. ODA: I don ' t know whether I am overstepping <br /> my bounds, but I would think that that would probably be the <br /> best thing to do. I note that Honolulu and Maui, for example, <br /> do not have any duration of residency requirements, also. <br /> MRS. KOBAYASHI : How about Kauai? <br /> MR. ODA: Kauai has a very old charter provision <br /> in there. They have the same residency requirement as we do, <br /> but thei ' s is up for amendment and review again, _next year, <br /> I think, or this year. They have a three year requirement, also. <br /> Kauai and the Big Island. <br /> I have a resume of the research which I will <br /> pass out. <br /> -3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.