CHC 1979-08-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss is here, maybe he would like to say a few words in regards to this. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Moss, would you like to say a few words in regards to this proposal? MR. MOSS: Thank you, gentlemen. This is rather unprecedented, my third appearance before you, at the moment. I ' ll try to keep it brief. When I wrote our letter to you, which I took the liberty of mailing to your homes because of the time involved, not knowing that we were going to have several post- ponements and there was plenty of time , I had not read the Supreme Court decision in the Kimura, Matayoshi case that went to the Supreme Court thirteen years ago. In reading it, as Mr. Oda just commented, the Supreme Court was very critical of the wording of the ballot. As;he said, they said it could not have been more ineptly designed to__ accomplish-.the. _purpose that. they wanted to do which was to get a county council elected and give the people a choice as to how they wish to elect it. Having looked at that, and having looked at the difference in the requirements for a majority on the amendments, in the Supreme Court case they were adopting a charter and you had to have a majority of the total votes that were cast in that charter election . Under the section that you will be operating in in amending the charter, the words are. . .the amendment or revision shall be considered ratified if a majority of the electors voting on the amendment or revision cast their ballots in favor of adoption. I tried to put those two things together, the language and the difference on the requirements of a majority on each amendment to get a ballot so that your two questions are separate amendments. I think the language does that. Mr. Oda says otherwise. The two sections very easily---I used his words verbatim for the first proposition, it says , Shall Section 3-2 of the Charter of the County of Hawaii be amended by changing the number, terms, or districts of the county councilmen? Vote yes or no. And then there should be a note to the people regardless of how you vote on that question , you vote on the next one. The next one says, If Section 3-2 of the Charter of the County of Hawaii.- .and this is different from the ones I mailed to you. This is a revision after I read the Supreme Court decision. . .If Section 3-2 of the Charter of the County of Hawaii is to be amended as determined by the vote on the proposition above shall it be amended. . . again, we have the word amended as proposed in option one, below, or in option two, below. There is the crux of my argument. That these are separate amendments that the majority will be determined depending on the people who vote for the first part, will be a majority on that. The people who vote on the second part are the 100% by which a majority will be determined. There is my argument. -12-