|
The Honorable Patsy T. Mink
<br />July 11, 1986
<br />Page 2
<br />the people adopting it. Hawaii Government Employees'
<br />Association v. County of Maui, 59 Hawaii 65, 80-81, 576 P.2d
<br />1029, 1039 (1978). See also City and County of Honolulu v�
<br />Ariyoshi, 67 Hawaii , 689 P.2d 757 (198(); State v.
<br />Mu , 66 Hawaii a-67771 P.2d 1351 (1983); Hui ui v.
<br />Shimoda, 64 Hawaii 527, 644 P.2d 968 (1962); State v, ester,
<br />64 Hawaii 659, 649 P.2d 346 (1982); State v. Miyasaki, 62 Haw.
<br />269, 614 P.2d 915 (1980). Although the court has said that the
<br />constitution itself should be the first point of reference to
<br />discern this intent, and that the constitutional provision
<br />should control if it is not. ambiguous, State v. Kahlbum, 64
<br />Hawaii 197, 201, P.2d 309 (1981), the court more recently has
<br />advised that we look to a provision's constitutional history
<br />which allows us to examine the debates, proceedings and
<br />committee reports, if available and useful, to give full effect
<br />to the intent of the framers and the people. Kaiama v.
<br />Aguilar, 67 Hawaii 549, 696 P.2d 839 (1985); Black Construction
<br />v. Agsalud, 64 Hawaii 274, 639 P.2d 1088 (1982), quoting United
<br />hates v. American Trucking Association, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44,
<br />60 Sup. Ct. 1059, 84 L.Ed. 1345 (1940) (where the Court
<br />stated: '(w]hen aid to construction of the meaning of words,
<br />as used in the statute are available, there certainly can be no
<br />'rule of law' which forbids its use, however clear the words
<br />may appear on 'superficial examination''.) In addition, the
<br />history of the times and the state of being when the
<br />constitutional provision was adopted may be used to further
<br />ascertain the intention of the framers and the people adopting
<br />the provision. City and County of Honolulu v. Ariyoshi, 67
<br />Hawaii , 689 P.2d 757 (1984). Finally, interpretations
<br />which leave us with unreasonable or absurd results should be
<br />avoided if at all possible. Schwab v. Ariyoshi, 58 Hawaii 25,
<br />564 P.2d 135 (1977); Application of Pioneer Mill Company, 53
<br />Hawaii 496, 497 P.2d 549 (1972). With these principles of
<br />constitutional construction in mind, we turn to an examination
<br />of section 7, its constitutional history, and the laws in
<br />effect at the time the section was adopted.
<br />Section 7 of article fI was added to the Hawaii State
<br />Constitution in 1978. Standing Committee Report No. 72
<br />included the following discussion to explain the underlying
<br />rationale for including the 'resign to run' provision in the
<br />constitution:
<br />Your Committee believes it would be justified to
<br />require a person to resign from office before becoming
<br />eligible to run for another public office with an
<br />overlapping term. By running for another office, the
<br />AG Op. No. 86-17
<br />
|