HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0965.054 2004-2006
Murashige, Laura
From: blann [blann@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:49 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: Pilago, K. Angel; Isbell, Virginia; Hoffmann, Pete; Jacobson, Bob; Higa, Stacy; Ikeda, Donald;
Safarik, Gary; Dixie Kaetsu
Subject: Resolution 410-06 Declaring Save Our Lands Petition certified as sufficient as to numbers of
valid signatures
Aloha County Council,
I am fully in favor of the very wise position of Chairman Higa in
declaring that
enough valid signatures (out of approximately 10,000 collected) have been
submitted
to qualify the issue of funding the open lands ordinance for the ballot. Mr.
Higa,
among other issues, has pointed out the cost of litigating the thousands of
signatures rejected by the voter office. I would like to address the issue.
First, the County should have clear guidlines and follow these. Neither is
the
case. One example of this: I called the Voter Office regarding the petition. m
I gave p c
the street I lived on a year ago , and asked if a resident must use C , the post-fix on the street sign, the one used by the post office, or by the Z,
planning ca
department. I was told that they accepted or rejected signatures based on
the
planning dept. designation. I asked what they used as valid for my former
street,
Kalamauka. I was told "road". But,l said, planning says that it is'street'.
The Voter a
Office person checked and confirmed that it is indeed street. They have been
rejecting
the correct designation (st.) following their own guidlines, and accepting
what does not follow
their guidlines (rd.). Clearly many addresses rejected as invalid have been
rejected improperly and
capricously.
I can give other examples of capricious rejection, e.g. ambiguity as to
whether the street
number contained a "7" or a "1 even though the wife's address on the line
above was clear.
Americans do write ones and sevens similarly, which is why Europeans put a
bar through
their sevens. To use this as an excuse to invalidate a signature is
capricous. The courts
ruled in the 2000 Florida election that a ballot was valid if the clear
intent of the voter was
obvious. I am guessing that they would vote similarly on the issue of
petitions in Hi. county;
if the name and address given is clearly that of the registered voter, the
signature probably
would be declared to be valid.
Street names in this county, in very many instances, are very informally
set and adhered to, and ambiguous. If the county is to set arbitrary
standards on street names
for petitions, they should publish an official listing of every residential Comm. fa
address on the island with the tse
official designation; as we saw with Kalamauka the county did not follow Ref. To-it"
their own Ref. Dvte .1111 1 9 2006
1
stated criteria. Should such issues go to court for resolution, I think that
we would find it
expensive, and embarrassing.
As Chair Higa has wisely pointed out, it is clear that numbers of citizens
sufficient to place
this issue on the ballot have given their signatures to that end. The clear
will of the citizens
has been expressed through the petition process, and it is appropriate to
accept the
petition as complete rather than subjecting the county to expensive
litigation over
actions which I believe a judge might find capricious. I therefore fully
support this council resolution.
Marshall Blann
75-5865 Walua Rd. #D423
Kailua-Kona, 96740
2