HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0248.003 2008-2010
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 98-09
Good morning Chairman Yoshimoto and councilmembers, my name is
Aaron Chung and I am speaking in favor of the resolution before you today.
In February, I submitted testimony to the legislature in support of House Bill
345 which proposed to delay the implementation of Act 244, that law which
established a comprehensive public funding pilot program for the County of
Hawaii Council elections. I shall read you one excerpt from that testimony.
"The electoral process is the foundation upon which our entire
democratic system of government is built. Everything that we stand
for as a nation is predicated upon the integrity of that process. Act
244, which creates a separate set of rules for one set of elections in
one county is in essence a special law. We all know that such laws
are suspect. Still, all levels of government continue to see fit to take
license in enacting such laws. I cannot accept a special law which
cuts through the very fabric from which this country is woven. All
laws pertaining to elections falling under the jurisdiction of the State
of Hawaii should be consistent and made applicable across the board."
I also pointed out to the legislature that the program created by Act 244
could not reasonably be considered a "pilot project" for the simple fact that
it contains no metric by which the success or failure of such program can be
judged.
Coincidentally, three weeks after I had submitted my testimony on House
Bill 345, the Hawaii State Supreme Court struck down the legislature's
actions in allowing the Hawaii Superfer y to operate without a complete
environmental impact statement on the basis that it was a "special
legislation" and therefore unconstitutional, hence validating my concerns
regard the illegality of those types of legislation.
Act 244 is clearly a special law. One need not be a lawyer to recognize that
fact. And it would be absurd to even suggest that pilot projects are exempt
from this type of constitutionally proscribed legislation. Such an
interpretation would enable the legislature, if it were so inclined, to
circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling by designating the Superferry
legislation as a pilot project.
Comm. No.~-~~y --3--
Ref. To: p/S1_wil~
32009
Ref. Date APR 1 _
I applaud the proponents of Act 244 for their many years of hard work. The
worthiness of their goal of achieving clean elections cannot be argued with.
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the goal of clean elections is
merely a subset of a larger cause, that of improving or restoring the public's
trust in government. No person with a genuine desire of advancing such
cause should be so invested in their personal interests or philosophies that
they would choose to ignore the law in order to further such ideals.
I thank you for your consideration.