HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0067.020 2010-2012 P G,�uN an.
Bill 18 testimony. March 2, 2011
The council is supposed to be a representative body for the districts of the island.
These districts should be contiguous and were once loosely based on the 9 historical
districts, or moku, as defined by the natural segregations of terrain, which subsequently
shape settlement patterns.
The County Charter very clearly defines the role and rules of the County Redistricting
Commission. Creating an entirely new chapter within the County Code to screw down
more exacting numbers of population by district will make the Redistricting Com.'s job
much more difficult, the process more expensive, and it ignores the traditions of our
'host culture'.
Yet Bill 18 does try to define things that are "weird ", "ridiculous" and "bizarre ". Do we
really want to go there with our County Code? The language of Bill 18 seems designed
to directly force any contention directly into the judicial grinder.
To expand the Charter definition through Bill 18 presents a potpourri of
micromanagement rules via the CC that shall succeed in further oppression of host
culture traditions of district division by moku. Also, Bill 18 charges the CRC to balance
'ideal' numbers of residents yet Bill 18 ignores numbers that might measure things like
the number of non - voting immigrants, or felons, and the too young to vote, or the infirm
that reside in a district. Is this the right thing to do when trying to have equal
representation?
Creation of a new chapter of the CC micromanages and hobbles the work of the CRC to
a point to make their job almost useless; the only flexibility they will have is to nudge
lines around in an effort to precisely equalize the population between districts. But our
Charter is already quite clear on this detail: "Districts shall have approx. equal resident
populations ".
The authors of the Charter included the language " approx. equal resident populations"
to allow for contiguous expansion and contraction of districts, to allow council
representation to follow future settlement patterns. Bill 18 severely undercuts the
purpose and intent of having a CRC at all. Bill 18 creates CC that strives to have
extremely equal numbers of population per representative, but Bill 18 sacrifices_,
balanced representation of contiguous communities and the historical moku and -
ahupua'a. Bill 18 undermines both geographic -and social- district repres(eltatior)Hin
favor of equalizing head counts.
The ordinances proposed by Bill 18 are unnecessary and ultimately wasteful. Please
discard this proposal.
Comm. No. 67 2,0
Ref. T o: preseeed Co tcn C:
Ref. Date MAR A 9 7tltt