Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0674.001 2014-2016 PIGREOc I.. ivy I1A. 6 7+ Bill 142: Testimony by Brenda Ford MAR � 1 AN 9: t 2016 1 I must strongly object to Bill 142 written by Council Member Margaret Wille. It is illegal on its face because it violates USSC rulings to NOT exceed an overall deviation of 10%. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the principle of"one person, one vote" requires constructing districts of"as nearly equal population as is practicable". Practicable means as possible or as feasible. The United States Supreme Court ruled in the Kenai Peninsula Borough case (Alaska)that the requirement for "substantial equality" is to uphold the principle of"one person, one vote" by allowing only minor population deviations which were defined as an overall population deviation of less than 10% and that the state and in our case, Hawaii County, must provide justification for any greater overall deviation. I have emailed to each of you the booklet "How to Draw RedistrictinH Plans That Will Stand Up in Court"by Peter S. Wattson, Senate Counsel for the Minnesota State Senate. It is the best educational tool that I ever saw on redistricting. Anyone who reads it will understand more about redistricting than 99.99% of the U.S. public. The public can read it on-line by just searching for it by name. I used that booklet with Mr. Wattson's permission as the basis for writing legislation on redistricting which is now encoded in Hawaii County Code, Chapter 36. In the County Code, Chapter 36 on Redistricting in Article 4. Plan Deviations, I provided the allowance for keeping a subdivision together so Ms.,Wille's bill is also redundant to the current County Code. However,the Redistricting Commission shall justify any divergence from that allowance by vote and in the written report to apprise any Court as to the reason for the deviation should there be a lawsuit. Such a deviation should be a rare event. Unfortunately, Ms. Wille's bill not only violates the United States Supreme Court rulings for a maximum overall deviation of 10%, it gives a blanket authorization to gerrymander the entire island in an overall deviation of 18%. This would be prima facie evidence of the intent to gerrymander and would undoubtedly be so construed by a Court of Law. Remember that Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government and I sued the 2001 Reapportionment Commission and won due to the redistricting plan's excessive overall deviation. That case was also applied by the Hawaii State Supreme Court to grant Hawaii County a 4th State Senator in 2011. This Council has a responsibility to protect the citizen's right to equal representation and to uphold the law of the land. You as Council Members are the protectors of the public's money and that money should not be wasted on lawsuits to defend the public's right to vote in a fair election based on fair redistricting. I urge Ms. Wille to withdraw Bill 142 and preserve legal redistricting. If she refuses to withdraw Bill 142, I urge the other Council Members to vote it down. Let your constituents know that you believe in fair elections based on legal redistricting, and in the principle of"one person, one vote". �l'/ Cmm. N . r Ref. To: 15e. QAc natg MAR 0 L.2016, Four-Year Terms versus Two-Year Terms for Council Members By Brenda Ford Bill 154 introduced by Council Member Margaret Wille to change the Hawaii County Charter to allow four-year council terms is focused on a council member's desires and not the public's need for good representation or the public's need to easily and inexpensively remove an inadequate council member. Four-year terms are a disservice to the public - please do not vote for four- year terms. An inadequate council member could be defined as a person who: • Misses many council or committee meetings • Does not do their research or comes to meetings unprepared • Votes against the best interests of public health, safety, &welfare • Votes as part of a faction instead of on the quality of the legislation • Votes against a piece of legislation based on who wrote it • Votes against the best interests of the entire island or lacks an island-wide view of issues • Does not understand the concept of"separation of powers" between the Executive Branch (Mayor's office) and the Legislative Branch(Council) of government • Asks or receives "favors or money or gifts" from individuals to do the job the council member is paid to do • Does not understand or accept that a council member is a public servant not an Alii • Believes that being a council member entitles them to special favors and may demand such favors • Uses the public's tax dollars for personal gain or to buy personal items The advantages of a Four-Year Term are that the Council Member: • Spends less time spent campaigning and potentially more time serving the public • Spends less money to run in fewer elections • Has more time to become proficient in the job The disadvantages of a Four-Year Term are: • Public may be stuck with an unproductive council member, or a council member who consistently writes poor legislation or no legislation, or votes for legislation antagonistic to the public health, safety, and welfare or needs of the community majority • An undesirable council member who is not responsive to voter needs can do considerably more damage in four years than in two years • The council member may prove to be dishonest and needs to be removed • The council member may be morally bankrupt or a liability to the county and needs to be removed • It costs the public lots of money and time to do a recall election rather than wait until the next two-year election cycle to vote out a poor council member • It costs the public even more money and time to do an impeachment with a trial to prove illegal behavior rather than wait until the next election cycle to vote out a dishonest or unethical council member • A two-year term makes the council member work harder and be more responsive to the voters to prove worthy of re-election An election is NOT about the comfort or needs of the council member/candidate. It is always about the needs of the public. It is about choosing the best possible person to represent the district and holding that person accountable. If you must choose a compromise position, it might be to add a consecutive fifth, two-year term before the council member "terms out".