Hawaii Liberty Chronicles

John Carroll

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Media Contacts:

Barbara Hester – PR Coordinator  (808) 384-5907

Gayle Gardner – Campaign Chairman (808) 595-7127

Alice Paet-Ah Sing - Campaign Director (808) 542-2902

John Carroll – Candidate (808) 526-9111 (808) 545-3800 fax

Gubernatorial Candidate, John Carroll, Former State Senator and Former Chair of the Republican Party of Hawai‘i, announced today that he and Honolulu attorney Christopher Dias have filed a precedent setting law suit.  The suit requests for injunctive relief from the United States Government, relief from the provisions of the Jones Act, which created shipping restrictions that adversely apply to only one State in the Union; the island State of Hawai`i.  Carroll stated that the restrictions are excessively expensive for Hawai`i’s people and are in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Carroll stated that he had originally intended to instruct his Attorney General to file a class action on behalf of the people of the State of Hawai`i when he took office as Governor.  He now states he sees no reason to delay.  Carroll believes in getting things done.  Carroll explained,  “One of the purposes of enacting the Jones Act was to ensure that the United States of America would be well equipped with a maritime fleet that could compete in a worldwide economy.  Unfortunately, it created unconstitutional restrictions on commerce between the State of Hawai`i and worldwide shippers as well as on interstate commerce.”

Since Hawai`i is separated from the continental United States by 2,300 miles of ocean and, of course, has no highways, railroads or pipelines from the continental United States, Hawai`i is dependent on ocean shipping for at least 90 percent of every commodity used and consumed in the state.

The Impact of the Jones Act on the People of Hawai‘i

The Jones Act requires that for a ship to operate in interstate commerce, (between states), it must be built in America, owned by Americans, 75 percent manned by an American crew, and maintained and flagged in the United States.  The net effect of the enforcement of the Jones Act on the State of Hawai‘i’s population has been wide-ranging.

Examples:  The expense of agricultural production became prohibitive, not only because of the inbound shipping cost of fertilizers, herbicides, and farm implements but also due to the outbound shipping costs for our locally grown fruits, livestock and ornamental plants.  Hawai‘i cattle ranchers are faced with an intolerable situation.  They often have to transport their cattle, from Kawaihae to Vancouver B.C. on a Canadian owned Corral Lines to remain profitable.  The cattle must then be trucked (often for 500 miles)  into the U.S. to be fattened and sold.  To go direct, some are flown on Boeing 747 aircraft.

There has emerged a monopolistic control of shipping in and out of the State of Hawai‘i, eliminating the cost reduction benefits of competition.  As will be shown at trial, the cost of everything from automobiles to paper towels is significantly higher because of the enforcement of the Jones Act provisions.

By comparison, the tiny islands of Singapore and Hong Kong, which do not have similar trade restrictions and with less than 1/20^th the land mass of Hawai’i, enjoy a Gross Domestic Product in excess of two billion (2,000,000,000.00) U.S. dollars per year. That is 40 times greater than Hawai`i’s GDP of fifty million (50,000,000.00) U.S. dollars per year when government spending and tourism are excluded. This is an absurdity for Hawai‘i’s economic viability.

The Fundamental Purposes of the Commerce Clause

The fundamental purposes of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution are, among others, “…to assure the unrestricted flow of commerce throughout the several states,” 282 NE2d 336,  “…to assure to the commercial enterprises in every state substantial equality to access to a free national market,” 517 P2d 691.  Further, the “…power granted is a positive power to legislate concerning transactions which, reaching across state boundaries, affect the people of more states than one, and to govern affairs which the individual states,with their limited territorial jurisdictions, are not fully capable of governing.” 322 US 533.  Clearly, the Jones Act and its provisions are in direct violation of the spirit of the Commerce Clause.

H.C.R. 100 Does Not Honor Extreme Terrorists

By Rep. Kym Pine

Republican State Rep. Kymberly Pine says State Senator Sam Slom’s statements on Islam Day are insensitive and wrong.  Rep. Pine said, “Slom equated the Legislature’s passage of H.C.R. 100, entitled “House Resolution Proclaiming September 24, 2009, As Islam Day.” to the honoring of extreme terrorists.  Slom’s statements marginalize significant and peaceful Hawaii citizens.  Our Hawaii and U.S. Constitutions recognize liberties and rights not favoring one personal faith over another.  Recognition through a House Resolution of one faith group’s contribution to our multi-faith Hawaii has been common practice.  Groups have been recognized through House Resolutions including the fourth Saturday of July as an annual Kupuna Recognition Day, April 6 as Tartan (Scottish heritage) Day and Sept. 28, 2007 as Confucius Day in Hawaii.  As leaders we must be very clear that not all Muslims are terrorists.  Terrorists have very different backgrounds and beliefs than Hawaii Muslims.”

Powerful, free website empowers citizens to track activity of state legislature and individual lawmakers

March 24, 2009 — Citizens now have a powerful, online tool to track the actions of Hawaii’s state legislature and individual legislators. HawaiiVotes.org is a free website that provides concise, non-partisan, plain-English descriptions of every bill, amendment and vote in the Hawaii House and Senate. These are all sortable by legislator, issue category, keyword and more, allowing a citizen to quickly create a custom “voting record guide” for any legislator on any issue.

How did a state representative or senator vote on an issue or bill that you care about? What bills and amendments did each legislator sponsor? What legislation actually became law this year – and what did not? What would all these bills actually do (vs. what their sponsors intend)? Which legislators have missed the most votes, and how many did yours miss? The answers to all those questions and more are at citizens’ fingertips 24 hours a day on HawaiiVotes.org.

HawaiiVotes.org is a free public service from the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH), a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational institution. The purpose of the new site is to inform citizens, media and public officials about legislation that affects their families, schools, jobs and communities.

Grassroot Institute President Jamie Story says it’s a great tool for anyone who is either frustrated with the performance of elected officials or is just plain curious about the process. “The new website empowers citizens to actually participate in the democratic process,” she said. “HawaiiVotes.org will shed great light on our state legislature and government.”

The site also provides other features, including a comments section/forum where citizens can share their views about particular bills or other state public policy issues. A blog aggregator displays the most recent post of the state’s leading political blogs both left and right, and “LegislatorPedia” and “JudgePedia” shed additional sunlight on the Aloha state’s elected officials and judiciary.

“State government is involved in so many areas of our lives and economy; HawaiiVotes.org has never been needed more,” said GRIH Communications Director Tom McAuliffe. “It’s free, easy to use, fast and informative. Think of it as a giant spyglass on the Hawaii State Legislature!”

For more information please visit www.Hawaiivotes.org and www.grassrootinstitute.org

Republican National Committee leaders are pushing a resolution accusing President George W. Bush and congressional leaders of embracing socialism.  Ralph Z. Hallow of the Washington Times covers this story.

“We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

The question locally is will local Hawaii Republicans active and dormant rally around the growing nationwide cause to support personal freedom and oppose expansive local bureaucracy Hawaii Republican leadership has either promoted or turned a blind eye to?

Will the HRP display any red in 2009?

By Panos Prevedouros

The title is paraphrasing a 1983 paper title by Dr. Joseph Schofer, Associate Dean, College of Engineering, Northwestern University. I think it is a more appropriate title than the biased question “Has Mass Transit Finally Arrived?” posed in the NationalJournal.com’s transportation expert panel discussion.

Of course the majority of the 23 commentators answer that the time for transit has come (as it did in all previous oil/global economy crises.) We know that the results were poor from most of those deployments. But learning from history is not a priority in modern society.

If you have about an hour, do read the original text which includes a handful of well thought out positions and concerns.
If not, here are some highlights from each commentator. This part provides excerpts from the first 11 commentators.

1. Eric Britton, Managing Director, New Mobility Partnerships
“Before rushing out to pour many billions of dollars into mass transit, we will do well to recognize that as a phrase, it is a relic of another day, another way of thinking about cities. And indeed another way of thinking about people (mass?).

Here is what we can counsel with confidence to the incoming Obama team about “mass transit” and its appropriate role for the critical 2009-2012 period.

If you have it already in place, your main challenge is to get a lot better at using what you have in a cost-effective manner.

If you do not have it, forget about using scarce taxpayer dollars to build yourself a new one from scratch, because there are far better ways of getting the job done.”

2. Nancy LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president of social impact
“To leave their cars behind, boomers will require the same level of convenience as they have had in their car-centered world.

A coordinated strategy of public transportation, paratransit, coordinated human services transportation, transit-oriented development, and “complete streets” sidewalk networks accessible to transit, can yield a multitude of benefits for people of all ages.

…making stops and vehicles more accessible and user friendly, helping newcomers understand how and where to access schedules and their closest transit with easy to use information, training drivers to understand and pleasantly accommodate the limitations of aging and in some areas offering neighborhood circulators or door-to-door service to grocery stores or shopping malls.”

3. Robin Chase, CEO, GoLoco, Meadow Networks
“If we think back to Katrina, the lack of alternatives for people without cars to evacuate the New Orleans proved disastrous. Some policy experts claimed that the solution was to make sure the poor and carless had access to cars. A few weeks later, another hurricane demanded that Houston evacuate. The highways were backed up and people sat motionless in their cars for hours. Today, as I write this note, a huge snow storm is bearing down on Boston. Planes are canceled and roads will be dangerous. My homeward-bound college age son is stuck in Washington DC.

My point is not that we should build trains and transit to accommodate one-day freak storms, just as I do not advocate building parking lots to accommodate Black Friday shopping demand. But real diversity and redundancy in transportation systems is mandatory. This nation needs to accommodate the transportation needs of people of all incomes, of all ages, of all development densities. The last 50 years of supporting one mode — cars — to exclusion of others, has not served us well. It is time to right the balance.”

Somebody needs to tell her that a few days after hurricane Ike hit Houston, all systems were up and running except for its rail that took two and a half weeks.

4. Michael A. Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense Fund
“Established rail systems need to be revitalized. But pouring money into poorly conceived transit projects will not make transit a viable alternative for the majority of Americans living in auto-dependent suburban areas.

The most cost-effective way to expand high performance mass rapid transit is Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT. … And BRT can be used like rail to anchor transit-oriented development. … A big advantage of BRT is that the bus can go anywhere. The same bus can operate in mixed traffic where there is no congestion, enter a busway in a congested area, and then leave the busway again.

Performance-based transportation investment plans should be required as a condition for funding, including operational plans for both highways and public transportation.”

5. Bill Graves, President and CEO, American Trucking Association
“Although mass transit performs many important uses, particularly for certain niche communities in large urban areas, it cannot replace our nation’s need for good highways. While mass transit effectively moves people, infrastructure investment is critical to the safe and efficient movement of freight.”

6. Judith Bergquist, Associate Director of Rural Programs in the Denver office of the Colorado Center for Community Development
“Sometimes we look past some simple and very viable alternatives to multi – modal transit for bigger glitzy solutions: We should look at road and bus systems that could effectively be started today and get buses to run every 10 minutes from suburb to suburb and suburb to work centers and downtowns. We need the buses to run often with lots of quick stops to increase this ridership before other transit is even in place. We will lose the cars because there will be ease of access.”

7. Paul Yarossi, President, HNTB Holdings Ltd.
“Public transit supporters definitely have the clout to influence the next transportation bill. In no way will this effort to fund more public transit projects replace the much needed investment in maintaining and expanding our national highway system.”

Solid advice for worsening the already huge budget deficits (to the benefit of mega contractors.)

8. Christopher B. Leinberger, Real estate developer, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Professor and Director of the University of Michigan graduate real estate program
“Why rail transit? Middle class Americans like it far better than bus transit. In addition, real estate developers and investors have increased confidence in it since rail transit implies permanence; it is easy to change a bus route but not so with fixed rail. The combination of middle class preference and the permanence of rail transit have resulted in far more real estate development being sparked around rail stations than bus stops.”

Great paragraph but there is little proof that any of this is true. Most US cities developed quite well in the complete absence of rail.

9. Emil H. Frankel, Director of Transportation Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center
“How can transportation best serve national goals and purposes like economic growth, environmental and energy sustainability, national connectivity, metropolitan accessibility, and safety?

Before we allocate funding - whether to give transit or highways more money - let’s ensure that we have a performance-based approach that can help us identify and prioritize programs that achieve national goals.”

10. Frank Busalacchi, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation
“The current transit programs send much of the funding to mass transit systems in our largest metropolitan areas. Our metropolitan areas rely on mass transit to provide a needed mobility option for those who don’t want to use their cars or don’t have cars to use. However, in many parts of the country bus fleets are old, far beyond the time frame in which they should have been replaced.”

11. Tim Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia
“Transit and rail investments are expensive up front and even more so when operation and maintenance costs are factored in over time. These long term financial commitments only make sense if there are different land use patterns to take advantage of the transit and rail investments.

Increased funding should not come at the expense of other modes, particularly given the dire need to repair and replace our existing bridges across the country.”

==========

A few common themes emerge from these diverse opinions:

* Need to maintain what infrastructure we have and expand it.
* Look into buses, BRT and other affordable solutions first.
* Performance-based decision making and accountability for infrastructure projects.

The latter means that a systematic way is used to look at urban transportation problems and address the issues in a cost-effective away.

This is the opposite of what occurred in Honolulu where a politician was elected in 2004 and made rail the number one priority: Total top-down dictum. The lack of accountability is obvious in that there is no accounting of $107 million spent on rail studies and the shameless use of taxpayer money to defame those opposing the system and produce an avalanche of TV, radio, newspaper and home-mailed ads and fliers.

Derek DePledge wrote this article in the Honolulu Advertiser on the latest local developments in gubernatorial campaign fund-raising.

Observers have speculated that the national donor restriction was passed by lawmakers to limit Lingle’s coffers in 2006.  Now that 2010 is shaping up to be competitive primary and general elections legal manipulations that further jerk around the election process would come as no surprise.  If the restriction is lifted a nationally connected potential gubernatorial candidate like democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie could tap into his big national special interest donors and Barack Obama connections to overcome his severe unattractive image disadvantage to possible opponents Ed Case, Colleen Hanabusa and Duke Aiona.

America fought in two wars to prevent the spread of communism in Korea and Vietnam, but now Hawaii allows communism to spread in it’s own state by the political process.

~ Li Zhao, Libertarian Party of Hawaii Chair

By Ken Schoolland

I’m not much of a risk taker. But I am in awe of those who are. I’m impressed by my brother. For years he has built a business selling parts to airline companies. He always seems to be at risk of losing everything whenever the airline industry is in trouble. I’m impressed both with his abilities and his nerve.

I’m also in awe of mountain climbers, daredevil surfers, and snowboarders. Their lives seem always at risk. I don’t have the nerve to do it myself, but I love watching their stunts. I delight that there are risk taking cameramen who capture the stunts on film.

It would never occur to me to try to stop them from taking risks. When they risk their own lives, they know that they will take the glory or the gore all to themselves.

I’m not a gambler either. I don’t take risks on games of chance. It may not take the same kind of risk as mountain climbing to gamble, but surely it is something everyone can do easily if they have the nerve. Some will claim that street smarts or savvy are helpful, depending on the person and the game.

Violent Risk Avoidance?

I wonder. What if my neighbor wanted to play a game of chance at his home, at a party or at some casino? Would I let him? Or would I go over to his home and threaten to harm him or threaten to put him in a cage if he dared to take risks that I wouldn’t take? No way.

I don’t do this with risk takers in business. I don’t do this with risk takers on mountain cliffs or ocean waves. So why should I treat the garden variety of risk takers any differently?

If I wouldn’t personally threaten my neighbor to stop him from taking risks, then would it be okay to ask a politician to do this for me? No. Asking a politician to do something is the same. If I don’t have a right to do something myself, then I don’t have the right to ask a politician to do the dirty work for me.

I understand that some people just aren’t good at judging risk. Some people risk too much or too often and they get burned. Some businesses fail. Some mountain climbers fall to their deaths. Some gamblers go deep into debt. So should risk taking be forbidden to everyone because some people are poor judges of risk?

No. Risk takers learn as much from their successes as from their losses. Risk is part of the rush and they usually wise up. Those who don’t wise up should take the full responsibility for their losses. Often they don’t. They ask politicians to soften the blow of their losses.

Businessmen want bailouts. Climbers and surfers want rescue squads. And unsuccessful casino junkies want handouts. The rescue is expected to come from risk averse taxpayers. Thus, the taxpayers’ cushion against poor judgment makes it easier for risk takers to use poor judgment the next time around. Then taxpayers clamor for politicians to prohibit all risk taking.

It seems to me that risk takers should absorb the costs of their own risk. How else to become better judges of risk in the future? For risk takers who find this too risky, there is always insurance. What a great business that is. People who are actually in the business of taking on other people’s risk — for a price, of course. And why not. Unlike the tax system, it’s voluntary.

Insurance and Charity

A businessman can buy insurance of all kinds from other willing businessmen. Climbers and surfers might buy rescue insurance if it wasn’t offered to them for free by the politicians. But what about the chronic gambler? It is sad and tragic that some people suffer continual losses. And I certainly believe in voluntary help when it is inspired by humanitarian or religious concern.

But threats of violence against risk takers and taxpayers is no substitute for the lessons of personal responsibility. The very threat of violence is immoral as well, whether practiced by me acting alone or by me through some politician.

And who is this politician who presumes to set the moral standards for us all? I’ve seen surveys of public trust in politicians. These surveys conclude that politicians are trusted less than people in virtually any other profession. Of nearly 20 occupational categories, there were two professions that ranked lower than that of politicians.

I hesitate to mention those other two professions, however, for people in those categories would be outraged at such a comparison. Those other two professions never use force against people the way politicians do.

Every election year we wonder which politicians to select. Wondering if they will be more trustworthy and finally keep their campaign promises. Now that is a gamble I wish we could avoid.

By Skip Gay

When the Council and Mayor tell the people that the rail route is in one direction, merely to get their vote, then immediately change that route after the election, all reasonable and fair-minded people, whether they live in Salt Lake or not, have reason to question their character and sincerity.  Were those lies, or was it intentional misinformation given to the public to get their vote?

Either way, it confirms in the minds of many people that those that sold the idea of rail, are two-faced, and nothing they say can be believed any more.  For me, all bets are off.  I call for a new petition and a new vote on rail!

Skip Gay is a home-owner and resident of Salt Lake.

By Dan Douglass

The Hawaii Republican Party held a “Victory 2008″ recap at headquarters Wednesday night with a handful of executive committee members, state committee members, elected representatives and challengers (all challengers lost).  Neighbor island members and campaigners engaged via conference call.  Representatives Corrine Ching, Kymberly Pine, Gene Ward and Barbara Marumoto who maintained their seats were present as was Colleen Meyer who lost her seat.  Rep. Lynn Finnegan who ran unopposed was present.  Rep. Cynthia Thielen was not present.  Neither any State Senators, the Governor nor Lt. Governor were present.  Former Representative Anne Stevens who was unsuccessful in her bid to reclaim her seat was present while former Representative Quinten Kawananakoa was not.

Besides the need to ‘Get Out the Vote’ and start campaigns earlier, Party Chair Willes Lee and Executive Director Adam Deguire, in my opinion, addressed nothing of party rebuilding substance that can be summed up in- let’s hope there’s no future ObamaWave.

Three questions were asked and moderated by Lester Morioka (a kind demeanored gentleman whom any upset attendees may have been less prone to tear into):  what the party did right, what the party did wrong and what should the party do now.

Rep. Ching, pressed for time, addressed the need for early candidate recruitment.

What did the party do right?

A couple of websites and consultants helping out a handful of races, some party dollars spread around and negative campaigning was the consensus on what the party did right.  On negative campaigning there was disagreement and a poll was taken.  Those in headquarters voted overwhelmingly that the negative campaigning was helpful with only four dissenting votes (I dissented).  On the neighbor island the majority consensus was opposed to negative campaigning.  Rep. Ward noted that the manner in which the negative campaigning is carried out can be more damaging for the candidates.

There was much discussion on what the party did wrong and what it should do now.

I’m going to cut to the heart of the matter: unless Governor Lingle’s self-serving suffocation over the local party’s true and diverse identity is overcome by concessions all the discussion is moot.  It would otherwise be more practical and effective for libertarians, moderates and even social conservatives (of all things) to en masse leave the HRP and get active in the Democratic Party of Hawaii to work with open-minded democrats for market oriented reform on the issues that effect Hawaii the most.

The following were the points I made in the meeting as HD31 chair.

What did the GOP do wrong this past election?

The Party did not have an overarching and unified message that candidates could refer to as Republican candidates.  No brand.

What should the Hawaii GOP do now?

82,000.  82,000 registered Hawaii voters turned out for Republican congressional districts 1 and 2 candidates Steve Tataii and Evan B. Rogers.  Hardly anyone in the meeting had ever met either of these candidates.  These 82,000 represent those in Hawaii that believe the most in the “R” next to a candidate’s name whoever they are.  These 82,000 are the base and are looking to party leadership because they want to believe and want to see Democrats, whoever they are defeated.  To these 82,000 the party’s leadership had a responsibility to and under the chairmanship of Willes Lee, beholden to Lingle, have failed.

But 82,000 times three equals Republican victory in every statewide (senatorial and gubernatorial) and individual congressional race.  The base must be energized.  There is a neighbor up North in Alaska who has energized the base across the nation.  Whether you like it or not Sarah Palin is now the party’s leader.  She owes it to Hawaii’s state party to visit Hawaii.  The party must deliver her soon and often to fill up the convention center or even the Aloha Stadium.  This would not only be an opportunity to energize the 82,000 but also the 40,000 more that voted for her on the presidential ticket.  This would be the draw for a tremendous recruiting and fundraising opportunity unlike anything else ever seen in Hawaii Republican history.  Energize the base.

This article entitled “9 Ways to Save the Democratic Party” was written two years ago.  One of our columnists, Daniel Brackins, notes that the 9 points are essentially what the GOP should be doing to fill the void.

.

By Garry P. Smith

Most Hawaii Republicans knew we would do poorly in the 2008 elections. Many were hopeful that we would at least keep the incumbents and maybe pick up one more seat. Many more, myself included, had called on Chair Willes Lee soon after he became party chair to make changes to the party brand to prepare for the elections. Our calls were not only unanswered but rebuffed by an arrogant Lee who chanted over and over again “get good candidates, raise money and win”. Not only was this a naïve strategic move it proved disastrous for our party.

If all it took was for Lee to get his good candidates who had sufficient money to win there was none better than Quentin Kawananakoa. He had previously been the minority leader in the House, had started a run for U.S. Congress (he quit over medical issues), former Hawaii GOP Chair Sam Aiona was his campaign manager and Quentin personally had all the money it would take to win a House Seat. He lost miserably by over 2,500 votes to a first time Democrat candidate who had no prior name recognition.

Lee opined in interviews with the Star Bulletin Nov. 6, just two days after the elections, to say that “we need to run more and better candidates”. He still doesn’t get it, it’s not the candidates who caused this loss, it’s the party leadership. Both the Chair and the minority leadership in the State House of Representatives who are to blame. It’s an insult to all Republican Party candidates who did choose to run and spent hundreds of hours campaigning; only to lose because the Republican Party didn’t do its part through party building, party branding and party organizing to show voters that we had something different to offer.

Despite Lee’s additional excuse of blaming the Obama wave, less people in Hawaii actually voted in 2008 than in 2004 when Bush ran successfully for re-election against Kerry. This wasn’t a matter of being overrun at the polls by a surge of new Obama voters, this was a problem of failing to persuade the same people who voted incumbents like Trimble and Meyer into office four years ago. Even TV commentators on election night had to remark that a few hundred votes could have been swayed or encouraged to show up to protect incumbents Meyer and Trimble, let alone put challenger Tom Berg over the top, if Lingle, Aiona and the party run by Willes Lee had really made and effort and done things right going into the 2008 season.

During the 2008 legislative session, Republicans continued to believe that the best course of action was to “go along to get along”. House Minority Leader Finnegan even went so far as to write an editorial letter praising her Democrat colleagues for proposing to fix the way grants were being handed out, even though the chair of the committee had exposed himself politically by receiving tens of thousands of campaign contributions from charities and groups hoping to receive funding. Rep. Michael Magaoay, the chair of that committee, did not even receive a slap on the wrist by the majority party and easily won re-election over a strong Republican opponent three days ago. Minority Leader Finnegan seems to have been rewarded by the Democrats by not even having a challenger to contend with, perhaps in exchange for not asking for an investigation into pay-for-play campaign contributions. I guess going along to get along does pay off.

The November 6th Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial “GOP needs to lure more moderates to it’s almost empty tent” calls for the Hawaii GOP to become more like Hawaii Democrats if it hopes to get more Republicans elected. Since when does the Star Bulletin or for that matter the Honolulu Advertiser want Republicans to get elected? The Honolulu Advertiser did not endorse one non-incumbent Republican for election. If the Hawaii GOP becomes ideologically any closer to the Hawaii Democrats then it might be better to just change party affiliation for the remaining 8 elected officials and form a Democrat faction within their party. Sen. Mike Gabbard and Rep. Karen Awana beat the rush already and, although elected as Republicans, astutely saw what was happening to the Republican Party when they jumped ship as newly-registered Democrats in 2007 in order to make sure they weren’t defeated just because of their party affiliation.

The basic reason for Tuesday’s election turndown of Hawaii Republicans is that voters have no idea what the difference is between the two parties in Hawaii. There is good reason for them to be confused; there is hardly any real difference on the issues of importance to the people. The Republican Party convention refused to oppose the so-called Akaka Bill and also would not take a stand either way on the controversial Rail Project. At least with the Democrat Party, they took a stand on both these issues . . . both of which I disagree with, but at least I knew where they stood.

As a candidate for Honolulu City Council in 2008 and a long time Republican, I didn’t expect any financial support from the Republican Party, since the City Council is technically non-partisan. I must say that I wasn’t disappointed. I did not receive one email, one phone call or even an offer of support from Chair Lee. The party’s website listed candidates only after pictures of Party elite at the various Republican social functions. To find out just who the candidates were, you had to click on a link at the bottom of the ‘links’ page that just showed names and addresses not even pictures or the bios that were in the general election guide. Are candidates really a priority for the Hawaii GOP? Nah, just a burden to much more important, self-serving party activities. Sure, I lost like all the other Republicans who ran against incumbents but I got more votes than any of the other new candidates. Hmm, maybe it was the missing (R) next to my name that enabled me to do so well.

The biggest loser to the abysmal situation of the Republican Party is of course Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona, who has already been campaigning for the 2010 Governor race. When Aiona runs against a well funded Mayor Mufi Hannemann for Governor, Mufi will have a well-oiled Democrat Party machine that will provide not only the manpower needed for a major race but also party organization, majority of elected officials and a brand loyalty that has created an almost cult following. As Mufi said during the 2008 Primary, “you are just delaying the inevitable”. Gov. Lingle knew she would be up against more than Lt. Gov. Mazie Hirono in 2002, so she became Chair of the Republican Party in 1999, revamped it, rebranded the Hawaii Republican persona and not only won election herself but also carried along the most Republicans in 20 years. Lt. Gov. Aiona, who should have been the most vocal and persistent ‘agent of change’ this year for a Republican Party on life support, was strangely absent and will pay the penalty in 2010 for allowing the plug to be pulled and the party die while he watched.

Is it too late for the Hawaii Republican Party to come back from the dead? Maybe, but certainly unless drastic changes are made that shows the voters that “yes, we can” or “we are the party of change” we will not only continue to be irrelevant but also an enigma of itself. The best immediate hope for the party is for Chair Lee to demonstrate whatever integrity he still has and immediately resign as party Chair. Don’t worry, he will be quickly rewarded with a high-paying state job just as each of the previous chairs under Lingle have received for similarly fine showings.

By Jay McWilliams

Being a volunteer with the Stop Rail Now effort for the last six months has made me very proud to live in a democracy.

It has been such a rewarding experience to meet so many like-minded individuals who care deeply about Hawaii and who have worked hard to get the word out about the steel wheel on steel rail project and other alternatives. These volunteers didn’t stand to gain financially if the rail project had been defeated, regardless of what tales the other side may be spreading.

The people who signed the petition to get the rail question on the ballot and all the other folks we met up with during our educational drive and sign waving events have been remarkable. One of the most often heard comments from the people we talked to was, “Thank you so much for doing this.”

They heard all the rail messages from the city, the mayor, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, the pro-rail groups made up of mostly people who would benefit from the project, and the mainstream media — and still 140,623 voters determined that the rail project wasn’t something they’d support.

In addition, another 11,441 voters left the question blank, thus also deciding not to say “yes” to rail.

The difference between those who voted for the rail and those who voted no or left the question blank is only 3,816 votes out of 307,944 cast. Quite remarkable when you compare the effort of a small group of citizens with little money to advertise versus the nearly $3 million spent (between taxpayer money and pro-rail groups’ money) and the efforts of thousands of union workers, city employees, consultants, developers, construction workers, carpenters and all the people who have or will mostly likely benefit financially from the $5 billion project.

Just image if the anti-rail effort had had more money to advertise, or more volunteers.

What we accomplished was simply unbelievable and for that, we all should be proud.

Now that the rail measure passed and Mayor Mufi Hannemann was re-elected, should the nearly half of the voters who did not say “yes” to the project just sit back quietly and trust that all will be done in our best interest? If that’s what lawmakers and the pro-rail groups think, they have learned nothing about the tenacity of those on the other side of the issue.

Looking at all the shenanigans surrounding the way the project has been handled thus far, why wouldn’t all of the taxpayers who will be paying for this project do nothing but keep a continuous watch over it? Some examples of why citizens need to be vigilant now more than ever is based on what was done earlier: misinformation put out by the city publicists and others; not making the draft environmental impact statement available until 2 days before the election; and not letting anyone question the information given out during the most recent “informational” meetings presented by the city regarding the rail project.

So even though the rail project passed by a slight margin, the fight for transparency and honesty must continue, no matter what.

Jay McWilliams is co-owner and vice president of Hawaii Reporter. She has been a volunteer with Stop Rail Now since the citizen’s group launched its initiative drive in April 2008, and joined the effort after trying for years to get answers from lawmakers regarding the train project.

By Dan Douglass

Congressional District 1 candidate, Li Zhao, received 7,591 votes in her bid as the Libertarian Party’s candidate here in Hawaii.

Although zero dollars were spent on campaigning she managed to earn more votes than all the third party presidential candidates put together state-wide.  This is significant because CD1 accounted for only 48% votes cast statewide.

This is one of the best results across the nation for a national seat of any Libertarian candidate.

Imagine what will happen next time when she runs with an organized campaign.

By Dan Douglass

One of Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s hired guns (he’s actually senior adviser in the city Department of Information Technology), Keith Rollman, went after Panos Prevedouros on the Hawaii Reporter skewing Prevedouros’ statements from an article released this morning.

I responded in highlighting a twisted version of democracy that Rollman must be thankful for.

I didn’t address it in what was published on the Hawaii Reporter, but it’s so sad that Rollman makes race an issue in his attack on Prevedouros.  Rollman has previously been connected in a recent internet scandal.

By Panos Prevedouros

Official results for Oahu can be found from the state office of elections:

http://hawaii.gov/elections/results/2008/general/files/cch.pdf

One can see that all state and county questions passed or failed by a clear margin, except for the rail question for which the votes and percentages were:

YES 155,880 (50.6%)
NO 140,623 (45.6%)
Blank Votes 11,441 (3.7%)

If one accounts for the disproportional promotion, support from several special interest groups, and powerful “old boy” backing, then the result is not only surprising but it is embarrassing to the pro-rail cause.

Proponents of rail had a $110 million engineering and marketing team and flooded airwaves, TV screens and print media. In comparison, opponents had peanuts; they did no TV promotion and only minimal print media promotion.

I understand and support elections of officials with a 0.6% or even a 0.01% margin. The elected person will stay in office for a limited and prescribed amount of time.

However, moving ahead with a multibillion dollar infrastructure project with a life cycle of over 100 years on a 0.6% “advantage” is an entirely different choice. Clearly 49.4% of the population did not say yes to the project.

We can boot a crooked or ineffective official or re-write a bad law. But we cannot undo a multi-billion piece of infrastructure which will cost us roughly three times the annual City budget. A two thirds majority would have been appropriate for this choice.

Of course, in the short term the railroading process is likely to proceed unabated, but in the longer term a permanent derailment is likely.

Cnn.com has all the presidential results posted.  Nader did the best (649,367), followed by Barr (465,070) and Baldwin (173,075).

Here’s a link to how Hawaii fared in the last Office of Elections printout.  Hawaii went Nader (3,821), Barr (1,314) and Baldwin (1,013).

Lew Rockwell notes:

Ironic that this year, of all years, the Libertarians decided to become Republicans, rejecting their libertarian platform and a libertarian nominee. Barr did get the most MSM coverage of any LP presidential candidate in history.

It’s also conceivable that anti-war libertarians ended up voting for President elect Barack Obama.

By Alan D. Price, Ph.D.

This year upwards of a billion dollars or more will be spent by the two major candidates for the Presidency. As a result of choice being effectively limited to the chosen candidates of special interests, we essentially have no choice. We will get the “worst government that money can buy.”

As a psychologist and former hypnotherapist, I can testify to the extent to which human behavior and thought can be molded by advertising and even deliberate mind control techniques. When a billion dollars are spent in an effort to influence the voting public, this constitutes a travesty of the electoral process. It becomes a pseudo-election that masquerades as a reflection of the voice of the majority of citizens. In a Republic, the rights of a minority are protected by constitutional guarantees. But, if we allow, big money to control voter choice through manipulation of thoughts and feelings, then the protection of minority voices is trampled.

I propose that Hawaii could take the initiative in addressing the issue of campaign advertising. Ask yourself the question: How does partisan, decidedly manipulative advertising foster the development of an informed electorate?

I propose more specifically that partisan advertising that is designed to bypass the critical reasoning ability of voters impinges on basic rights that must be guaranteed by a government’s constitution. We all have the right not to be bombarded with partisan political advertising that encourages us to react emotionally and not critically. I suggest that preservation of freedom of choice requires that a government that would uphold individual liberty should require that all campaign information be balanced with the opposing viewpoint, as in a debate or on the ballot, where one side speaks and the other side has an opportunity to counter with an alternate perspective. In this way, the voter can become informed, not programmed to react like an automaton.

By Ann Kobayashi

I am very concerned about the impact of Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s proposed rail transit system.

Throughout the last two years, I have expressed concerns about the effect rail would have on small businesses. We need to protect them as we know these businesses are the backbone of our economy.

This Environmental Impact Statement released by Hannemann’s administration on Sunday outlined over 58 schools, 93 churches, 7 historic, 21 hospitals, 84% retail, 16% residential that would be directly or indirectly affected by Hannemann’s proposed rail transit system.

This report once again demonstrates the misinformation and mis-truths provided by the Hannemann Administration on the impact to the community, homes and local businesses.

There are many issues that need to be clear to the public before they vote away their children’s and grandchildren’s future on Hannemann’s Train:

- Hannemann and his surrogates have always referred to the steel-on-steel rail as “light rail”. Under no circumstances does it qualify as light rail. Steel-on-steel elevated rail is the definition of HEAVY rail. This deliberate misrepresentation has been most egregious.

- Through the promotion of the rail, Hannemann has given the impression, if not said directly, that the UH Manoa was part of the deal. According to the DEIS, the study of “the Project” as the rail is called, is from Kapolei to Ala Moana, and does not include UH Manoa, Waikiki or West Kapolei.

- More than $2.6 million was spent as of June 2008 of city taxpayer money promoting rail. The 8 page glossy insert that appeared at the Food and New Product Show, in the full run of the Honolulu Advertiser’s Sunday edition and the full run of MidWeek is not included in this amount. On the back of the 8 page insert, Hanneman’s administration stated that the FTA required the advertising. The Senior Public Relations Officer for the FTA said there was “no such policy.” This is document in a thread of emails published on Hawaii Reporter.

- At the primary debate, Hannemann said that there would be no condemnations. The DEIS which was posted on the city website indicates that hundreds of properties will be all or partially affected (read: condemned) including 53 schools (Radford High School is one), the Banana Patch, the entire downtown to ocean view corridor and popular restaurants including Boulevard Saimin.

- Hannemann was quoted on tv about reaching amicable agreements with; however attorneys said that it behooves the city to offer the lowest price possible in order to protect the taxpayer. Those whose properties are condemned are unlikely to get what their property would be worth on the open market.

- Hannemann says the funding is there even though Hawaii is not on the New Starts list for 2010. According the government experts, the funding is in no way guaranteed and even after the Draft EIS becomes a final EIS it takes a minimum of two to four years for any funding to come through. Hannemann has been talking about $900 million in FTA funds. The DEIS says the Salt Lake Alternative would need $1.2 Billion and the Airport Alternative $1.4 billion, further saying that the FTA said it would “consider” $1.2 billion but it has not been approached about whether it would “consider” $1.4 billion, according to the DEIS

- The project costs have all along been represented in 2006 dollars, and have never included the finance charges that would be part of the Project. Finance charges are stated on a separate line as if they were not significant, but the addition of $387,000,000 in finance charges raises the cost of the Project from $3.9 billion to $4.3 Billion.

- The idea that the general public let alone experts who understand all of the terms, drawings and maps could read and make sense of a several hundred page document in two days before the election is an insult. Moreover, the close to 60,000 voters who have already cast their votes were not privvy to any of this information. It is hardly an open-to-the-public document.

- On Sunday (Nov 2) the Mayor said that his office did everything humanly possible to post the DEIS before releasing it formally and before the election. According to the FTA as soon as they “sign off” on the DEIS, it should be made public record. Putting the document online in the internet age seems much more efficient and less costly than printing the 500 four color copies that the city has ordered from the printer. This does not even take into consideration that the DEIS was originally due in December of 2006, and later the due date was moved to April 2007. It was never moved again, so technically speaking the city was seven months late in distributing it.

- The Alternatives Analysis (AA) and DEIS together cost the taxpayer $96 million, or more than $181,000 per page.

Ann Kobayashi is a candidate for mayor of Honolulu. See more at http://www.annlistens.com

Hawaii Reporter’s Malia Zimmerman interviews Wainanae resident Jinny Reyes on the possible condemnation of Boulevard Saimin in Kalihi.

Mahalo to William Harris for putting this together and posting it on Annlistens.com.

Find more videos like this on Ann Listens!

The rail line will pose an enormous financial burden on Hawaii. It will take few cars off the road and do little about congestion. Other alternatives that planners refused to consider in the DEIS should be able to do far more at a far lower cost. The DEIS is deceptive when it claims the rail line will reduce air pollution when it doesn’t calculate the pollution produced to power the rail line. And the rail line will be a blight on the Oahu landscape. Let’s hope Honolulu residents are smart enough to vote it down today.

~ Randy O’Toole, The Antiplanner

Mayor Mufi Hannemann (back turned) holding back his brother, Nephi (in red shirt & red shorts) after an object was thrown at the young man in the black shirt (pointing at the Hennamenns). Photo courtesy of Lynn Vasquez.

By Dan Douglass

Sign waving in front of Honolulu Hale for our next Mayor heated up this afternoon.  Eye witness Lynn Vasquez said the conflict began when Gus Hannemann, uncle of incumbent Mayor Mufi Hannemann, yelled at a group of Ann Kobayashi sign wavers.

Not long after that Nephi Hannemann, the Mayor’s older brother, threw an object that hit a young man sign waving with the Kobayashi campaign.  The Mayor who was present grabbed his brother attempting to control the situation.  The Mayor left with the situation unresolved.  Police officers arrived.  Video footage is forthcoming.

Endorsements are based upon the consensus of our regular columnists that responded to a recent voter inquiry.

State Constitution

Vote YES for a state constitutional convention.  The following articles provide the basis for the YES vote.

Hawaii Con Con Needed to Address Underlying Constitutional Problems

What Can Bring Increased Accountability to Hawaii Government? A Con Con Can

Facts on Hawaii Con Con

Vote YES to lower the age requirement to be Hawaii governor from 35 to 25.  The following article addresses the issue of age discrimination.

Gubernatorial Age Discrimination

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Vote for Colin Kippen.  If the accountability Kippen communicates in his campaign were implemented in OHA for the past 10-20 years, there would not be as much opposition to this controversial state entity.

Consider Office of Hawaiian Affairs Facts

Exposing Deception of Office of Hawaiian Affairs Leaders Over Kau Inoa Registry

Board of Education

Vote for Denise Matsumoto.  Matsumoto is a principled board member who has 20 years of experience marked by the distinct honor of being the lone dissenter in many votes.

State House, State Senate, and Congressional District 2

With the exception of a few incumbents, vote against the incumbent or leave it blank.

One incumbent who has earned our endorsement in name entrenched in a heated local race is State Senator Gordon Trimble for his pro-taxpayer, pro-personal freedom voting record.

U.S. Congressional District 1

Vote for Li Zhao.  Zhao embodies the economic and social freedom Hawaii needs represented in D.C.

Meet Congressional Candidate Li Zhao

Congressional Candidate Li Zhao, Part 2

Quotable Li

U.S. Presidential

Vote for a Third Party candidate.  We endorse either Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party or Ralph Nader (with reservations) of the Indpendent ticket.  Neither democratic nor republican candidates will effect market oriented, constitutionally faithful reform on the domestic or international level that is needed.

Lifeblood of the Empire

Endorsements are based upon the consensus of our regular columnists that responded to a recent voter inquiry.  Predictions are based on the editor’s analysis of polls, trends and understanding of Honolulu County’s voting demographics.

Mayoral Race

Vote for Ann Kobayashi.  She’s working together with Panos Prevedouros and others who are solution oriented with the concerns of the County first and as a whole.  She’ll serve four full years without ambition to fill her campaign coffers for future political gain like Hannemann shamelessly demonstrates.

Prediction- Too close to call.  Win or lose, it will be a very poor showing for incumbent Mayor Mufi Hannemann considering the enormous amount of special interest money he’s had at his disposal.

Charter Amendments

Vote NO on Charter Amendment 4.  This is the most important Charter Amendment in terms of what the average Honolulu County citizen could be paying through the teeth for with little or no benefit.  Peripherally, a YES vote would lock the City in to the noisiest and oldest technology- steel wheel on steel rail.  Vote NO to government waste, home/property owner displacement and aesthetic/environmental destruction in our county.

Prediction- The NO vote should win by a narrow lead.  Similar to the mayoral race, the rail proponents backed by the unions, rail vendors, engineers, developers and the propogandized will have a very poor showing unless they win by at least a 20 point margin having outspent rail opponents 5 to 1.

Vote YES on Charter Amendment 2.  This would result in much needed fiscal and ethical responsibility in City Hall.

Vote NO on Charter Amendment 1.  In principle 1 would expand the powers of the city prosecutor.

Charter Amendment 3 is a draw because it could result in more red tape although the separation of powers would be beneficial.  The state Supreme Court currently presides over any City impeachments.

Prediction- The advantage should go to the NO votes if there is higher voter turnout and voters are less informed on these amendments.  We may see a lot of blank votes that don’t count as NO votes as they do on state constitutional amendments.  This could result in YES wins.

For more information go to the Office of Election link on Charter Amendments.

.

See PDF copy of John Carroll’s letter. See press release of smear allegations.

October 31, 2008

Mayor Mufi Hannemann

520 S. King St.

Honolulu, HI 96813

Dear Mayor Mufi Hannemann:

This is written to you today on a matter of the utmost importance to me. This concerns Keith Rollman, your senior adviser in the city Department of Information Technology, and James Burke, chief of the Rapid Transit Division of the Department of Transportation Services.

As you are quite aware, Rollman has been long suspected of being behind the “Fire Panos” website, which is ruthlessly and tastelessly trashing your opponent Ann Kobayashi just as it previously smeared Panos Prevedouros. As you are also aware, a few weeks ago Rollman had the nerve to publicly accuse my office of sending an e-mail signed by Rollman to City employees to promote this offensive website. Such an accusation is ludicrous on its face, as Rollman undoubtedly has access to all the City e-mail addresses and since there is nothing to be gained by my or my associates in promoting this awful website to your employees.

Anyhow, upon learning recently that e-mail correspondence, now in the hands of police and prosecutors, between James Burke and Keith Rollman confirms that your administration and/or campaign has a clear hand in the “Fire Panos” smear website (firepanos.wordpress.com), I call upon you to investigate both men immediately for the purpose of determining whether or not they should be terminated.

In the public’s interest I ask that you denounce the website; joining with me in calling for it to be pulled down now and forever.

As you told me recently during a chance meeting, you know the identity of the owner of the website but wouldn’t tell me or the media. Now that this evidence has surfaced and we know who’s involved, you need to do the right thing.

Mahalo for your urgent and serious attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN S. CARROLL

By Ed Case

“Shall there be a convention to propose a revision of or amendments to the Constitution?” That is the question on which Hawaii voters will be asked to vote yes or no this November.

I believe this is the most important vote facing Hawaii voters this year save only our choice of President. I believe we should answer yes and convene a State Constitutional Convention (Con Con) for the first time since 1978.

I’ll say why in future e-newsletters, and we’ll all have that debate between now and November. But I’ve found that what’s missing thus far in our public discussions is a broad understanding of the facts.

In that spirit, here are the factual questions I’m asked most often and the answers:

• 1. What is a Con Con?

As used here, a Con Con is a convention of delegates elected to discuss and propose to voters amendments to our Hawai‘i State Constitution.

• 2. What is our Hawaii State Constitution?

Our Constitution is the document adopted by the people of Hawai‘i declaring our fundamental laws and principles for the government of our home.

• 3. What is the relationship between our Hawaii Constitution and our United States Constitution?

Our Constitution adopts our federal constitution but then, within that constitution’s framework of the fundamental laws and principles for our country, sets forth how we will govern ourselves in Hawaii.

• 4. What does our Constitution cover?

The titles of the articles of our Constitution describe the breadth and depth of matters addressed: Bill of Rights; Suffrage and Elections; The Legislature; Reapportionment; The Executive; The Judiciary; Taxation and Finance; Local Government; Public Health and Welfare; Education; Conservation, Control and Development of Resources; Hawaiian Affairs; Organization and Collective Bargaining; Code of Ethics; State Boundaries, Capital, Flag, Language and Motto; General and Miscellaneous Provisions; Revision and Amendment; Schedule.

• 5. Can our Constitution be changed?

Yes, but only by Hawai‘i voters on a majority vote for a proposed amendment; our legislature or governor cannot change our Constitution.

• 6. How are revisions of or amendments to our Constitution proposed to voters?

Two ways: (1) by our Legislature; or (2) by a Con Con.

• 7. Has our legislature proposed constitutional amendments?

Yes; 68 amendments were proposed to the voters by our Legislature since Statehood, of which 49 were adopted.

• 8. How many Con Cons have we had?

Three: in 1950 (when our Constitution was adopted); and in 1968 and 1978.

• 9. Have Con Con-proposed constitutional amendments been adopted?

Yes; the voters ratified the Constitution proposed by the 1950 Con Con, adopted all but one of the 23 amendments proposed by the 1968 Con Con, and adopted all of the 33 amendments proposed by the 1978 Con Con.

• 10. How is the question whether to convene a Con Con submitted to the voters?

Two ways: (1) by our legislature voting to do so at the next general election; or (2) automatically at the next general election if ten years will have passed since the question was last submitted to the voters.

• 11. What is the case this year?

The last election at which the question was submitted to the voters was 1998; the legislature has not voted to submit the question since then so, since it’s been ten years, under our Constitution the question will automatically be on the ballot this November.

• 12. Once the question is on the ballot, what vote is necessary to convene a Con Con?

Our Constitution says a “majority of the ballots cast,” and our Supreme Court has ruled that this means the yes votes must outnumber all other ballots (no votes, plus blank votes, plus votes marked both yes and no).

• 13. If the voters vote for a Con Con, how are the Con Con details established?

Our Constitution leaves the details to the legislature, subject to some ground rules on when delegates must be elected, the Con Con must convene, and any proposed revisions or amendments must be submitted to the voters.

• 14. What about the number of delegates?

This is up to the legislature, but in the 1978 Con Con there were two delegates elected from each of our 51 state representative districts for a total of 102 (in 1968, 82 delegates from 18 districts; in 1950, 63 delegates from 6 districts).

• 15. When are the delegates elected?

The Legislature can call a special election (which could be a mail-in ballot like used for the Oahu Neighborhood Boards); but, if a special election is not called, then the delegates must be elected at the next general election.

• 16. When is the Con Con?

It must be convened no later than five months before the next general election (after election of the delegates).

• 17. When are any proposed revisions or amendments submitted to the voters?

This is up to the Con Con (including the option of a special election), but past practice has been submission at the next general election.

• 18. How long would the Con Con last?

This is up to the Con Con, but past Con Cons lasted about two months.

• 19. Adding this all up, what timelines are we talking about?

There are two basic options, both assuming that voters approve a Con Con this November:

• The two-year approach, under which the legislature directs a special election for delegates in 2009, the Con Con convenes in 2009 and/or 2010, and any proposed revisions or amendments are submitted to the voters at the November 2010 general election; or
• The four-year approach, under which the legislature does nothing, in which case delegates are elected in November 2010, the Con Con convenes in 2011 and/or 2012, and proposed revisions/amendments are submitted to the voters in November 2012.

• 20. How much would a Con Con cost?

The Legislature would make the necessary appropriations; the amount would depend greatly on various factors such as how many delegates, how they are elected, their salaries/stipends/costs, how long the Con Con lasts, what existing facilities and staffing are already available, and what other resources are required, but a reasonable estimate is up to $10 million.

• 21. Where is further information available?

Here are a few options for now:

• Visit your state library to review our Constitution;

• Contact your state legislator, who has ready access to various internal and Legislative Reference Bureau reports and summaries; and

• Visit the League of Women Voters of Hawaii’s Web site http://www.lwv-hawaii.com/reports.htm for links to our Constitution (top box) and other documents (bottom box).

Please let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, I look forward to a full discussion on the Con Con and our Hawaii’s future.

Ed Case was a Hawaii state Representative and a Hawaii Congressman. Reach him at EdCase@edcase.com

By Scott Nolan Smith

Let’s face it, age requirements exist for various ‘rights of passage’ in the United States. Sixteen allows one to drive, twenty-one legally opens the door for alcohol, twenty-five allows one to drive a rental car with full privileges (most states), and eighteen allows you to cast your vote in national elections.

Each of the above age restrictions has changed at different points in US history, they have adapted to the whims of the times and events of the day. They have gone up and down and in and out in history. They have not always existed and are themselves, imperfect. Thus, careful attention should be given when they are established and when they are changed. In today’s society, I fully understand the argument that our voting age is in need of change, and I agree that such change should manifest itself in the form of a lower voting age.

The typical age asserted today when speaking of a new and lower voting age is sixteen. Why does sixteen make more sense than eighteen? Allow me to explain.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment once lowered the voting age. It was lowered from twenty-one to eighteen in order to expand the right of the vote to those being considered and treated as adults in society; those who were working, dieing in wars, paying taxes and so forth. Today you can fight and die at age seventeen, work and make a living at sixteen, drive at sixteen, be classified as an adult via a legal status change to an emancipated minor, be held accountable as an adult, and even in court be tried as an adult for crimes and other infractions, all under the age of eighteen. So, in all practical assessments, sixteen has become an age of adult responsibilities and it deserves to be recognized as such.

Today sixteen year-olds work and they pay taxes, they are forced by law to give-up part of their income to a government that they have no say in. Basically, sixteen year-old Americans are being taxed without representation. Does that sound familiar? It should. This body of individuals pays upwards of billions of dollars in taxes to state, local, and federal authorities annually. Yet they have no vote. No say in their government, no say in who passes laws, sends them to war, or impacts their daily lives. If given the right to vote, sixteen year-olds will have a voice and a say, politicians will have to pay attention to them as a voting group and their views can be represented, as they rightfully should be.

One of the key arguments against providing the right to vote to sixteen year-olds typically asserts that sixteen year olds aren’t ’smart enough’ to vote, or that they lack the information and intellect to make such decisions. However this is simply not the case. There are many sixteen and seventeen year-olds with a greater ability to make informed decisions than many voting adults, most of which are far above and beyond eighteen years of age. We let any legal individual over the age of eighteen vote no matter how informed, intelligent or intellectual they are. All people are different, but to say a sixteen year old is less able to vote than an eighteen year old in today’s society is simply absurd. All people are different, and all individuals treated as and classifiable as adults in any form should be given the same rights, including the right to vote. It is time we gave that right to America’s sixteen year-olds.

In our society sixteen year-olds are, in effect, adults. They work, pay taxes, deal with the decisions made by politicians, can be legally held accountable as adults, and are given the responsibility of adults by the government; yet they are still told they have no say. It is about time this policy changed.

Scott Nolan Smith is a graduate of Hawaii Pacific University with a BA in Political Science. He is now based in Washington D.C. and can be reached at scsmith2004@gmail.com. See more at http://scottnolansmith.wordpress.com

By Panos Prevedouros

Since 2006 I have been saying that the proposed rail on Oahu is nothing short of a joke. The just-released 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) proves this. Table 3-13 shows that transit share will increase from 6% to 7%. Auto based trips change from 82% to 80%, and walk-and-bike trips are 12%.

No administrator in his or her right mind would advocate the expenditure of five billion dollars for an 1% gain in the share of transit trips. The correct priorities would be to fix the sidewalks and build traffic and bike lanes. Not in Honolulu where administrators are proud to provide TheBoat at a taxpayer subsidy of $42 per trip!

Here is the breakdown of daily trips on weekdays as in DEIS page 3-18:

• 2007 No Rail = 184,000 total transit trips (on bus)
• 2030 No Rail = 226,000 total transit trips (on bus)
• 2030 With Rail = 249,200 total transit trips (on bus and rail)

Notice the tiny benefit of rail. And to put it in perspective, that’s out of more than four (4) million daily trips on Oahu!

This result evokes the paraphrasing of Churchill… Never before so many paid so much, to benefit so few and by so little.

Figure 3-1 shows that from 1984 to 2008, transit speed decreased by 1.5 mph. So in the last 22 years the average speed of the TheBus fell by 1.5 miles per hour. This is such a calamity that according to the Go-Rail-Go luminous spokespersons requires a five billion dollar rail to fix it!

The Notice of Intent or NOI is violated. This is the 2006 agreement between the Federal Transit Administration and the City and County of Honolulu. The NOI explicitly mentions a fixed guideway from Kapolei to the UH. The DEIS guideway starts well outside Kapolei and ends at Ala Moana Shopping Center. The 34 miles have become 19, but the alleged traffic benefits have more than doubled from the 2006 Alternatives Analysis!

It should be obvious that this DEIS will provide a lot of entertainment in the coming weeks. By law, comments are requested by January 7, 2009. But thanks to the careful planning of the Mufi administration, Oahu’s public had the Sunday and Monday before the elections to read and understand 400 plus pages prior to making an educated choice at the polls.