Voters will decide fate of proposed amendments to County Charter, state Constitution

Hawaii County voters are starting to receive their mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 General Election.

Ballots, whether by mail or by walk-in vote, must be received by the county’s Elections Division by 7 p.m. Election Day.

In addition to the contested races on the ballot, there are five ballot questions — three concerning county government and two concerning state government.

The county ballot questions, which are proposed amendments to the County Charter, are as follows:

• Proposal No. 1, on County Council vacancies in office: “Shall the Hawaii County Charter be amended to provide that any vacancy on the County Council that occurs or exists after a person was duly elected to fill that seat for the upcoming council term shall be filled by that duly elected successor for the remainder of the unexpired term?”

“In 2022, I won the council race in the primary,” said Kohala Councilwoman Cindy Evans, who introduced the bill that became the ballot proposal. “Council member Tim Richard had resigned because he was running for state Senate. And so what happened was, there was no one sitting in the council seat.”

Evans said it “wasn’t right” that her district was without representation until early December and legislation was being voted upon.

“Come to find out, it would take so long (to appoint a temporary replacement) and the process had a lot of steps to it.”

The seat remained unfilled until Inauguration Day.

Evans said the ballot initiative, if passed by voters, would allow the Primary Election winner to immediately assume an unfilled council seat, and the three or four months served prior to the next Inauguration Day would not count toward the four-term limit for council members.

“I’m pleased with that; I think it’s a good change,” Evans said.

• Proposal No. 2, on the mayoral appointment of department heads: “Shall the Hawaii County Charter be amended to require the mayor to appoint department heads within 30 days of the start of each mayoral term and within 60 days for any vacancy in office that occurs during the mayoral term?”

“There was some concern that department heads take appointment by the mayor, and they’re able to start without having completed the confirmation process with the council,” said Kona-Kohala Councilman Holeka Inaba, who co-introduced the ballot proposal bill with Kona Councilwoman Rebecca Villegas. “It’s requiring timely appointments by the mayor.”

Inaba said that whether the appointments are new or whether they are holdovers from a previous administration or mayoral term, under the proposal, all department heads would be subject to council approval at the beginning of each mayoral term.

• Proposal No. 3, Term of Office for the Cost of Government Commission: “Shall the Hawaii County Charter be amended to increase the term length for members of the Cost of Government Commission from 11 to 22 months and extend the deadline for the commission to submit its report from 11 months after appointment to 20 months after appointment?”

“(The commission is) charged with how the county government’s doing business and ways that we can make improvements. It’s a pretty big job,” said Hilo Councilwoman Jenn Kagiwada, who co-introduced with Evans the measure that became the ballot proposal. “They were very dedicated; they did their work. It was very hard for them to get to all the departments they needed to get to and spend the time with them they needed in order to do the assessment, make the recommendations, and get that all in the report in the amount of time they were given.

“So, extending the amount of time is really important.”

There also are two statewide ballot initiatives in the General Election.

• Question No. 1, if adopted, would remove specific language in the state Constitution concerning the authority of the Legislature to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

It reads: “Shall the state Constitution be amended to repeal the Legislature’s authority to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples?”

House Bill 2802, which became the ballot question, was introduced by House Speaker Scott Saiki, an Oahu Democrat.

It received 316 pages of written testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs, with only 20 testifiers — all individuals — in opposition.

A short list of those who testified in favor include: Hawaii Civil Rights Commission; American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii; Hawaii State AFL-CIO; Hawaii Friends of Civil Rights; North Hawaii Community Action Network; Japanese American Citizens League, Honolulu Chapter; Rainbow Family 808; Democratic Party of Hawaii; Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii; Hawaii Ports Maritime Council; Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii; and Hawaii Nurses’ Association — OPEIU Local 50.

The committee report submitted by House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Chairman David Tarnas, a Big Island Democrat, noted there is concern that the current U.S. Supreme Court will revisit the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which held that same-sex couples could legally exercise a fundamental right to marry under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“If the Supreme Court of the United States holds that the United States Constitution does not confer a right to marry for same-sex couples, then under the marriage amendment of the Hawaii State Constitution, the authority to limit marriage in the State of Hawaii is vested in the Legislature,” Tarnas’ report stated. “This measure repeals the Legislature’s authority to limit marriage.”

While most of the testimony in opposition to the bill leading to the ballot initiative was submitted without commentary, one testifier wrote, “If the focus of bills is to improve our communities &quality of life, passage of this bill will further divide the community, elevate the desires of adults over the long-term benefits to our children &society, create opportunities for abuse of the system, &cause litigation opportunities. Please do not change our foundations unless it will truly benefit the majority.”

• Question No. 2 is aimed at making the state Senate confirmation process for judicial appointments more uniform.

It reads: “Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to make the appointment and confirmation process for district court judges the same as the appointment and confirmation process for Supreme Court justices and intermediate court of appeals and circuit court judges, which would require:

(1) The Judicial Selection Commission to present the chief justice with a list of not less than four and not more than six nominees for a vacancy;

(2) A district court appointee to be automatically considered appointed if the Senate fails to reject the appointment within thirty days of receiving the appointment notice;

(3) The chief justice to make another appointment from the list of district court nominees within ten days if the Senate rejects an appointment; and

(4) The appointment and consent procedure to be followed until a valid appointment is made, or failing this, the Judicial Selection Commission to make the appointment from the list of nominees, without Senate consent?”

No testimony was submitted for the bill, which was introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman Karl Rhoads, a Honolulu Democrat, with Lynn DeCoite, a Maui County Democrat, and Glenn Wakai, an Oahu Democrat.

Rhoads’ Judiciary Committee report found that “the existing Senate confirmation process for judicial appointments differs if the appointment is made by the governor or the chief justice.”

“This measure will reduce confusion and provide clarity for the judicial appointment process by making the process uniform, regardless of whether the appointment is made by the governor or the chief justice,” he wrote.

Email John Burnett at jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.