As if drawn by subsurface currents, we are drifting toward voting “yes” to holding a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) without discernibly good reasons for doing so.
The question is: When we already have an excellent state Constitution, why hold a convention? Arguably our Constitution is the best in the country. What then is the compelling reason for opening the door to changes that might be engineered by monied interests in a situation of low public awareness?
More pointedly, in the era of the Koch Brothers and Citizens United, what makes us think we could hold a citizens’ discussion in the tradition of the Founding Fathers?
The website NoConCon.org reasons for a “no” vote as follows: “The foul winds of PAC money and indiscriminate development would blow in. Native Hawaiian rights, water rights; natural, cultural and environmental protections; agricultural land protections; all would be threatened. Hawai’i’s unique doctrine of Public Trust could be discarded.
“‘A‘ole Con Con. Not now.”
In an analysis of the last “yes” vote, which was in 1976, political scientist Richard Kosaki noted “there appeared to be no single overriding or pressing issue.”
“Perhaps,” Kosaki wrote, “Hawaii shared with the rest of the nation a general dissatisfaction with government following Watergate.”
Back then, the Honolulu newspapers editorialized in favor of a Constitutional Convention and few political leaders, despite their private reservations as to the “need” for a convention, would publicly oppose the holding of another Con Con.
As in 1976, there is no one pressing issue today, while the era of Donald Trump echoes the era of Richard Nixon. It is tempting to think, “Surely we could use a cleansing experience.” There are other parallels. Various media today are advocating for a convention. While some candidates for office are straightforwardly opposing a convention, a good many are waffling on the subject.
In the years following the far-reaching changes of the 1978 Constitutional Convention, public opinion favored leaving the Constitution as is. In 1986, the vote in opposition to another ConCon was 56 percent to 44 percent.
Thereafter the bar for holding a convention was raised by the requirement that half of all votes, plus one, be “yes.” The vote in 1998 was 59.3 percent “no,” 34.1 percent “yes,” and 6.8 percent blank ballots. Equivalent figures for 2009 were virtually the same: 61.9 percent “no,” 33.5 percent “yes,” with 4.9 percent blank ballots.
Recently, online media outlet Civil Beat published two polls: The first, late last year, found that two-thirds of the public favored a ConCon, while only 14 percent opposed. The second, in late spring, found that support was down to 54 percent while 20 percent opposed. That is, support diminished modestly while opposition grew, if modestly.
So, if on the surface a “yes” vote may seem like a fait accompli, it is not.
Initial polling that seemed to overwhelmingly support a 2020 convention reflects soft opinion that could change with thought and debate. I tend to think there is a pattern, wherein the more people think about the question, the more it seems to be an unattractive idea.
A recent four-part forum on Con Con sponsored by the University of Hawaii law school and the School of Hawaiian Knowledge began with expressions of interest in holding a Con Con. Discussion then revealed that no one had proposals for why it should happen, let alone proposals that attracted significant cross-sections of people. Interest in a ConCon waned, displaced by active opposition as people looked at the risks involved.
This and other such experiences suggest that the seasonal drift toward holding a needless — not to mention, expensive — Con Con can be averted. But this will happen only if we, as a community, wake up and engage in critical thinking.
———
MORE INFO:
For more, see NoConCon.org, supported by Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Honolulu League of Women Voters, KAHEA and Friends of Lana‘i.
Tom Coffman, author of the modern-Hawaii classic, “Catch a Wave,” is an independent researcher, writer and producer.
