Questions about where Rep. Calvin Say "intends" to make his home dominated a historic legislative hearing Friday, as House members for the first time considered whether one of their own actually lives in the district he represents.
A six-member panel of House leaders considered a challenge brought this session by six Oahu residents asserting that Say lives in Pauoa Valley — not the Palolo Valley home that he owns with his wife in the district that he represents. Say has previously said that he spends time at both places but that his residence is in Palolo, on 10th Avenue.
Now the panel will consider what recommendations to make in the ongoing saga over Say’s residency, including whether he should be ousted from the seat he’s held since 1976.
It’s not the first time that voters have challenged where Say lives. The veteran representative and former House speaker prevailed in three earlier challenges on the city level to his voter registration. His attorney touted that point Friday, saying that none of the facts has changed.
It does, however, mark the first time that the House has formally taken up the matter on Say’s residency — or any of their membership’s residency — following a recent court decision upholding the Legislature’s authority to do so.
Lawyers for Say and his challengers each took a turn testifying Friday as Say, wearing lei and seated across a table from his House colleagues, generally looked ahead and said nothing.
Lance Collins, an attorney for Say’s challengers, asserted that Say took care to have bills sent to the Palolo address while the family lived in Pauoa, and that utility bill records from 2010 showed the Palolo home using virtually no water.
Collins added that neighbors on 10th Avenue have said that they’ve seen neither the Says living there nor the family’s registered vehicles at the house, and that Say further alluded to living elsewhere during a 2013 Palolo neighborhood board meeting when he told attendees that he had opted to forgo rental income for many years at the 10th Avenue property as a personal sacrifice.
Recent court statements show there was a "long-standing awareness in these very halls" to Say living in Pauoa — including by House Speaker Joseph Souki, Collins added.
Say’s lawyer, Bert Kobayashi Jr., countered that Say and his wife started spending time at the Pauoa home in 1995 as caregivers to Say’s aging father- and mother-in-law, who later died. The Pauoa home is now where Say’s wife and sons live — but not Say, Kobayashi said.
Say, a Democrat who represents Palolo, St. Louis Heights and Makiki, eats meals at the Pauoa address and sometimes sleeps there when it’s more convenient but spends most of his sleeping hours at the 10th Avenue address, Kobayashi said.
Say never intended to establish a permanent home outside of the district he represents, Kobayashi further told the panel. Instead, he intends to make the Palolo home his permanent address, and the family is renovating the property now, Kobayashi said.
The lawmakers grappled with that notion of intent.
Hawaii state law defines a residence as "that place in which the person’s habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has the intention to return."
State Rep. Karl Rhoads, the committee’s chairman, asked whether there was a time limit on such an "intention to return." At what point does it turn into "simply not coming back?" Rhoads asked.
Kobayashi said he’s not aware of any such limits. "The law just asks for intention. It does not specify a time period," he said.
Collins meanwhile told the panel that a 2009 Hawaii Supreme Court decision determined that a person’s residency could not be based solely on their intention to return.
Collins further raised doubts as to whether Say had left any permanent belongings at the Palolo property as an intention to return. "It’s not clear whether he’s ever lived in that house," he said.
City property tax records show that Say and his wife claim an $80,000 property tax exemption on the Palolo property.
The special committee aims to hold another hearing open to public viewing to discuss the arguments, and then to release a final report of its findings in about two weeks for the full House to consider.
