By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

In addition to the hundreds of names to be found on the Nov. 5 ballot, there will be three proposed changes to the state Constitution.

One of the three seems relatively tame: It would require anyone who plans to run for the Legislature to become a registered voter of the district they wish to represent before filing nomination papers.

The other two changes, however, are far more controversial.

While most voters probably have not paid much attention to the other two, they already are arousing passions and debate within those groups most directly affected. In the days leading up to Nov. 5, there's a good chance the two constitutional proposals will take center stage in the minds of general voters.

Question 2 asks whether private schools and colleges should be able to take advantage of tax-free borrowing for their construction projects. In technical terms, this means allowing the schools to issue "special-purpose revenue bonds."

Such bonds are used today to finance such things as low-income housing projects, non-profit hospitals and other projects deemed to be of general community benefit. If this question passes, private schools would be added to the list of projects eligible for this tax-free borrowing.

While this would appear to be a sensible way to make construction costs more affordable for private schools — at no direct cost or obligation to the taxpayers — the issue cuts far more deeply. The real floor of this debate is the tension and relationship between public and private schools in Hawai'i.

The teachers union, for instance, is opposed to the proposal because it would, in effect, offer the state's help to schools in direct competition with public schools for the best students and most committed families.

The debate on this bond question, then, will evolve into a community-wide conversation about the proper relationship between public and private schools in the Islands.

Question 3 asks whether felony charges can be brought against people in a new way, something called "information charging." Today, such charges are brought either through a grand jury or through a preliminary hearing before a judge. Under information charging, a bill of particulars is prepared by police or prosecutors and is brought before a judge, who decides whether there is probable cause to hold a trial.

Since an accused person would still get his or her trial, this third option is presented merely as a way to speed up the charging system, reduce court costs and eliminate an undue burden on witnesses, police and victims.

But it cuts more deeply than that. It adds a new — and somewhat unknown — wrinkle into a long-established process through which the state prosecutes an individual. The debate on this one will move swiftly from the relative technical merits to whether it unduly shifts the balance of power between defendant and state.

Again, that's a gut issue that should be of concern to every citizen.

Reach Jerry Burris through letters@honoluluadvertiser.com.