COMMENTARY
Time for constitutional convention

By John Griffin

How does the current political furor in California relate to Hawai'i?

Delegates to the constitutional convention in 1968 lay the groundwork for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, gubernatorial term limits and other aspects of Hawai'i government. Advertiser library photo

IRR, the acronym sometimes used for initiative, referendum and recall, was the most bitter issue at our last state constitutional convention in 1978. IRR proposals were defeated by close margins, in one case by one vote.

Some wonder if they could — or should — be reborn in some new constitutional convention.

An initiative is a process in which you sign a petition to have a proposed law or constitutional amendment placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by voters. This can be done in several forms.

A referendum or plebiscite lets voters accept or reject a proposed law or constitutional amendment passed by a legislature. Hawai'i has referendums.

A recall is a petition-and-vote process in which a public official can be removed from office. California has a recall election under way against Gov. Gray Davis.

California's experience with too many costly or crippling initiatives and referendums and its upcoming recall vote may seem to cast a shadow over IRR everywhere.

As columnist David Broder, a longtime IRR foe, put it:

"Partisan excess, rampant personal ambition, dereliction of leadership, media inattention, phony populism and, as usual, the influence of money are all part of this nearly unprecedented perversion of representative democracy."

Weighing direct democracy

I talked to a half-dozen veterans of Hawai'i's 1978 convention, and even those who fought for IRR then said they have been given pause by the California experience.

The League of Women Voters of Hawai'i fought hard for forms of initiative and referendum in '78. Early this year, it produced an admirable booklet revisiting the pros and cons of those processes, but its members did not find a new consensus.

So, don't hold your breath for any action soon on IRR.

Still with us are the old and good philosophical arguments over direct democracy. And the California example remains vivid.

As for a new Hawai'i constitutional convention, I found less talk of needed reforms (education, campaign financing, etc.) than I did of fears that it could produce undesirable amendments.

Those amendments could be for gambling, against Hawaiian entitlements, anti-union measures, and even victories for the religious right and moves against gay rights.

Still, the picture is far from black and white, as reflected by the views of Hawai'i's three most recent governors.

When I asked about the position of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, her quote was: "I support initiative, referendum and recall at the state level. I would be willing to support a constitutional convention."

Former Gov. Ben Cayetano, a Democrat, said he supports IRR, but the influence of money in California politics makes him cautious.

Cayetano also said he doesn't think the state constitution needs further amending.

Former Gov. John Waihee, a Democrat who as a political newcomer led the fight against IRR at the 1978 convention, is still against it. But he is for a new constitutional convention to bring new blood into the system and to offer debate of new and old ideas.

It also should be remembered that more than half of the states have some form of initiative or referendum, especially Western states. Oregon, not California, has led in the number of initiatives for the past century.

IRR getting a bad rap?

Most of the talk on the Mainland is about reforming IRR, not eliminating it.

Moreover, veteran political correspondent and Ronald Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, who lives in Santa Barbara, thinks California has gotten something of a bad rap. He disagrees in part with Broder, his good friend and former Washington Post colleague.

Cannon says that although the focus has been on the 135 candidates approved by a misguided Democratic California secretary of state, behind that confusing facade, the recall election really involves three people — unpopular Democrat Davis; Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a liberal Democrat; and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a centrist Republican.

Cannon thinks it's wrong to lump IRR together "like Siamese triplets."

He says the initiative has been abused in California and referendums too often used by the legislature to dodge responsibility. But he says recall is fine if done right.

Hawai'i's political climate has changed a couple of times in the quarter-century since 1978. Hawai'i's third constitutional convention took place that year amid growing environmentalism, a need for planning to curb overdevelopment, a 1960s generation moving into politics, the budding Hawaiian renaissance, and other activism.

That convention produced the idea for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the state's resign-to-run provisions, term limits for the governor, the Judicial Selection Commission, and the Council on Revenues.

That was also "a people's ConCon" in the sense that only seven of the 102 delegates previously had been elected to office. But it launched a new generation of elected officials that included, among others, Waihee, state Sen. Les Ihara, state Reps. Helene Hale, Jim Shon and Barbara Marumoto, and Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris.

In comparison to 1978, Hawai'i's 1980s and '90s often looked like a status-quo period of economic boom and bust, with the ruling Democratic establishment winning elections and protecting itself. Hawai'i is required to consider holding a constitutional convention every 10 years, but proposals failed in 1988 and 1998.

That's too bad, because many of us believed a new convention would have been good — to shake up the system, bring in a new generation of public officials and face tough issues about the future.

Change is in the air

One could argue that the election of our first Republican governor in 40 years and the glimmer of a two-party system in the Legislature amount to a kind of revolution without a convention. A new generation also is moving in at the Legislature.

Yet, I think both Democrats and Republicans should back a convention sooner than the next required vote in 2008. The Legislature can call one at any time.

For Democrats, it could be an opportunity to move the party faster into the 21st century. For Republicans, it would be a chance to speed the kind of government they favor.

I see a convention as a chance for increased voter education and engagement, and as an opportunity to correct mistakes and to look ahead while engaging more people in the process.

On the IRR issues — which would be only one part of a convention — I still favor, at the very least, the concept of indirect initiative. That's where voter petitions for a new law or constitutional amendment are first submitted to the Legislature. If it fails to enact the proposed measure or one similar, the question is then put on the ballot.

That's a modified minimum of direct democracy.

For now, however, we can realize that California's so-called political horror story is a special case. The recall movement there is a symptom of deeper problems, and the end result may include a new level of voter involvement.

John Griffin, a frequent contributor, is former editor of The Advertiser's editorial pages.

Correction: The photo shows delegates to the 1968 constitutional convention. The photo caption in a previous version of this story incorrectly said the delegates were part of the 1978 convention.