Democrats take aim at ConCon calls
May 26th, 2008 by David ShapiroMainstream Democrats are campaigning to persuade voters they’ll lose rights if they call a Constitutional Convention in the November election.
Delegates at the party’s state convention wouldn’t endorse a ConCon and instead adopted a Hawai’i Government Employees Association proposal to “educate” voters on how a ConCon would imperil their rights.
They couch the rights in terms of equality, privacy, and culture, but clearly the HGEA is most worried about losing its political choke hold on Democratic legislators, which assures that public workers are taken care of ahead of the public at large.
Lawmakers, in turn, worry about keeping their rights to act without transparency, operate without meaningful ethical guidelines and perpetuate themselves in office with special-interest campaign money.
The Kaua’i Democrats’ Web site screams, “Hawai’i Constitutional Convention aka How to Lose Our Rights,” pointing to an anonymous Maui site painting a ConCon as a Republican “sneak attack” on rights to water, shoreline access, good union jobs and privacy — ignoring that reform-minded Democrats who don’t genuflect to the HGEA support a ConCon as the first comprehensive review of state government in 30 years.
Kaua’i Rep. Hermina Morita pushed the loss-of-rights theme in an interview with the Garden Island that was posted on the House Democrats’ blog.
“If we open the constitution for review at this time, it’s not to enhance any rights, it’s to take away rights,” she said, specifically citing her concern that term limits will be placed on legislators.
Such legislative self-interest is a reason freshman Rep. Della Au Belatti is one Democrat supporting a ConCon.
“I have been very disappointed in the lack of public discussion about the important decisions made by our Legislature and the inordinate amount of focus by elected folk on protecting their own office at the next election,” she said in an appearance on Jeanne Mariani-Belding’s blog, “The Hot Seat.”
“This sense of self-preservation is only natural – but something that if unchecked or unchallenged for too long can be terribly dangerous for democracy.”
ConCon opponents say no convention is needed because the Legislature has the power to place constitutional amendments on the ballot when needed; unfortunately, their amendments are as likely to serve legislators’ own interests as their constituents’.
Their amendments in 2006 sought to lift judicial age limits to prevent the Republican governor from appointing a new chief justice, restrict the governor’s power and expand their own in appointing UH regents and clear the way for lawmakers to get 54-percent pay raises without having to vote on them.
Any questions why we need a ConCon?
Tags: ConCon, Constitutional Convention, Della Au Belatti, Democratic Party, Hawai'i Government Employees Association
May 26th, 2008 at 5:35 am
The article in today’s paper about the lack of competition in upcoming elections points out to me that many residents are simply crushed by the seemingly unchangeable status quo of local government. It’s just not worth running for office or even voting for that matter - the perception is that the bureaucracy and “system” are simply too entrenched.
We need a Con-Con to shake things up. To show that change is possible. To prove that the average person can effect change. We lack an initiative and referendum process and this is just about the only way to balance out the power of the special interest groups.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:24 am
As a political progressive & Democratic Party member, I definitely support holding a Constitutional Convention. The delegates will not be making final decisions all by themselves. The public will have three different ways of getting involved and making their wishes known.
First, they can do it by making sure that the delegate selection process is open and fair and then by getting people they trust to run for one of the seats.
Two, by taking part in the Convention itself through submitting tesimony and making sure that the process is transparent.
Three, by voting on the amendments themselves once they are put on the ballot.
The process works if people take the time to get involved.
And, David, the leaders in the NO CON-CON movement are not all from the public employee unions and other mainstream Democrats. Over this past weekend at the State Convention, I was approached by four different groups with whom I usually align my support - environmentalists, Native Hawaiians, women, GLBT folks, and progressives - to speak up against a Con-Con. When I said that I supported holding one, their collective responses were pretty strong.
There is nothing to fear from looking at - and updating or adding or perhaps even deleting - the document which determines how we live, work & play here in Hawai`i. .
May 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I have mixed feelings, but I come down, ultimately, on Dave Shapiro’s side because I think he pays more attention to these political things than I do. I’m mildly worried that the implacables might try to put in anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage provisions. But that’s unlikely, I think, I hope. On the other hand, it seems outrageous that the Democratic Party should genuflect before the HGEA proposal to “educate” people on the subject. My biggest reservation is that I think of a constitution on the national model as a permanent document that is changed by amendment rather than rewriting and rethinking from scratch.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The problem is Dave that you and I and all those who want to see reform of the legislature and legislative processes changed to do things like take away the ultimate power of committee chairs, bring it under the sunshine law, give us initiative, referendum and the ability to petition for constitutional amendments- could fit in a phone booth (do they still have phone booths?).
Just look at the dozens of threads at the HawaiiConCon web site- not one is “legislative reform” although there is one unicameral legislature discussion. And many actually are debating whether and how to restrict civil liberties and protection of rights.
You’re as bad as some of the blathering trolls with your incessant “HGEA is to blame for everything bad” rants- and I know from rants. The notion that once some measure is favored by HGEA everyone in the state is just supporting them when they support the measure, is the straw-man and slung-mud that holds your Volcanic Ash bricks together.
If legislative reform were to be the result of a ConCon I’d be happy to support it despite the opportunity for religious rights restrictors and business pickpockets to wreak havoc . But it isn’t and thus far, I ain’t.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:54 am
It’s amazing how many people who are opposed to a ConCon miss the point. It’s not about HGEA or the Legislature. It’s about getting our people involved in government again. It’s about telling them they have the power of change and backing them up. If our government refuses to listen to the voice of the people, we don’t have a democracy. The opposition argument will be slick and based on fear. That’s why it will be so important to “educate” voters on the facts. When given an even playing field, the truth will win.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Andy,
You misunderstand. My concern isn’t as much with the HGEA as with legislators and Democratic Party officials who perpetuate themselves by giving so much power over their actions to a single interest group whose goals don’t always coincide with the general welfare.
HGEA is a well-run organization that represents the interests of its members aggressively and does a good job of it. I respect that. I just wish elected officials would have the backbone to stand up to HGEA and do their jobs of diligently representing the interests of the general public when they differ from the interests of public workers.
I think it warrants scrutiny when the HGEA or any other interest group is given disproportionate influence over public policy.
Dave
May 26th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I find this discussion interesting. I always had the impression that the Democrat Party, being as powerful as it is, could play a major role in the determination of who gets elected to serve at the Con Con and the decisions that come out of it. Don’t tell me that the few remaining non-Democrats are more powerful than one would think.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Hey Dave!
Didja even bother to read what one of your readers wrote above?:
“David, the leaders in the NO CON-CON movement are not all from the public employee unions and other mainstream Democrats. Over this past weekend at the State Convention, I was approached by four different groups with whom I usually align my support - environmentalists, Native Hawaiians, women, GLBT folks, and progressives - to speak up against a Con-Con.”
Other than her math (I count five groups on her list, not four) I think her assessment is accurate. There is a great deal of unease over the call for a ConCon, among the groups listed, plus unions and other groups. Oh, she forgot civil libertarians, for example.
Where is the clamor for a ConCon coming from? Unlike at the 1978 ConCon, I do not see it as coming from “goosd government groups, like Common Cause or the League of Women Voters. Instead, most of the clamor is coming from the Right : groups like the the so-called “Grassroot” Institute, Small Business Hawaii and the Hawaii Reporter. Go to their websites, to the Advertiser’s own discussion board and listen to the rants, especially against programs for Native Hawaiians.
Della Au Belatti, who I like a great deal, does not provide a sufficient counterweight to these groups. She apparently thinks by joining in the discussion, she can win them over to her more humanistic values. I think the net effect, unfortunately, is that she provides them a “bi-partisan” fig leaf in their PR campaign.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Kolea,
I said that the HGEA proposed the resolution that the Democrats adopted, not that they were the only ones who oppose a ConCon. I’m aware of the others that WassupDoc cited and have mentioned them in other writings.
Don’t kid yourself that all the support for a ConCon is coming from the far right. They’re on the fringes like they are on everything else in Hawai’i. If a ConCon wasn’t getting a lot of interest from Democrats and independents who think we need a fresh look at how our government does things, opponents wouldn’t be so frantically worried about it passing.
Dave
May 26th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Dave,
I guess I misread your column. Where you wrote: “mainstream Democrats,” I should have understood you meant “environmentalists, Native Hawaiians, women, GLBT folks, and progressives.” My, what an elastic definition you have for “mainstream Democrats.” Apparently, the only “reform-minded” Democrats are the ones that agree with you?
Is the Kauai Democratic Party really controlled by people you would describe as “mainstream Democrats”? Do you even know any of those people? Perhaps you should review the resolutions they passed at their county convention. I’d be interested in hearing what you have found when you report back.
Is the Maui Party currently controlled by the “mainstream Democrats”? The chair is the leader of the Maui Sierra Club! Three quarters of the delegates to the state convention were Obama supporters. Allegedly, this was a wave of newcomers who swept through the caucuses and displaced a lot of the oldtimers, Clinton supporters. Yet the Convention passed a resolution critical of imperilling our rights with a ConCon. I guess the newcomers have immediately become “insiders,” genuflecting to the HGEA raher than having their own environmental, civil libertarian, GLBT, feminist, Hawaiian, or progressive reasons for not wanting a ConCon?
You got any facts to back up your opinions? Or do your prejudices liberate you from any requirement that your columns must make sense?
May 26th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Thanks again Dave for excellent coverage. I would respond to Andy Parx’s comment that we don’t have a lot of content on http://www.hawaiiconcon.org for legislative reform because perhaps the folks aren’t quite so knowledgeable about the legislative process to suggest reform.
They just see a lot of things they’d like to change.There’s no lack of discussion in other areas that people can get their arms around, like education, for one.
Perhaps Andy, who is a member on the site, could start those legislatie reform conversation threads himself. I for one would really appreciate that.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I spotted the math error almost immediately after posting - I added progressives at the last moment and then forgot to change the number.
So far, the response has been relatively cordial to my refusal to oppose holding a Con-Con, but that comes from knowing that I can generally be counted upon to support/oppose other hot-button issues. However, I suspect that in the months to come, the hostility level amongst folks who usually support each other will ratchet up rather quickly iver the issue.
I guess I trust the people who will take the time to get involved to do the right thing. Why would the delegates restrict a woman’s right to privacy over her body or do away with critical curbs on rampant development?
As one speaker pointed out immediately following someone who argued we don’t need no stinkin’ Con-Con because amendments can come from legislators: “As in the ban against same-sex marriage?” Many of the delegates clapped, but I wasn’t able to tell if they supported the amendment passed in 1998 or the speaker. I do know that one of the people who wanted me to speak up against a Con-Con was a clapper. I’ll ask him when I see him at a meeting later this week.
No specific group should be legally barred from running as a delegate, but I certainly would argue that sitting legislators should not hold both seats at the same time. I would not vote for that person myself. Sorry, Della. Pick the one which is most important.
Good discussion, David - we need more of these. I am so frustrated with the HA’s insistence in allowing barely literate readers to comment on just about everything posted on its website which is full of flashing ads and exceedingly difficult to maneuver. I’m just about ready to return to reading a real paper!
May 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Whoops!!! iver = over
May 27th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Thanks Dave – and all the media folks – who have been keeping the conversation going on the most significant question for our state and for our voters during this election season – Should a Constitutional Convention be convened?
Just wanted to respond quickly to a few things mentioned here – and make a plug for people to join us at HawaiiConCon.org for more conversation, dialogue, and debate.
Dave – you are directly on point that there is interest from Democrats and independents in a ConCon. If there weren’t such support, then we wouldn’t have seen a pro-ConCon resolution turn up in the Government Operations Committee as it did at this past convention.
As for my participation in the debate so far creating a “bi-partisan fig leaf,” I believe this is too simple a characterization of what’s going on. I know several of my Democratic colleagues, and former elected Democratic officials, who support a ConCon. I urge everyone to ask their elected officials their position on ConCon. There are also prominent good government folks like Ira Rohter, long-time advocate of voter-owned elections, who very early on supported a ConCon.
Furthermore, for all these groups that have been referred to as if they have one opinion – ie. environmentalists, Native Hawaiians, GLBT folks, and progressives – I’d be very surprised if you saw unity among them for or against a ConCon. (On last week’s Hot Seat, when I was asked what Native Hawaiian groups thoughts, I stated that I wouldn’t want to presume to speak for Hawaiian groups.) This is precisely why community dialogue on this important question must begin.
Finally, HawaiiConCon.org and my colleague Peter Kay have taken a few potshots as being a mouthpiece for the “Right”. Clearly, ideas have been expressed there that I don’t and will never agree with. And I know a number of Dems and progressives who are there that feel the same way. But part of what I’ll call the e-democratic AND the democratic process is for us to engage in the battle of ideas – and hopefully, where we can find common ground, come up with some compromises and solutions to the problems that affect all of us. If there are progressives and Democrats who simply don’t want to show up for this discussion, then it is their failure to participate that is to blame - not HawaiiConCon.org’s creators or participants.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Kolea,
By mainstream Democrats, I meant the people who control the party apparatus that guides the passage of resolutions and the content of the Web sites. But you’re right that it’s an imprecise term. Many mainstream Democrats are quite reform-minded. And as I said, if a lot of them weren’t open to a ConCon, opponents wouldn’t be so worried.
Whatever you think of my facts and logic, at least you have to give me credit for putting my name behind my opinions.
Dave
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am
The term “reform minded Democrat” is an oxymoron like “military intelligence” or “jumbo shrimp”.
The only “reform” advocated by the Democrats is to enshrine the goals of GLBT, progressives, HGEA and other groups into the constitution.
To say that these groups are agitated because they realise the groundswell of support among “mainstream” Democrats and Independents is a supposition not supported by any evidence - the only named supporter is already backpedaling furiously (see her post above).
The Democrats remain a party of reaction, racism, antisemitism, anti Americanism and no amount of “reform” will ever change this fact.
Dave should be commended for sticking his head out on this - his courage is awe-inspiring for he squared off against the truly evil criminal gang that will do anything to stay in power.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Aloha Fluffy,
Your pseudonymn seems very fitting for your comments - which I’m not sure even deserve a comment. But I will comment anyway because of the inflammatory labels you have applied to my political party.
First, I’m not sure how anything I said above is backpedaling in anyway - I’m only assessing the situation as I see it, which is to say that the community is very divided over the question of whether we should have a ConCon and that we need widespread community dialog for people to make an informed decision.
Second, while I’m sure you have your reasons for applying some inflammatory labels to the Democratic party, my experience has not lived up to your labels. Can the Democratic party do better to living up to its ideals? Sure. But have the Democrats been and continue to be progressive leaders in our community that has seen the improvement for many previously disempowered groups in our society? You better believe it!
Dave - I apologize for the digression this conversation has taken. I’d much rather focus on the merits and demerits of ConCon - but when challenged on the merits of my party, I will rise to the occasion to defend it!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Aloha Della,
The fact that the “community” (i.e. Democrats) are “divided” over something (Con-Con) that they enshrined into law in 1978 tells one something about their contempt and disregard for the law and totalitarian approach to power that Democrats personify.
Fluffy (a loveable and furry creature) thinks that Republicans are brain-dead but Democrats are evil.
As for “disempowered groups” - how about taxpayers, small business owners, traditional families or children of Hawaii whose lives you ruined FOR GENERATIONS NOW thru HSTA controlled ($12K per pupil/year) monstrosity.
Conversely, how representing huge powerful unions, elitist America hating college professors, Chamber of Commerce monopolistic big business makes Democrats “progressive”?
Fluffy also wants to know how promoting, inflaming and exploiting racial tensions, spouting antisemitic and homophobic tirades against Gov. Lingle brings “improvement for many previously disempowered groups in our society”?
By the way, Fluffy McNutter is a cuddly herbivore that loves tequila.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Dave,
There is no central “party apparatus that guides the passage of resolutions and the content of the Web sites.” The websites to which you refer, arre under the control of the County parties, which are “controlled by a variety of quite maverick forces. The State website is the most boring of the bunch and raely opines on anything controversial at all, so it can scarcely be accused of orchestrating the debate on this, or any other issue.
Delegates to the state convention were free to serve on whichever committee they wanted, until the membership was capped at 70 members. I believe only the Rules and Labor committees were declared “full” prior to the convention. Advocates for a ConCon were free to join the Government Operations comittee.
It was the committee membership, not some sinister, quasi-masonic “party apparatus,” that decided which resolutions would move forward. A resolution favored by Rep. Belatti died in committee, while another reso, skeptical of a ConCon, moved onto the floor. Party rules allow for a reconsideration of a resolution defeated in committee, should there be enough support on the floor. Her “minority report” failed for lack of support.
The Democratic Party contains within it a wide variety of networks. Some have already been mentioned. We all agree on the desirability of electing Democrats, but often disagree pointedly on a wide range of issues. Unlike the Republican Party, we allow the debates to take place. And we post the final product: the resolutions, platform and Party Rules on our website for all to review (and criticize, if they wish). The Republicans do not only suppress debate, they also hide their final documents from public view. For that, they are not criticized by the “mainstream press.” With our more transparent process, we set ourselves up for criticism. So be it. That is democracy.
The convention is a rare opportunity for these often conflicting networks to come together, to dialog and, sometimes, to clash. Some in the unions were wary about the newcomers, and a lot of the newcomers had heard the familiar slanders about the Party being “controlled” by some nefarious machine. When we came together to talk, we found the similarities in outlook overshadowed the differences. While Labor feared that too many newcomers might support a call for a ConCon, they “misunderestimated” that many of these newcomers had “their own environmental, civil libertarian, GLBT, feminist, Hawaiian, or progressive reasons for not wanting a ConCon.”
There was no conspiracy to defeat a pro-ConCon resolution. There was no need. There is a widespread consensus that a ConCon will put too many good things at risk. The so-called “HGEA resolution” was pretty reflective of a broad swath of Democratic opinion, so it easily passed.
The Party is really much more internally democratic and pluralist than your framework would allow.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Hmmm…I’m not sure which resolution you are talking about that I supported Kolea. Can you elaborate?
May 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Rep. Belatti is correct. I misspoke. The “resolution favored by Rep. Belatti” did not “die in committee,” as I wrote. She attempted to submit a resolution on the subject moments before the deadline, but had not understood that resos are limited under the Rules to one-page in length. Her reso was two pages and there was not sufficient time to edit it down and re-submit it for consideration.
From Derrick DePledge’s article:
“The party’s government operations committee also voted against a proposal by state Rep. Della Au Belatti, D-25th (Tantalus, Makiki, McCully), to amend a separate resolution to spell out guidelines if voters do call for a constitutional convention. Belatti wanted the party to commit to the election of constitutional convention delegates in 2010 for a convention held by 2012, along with public financing for delegate elections and voters’ guides.”
So I was in error about the vehicle for Rep. Belatti’s views. Because her own resolution had not been properly introduced in time, she worked to amend another resolution to reflect her views. It was not her resolution which “died in committee,” it was her proposed amendments, which died. First in the committee and then a second time, on the floor of the convention.
I hope this account is more accurate, If not, I am more than willing to be corrected by the Rep in an effort to fairly reflect her views.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Hmmm…Let me diagram this: “HGEA resolution” = “pretty reflective of a broad swath of Democratic opinion”.
Threfore, “HGEA” = “Democratic opinion”
QED
P.S. Why fierce denials that “Democratic opinion” is HGEA/HSTA/Teamster opinion when the Democrats themselves admit to it? To deceive the public, of course.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Many of the ideas being bandied about is really not under the rubric of the constitution but plain and simple legislative proposals.
You don’t load up the constitution (or any constitution) with amendments galore.