Elections chief undid himself
August 4th, 2008 by David ShapiroThe state Elections Commission is backing its embattled chief elections officer Kevin Cronin, with the panel’s chairman William Martson saying, “The commission feels that somebody has put a target on his back and has unfairly gone after him.”
Oh, really? Let’s look at some of the arrows that have pierced Cronin since he arrived here from Wisconsin last year with little experience running elections:
- He’s embroiled the Office of Elections in a still-unresolved dispute over the purchase of new voting machines that has left us precariously close to not having a reliable and transparent system in place for this year’s elections.
- Bewildering decision-making by his office and poor communication with the city clerk resulted in two candidates being disqualified after they had been certified as eligible at the filing deadline.
- He ignored state law and ordered potentially confusing primary election ballots printed without letting the political parties exercise their legal right to review them.
- He failed to personally register to vote in Hawai’i until prodded to do so seven months after he was hired, a clear violation of the conditions of his employment under state law.
It seems that if there’s a target on Cronin, the dripping paintbrush that put it there was wielded by his own hand.
***
Kirk Caldwell is one of the big losers of this election after giving up his House seat and powerful position as majority leader to run for the City Council, only to be disqualified because of problems with the paperwork in his last-minute switch.
There’s little question that the city clerk made the right call under the law in ruling Caldwell ineligible, but it’s hard to feel good about it.
Caldwell was a decent majority leader, a straight-shooter with a sense of humor who was often the closet thing to a voice of reason in the endless squabbling between the House, Senate and Lingle administration.
His disqualification means that Duke Bainum will be unopposed in claiming the council seat being vacated by mayoral candidate Ann Kobayashi, which isn’t easy to take given that Bainum has spent most of his time on the Mainland licking his wounds since losing the 2004 mayor’s race to Mufi Hannemann.
I thought the aborted council showdown between Bainum and Caldwell was mostly about getting a leg up on succeeding Hannemann as mayor when he moves on.
That battle could still materialize if Hannemann, who recruited Caldwell to run for the council, offers him a role in the city administration from which to remain visible.
Tags: Duke Bainum, elections, Kirk Caldwell, Mufi Hannemann
August 4th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I agree with you. It was wrong that Bainum to impose himself on District 5. What he should have done was ask the district leaders to bless his candidacy, since the did not live there and has not been in the city for the past 4 years. Although what he did was legal, the people in district 5 are old time, conservative and place a high respect for ethical conduct. Anyway, this incident will come back to haunt him should he attempt to run for mayor in 2 or 4 years.
Cronin really is a bungling idiot and should be fired. Lingle complained about Yoshina but this guy appears to be worse. In the short time he was here, he committed several significant errors and yet the commission supports him? Maybe its time for a new commission also.
The office of elections made a huge mistake in not interpreting the deadline rules to make it inclusive rather than exclusive as it is best for the people to have choices. Deadlines are primarily established to meet deadlines for subsequent actions, not to exclude. As such, when people are sincerely attempting to file at the last moment, everything should be done to help them successfully complete the filing. For example, since time was of the essensce, Cauldwell’s oral resignation from the house race on the 22nd should have been deemed effective as he followed it up with a written resignation the next day. This would have made him eligible to file for the council vacancy.
Further the issue about the sufficiency of the number of signatures should not be an issue - the signature by the county employee from Manoa should stand. How long does it take a person to sign his/her name? The minute or so, did not take away from her work.
With respect to Eads filing - she should have been allowed to complete her filing even afther the 4:30 pm deadline, as long as he was in line prior to 4:30 to initiate filing. Even if for some reason her filing was deficient, she should still have been allowed to remedy it within a reasonable time. To deny her filing would limit choices to constituents, the very foundation of our system of democracy.
This policy about deadlines should be clarified and interpreted to be inclusive to further the spirit of democracy.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
“…the closet thing to a voice of reason…” Ah, yes, reason can be closeted at the legislature….
But good call on the Cronin issue: this is too important to be handled by someone who does not understand the requirements and rules of his office.
…the whining also does not help portrayed him as a Man In Charge.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:50 am
One change in the law that should be considered is to have an extended filing deadline; say, three days, for those races where there is no incumbent.
This would prevent this latest fiasco where whether or not there was collusion, the appearance of such has cheapened the process.
Ultimately, the public interest would be served if the affected communities had the opportunity to have choices.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Changing the laws is a good 2nd step.
First and foremost, the disenfranchisement of the voters of the 5th Council district need to be addressed. We have been cheated. Just sitting back and saying that Bainum played within the law isn’t good enough. It isn’t like he borrowed his mother’s handicap placard for a day!
There is blame enough to go around between the OE and the Clerk’s office. Why can’t they stop squabbling and re-evaluate their decision so that the voters can be given a choice? Ballots for the general election don’t get made until after the primary so this can still be reconsidered.
Where is our Governor in all this? Partisan politics has to stop when voters have been denied a choice. Fair is fair.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I see Caldwell heading up the Transit Authority. From there it’s just a small step to Governor. “Michael, we’re bigger than U.S. steel on steel”
August 4th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
David, thank you for the information on Kevin Cronie, or Cronin, whatever. Shameful! This guy better show some responsibility to us who pay his salary. There’s some serious accountability issues here.
The whole 5th district situation smells of stink fish! Lots of shenanigans going on.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I have long been a critic of the Office of Elections, but I don’t think firing Cronin weeks before the primary election is going to be helpful.
Cronin was the consensus choice of the bi-partisan Elections Commission and was chosen, at least in part, to avoid having to appoint one of Dwayne Yoshina’s top deputies. This was an effort to make a break with the past practices of the Office. Unfortunately, Cronin came into office at the tail end of a botched and prolonged procurement process which awarded a grossly overpriced contract for running our elections to Hart-InterCivic. The legal challenges to that contract, as well as the time pressures created by the delay in getting the new system into place, did not afford Cronin much opportunity for “on the job training.” He was forced to rely upon Dwayne Yoshina’s staff to brief him on the various technical, procedural and legal issues. As the brand new “boss,” there is no way Cronin could ignore their advice or deprecate their knowledge. He really was placed in a “no-win” situation.
So ironically, even though the commission was trying to avoid a continuation of the practices of the previous office by bringing in someone new, and from outside the office, the situation just reinforced the existing problems, but with a less experienced man at the helm.
I have attended multiple meetings of the Elections Commission, both while Yoshina served as Chief Elections Officer and now with Cronin. The members strike me as well-intended and intelligent people who, despite their partisan labels, have been striving to avoid partisanship in their deliberations–both those appointed by the Republicans and by the Democrats. They also are trying to avoid “micro-managing” the operations of the Office of Elections, which is a desirable trait in such a commission. Unfortunately, they are failing in their responsibility of supervising the Office by taking too much of a “hands off” stance and by conducting to much of their meetings in secrecy, thereby impeding public understanding of problems in the Office of Elections.
The Commission justifies going into executive session by including their state-provided attorney in their discussions, thereby turning what should be a public meeting into a confidential attorney-client briefing session. This is in appropriate and a violation of the state Sunshine Law. The deputy attorney general (a Lingle appointee?) should be advising them how to both maintain attorney-client privilege AND comply with the public meeting laws. Because the AG does not care about the Sunshine Law, the commission does not receive such advice.
In addition, the Commission has no independent budget of its own and depends upon the Office of Elections for staff support as well as for their understanding of the issues. Under such conditions, it is difficult for them to develop the independent judgment necessary for independent oversight of the Office’s operations.
If we are to solve the problem, rather than just slash away at the reputations of individuals, we should back away from this rhetoric of “firing Cronin” or attacking the Elections Commission. Both should be doing a better job and deserve constructive criticism. The Commission has to stop being such a “shrinking violet” and rise to the demands of the current situation. Both the Commission and the Office should operate with greater transparency. It is the secrecy which is compounding the public’s distrust and the (sometimes) scurrilous accusations.
There is a saying among software engineers: “With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” The problems of the elections system in Hawaii will yield to solutions if enough people are able to scrutinize the system, detect the problems and brainstorm over potential solutions. People who use overblown inflamatory language to score cheap political points undermine any such process. But so do government officials who suppress public scrutiny to avoid the occasional unfair personal attack or becoming the target of an obsessed gadfly crank.
Clearly, their are laws and administrative rules which need changing, but in the meantime, let’s de-escalate the rhetoric, while opening up the process to more transparency and accountability.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Maybe you and the rest of the corporate press need to do some research Dave because Cronin’s ruling was NOT according to law
HRS 11-117 says:
A candidate may withdraw not later than 4:30 p.m. on the day immediately following the close of filing for any reason and may withdraw after the twentieth day prior to an election for reasons of ill health. When a candidate withdraws for ill health, the candidate shall give notice in writing to the chief election officer if the candidate was seeking a congressional or state office, or the candidate shall give notice in writing to the county clerk if the candidate was seeking a county seat.
So a written withdrawal is required only for reasons of health. Apparently Cronin “erred” in the matter of law by saying Caldwell’s post-filing, written withdrawal was the only “official” way to withdraw
And Decosta’s ruling was also outside the law
In a letter of challenge by Honolulu attorney Amy Mizono says
The Clerk must file a circuit court complaint whenever an objection “may” warrant disqualification
The elections statute requires the Clerk to file a complaint with the circuit court for a determination of an objection whenever the objection “may” warrant disqualification of a candidate. $ 12-8 (e), Haw. Rev. Stat. As such, the Clerk is not designed to be the final arbiter of whether a generally meritorious objection merits disqualification. Rather, the Clerk is charged with the statutory obligation to seek final determination in the circuit court whenever an objection “may” reasonably warrant disqualification.