It’s no surprise that the Hawai’i Democratic Party came out strongly against holding a Constitutional Convention for the first time since 1978, a question that voters will decide in the general election.

What’s not to like about the status quo if you’re a political partisan with a “D” after your name?

Local Democrats are thriving in an environment of low voter turnout and campaign financing laws that border on legalized bribery.

The party controls 44 of the 51 seats in the state House and 21 of the 25 Senate seats, with some 40 percent of incumbent Democratic legislators running unopposed for re-election and most of the rest facing grossly under-financed challengers.

The Democratic Party and public employee unions have become an inseparable political force — and it’s not necessarily the politicians calling the shots.

It’s obviously a sweet deal that enables Democratic politicians, the unions and other lobbying friends to take care of their every desire, but it’s equally obvious that the lack of competition and accountability doesn’t serve the broader public interest.

It should be Job No. 1 of a ConCon, if there is one, to level the political playing field, make public office more accessible to competing ideas and engage turned-off voters who find no reason to participate anymore in a system stacked to keep power in the same hands.

The Democrats argue unconvincingly that the state Constitution was intended to be a stable document that should seldom be changed. If that was the case, the people who wrote it wouldn’t have required that voters be asked every 10 years whether to hold a ConCon.

The Democrats’ heavy-handed opposition to a ConCon, which includes a ridiculous estimate by the Legislative Reference Bureau that it could cost $41 million, may well backfire.

Sometimes you can  tell a lot about the merits of a proposition by who it scares the most.

I tuned into last night’s debate among the three leading candidates for Honolulu mayor expecting to find a lot of snarky things to say, but could see little to criticize as all three made valid cases for themselves and left voters a lot to think about before the Sept. 20 primary election.

The first thing you saw when the camera opened up on the Hawai’i Theater was a guy whipping up audience applause, and I didn’t care for the cheering — and occasional jeering — by partisans that interrupted nearly every sentence.

But once you got past that, the questions from panelists, the audience, viewers and the candidates themselves were mostly sharp and the  answers by Mayor Mufi Hannemann, Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi and engineering professor Panos Prevedouros were mostly on point, informed and well-spoken.

Kobayashi attacked Hannemann for his leadership style, charging that he’s shown little courage, integrity or results. “I see blame, bullying and excuses,” she said, accusing him of “lies and misinformation” on rail transit.

Prevedouros, known mostly for his opposition to rail, hit Hannemann’s proposed line from Kapolei to Honolulu as grossly expensive, environmentally unfriendly and unlikely to reduce traffic.

But he also stressed that his civil engineering experience can help the city solve its problems with sewage, refuse and land-use planning, saying, “Infrastructure is my strength; infrastructure is the city’s weakness.”

Hannemann mostly didn’t rise to the criticism, sticking to answering the questions and highlighting his policies on rail, infrastructure, public safety and sustainability during his first term.

But toward the end, he invoked the memory of his late parents to scold Kobayashi for calling him a bully, saying, “You bring dishonor to my parents. My parents raised me … to be honorable, to be honest, to treat everybody fairly.”

Kobayashi didn’t back down, listing some personal criticisms the mayor has made against her and noting,  “I’m sure my parents are not happy either.”

In the end, this election will come down to whether voters approve of Hannemann’s style and his rail plan, and polls indicate he’s OK on both fronts.

Kobayashi and Prevedouros are at a tremendous disadvantage because of their late starts after Hannemann had already raised $1.5 million.

But win or lose, they deserve our thanks for giving voters a choice and sparing us the first Honolulu mayoral election in modern times in which the incumbent faced no credible opposition.

Voters who missed it can still see the debate on the Advertiser or KGMB Web sites.
***
In my column in the Opinion section of today’s Advertiser, “For true reform, voters must turn to ConCon,” I continue my Quixotic attempt to pump some air into the discussion of a Constitutional Convention.

Kudos to the League of Women Voters of Hawai’i for trying to get a discussion going on a Constitutional Convention with a workshop and excellent resources on its Web site.

The question of whether to call Hawai’i’s first ConCon in 30 years will be on the general election ballot, as required by the state Constitution, but there’s been eerily little public discussion amid all the clamor about rail transit.

This is a once-in-a-decade opportunity for a close look at the structure of the state government, and we owe ourselves a good talk on the matter whether we’re for a ConCon or against.

The League of Women Voters, which opposed a ConCon last time around but is neutral this year, is holding its workshop Sept. 6 from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in the state Capitol auditorium.

Co-sponsors are the Hawaii Institute for Public Affairs and the Richardson School of Law, and speakers include constitutional experts Robert F. Williams, Anne Feder Lee and Jon Van Dyke.

You can get details at the league’s Web site. The league also has an excellent report from its study committee on the pros and cons of holding a ConCon and a hypertext copy of the Constitution.

A month ago, the question of whether or not to call Hawai’i’s first Constitutional Convention in 30 years seemed the hottest local issue likely to be on the November ballot, with Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann and other incumbent office-holders seemingly cruising to re-election with little opposition.

Now, the mayor’s races in Honolulu, Kaua’i and the Big Island are all hotly competitive, there are interesting council races around the state and it seems increasingly likely that a rail transit question will be on the O’ahu ballot.

ConCon has slipped into the background and the discussion has gone nearly silent, raising the question of whether its prospects are improved or diminished in an election that is suddenly generating excitement elsewhere.

A hot-button rail initiative, especially, would draw away attention and resources that otherwise would have gone into advocacy for or against a ConCon.

My guess is that while the new developments may mean a quieter ConCon debate, they may well increase the chances that enough voter support will materialize to call a Constitutional Convention.

According to the Advertiser’s Hawai’i Poll, partisans on both sides of the rail dispute agree by a good majority that voters should get a say on the matter, a strong showing of support for direct participatory democracy that could transfer to the ConCon question.

The embarrassing fumbling by elections officials on qualifying candidates at the filing deadline seems to be increasing the sense that something is wrong with our political system that needs to be fixed.

Whether or not a ConCon is the sexiest issue on the ballot, it remains one of the most important things we’ll decide this year.

Groups like HawaiiConCon.org will have to find ways to keep a vibrant discussion going — not only on whether to call a ConCon, but how it should be set up to assure a true citizens’ convention and not a gathering of the status quo.

The excellent study group to be chaired by Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona should settle any arguments over the potential costs of a Constitutional Convention if voters decide to call one in the November election.

Legislative Democrats, who are generally skeptical of a ConCon, this session ordered the Legislative Reference Bureau to study the costs.

But Gov. Linda Lingle, who favors the first comprehensive review of the Hawai’i Constitution in 30 years, formed the competing Aiona group after accusing legislators of attempting to run up ConCon costs and turn voters against it by gold-plating its study parameters for salaries, staff, facilities, election costs and voter education.

Aiona took the high road and appointed a balanced 10-member study group that should give voters a fair picture of the range of potential ConCon expenses.

The administration is well-represented by Attorney General Mark Bennett, Comptroller Russ Saito and Budget Director Georgina Kawamura, but so are legislative Democrats with Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser and veteran Rep. Joe Souki, who will make sure the panel doesn’t lowball convention costs.

The group is rounded out by House Minority Leader Lynn Finnegan, Republican Sen. Gordon Trimble, Pi‘ilani Kaopuiki of the League of Women Voters, Kaipo Lum of the Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce and the state’s Chief Elections Officer Kevin Cronin.

It’s difficult to imagine such a diverse group spinning the outcome to favor one side or the other in the ConCon debate, and House and Senate leaders should save taxpayers a few bucks and call off the Legislative Reference Bureau and its far more limited study that can only pale in comparison.

Bowing out. Sorry to see that Waimanalo Rep. Tommy Waters won’t seek re-election after three terms to devote himself to raising his family and earning a living.

Waters was Judiciary chairman in the last Legislature, a post that tends to handle a lot of high-profile controversial issues and has eaten up more than one chairman. He got the job at a relatively inexperienced stage of his legislative career and sometimes seemed in a bit over his head.

But he appeared honest and real in his dealings, always saying what was on his mind. It would have been interesting to see how he grew into the job.