Della’s Question of the Week #8: How many delegates should be elected to a Constitutional Convention?

13 Comments

Comment by Kaunaloa on July 3, 2008 at 7:59pm

query -- how many were at the '78 concon? 102, right? if yes, good precedent was set. if not, would be curious how they arrived at whatever other figure they did and if said figure would still be relevant. 25 & 51 is too small imo to protect against a couple single issue groups riding roughshod over "regular" folks; 76 may be acceptable, with both that and 102 each voter is getting to choose 2 delegates i suppose ...

Comment by Susan on July 5, 2008 at 11:40am

Think about the work of the ConCon. It's not done in the whole group; it's hammered out first in the small committees. If there is (for example - I think this was done in '78) one committee per article in the constitution, that's 17 committees (the 18th article was mainly housekeeping provisions). IMO you would need at least 102 members to staff the committees if each person were only on one committee (and whether that was done in 78 I don't know. 102 members would be 6 per committee. If each person were one two, that would be 12 per committee. Having members serve on 3 or more committees would be a tremendous scheduling headache.
...also, has it been decided how people will be placed on committees? What if the vast majority want to be on two committees, for example (Hawaii and Education)?

Comment by Curtis Muraoka on July 7, 2008 at 9:02pm

In '78, Hawaii was still a toddler as states go (less than 20 years old). It was the height of grassroots interest in politics: the Hawaiian Renaissance was in full swing; the Democratic Party was still in its heady salad days; 1960s hippies had grown up and settled down some--enough to enter or at least influence politics from the inside anyway.

Twenty years hence in 1998, many of these same folks were fearful of powerful special interests. Support of a Con Con was less than enthusiastic, even from some veterans of '78.

Since then, despite the fact that a Con Con was basically derailed because of union pressure, the Legislature has made many sincere inroads toward improving our constitution--but not as much as it could or should.

There are still issues that the Leg does not seem to have the political fortitude to attack in honest and candid fashion. Those very issues should be our focus in 2008.

That is why I don't think a full 102 delegate Con Con is needed at this juncture. I think it might be too unwieldy to use the Noah's Ark approach and insist on two of everyone. If you want anarchy to reign, insist on the-more-the-merrier approach.

A streamlined delegate count of 51 would lessen anonymity, force the convention to focus on a limited number of issues, yet still provide for representation of a fairly broad field.

As for special interests, with a single delegate from each representative district, the buck stops clearly at someone's feet. If your delegate sells out your interests, they will be remembered.

Comment by Kaunaloa on July 7, 2008 at 9:51pm

"If your delegate sells out your interests, they will be remembered." "If your delegate sells out your interests, they will be remembered."

i surely hope that is enough of a deterrent!

/annnnd, would you go for 76 delegates for essentially "1.5" from each district?
i surely hope that is enough of a deterrent!

/annnnd, would you go for 76 delegates for essentially "1.5" from each district?

Comment by Kaunaloa on July 7, 2008 at 9:51pm

"If your delegate sells out your interests, they will be remembered."

i surely hope that is enough of a deterrent!

/annnnd, would you go for 76 delegates for essentially "1.5" from each district?

Comment by Kaunaloa on July 7, 2008 at 9:57pm

sheesh, sorry for the screwed up double post!
:-(

Comment by Curtis Muraoka on July 9, 2008 at 2:28pm

See? Two of everything isn't always good :^>

In light of a slowing economy, and the fact that the Leg has been tinkering with the Constitution for 30 years now via session action, I think there are lots of laws that have already been tested in the streets.

I like things to be simple, as in the notion that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Or, "Too many cooks..."

Or, as it sometimes is in politics, "Too many crooks..."

51 delegates provide broad representation, without too many hands. The President of the Con Con, whoever he or she is, should be focused on steering the body toward those issues the legislature has not, and will not take on. Labor unions, the State BOE, same-sex unions, indigenous rights, gun rights, term limits, and initiative/referendum/recall come to mind.

102 delegates will muddy the waters and allow special interest to sneak in much more easily. If each district has a single delegate, each will be vetted and watched more closely by their district.

That's my take.

Comment by Della Au Belatti on July 9, 2008 at 3:52pm

Interesting observations - while I appreciate what Kaunaloa and Curtis are saying about 51 being a way to limit the effect of special interests, I'm not certain that limiting number of delegates reduces influence of special interests by not "allow[ing] them to sneak in much more easily." In fact, if there are ONLY 51 delegates, then there are only 51 elected races to concentrate on. This would mean that the financial influence or power of special interests, whether it is those pesky nefarious groups on the Right OR Left, whether local or from the mainland (please note that ALL labels are use with the utmost respect and just a bit of wry humor), will be more focused, more concentrated, more deliberately placed on only 51 races vs. a more dispersed number of races, ie. 102 races.

Secondly, Susan's comments should also be considered. Just the practical implication of having very small committees reviewing entire articles of the Constitution raises issues of thoroughness and efficiency of a ConCon. While there can often be "too many cooks in the kitchen," I'm not sure if I would want too FEW cooks to provide input to what is the basic and fundamental document that creates our government.

I have looked at a bunch of historical materials, but haven't looked specifically at how 102 was arrived at for 1978 ConCon. This would certainly be a fertile area for research!

Comment by Curtis Muraoka on July 9, 2008 at 11:30pm

Dear Rep. Belatti:

The 1968 Con Con was the model for the 1978 version, and '68 was modeled after past Con Cons, including in other states and those associated with our Founding Fathers.

The point is that no format is written in stone. There are three elements that seem to bear most consideration in deciding delegate numbers:

1) Is there even a need to Con Con? I say yes, but not to the point of broadly solidifying constitutional language, or even creating new structures, as was the case in '78. I think the effort must be focused, and therefore a smaller number than 102 seems more suitable to me.

2) Money is tight, and will get tighter. Money is a dirty topic to some, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Most opposing a Con Con have stated that it's too expensive. I believe it was Prof. Rohter who floated a hypothetical salary of $4000 per month per delegate. Add a bare bones staff, and with 51 delegates you might be able to come in under $1million for a three month payroll. Use state facilities for meetings and hearings, and that's even better. Now, if you model after the 1978 convention, you are talking Cadillac rather than practical, and the cost shoots up into territory the naysayers can use to squash approval.

And, 3) Those pesky Right/Left/Pro/Anti Special Interests nafarists. However, venues for exchanging ideas have changed drastically. This forum, as Peter has cogently pointed out, is potentially a caucus in itself. It is easier, but not easy, to spot a wolf or wolves sporting sheep disguises if the heard is small and actively shepherded, no? Not that delegates are sheep-like in the least. I just think 102 in this environment would be like herding cats.

As a policymaker, I urge you to share your insights as to why certain constitutional elements are untouchable in session, while others are freely tinkered with as needed.

I think any anti-tinkering and nefarious individuals would be cloaked in a crowd much more effectively; trying to hide in plain sight as a singular representative of his or her constituency is pretty hard.

To be perfectly candid, Hawaii voters do not pay attention as they should. A crowded field makes that worse. House and Senate races sometimes garner votes only in the hundreds. Some of these have been won by less than a handful of votes. The BOE elections are basically won via name recognition or HSTA endorsement.

Also, as I have stated above, I believe the focus of this Con Con should be to address issues that have been willfully set aside by the Legislature for the last 30 years. There are certain fundamental pieces that have remained untouched due to powerful lobbies.

I'm advocating minimally invasive surgery because the patient, our Constitution, is not gravely ill. A little nip here, and a tuck there, lance a couple of boils, and She's good to go until the next Con Con opportunity in 2018.

Comment by Kaunaloa on July 10, 2008 at 6:11pm

i see very well reasoned points for 51 and for 102. i'll raise this one more time -- would 76 thus be a workable "1/2 a loaf" compromise?

• 1
• 2

Add a Comment