Insights on PBS Hawaiʻi is sponsored by Carlsmith Ball.

Aloha State Daily and the University of Hawaiʻi Cancer Center.

General election ballots have been mailed, and besides candidates, voters will also be deciding on proposed amendments.

This year, there are only two statewide constitutional amendments, but each county has its own charter amendments, including 20 questions for Honolulu voters.

The issues range from food security to government modernization and Native Hawaiian and cultural stewardship.

Tonight's live broadcast and live stream of insights on PBS Hawaiʻi.

Start now.

Aloha and welcome to insights on PBS Hawaiʻi.

I'm Daryl Huff.

In this year's general elections, voters have the chance to weigh in on several amendment proposals that could have a lasting impact on the way why is governed?

There are two proposed changes to the state constitution, eight charter proposals for Maui County and one each for the Big Island and Kauaʻi County voters.

Oʻahu voters will have to decipher a whopping 20 proposals.

Our panel tonight will analyze some of them before you cast a yes or no or a blank vote.

We look forward to your participation in tonight's show.

You can email or call in your questions, and you'll find a live stream of this program at PBS and the PBS Hawai'i YouTube page.

Now to our guests.

Jacob Aki is on the Honolulu Charter Commission.

The 13 member volunteer body is appointed by the Mayor and City Council every ten years, and determines which proposals appear on the ballot.

Camron Hurt is the Hawaiʻi state director at Common Cause Hawaiʻi, a nonpartisan organization that aims to curb the excess influence of money in politics and promote fair and honest elections.

Judith Mills-Wong is the president of the League of Women Voters of Hawaiʻi.

The Nonpartizan political organization works to empower voters and defend democracy through education and advocacy and Colin Moore is a political analyst and the director of the Matsunaga Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution, as well as an associate professor at the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization.

Now we're going to start off.

Let's talk first about the two state constitutional amendments.

Colin, can you go over the very first one, or whoever wants to explain this?

Number one, question number one, it looks complicated, but it's actually got a fairly simple.

Yeah, it's pretty simple.

So this is about judicial appointees, and it's about extending the time for the Senate to appoint from 30 days to 60 days when they're not in session.

And basically this would probably mean they'd have to call fewer special sessions, might save a little bit of money.

I think if you're looking for a counterargument, it's that there might be judicial vacancies for a little bit longer.

My read is that this isn't terribly controversial.

It's probably a good fix in many ways.

It's it's a little bit of a clean up amendment.

I'm sure the senators are very much for this.

You know, the only pushback I've heard at all is that you might have longer times with more judicial vacancies and any other points to make on that one.

If not, we can move on because we've only got an hour.

I think Colin covered it well.

Okay.

Constitutional amendment proposal number two.

We'll put this graphic up and we'll talk about it, because this is the one that is all over TV.

Shall the Hawaiʻi state Constitution be amended to direct the legislature, to authorize the counties to issue resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity bonds, to fund public improvements in designated districts repaid solely by future growth in property tax revenues within those districts, not by increasing real property tax rates where such bonds are excluded from the county's debt limit and are subject to accountability and oversight requirements as may be provided by law.

That's absolutely clear.

Crystal clear.

The problem Judith Wong with League of Women Voters, you have been, educating folks on these things.

Tell me, what is this about?

And we've seen a lot of and all of you can weigh in on this.

We've seen a lot of television ads about it, which don't seem to represent exactly what this is for.

I would agree with that last part.

A RISE Bond essentially is paid, is guaranteed and paid back by the growth of the things that are being built for it, whereas other bonds are paid back through general obligation through all of our taxes.

So if you're going to issue a bond, it makes a lot of sense to issue it as a rise bond rather than as a general obligation bond.

So the question is not, at least to my thinking, is not whether you use a rise bond or general obligation, but whether you feel that it's worthy to issue debt to improve our infrastructure.

And I think a lot of people would agree that we could use that.

Our first question is in our ready, and one thing that I want to remind the viewers is we are we have a certain number of highlights from this list that we're going to go through that we're planning to go through.

But if you look at your ballot and you've got a question about a particular charter amendment on your island or on Oʻahu, and you'd like us to talk about it, call in and we will try and explain it as best we can.

So just to the viewers, if you have a question about a particular question, give us a holler.

And to the volunteers.

Good luck with that.

Jacob Aki your own perspective on on this particular amendment.

What's it for, though?

What's it supposed to do?

Yeah.

You know, I think it's a very creative way in looking at how do we fund some of these infrastructure projects.

I mean, as many of us know, the city has not not just the city, but the counties have a limited revenue stream, right?

There isn't a lot of mechanisms in which the city can bring in revenue, as you know, as compared to the state.

So this gives an opportunity for the counties to really get this access to additional funding or these bonds, so that infrastructure can be greatly improved.

I mean, when we look at some of our rural areas, not just on this island, but when you look at the rural areas on some of the neighbor islands, I mean, you know, infrastructure is a major issue that state and county lawmakers are getting calls every single day about.

So, you know, while I don't necessarily have a particular position on this one, I do think it is a creative way of really looking at how do we get money so that these infrastructures can be improved and the quality of life overall for our local residents can really get there.

Camron Hurt, Common Cause the first part of this question, I've seen a lot of ads which probably cost a lot of money.

What's your impression about why there's so much money being spent to promote this?

Oh, you say the word development and dollars come running in this state.

You say housing and dollars come running in a campaign season.

Now, where that money goes after a campaign season, I don't know, because we've had a housing crisis for a decade.

But I think that you're seeing so much money behind this because it's really bringing in so many different sectors of the state from not just the politicians, but also bringing in certain unions that stand to really be able to provide more work for their membership and possibly more revenue for their overall businesses.

Yeah.

I should point out that the organization that is behind the PAC is once again the Carpenters Union Market Recovery Fund and PRP, the same people who are behind the for a Better tomorrow.

And they have a lot of names, don't they.

They, they but it's a specific to an issue.

So they had to create a different PAC.

But a lot of that money is coming from them.

Colin, why do you think they have to spend so much money?

There are so many ads.

That's an incredible amount of money.

They haven't had to report yet how much they're spending, but it's definitely a million plus.

Yeah, yeah, it's a good question.

I mean this the rise bonds are tax increment financing, which is what this is really known as isn't all that controversial.

I mean, it passed unanimously out of the Senate.

A lot of progressive groups, a lot of builders are for this.

I mean, you kind of have a wide spectrum of folks who believe in this and think it's a good idea.

It's used throughout a lot of municipalities.

But I think the reason there's been so much spending is because this is a constitutional amendment, which means it needs a majority of all ballots.

And so those blank ballots, if people see this and they see words like taxes and bonds and they don't quite understand what this means, they might just leave it blank.

And I think that's been the concern for not just the carpenters, but for some of the politicians who support this.

The governor, I believe the mayor, have supported this because they're worried people are going to see this and leave it blank.

And so they want everyone to understand it.

So they vote for it.

Now, of course, Camron's right.

I mean, they have their own economic reasons, therefore this as well.

But I think the campaign for what, something that's relatively uncontroversial is because they need folks to understand it.

So they vote yes and don't leave their ballots blank.

Jacob, you know, you've been involved with a lot of different political and also business interests.

Give me a specific example of a something that might use this.

I mean, I know that for the stadium redevelopment project, that was one of the things that were talked about.

Yeah.

You know, I think when, when, when we look at a lot of the issues and, you know, as someone who's worked at the state legislature at at the state leg, I mean, some of the calls we get are or many of them are related to things like road infrastructure, water infrastructure, sewer.

You know, when we talk about infrastructure, let's I always feel like I have to explain infrastructure.

So if you're going to build a building, you need to make sure there's water that gets there.

You need to be sure there's there's wastewater, you need to make sure there's electricity and all this stuff.

And historically, Hawaiʻi has required the developers to front that cost, which is the most expensive.

I mean, you know, some of the cause, you know, we would get would be about, you know, the need to really improve these infrastructures, but what doesn't get talked about or that we're not talking much about is that when you put when you when you put a development project, you know, forward the most expensive part isn't the actual building of the structure.

It is installing infrastructure.

It's it's making sure that infrastructure is, you know, put in place.

And I think that's something that needs to be talked about more, because when you're putting a new development project in a community that may not be linked to some of these infrastructure lines, like that is a huge cost, right?

So I think those are then that's where we see many of the labor unions in strong support of this, because not only is it going to provide quality jobs for their members and and for their workers, but it's really critical because without a solid infrastructure, you know, we're not going to be able to build the communities and address the housing needs that we want to meet.

You know, Judith Wong, the you agreed with me about my statement about the ads talk a lot about potholes and flood damage and so on.

That's not exactly what this is for.

This is for new developments to help people build new developments.

Right.

As I understand it, yes, it would be for new or expanded sections of development.

And Colin, what's the other side of this story?

I mean, look, the other side is that if you do this form of bond financing, then you increase property taxes that result from having this new infrastructure, getting in a new building, go to pay back the bond, and you can't use that money for something else.

It just it's less flexible.

And I think that maybe there's some fear that, you know, the increased property taxes that you expect don't materialize and then you have a hard time paying back the bond.

I don't think that's likely to happen.

I've been told that that ends up being on the developer somehow.

Maybe.

I'm not sure.

Maybe so.

I mean, that's not quite my understanding, but no matter what, I think that the real objection to this might be that there's less flexibility, that those property taxes that could go back to the city now are going to be dedicated to repaying this bond.

But this isn't novel either.

Like Colin said earlier, other states do this almost all the other.

Right, right.

And I would say almost to even the money of it.

All right, is maybe there's a missed opportunity here because what what could have been done if PAC organizations were able to bring in local grassroots organizations to also help carry that message.

We know they have the funding to bring them in.

So on something that I think there's a lot of synergy in the state with on something that I think the main concern is getting people to vote on the ballot measure, not leave it blank.

I think that it's a missed opportunity, that that money wasn't invested to kind of bring in and make this a full community effort.

There would have probably been a lot more positive feelings around this in their surety.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks that possibly all the money that's being spent heavy makes people, like, suspicious.

There's something something wrong.

It does?

Yes.

People say that all the time.

And you are the company you keep, right?

So if you were.

People are suspicious of your money, you're not bringing in local grassroots organizations that they trust and they know the faces of to make them feel better.

These questions are just going to fester until next election.

It's also interesting that there's their strategy was sort of a generalized fix the roads, fix the fix all the broken stuff that we complain about all the time.

But now it's every mayor staying there and saying, hey, we need this, we need this, we need this.

So it's like in a way, they have at least expanded out from just sort of dark and fancy adds to.

But I think it's a messaging thing.

I think when you look at the root or you really look at the meat of what this is trying to do, it's a very complex issue, right?

So if you were to try to put that out in the media, out on a commercial.

People aren't going to understand it.

Right.

So while it may be a little bit misleading in the terms of the type of infrastructure that this money could be used for.

I mean, when you look at or when you talk to people, when you talk to them about infrastructure, it's things like potholes and sewer lines, right?

So while it may be a little misleading, so I think it's really a grabber that's going to get old because because when you tell somebody that this money is going to be improving these things, of course I'm going to want to fix the pothole, you know, on the road.

Yeah.

But also in an era where, like what Jacob said is 100% true, I just worry that in an era where people are so intense about trusting their government, you know, to quote the adjective, you ain't got a lot to kick it.

If it's for new development, then just put that in the ad.

We'll support that.

If it's for potholes and say that because what's going to happen is potholes ain't going to get fixed and Cali and I'm going to be upset that I have to keep changing my moped tires.

That's a fair, fair comment.

Okay, let's move on to the charter amendments.

Jacob, you are our resident expert on these.

A number of them have seem to have very specific purposes.

So number one, I think we have a graphic of this one, and I will read it and I will try and read it faster without stumbling, which is not my strongest skill.

Should the charter require annual funding for a food security fund without having to simultaneously increase real property tax rates, to fund the appropriation, to support programs and grants that provide locally grown or produced food to a Wahoo residents, as well as non-local food.

Only in an emergency.

And I think the Second Amendment also talks about, Oh no, I'm sorry.

The first is food security.

Security?

Yeah, yeah.

So what what does this change and what does this mean?

Why should people vote for.

Yeah.

You know, you know, early on in this process, we went out to every single council district to talk to voters and talk to the community about what are the issues that they hope that the Charter Commission would work on.

And food security was one of those issues that came to the top every single time.

You know, people came to us talking about how they need access to food and that, you know, food and the ability to get it is something that is super important to them.

And so the Charter Commission heard that, and we were looking at ways of how can we address that issue, recognizing that it will take all of government approach to really address this, but within the confines of what the city can do, what could we do?

We looked at it, you know, and, you know, I, I want to shout out the Hawaiʻi food Bank who really brought this idea forward.

You know, to really look at how do we create a special fund for this?

The city has a number of special funds, but how do we we create a special fund using property tax revenue without increasing property taxes, so that there could be money from the county level that could help fund, you know, some of these things.

And, you know, when we did some of the early, you know, looks, you know, at this, I mean, this fund could create up to 8 to $9 million of funding for this and, well, 8 to 9 million.

What exactly what kind of things would it fund?

Could you be a little more specific about a food bank or a. Yeah, I mean, this would provide the program.

So it would, you know, we are just creating the fund.

It would be up to the city administration to figure out how they would administer those funds.

But what we're doing is this charter amendment is creating that mechanism to have that access to that pot of money.

So, you know, 6 to $9 million, that doesn't seem like a whole lot.

It's something that the city is doing, and it's more than what the city is currently doing.

Like I said, this amendment isn't going to solve the food insecurity issues by itself, but I think it moves a needle a little bit and puts the city's skin, the skin into the game.

You know, as they look to address this, this particular issue.

Okay.

Any other comments about this?

I mean, there are other funds like this.

There's a fund that we use to fund the zoo.

I mean, if you're concerned about it, I mean, one one possible objection is, is that it just creates less flexibility.

So you're moving from 2.5% of property tax revenue being allocated in these funds to 3%.

If this passes, and it just means the council can't decide they want to do something else with that money.

This money is dedicated for food security.

So by voting for this, voters are essentially saying, we feel like this is also an important priority to put ahead of other city priorities.

And they're saying we're also funding our future.

Yes.

We're not waiting to be reactive.

We're going to be proactive.

Yeah.

And I just want to shout out, you know, when we were doing this and we were looking at this, we had Campbell High School students who came to us there in spring break, and they took time out of their spring break to come to the commission to talk about how important this was to them, because they had classmates that they knew the only good meal they got was when they went to school, and that something like this would provide their classmates the opportunity to have food.

And that was something that was very moving.

Many of us were very moved by then.

That's why we chose to put this as the number one ballot question, because not just as a city, but as the charter commission.

We heard that this was one of the top issues, and we wanted to make it a. So you made it number one because you felt it was the most important of all.

We had not just the food bank, but we had schools, we had community groups, we had agriculture, you know, folks coming out in strong support of this.

And I think the last part of the question is that what it also does is it provides funding for food during a emergency.

We saw how many people needed food during the Covid 19 pandemic.

And what this does is it opens up resources and local and it's, of course, local food.

For the most part.

There is that proviso at the end that, you know, during a during a emergency, they could purchase food from elsewhere.

But what this also does is it's also prioritizing buying local.

Interesting.

Okay.

Let's move on.

We're now almost 20 minutes into this and we've got a lot more to go through.

So I'm not trying to cut cut short, but yeah.

Number two, should the charter be required to replace its preamble with language recognizing the relationship between the people of the city and County of Honolulu and the ʻāina honoring the wisdom of kūpuna and the legacy of Prince Jonah Kūhiō Colony, and affirming commitments to transparent, accountable government and stewardship of natural, civic, and cultural resources.

I will let you go first.

Yeah.

Explain it simple.

You know, we had a large number of community members from the community came out who felt that the preamble of our of our city's charter was really outdated.

One of the conversations we had was when you look at the United States Constitution, it was written by a bunch of white guys in the in 1776.

So that, you know, these documents are our governing documents and their living documents.

And some of the conversations we had was that they felt that it should be updated, particularly calling out and giving a nod to why the county systems were created in the first place.

The city or the county systems was created by Prince Kūhiō to give home rule power back to the Native Hawaiian communities following the overthrow.

So when you look at the early days of the City and County of Honolulu, we had Royalist mayors John Lane, John Wilson and Mayor Fern.

Right.

So what this does is it gives a kind of a honor to that, recognizing the native Hawaiians, as, you know, the culture stewards and the and the indigenous peoples of this place.

But it also calls out some of the other priorities that have been, you know, you know, really the basically ethical government.

So really, it's it's an effort to to provide an update to this living document.

Everybody feel like that's going to be helpful.

Do we need to go any further than that long overdue.

Okay.

All right.

So number three is we view resources.

This is actually more significant than it reads.

It almost sounds like oh let's let's acknowledge, you know, Native Hawaiian resources.

But actually there's actual functions of city government that are affected by this.

Like it's rearranging things that are slow to move.

You've been looking at this.

How do you explain this to people?

Well, you're correct that there are many of these functions that they're talking about are already being done in the city, but the ring done by various different groups, and this would pull it all together, would create an office and would be responsible for the but also the cultural enhancement goes right along with the second one that we just talked about, about recognizing, acknowledge, and and making available and supporting the Hawaiian culture.

It it would be a little bit of expense because they would create an office, there would be staff, there would be administrative costs, etc.. But this is Hawaiʻi and this this is who we are.

You know, you just got a question from Benjamin right on this point and let me bounces off of Colin.

And also Jacob, how much would the city budget have to grow if these charter amendments passed?

They seem well-intended, but were potential costs considered?

You know, here's one where there is a new office formed.

I think there might be another couple that have some some implications.

Where do you think this will put people if they think that something's going to cost more money?

Do you think that you're going to have people that are say, I don't want government to be any bigger?

Sure.

There's absolutely going to be some people who have that attitude.

I mean, who will not want to support any expansion of city offices.

And, I mean, this would be a legitimate concern with this particular question, because you don't want to create an office and then not provide resources and staffing to make it effective.

You don't want to set up expectations that can't be met with the right resources.

And there have been other offices and other counties and this one that haven't been provided those resources.

I'm not convinced that would happen in this case at all.

I think this would probably get the resources that needed to be effective.

But, you know, in terms of what all of these are going to cost, I don't I don't really have a good sense of that.

I mean, a lot of this will be down to the council to decide how much money there, you know, I mean, we got that question and I think, you know, when it comes for this particular one, I mean, when we all know that the city has dozens and dozens of vacant positions that are funded within the budget, right?

So I'm sure the council will take a look at those vacant positions and how they would be able to rearrange to allocate funding for this to.

Right.

So, you know, what we're doing at the Charter Commission is we're putting this idea forward to the voters.

They vote on it, then we give it to the city council members and the mayor, whose job is to figure out how to abide by the charter.

You know, good question.

From how can I on this particular question, can the State Historic Preservation Division oversee county projects to eliminate redundancy?

I think that we've all heard about how these layers of of regulations affect the ability to get a permit to get get going with construction.

And I think that what this is getting to is I mean, let me ask that question of you.

Do you think that this actually might streamline a few things because you've got multiple offices involved with this?

Yeah.

I mean, to that particular question, I don't think shifty could oversee this.

I mean, really manages at the state level.

And what this does is it's, you know, this doesn't mandate that, you know, the permanent process.

Go through the Office of Resources, what this does, and I think, you know, as was just shared, is that, you know, a lot of these things happen in different departments, often without coordination or even any visibility.

What this office does is it really looks at the, you know, the issues that matter to the scope, you know, and, you know, really tries to coordinate work and conversation beat between the two.

I think, you know, this was also modeled after the Maui County, who several years ago had their own charter amendment that created the Department of Resources and Management.

And they've been a critical player in the rebuilding of West Maui after the fires.

And they've really been able to help, you know, engage with community, engage with these different sectors to really talk about how we want to restore this community.

And, you know, in a way that is manageable, that is respectful to culture values.

And it's been very successful in that county.

Okay.

Eric and Kailua asks, is there any place we could go online to read each of these questions on our own time to give them proper consideration?

There is many places you can go.

So city council, charter Commission, you'll find all of the original proposals.

You'll find this booklet that is online, but this booklet is also available at every single voter service center and every single library on this island.

And also there's the PBS Hawai'i page.

Yes.

I simply wanted to add on to the pitch for the the actual official site that you can actually go and read the text of the of the charter changes that would be there and all of the testimony pro and con.

And you should do that right before bedtime, I think.

Yeah.

And if you're just scrolling, you go to common cause h I on Instagram and we have each one broken down with perceived pros and cons, and this program will be posted in the PBS YouTube page and also on PBS Hawaiʻi.

And there have been a number of podcasts and other programs that Colin and I are associated with that you can find.

And if I could just say one one other thing.

I mean, I think one of the unique things about our charter process, one of the strengths is that it does go through this vetting process.

The commission that Jacob was on considers these very carefully.

They hear testimony, they vote.

We started with 294, submissions.

And, you know, we took the past year to take those 294 and will it it down to 20.

So while I do agree 20 is a lot, it's better than 294 that was submitted by the public.

Okay.

And also, I also heard from another commissioner who told me this is actually the same number of charter 16 that were ten years ago.

So it's not like you guys went crazy or anything.

What does he mean?

Is native or, you know, of this land?

Okay, okay.

Now I'm now ready to go to question five.

Are we to question five?

That was question.

Oh, no question.

For is the, the creation of the LGBTQ I a plus commission established to advise the mayor, council and city agencies on matters affecting the LGBTQ.

I a plus community and recommend policies, programs and legislations promoting social, economic and political equity.

I just covered a story again about a commission accused of being discriminatory toward a gay bar.

Is that the root of this kind of thing, or is there a broader thing in mind?

I think it's broader.

You know, we heard from our LGBTQ community that, you know, they really wanted a you know, we have a similar body at the state level, but, you know, a body at the county level to kind of do the same thing, to advise, you know, and to ensure that there is equity, you know, at city government, you know, a lot of employees.

So making sure that, you know, the programing, you know, and kind of what's being done at that level, you know, is, is is equitable and is inclusionary.

Do you folks think that this is basically going to be sort of a litmus test, though, for folks who may not like the idea of equal treatment?

No, I don't see why it should be.

Nobody's asking you.

Do you agree with marriage?

Nobody's asking you to agree with adoption.

People are asking you, do you just agree that everybody deserves humanity?

And just to be looked at as human in the most basic way?

There have been many, identity commissions throughout time in this nation, in this state.

So this isn't anything new.

And unfortunately, we live in a world where we have to take in our LGBTQ plus community's protections.

There are things happening that I never thought would happen as a millennial.

And Hawaiʻi has a very rich history of being a leader, and I think, you know, keeping on that.

And just like Jacob said, this already exists on a state level, so why not bring it to the county?

I would point out that if this is in the charter, we currently have a an administration that is supportive of these values, but we might not always have one.

And if it is in the charter, we have committed to these values and at least leagues certainly supports equity and inclusion.

And I think this is one of the reasons to consider this amendment.

It's an interesting point that that values are part of the conversation as opposed to just the mechanics of government.

Yeah.

And that's the nature of a charter document.

I mean, this is the city's constitution.

There are values embedded in the US Constitution.

I mean, we the people being the most famous.

And so I think that's that's part of this.

That's why some symbolic language, I think, is really important to include in a document like this.

Okay, so here's a probably the most challenging one in the list of city charter amendments.

Question five election reform beginning in 2032.

So two more election cycles.

Should the city use ranked choice voting to elect the mayor, city council and prosecuting attorney?

Those are literally all the city and county's elected officials, allowing voters to rank candidates in the order they prefer first, second, third, etc.

in a single November election.

This is a nationwide sort of thing happening.

Colin, how is that?

How would that work?

It sounds a little confusing.

I think a lot of people do find this confusing.

So this is how it would work, that if there are more than one candidate running the if there was between 2 to 5, the election would happen in November.

There was more than that than we would have a primary.

And you would whittle that, whittle the large number of candidates down to five, who then would appear in November and the November ballot.

You would rank those candidates one, two, three, four, five.

Depending on your ranking, one candidate would end up with a majority winner.

So the candidate who gets the fewest first place votes then would drop out.

And the and of those of the votes that went for that candidate people, those votes would be reallocated to the candidate who was ranked number two.

And that would continue happening until one of those candidates got a majority.

So the idea here is that there are no wasted votes.

That's one of the most important principles about ranked choice voting that everyone, even if your favorite candidate drops off, you still have some say.

Now, we already do a runoff system here in Hawaiʻi, so it doesn't solve some of the problems that when you read about ranked choice voting folks are worried about in a traditional plurality election, to my mind, one of the most important things this would do would be to shift the major decision point to November.

So right now we end up with two candidates during the first election, the primary in August, and then we vote on the top two in November.

And so this would mean that because more people participate in November, more people would be participating in the election in the most important election.

I hope I explained that a little bit.

I've seen I've seen sample ballots in this where you have all the candidates names and then you have a sort of a one, two, three, four.

However, many candidates are the top and you would fill out your ballot the same way.

You're not going to write one next to somebody's name.

And two, it's literally boxes.

So it can be read by it's scanned by a computer in the same way as we scan our ballots now.

And this process of this and this and this, it happens kind of automated like all at once, right.

What was the thinking of why why would you propose such a massive change like that.

What's the what's the positive and negatives of it.

Yeah.

You know, I think, you know, you know, some of the arguments that we heard was, you know, this would, you know, potentially increase voter turnout.

It would, you know, it would really lessen the advantage that some feel that the current incumbents have.

To be honest, I was I was probably the only commission that actually voted against this coming to the ballot.

And I think there's pros and cons.

I think as Colin mentioned, I think, you know, you know, the city already does have a, a runoff.

And I think the issue isn't getting people to vote.

I mean, sure, I mean to in extent it really is.

I think it's getting good candidates to run.

And I think, you know, one of the reasons why I voted in opposition to this is that, you know, I hear the benefits of how ranked choice voting can help candidates run.

But our political, electoral system and our guidelines are not set up to do that.

Candidates.

You know, one of the things that I heard from folks is, oh, you know, candidates can run a, you know, as a slate.

Currently, campaign spending law does not allow candidates to run as a slate.

Right.

So there's a number of different policy changes I think would need to be made to really maximize the benefit of this.

I see the benefit.

I hear the benefit.

You know, but I think, you know, there's still a lot more work in policy changes that needs to be done so that we can effectively, you know, implement this.

I'm I'm glad that I think it gives a longer lead time for the education, because I think as Colin was trying to explain this, I was confused.

But at the end of the day, I also think from a candidate's perspective, going to a single election in November and as someone who ran for the city council, myself, as someone who has worked on several political campaigns, this makes campaigning more expensive because now you have a longer runway.

So now to really be competitive, you have to be in the race longer.

You're going to have to raise more money to get your name out there, to spend more money to lose, and you have to spend more money to lose.

But I think at the end of the day, you know, when I also look at this.

I have a fear that the populist candidates are going to win, and sometimes the populist candidates are not the best candidates.

And what what we've seen in this country and what we've seen in some of our local, elections, I just fear that, you know, we are actually going to yes, we're going to allow more people to run, which I am totally supportive of.

But sometimes, you know, just because you have the name recognition, I think to a certain extent, this might actually, really, exacerbate that particular issue, especially in some races where you have high profile candidates running, I think both common cause and have taken a position on this system.

Right.

Camron?

You first.

Why do you think it's good?

I think I mean, I think we've heard theories about why it's good and what can be problematic.

Let's just reality.

Look at our last, county council race with a with Tommy Waters ranked choice, voting would have solved that.

Ranked choice voting would have given people a clear what's going to happen next.

Nobody would have been wondering, are we going to have a special election?

What's going to happen to his votes?

People literally got on.

Let's use that.

Go ahead.

Let me just ask you use that particular election.

There were four candidates in the primary.

Correct.

It was Tommy Waters.

Trevor Ozawa.

I'm sorry, I don't remember both of the other two names, but Gregory.

Terrible.

Gregory.

And there was that one more.

I forget his name.

Me, too.

He's a male.

Yeah, a lot of people forgot his name.

Nice guy though.

He was a city worker, a hard working guy.

I don't want to discount him, but.

But how would that work for candidates?

One guy who was the incumbent.

Another guy.

Right.

Let's just.

Yeah, let's use live examples.

And hopefully this cures confusion.

So if you're familiar with what happened in the city Council race, if you had voted for Tommy Waters, let's say that was your first vote, you would have also selected a second and third vote only second and third.

Doesn't matter.

There are four people running second and third vote only.

So let's say you would have voted for candidate B, and then candidate C Tommy Waters gets pulled out of the race because of a Supreme Court ruling, a state Supreme Court ruling.

He goes away.

No longer is your vote wasted.

No longer do you feel like your vote didn't count, because what's factored in is what was your second vote, who was your second choice?

And then that person gets the benefit of that vote so that you have a more clear, concise winner.

So that's probably like the easiest way to use it, using a real context that we've been in.

Really funny.

One of the things interesting about that though, if you had the election in November, maybe there would have been time to clear up, maybe there would have been ballot and maybe there would have been time.

Let me what is the I think it's kind of an unusual situation that hopefully we don't facing for a while anyway.

But I'm not going to I got usual things happen here.

A lot of with our current system, you can win an election with just 40% of the vote, which means 60% of the people voted against you.

But with ranked choice voting, you can only be elected if you get 50 plus one.

So for one thing, it gets to the point that you have to convince the voters enough of the voters that you are the person that they would accept.

Okay, so that's one part of it.

They the second part of it is the idea that if you sometimes candidates choose not to run because they don't want to be a spoiler, they don't want to be the person who pulls votes from the electable candidate.

You can think Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in this kind of situation, or many of the national elections in that way.

So this says if you run as a spoiler, you have an idea, you want to get it across.

You want people to vote for you for that idea.

You still will be in the race and that idea will be there.

And even if you don't win, it carries over to another candidate.

One of the reasons that league pushes for this nationally and and is backs it a lot is at least theoretically.

And the American Bar Association has done some studies that show it's more than theoretical.

It brings the temperature down on the campaigning, less negative campaigning, less negative campaigning, because you want to get those second and third votes.

And we certainly have gotten into a situation where nationally and locally races are getting there's some very nasty voting out there.

And so to our thinking, there is a real advantage to being able to put candidates in a position where they need to think cooperatively as well as just I want to be the first candidate out there.

I just got a note that says Jason Liang was the fourth candidate.

Jason, thank you for running.

Thank you for your effort.

And and it's still out there advocating for his community to let me give Jacob the last one question did come in.

How much more expensive would it be to run an election?

I'd probably be less expensive.

But yeah, I mean, I think that's still yet yet to be seen.

This, you know, really, you know, really for me, and given my political campaign background, I think this actually, you know, would require more money to be involved, you know, in these elections because you're running a longer election cycle.

You're running.

Now, how do I get people to pick me as number one?

And frankly, if I was a campaign strategist and my candidate had a lot of money, I would tell people to block vote because you could.

And that and I've seen that happen in other blogs.

But for one person, you could vote for for just vote for me, you know, and don't vote for the other people.

Don't use your ranked choice.

Don't use your other choice.

You know.

So I mean, I think there's pros and cons in it, but I think for me, at the end of the day, well, I may not support it fully.

I think it should be up to the voters to.

I did I did interview the Republican Party.

The Republican Party in Hawaiʻi is an official position as against this.

And their feeling is having a runoff and then a one on, 1 to 1, election.

You know, they get up through there.

They're they're worried about it getting into the Partizan elections.

This is a nonpartisan election, right?

That's a big difference.

They're worried about getting into the Partizan elections, where even if only a handful of people vote in Republican Party, that Republican candidate gets a chance to go head to head with a Democrat.

So I think that's across the country.

And they also complained that it's so confusing.

They lose a lot of people lose their ballot, don't vote.

But actually, the research shows that it's not more confusing than parity voting that we use.

Now that after you've done one round of of ranked choice voting, that you understand it just as well as you understood.

There are a lot of people who don't understand our elections.

I agree, and I think just the last confusing part, and I will say, right, is that this is only for county elections, right?

So some of the feedback we heard was like, well, you know, there's a lot of education that the Office of Elections is going to need to do if this does pass, because for all of the other state elections, it would be different, would be the same.

So folks might not realize that ranked choice voting would be on, you know, for these county races, just the county.

Yeah.

Okay.

I don't think there's any way we're going to get through all of these amendments, but I think that this is one of the other ones.

It's quite interesting because it's it comes at a time as it comes in.

Question number.

Number six, should the charter be amended to require the Honolulu Police Department to one, adopt policies to ensure the constitutional rights of all persons, regardless of immigration or citizenship status, are protected, assist federal immigration, and assist federal immigration enforcement activities only when required by statute or court order, and after the requesting agencies identity and authority have been confirmed.

Colin Moore, what's going on here?

What is your thinking about?

I mean, it seems obvious, but is this like a pro-immigrant thing, or is this just the law as it already exists?

Well, there are state laws that were passed last session that accomplish much of this, but I think the reason for passing this is that you could potentially reduce the fear of reporting crimes.

I mean, what you don't want is for immigrant communities to be afraid of going to HPD because they're worried they're going to be wrapped up in some sort of immigration enforcement operation.

And I think that's that's one of the big reasons behind this.

I mean, because it duplicates state law in some degree.

It's also, I think, a philosophical statement to make sure that HPD understands that this is also the will of the people.

I mean, to the extent that there might be an argument against this, it's probably about some confusion that would involve mixed criminal and immigration enforcement operations that might you might need some kind of legal advice depending on the operation going on.

But I think the, the, the main reason that I have heard for, for passing this is that you'll protect immigrant communities because they will not be afraid of going to the police for other crimes.

Jacob.

Okay.

What was what was the thinking?

What was the feedback on this?

And does it really change anything?

Or is this the current operating, the way the police department operates now?

Yeah.

You know, I mean, I think this just provides additional clarity, particularly at the city charter level.

It would also ensure that the Honolulu Police Department does adopt these policies.

You know, I think ultimately, at the end of the day, it's also making sure that our immigrant communities feel safe.

But I also, you know, it's also to ensure, you know, and putting our police department and the men and women in blue, you know, making sure, you know, that, that they are also in a environment where our communities feel safe to go to them and making sure that these safeguards are in place.

I mean, we're fortunate that here in this state, we are very supportive and we're, you know, and we're very embracing of our immigrant communities.

But we don't know what the political climate is going to look like.

Hawaiʻi, you know, could change, our positions could change.

And this just ensures that a charter level that, you know, it just provides that outline for the police department if they're going to be engaging in these immigration operations, you know that the proper steps are being looked at.

You know, the interesting question comes from Malia.

And how about this and what you just said provoked my interest further in this question is the intent of the amendment to authorize HPD to support federal immigration enforcement.

It's an interesting way to read that question, because it does say if it kind of says, if you do, these are the steps you have to follow in a way that might actually help HPD have clear guidelines.

Do you guys have thoughts on this?

It doesn't.

Ask HPD to help with immigration.

What it does is say that it actually is policy already, but it essentially says you will not do anything beyond what is legal, what is required by the law, what is required by national and state law.

So it is a protective, protective of immigrants.

And as we just heard, it applies not just to this administration.

It applies going forward.

And so I think Hawaiʻi is famous in a good way for its embrace of immigrants and all the people in the islands.

And I think we want to we want to make sure that that goes forward.

Okay.

So the next several amendments I'll have to do with housing and affordable housing and what form or another of the number ten jumping ahead a little bit, should the city be required to prepare and carry out a functional plan for the development of affordable housing?

But also there's a there's one on housing affordability.

You amend the, charter to increase housing availability and preserving available housing.

Affordable Housing Fund is a revolving fund with repayments.

That's kind of a technical thing.

Right.

And then, no longer require a second public hearing for any transactions related to city real property interest.

Jacob, can you describe what the overall goal is?

I obviously it's promote affordable housing, but what is it fixing that makes it more, you know, I mean, you know, similarly, as we went out into the community, housing was one of those issues that did similar to the top.

And I think what we wanted to do, and we had dozens and dozens of proposals that looked at different ways within the city's purview of how they might be able to increase, the availability of affordable housing.

And these were the 3 or 4 proposals, you know, that we thought made sense.

Some of it does remove some of the barriers.

You know, in terms of this second hearing, we're not trying to, you know, circumvent any process.

But, you know, a lot of the, you know, second hearings that are held are for, you know, relatively smaller transactions, right?

So it's just it's really removing those barriers that sometimes prevent, you know, some of these affordable housing, any delay for any delay.

And then I think some of the other ones, you know, also kind of takes a look at, you know, I think, you know, number ten is making sure that, you know, we, have a plan for how do we improve and, you know, increase access.

And I think, you know, when it's embedded in the charter, the city is supposed to follow through.

What do you see as being the elements of a of a functional plan for the development of housing?

I mean.

You know, numbers of units and all this other stuff, calendars and all that.

Yeah, I think I, you know, I like a lot of work.

I think it's a lot of work.

Right.

But I think it does help to look at and to help guide the city in terms of what is our housing policy for the next 5 or 6 years, what are the identified capital improvement projects that really need to make?

What are some of the budget decisions?

I think what this plan does is it is it takes a look at all of those issues, and it gives the city this guideline of, okay, you know, we did the research, we did the homework, you know, and we feel that in order to increase affordable housing by X amount of percent, here's a study that was done.

Now go out and you know and execute.

I think the other thing is, you know, we have, you know, mandated plans for things like parks and, you know, environmental housing and transportation.

But there isn't one that looks at, you know, affordable housing.

So, you know, I think this was really the intent of kind of why we wanted to put this for, to, to any controversy here that any of you would like to mention on that.

I think it's just important to remember that a voter may feel like great intent, but what's to stop a new mayor from coming in and changing that functionality plan?

And then a mayor after that, coming in and changing it to where there's a plan in theory, but it's not actually being acted on throughout ten years.

Okay, so let me jump ahead now.

So there are several amendments also that have to do with the clean water.

This frankly, this kind of confused me.

What are we trying to get to with the clean water, the historic preservation, say this one.

Go ahead.

These are my two favorite I okay, good.

This is the one and 12 okay.

Make them my favorite.

Go ahead.

Currently, the Clean Water Natural Lands Fund and the Client Climate Protection Fund and Affordable Housing Fund.

All of these funds can only receive money, that is tax money.

And they can only pay for things through the city like city having city employees do the work kind of thing.

Number 12 says not only can they receive tax money, but they can also receive federal grants, state grants, philanthropic grants, etc.

so obviously this makes the fund better, more robust.

Yeah, the number 11 says, and they can take that money and they can give grants to nonprofit organizations who have the same purpose, you know, groups that are going to be planning native plants in the watershed, things like that, sort of like a workforce extension.

Exactly.

So these two, taken together, make the funds much more useful, much more effective.

They're housekeeping, but they're really important.

Housekeeping.

Please don't ignore these.

Okay.

Well, the good thing and I'll remind everybody, for people who support these charter amendments, is that it's the majority of the votes cast, blank votes do not count against them.

So if you aren't comfortable with something, you're confused and you leave it blank.

That doesn't mean you're voting no.

That just means you don't understand it.

So it's a little bit more it's a little bit more forgiving for a voter.

You don't have to make the decision.

And I think that that's very important for people to let that sink in.

The constitutional amendments are the ones where the blank votes really do count, and they do encourage you to vote one way or another.

Let me jump ahead to Charter Amendment number 15.

Should an Office of Data and Innovation be established to use data to improve city services, promote government transparency and civic engagement, ensure the city uses artificial intelligence.

Slow down here.

Ensure that the city uses artificial intelligence responsibly and protect residents.

Digital privacy of Jacob from the commission was is it?

I mean, shouldn't they be doing all this stuff already?

They should be, right.

But I think, you know, what we saw, you know, kind of what we heard was, you know, we really want to embed this in the charter, particularly what's going on in terms of how quickly technology is advancing at every single level.

And I think, you know, what this does in particular is, you know, it would guide, you know, some of the standards and strategy when it comes to things like data privacy, you know, how to best use, you know, artificial intelligence use at the same level.

Right?

So I think it just really prescribes more, you know, and it really puts, you know, similarly to some of these other ones, really a priority of making sure that, you know, the, the information technology resources that are being used at the city level, you know, is under one kind of department, you know, and it is prioritized.

Okay.

We've got to kind of get into our lightning round position here now.

Oh, you mean we haven't been.

Yeah, yeah.

Real quick.

Yeah.

Okay.

So 16 and 17 both have the headline of civic participation.

One would allow permanent resident aliens to serve on city boards and commissions.

I didn't know that they couldn't.

You have to be a citizen now, Should quorum and board actually be based on a majority of members eligible to vote, excluding vacancies and non-voting members?

There's a problem in city government where sometimes if something's vacant, they can't do it.

And, you know, read that does this is what it is meant to address.

I mean, you know, obviously for most city boards and commissions, they are a voluntary board.

And for reasons or not, you know, it's hard to get everybody there.

And for some commissions, either because they can't fill a vacancy or they just can't get quorum.

A significant business is thought.

I mean, imagine if the Planning Commission couldn't get a, you know, a particular quorum, right?

I mean, that could cause a huge.

Yeah, we had a case the other day where, you know, three members of a commission recused because they had some kind of conflict of interest or problem.

Okay.

Moving right along.

Question 18 seems extremely technical and just a equality thing for that particular position.

I don't anybody see a controversy there.

That's the human resources.

No the deputy okay.

Administrative.

This was actually called housekeeping I like that.

Should a city clerk be required to provide technical and secretarial service to the charter Commission, you need the secretary.

Okay.

Yes, yes, for that one from the charter Commission member.

And ethics and accountability.

This is kind of interesting.

We've only got a couple of minutes.

Should the charter make a council member the mayor or prosecuting attorney ineligible for election to any city office for two years if impeached, or if the official resigns after an impeachment petition?

So you could get impeached in this city and just turn around and run right back.

Judith, look at the president.

Yes, well, this is the city.

The city charter saves from the top down.

It makes sense.

Okay, but this was already required if you're recalled.

So this is just fixing this strange imbalance between.

You can be impeached and come right back.

But if you recall, you can't.

Okay.

We have only got a minute left.

I think we just got to give the voters and folks who have stayed with us tonight, and we really appreciate it.

Again, charter amendments, they only count the yes and no votes constitutional amendment.

They count the black votes essentially as no, viewer says, they're having a hard time finding one of the booklets at a library.

Also, a lot of online sources.

And who decides what segment of population receives an amendment and who doesn't?

Is amendment selection based on true need or the priorities of the administration?

Yeah, I think, you know, for a long process, you know, we you know, from the get go, we wanted to make this as transparent as possible.

Previous commissions required all of the proposals to be submitted in Ramseyer format.

What is that I don't know.

So really what this commission did was to make sure that people could submit ideas and we would go through every single.

You guys went through a lot of stuff.

Okay.

Thanks.

Mahalo to you for joining us tonight.

You can find links for more information on the amendment proposals at PBS.

And many of the other places we talked about earlier.

And we thank our guests, Charter Commissioner Jacob and President of the League of Women Voters, Judith Mills Wong, and common cause of State Director Camron Hurt and political analyst Colin Moore.

We're off next week, but we'll be back on November 5th with an in-depth look at the general election results.

We'll discuss the winners losers and see which of these amendments we went over tonight got voted through.

Please join us then.

I'm Daryl Huff for insights on PBS Hawaiʻi.

Aloha.

Insights on PBS Hawaiʻi is by Carlsmith Ball.

Aloha State Daily and the University of Hawaiʻi Cancer Center.