Announcer: The Public Affairs Department of the Hawaiʻi Educational Television Network presents Hawaiʻi  Report.

Tonight, a look at the Constitutional Convention: what has been accomplished, what  remains to be done.

Your reporter, Bob Miller.

Bob Miller: Tomorrow morning, the Hawaiʻi Constitutional Convention of 1968 will  meet to make its final decision on amendments to the state constitution.

The 82 delegates will  also deliberate the manner in which all of the amendments acted upon during the past 10 weeks  will be presented to the voters of Hawaiʻi for ratification.

Tonight, HETV presents the first  of two programs which will attempt to describe the functioning of the Constitutional Convention,  how it went about its work, debate on some of the major issues and the decisions reached.

This was  the second constitutional convention of Hawaiʻi in this century.

The first was held 18 years  ago in the old armory building at the corner of Hotel and Miller streets, just mauka ʻIolani  Palace, where the new capital stands today.

It was 1950 when Hawaiʻi was still a territory  of the United States, and most public thinking was that Hawaiʻi would become the 49th state.

It  didn't, of course, Alaska was the 49th and Hawaiʻi the 50th, due to congressional maneuverings, which  some say were necessary for either territory to gain statehood.

The convention of 1950 began its  meetings in April.

The 63 delegates are working in their committee meetings and as a committee of the  whole through July, after a recess for a week or two so that a delegation could visit Washington  to push the statehood cause, the convention finished up its work writing a convention  in July.

The delegates were just too absent, posed on the front steps of ʻIolani Palace on the  day they were to sign the finished documents.

The signing took place in the throne room of the  palace.

Convention President Samuel Wilder King on the right, who would later become territorial  governor three years later, was the first to sign.

At his side was convention secretary, Hebden  Porteus, who would become president of the second convention 18 years later.

The vice presidents and  major committee chairmen looked on.

The completed document, with its 61 signatures, was taken to  Washington by a special delegation headed by King, delegate to Congress, Joseph Farrington.

It was  presented there to Secretary of the Interior, Oscar Chapman, he's on the right.

The Constitution  written in 1950 didn't take effect until Hawaiʻi became a state in 1959.

It has changed slightly  since, through amendment and a Supreme Court ruling in 1964 that the legislature's Senate was  malapportioned.

The courts directed to change, the people of Hawaiʻi approved calling the  1968 Convention, which began meeting in July 15 in the McKinley High School gymnasium, which  would be known for the rest of the summer as Convention Hall.

Hawaiʻi Chief Justice William  Richardson administered the oath of office to the 82 delegates who had been elected by  the people in a special election in June.

Chief Justice William Richardson: Raise your right hand and repeat after me.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend  the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi, and that I  will faithfully discharge my duties as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of Hawaiʻi of  1968 to the best of my ability.

So help me, God.

Bob Miller: Convention Hall was hardly designed for that  kind of business that it would see in the 10 weeks that followed.

It was a big room with  acoustics better designed for basketball games than for brilliant debate.

The expansive  bleachers unfilled even on opening day, were almost entirely empty during the rest of  the summer.

Nor was the building air conditioned, it never was really comfortable, despite a dozen  or so fans whirring busily in corners of the room.

The Convention President Hebden Porteus was  coolly confident as he took over the gavel from acting chairman Jack Suwa and outlined  to the delegates the work of the convention.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Convention will please come to order.

Mr.

Governor, Your Excellency, most distinguished  guests, delegates and people of Hawaiʻi first, let me thank Delegate Suwa for a wonderful job  in getting this convention off to a grand start, and also to those very wonderful people who were  so complimentary in nominating me as president of this convention.

I'm also deeply indebted to  the rest of you, because I know kind words do not an election make.

Hawaiʻi is a unique blend  of people, of land, of attitude, of sea and sky, a series of islands squeezed from the inside  of this earth in the middle of this mighty ocean.

Later known as the crossroads of  the Pacific, but more distinguished as a demonstration of living and working together  of people in harmony to their mutual advantage.

It's a home of a gracious and very friendly  people, the Hawaiians, who welcomed others of many races and are joined with their hopes and  ambitions and talents in developing Hawaiʻi and our way of life.

Nowhere in the United States  was a history of government similar to ours.

First, islands with individual chiefs, then  unification under the mighty Kamehameha the First, an absolute monarchy.

Followed by constitutional  monarchies.

There was a great mahele, where there was the division of land between the  royalty, the government and the people.

Later, there was a Republic of Hawaiʻi, which negotiated  a treaty with the United States so that we became a portion of the United States as a territory.

Later, we achieved statehood and became a sister in the sisterhood of states.

This was achieved  by the people of Hawaiʻi through their manner of life, their institutions and their devotions  and sacrifices and war and in peace.

Hawaiʻi is all that took place in the past, the present,  and the promises and the threats of the future.

These delegates have been specially trusted by  the people of Hawaiʻi, selected to review our Constitution and our government.

A framework to  enable people to advance their welfare and enact laws for that purpose and provide solutions to  varying problems as they deem, from time to time to be in their best interest.

It is not for us to  impose our will on the future and unduly hamper experimentation and change, though, at present,  we would not adopt or approve such change.

The power to enact laws, to efficiently plan, to  administer government and to enforce laws, as well as provide timely and equal justice under  law for all should be brought.

You delegates know laws are made by administered and enforced and  interpreted by people to advance the interests of others with due protection for any minority.

The delegates here hope to work efficiently, effectively and harmoniously in the interest of  all the people of the state.

The result will best be judged not by the amount of change, but by the  careful study thought and sincerity of purpose of you delegates.

May your efforts be judged to be  in the high tradition of those who have served Hawaiʻi so well, and be in keeping with your  high resolve, your talent and your ability.

Bob Miller: On that July 15, there were few close to the convention who  expected any major reworking of the Constitution of Hawaiʻi.

There were indeed some who saw in  the legislative act setting up the convention, a deliberate effort to guide the delegates  away from the path of radical change because of certain built in time limits.

And the election  of June 1st, with less than half of the electorate going to the polls, produced a delegation heavily  weighted toward the status quo.

It was in that direction that Governor John Burns pointed when  he addressed the delegates on that opening day.

Governor John A. Burns: I desire also to take advantage of this opportunity to extend my personal  congratulations to each of you 82 citizens of Hawaiʻi who have been elected as delegates to our  second constitutional convention.

It is indeed a distinct honor to be invited to address you today  in your inaugural session.

It is a high privilege and a great pleasure to be with you.

It is  noteworthy that this convention has been brought about in the time-tested manner traditional  to our representative form of government.

Each of you holds a high trust placed in you by  your electorate.

I share in their confidence that you will during the course of this convention,  dedicate all your energies and abilities to further ensure the preservation of our democratic  form of government and its proven institutions.

It has frequently been noted that our state  constitution, a document agreed upon by delegates to the first convention exactly 18 years ago next  Monday is fundamentally a sound and up to date political instrument.

This has been noted this  morning in the proceedings.

As a matter of fact, our constitution is looked upon as a model by  many other states involved in similar conventions.

I share the view that we do have an excellent  constitution.

The delegates who fashioned it in 1950 did a most creditable job in preparing for  the sovereignty accorded to us nine years later.

We are fortunate to have among your numbers in  this convention several delegates who participated in that first convention.

And may I express a  personal pleasure, also at sharing with you the title delegate, because it is a most honorable  one and a most historical one in these United States.

The experience of those among you who have  served previously will be most highly valuable in your deliberations.

And while our constitution  is sound in most respects, it will not suffer from further refinements.

Meeting in convention,  as you are, all points of view can be explored to produce the necessary changes.

Reapportionment of  our legislature, the original impetus for calling the convention is, of course, the major issue  confronting you.

Other important questions which will surely merit your consideration for possible  amendment are the strictures in the state debt ceiling and judicial tenure.

But I do not intend  to belabor you with a recitation or a dissection of these matters which rest ultimately in your  judgment.

Nor is it my intent to offer inspiration for this surely will come from within, nor do I  presume to counsel you, for you will find many, I am sure, eager to counsel you in the succeeding  days.

Moreover, in the final analysis, each of you is and will be his own council, which is as  it should be, as elected delegates representing the voters of this state.

What I should like  to leave with you today is a reminder that you will be reviewing and considering changes in the  basic political document of our state, the highest law of our islands, our exercise as citizens  of our sovereignty.

Policies, as expressed in legislation and in executive decisions are  always subject to change to meet the needs of changing times and changing ways.

Principles,  however, remain immutable, and it is basically an expression of principles which will guide the  substance of a, of the Constitution's provisions, the subject matter in your hands is at the heart  and at the very foundation of the institutions by which our society is organized and by which it  lives.

You have, therefore, the highest challenge before you: to refine a document which will  ensure a better Hawaiʻi for all our citizens, for today and for tomorrow.

Your deliberations  and your decisions will be of vital importance to the future course of our state and our  people.

There will, I am sure, be times of difficulty in reaching agreement on what avenue  is best of troublesome issues at such times, perhaps you can take heart in being reminded of  the troubled road that led to the drafting of our nation's constitution.

I'm indeed delighted  to see that we quoted the Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson this morning.

It started, as  you know, with a revolution, and then proceeded through a number of ineffective attempts  to devise a new government for our states, including the Articles of Confederation, which  functioned so badly, it began to appear the Revolution had been fought in vain.

And finally,  there was the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but even then, there.

No end of disagreement,  many compromises were necessary before the venture could be brought to a successful conclusion.

Then,  as the last members were signing the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin looking toward the President's  chair at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near  him that painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting  sun.

I have Mr.

Franklin said often in the course of this session and the vicissitudes of my hopes  and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the president without being able to tell whether  it was a rising or a setting sun.

But now I, at length, I have the happiness to know that it  is a rising and not a setting sun.

I share in Mr.

Franklin's view that things are looking up,  and I further share in the people's expressed confidence in your demonstrated dedication to  building a better Hawaiʻi.

As Chief Executive, I welcome you to meet with me at  any time that you feel necessary, and I stand ready to assist you in any way the  executive branch can to make this convention the success it deserves to be.

My very best wishes  for a most successful and fruitful convention.

Bob Miller: Majority of the delegates appear to agree that the convention  could wind up its work before the start of the fall term at the two schools which housed  it, Kapi‘olani Community College and McKinley High School.

Delegate Bill Harper, though,  wanted to be sure that that would be possible.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: At least one resolution for introduction.

Mr.

Chairman.

Delegate Harper is recognized.

Delegate Bill Harper: I have little problem with semantics.

I don't know whether I have a resolution or  a proposal.

Mr.

President, in accordance with Rule 34 of the rules of the convention, I move to  amend the rules as follows: after Rule 66, insert quote Rule 67 "The convention shall complete its  deliberations in not more than 45 calendar days."

Convention President Hebden Porteus: I will, the Chair will treat this as a resolution.

The Sergeant of Arms will pick, pick  up the matter in writing that the delegate has... Delegate Bill Harper: The clerk has it, Mr.

Chair.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Clerk has it.

Then under these circumstances, the Chair will refer this resolution to  the Rules Committee for its consideration.

Bob Miller: The resolution languished in the Rules Committee of the Convention until  last week, when the committee filed it along with other pending matters for of course,  the convention didn't finish in 45 days.

Classes were delayed by a couple of weeks  at the Kapi‘olani Community College, where the delegates were housed in this business  education building and where most of the committee hearings and meetings were held.

The first month  of work of the convention was devoted for the most part to these meetings, as the convention  standing committees heard testimony and considered the more than 300 proposals for changes to  the Hawaiʻi Constitution.

One of the first decisions the convention had to make was whether  we should keep our present bicameral legislature or change it to a unicameral body.

Chairman  Richard Schultz of the Committee on legislative apportionment and districting explained to  us why this early decision was necessary.

Chairman Richard Schultz: The process of apportioning and districting is really the process of allocating  representatives or allocating legislators out among the various political districts.

Before  you can actually sit down and start drawing lines on a map to decide what your districts are  going to be and making decisions as to how many legislators each particular district is going  to have, you've got to make some preliminary decisions obviously.

Many of those decisions  have to be made by our committee, but the, one of the decisions that we thought would be very  helpful would be the decision whether we're going to have one house to reapportion or two.

It would  be helpful if that decision could be made early, but it's not entirely essential that it be made  immediately.

Let me put it this way, we have to make such decisions as, what will we use as a  population base?

Will we use registered voters, or will we use population, or will we use adjusted  population figures, or will we use a figure called state citizens, if we could define that.

This  decision can be made without regard to whether we have one house, or one house or two houses  in the legislature.

We've got to make other decisions too.

We've got to decide whether we  want multi member districts, as we have now, for example, in the House and Senate, almost  all of our districts elect more than one, a representative or senator.

Many have suggested  that we should reduce this to single member districts, or we should reduce the size of the  districts.

It's helpful if you know whether you've got two houses or not, to make this decision, but  it's not essential.

We could actually make it in a kind of abstract way and still wait until the  actual decision on single house or double house is made.

But when we get to the point of sitting  down with a map and drawing lines and making the adjustments that we have suggested, then  we've got to know.

We've got to know whether we've got to make one set of lines for a House  of Representatives and another set of lines for a Senate, or whether we're talking about  just one set of lines covering both houses.

Bob Miller: Well, are you taking steps to make a kind of a determination of  this relatively early in the convention?

Chairman Richard Schultz: Yes, the other legislative committee has indicated that  they'll take the matter up first.

Bob Miller: They are the ones who have the responsibility for  doing the work in this area.

Chairman Richard Schultz: That's right, it's one of those funny things.

It's hard to divide  the legislative committee into two, which is what we did, but there was  so much work that we had to do that.

Bob Miller: That other committee, the legislative powers and functions committee, headed  by Hung Wo Ching, considered the unicameral, bicameral question for a week or two, while  it went about its other business, it decided, with only one dissenting vote to recommend to the  convention that the present bicameral legislature be kept in a consensus vote.

Later, Chairman  Ching told us about the committee's decision.

Chairman Hung Wo Ching: After much discussion and after every member of the committee had an opportunity  to cross examine the witnesses, we took a consensus of opinion whether or not the committee  members have decided or are inclined toward a unicameral house or a bicameral legislature.

And the consensus of an informal opinion is one of unanimous choice for a  bicameral accepting for one delegate.

Bob Miller: Does this indicate that this is the end of this subject, that it's  settled now, or what's going to happen next?

Chairman Hung Wo Ching: We will not come to a formal decision until the fifth of August, when the  delegates, now visiting the neighbor islands, will return and attend a meeting.

But  with such a substantial majority on the committee in favor by camel legislature,  I can take the reading and presume that this will be the decision for them to  recommend to the committee as a whole.

Bob Miller: The delegate who voted against it was Leland Larson, but there was another member  of that committee who opposed the matter too, and that was Nelson Doi.

The committee's position  had been solidified after that unscheduled vote, that consensus, as it was described by  Chairman Ching.

Doi was busy with other convention business at the time, was not present  for the first committee vote.

Later and before the question went before the Committee of  the Whole, Doi talked with us and questioned the procedures followed in handling the  proposals for a unicameral legislature.

Delegate Nelson Doi: We did not expect the question to come up that morning.

In fact, we were made to believe  that that morning, the delegates in the convention who wanted to testify on the question would  be allowed to testify, but that the committee would not be asked to indicate a consensus vote.

And quite disturbed about that, because whether it's formal or informal, when you indicate your  position on a call for a consensus vote, the only thing you can indicate is what really you're  thinking, and it's quite official, I would think.

Bob Miller: Or do you, do you feel that free and open discussion has  been hampered by this kind of operative at Texas?

Delegate Nelson Doi: Somewhat on this question, yes on this question, somewhat, yes.

In fact, what  disturbs me, and I think it's a it's of concern to many of the delegates here, is that quite a few  of our fellows in the convention have come to the convention with positions already fixed on some of  the major questions, I don't think any delegate at the convention can say that he is, he was so well  informed before the convention convened that he, his position is closed, it's fixed, that he would  not open his mind to further exploration.

This is kind of a sad state of affairs, I would  say I have strong tentative positions, and I expect to be challenged on  them, and it should be vigorously.

But I have an open mind on all the questions, and  I would like to explore all the consequences, the ramifications of particular issues.

When  it comes to unicameral bicameral question, I think even if we know that the vote is  going against the bicameral unicameral system, I think we owe a duty to the people and  to the convention and to the record to fully discuss this question.

I am still convinced  that the unicameral system is better for Hawaiʻi.

Bob Miller: Well, there isn't a closed door yet.

You will have an opportunity  to discuss this on the floor, won't you?

Delegate Nelson Doi: Yes, when the Committee of the Whole meets to consider  this particular proposition, we have been assured that this question will be  given an opportunity to be thoroughly examined.

Bob Miller: From a reasonable and practical standpoint, do you consider that  it would be possible to to change the course, of the course that events seem to be  taking at the present time?

That is, is there still any hope for those  who stand for unicameralism?

Delegate Nelson Doi: No, I think the vote will go against the unicameral system and will be  in favor of the bicameral system.

But I think it's going to be awfully hard and difficult and  even embarrassing I think for fellas who are in favor of the bicameral system to justify that  the bicameral system is better for why.

A lot of words are going to be used but I think when  we get into very close analysis of the reasons, it's going to be it's going to show up that the  unicameral system is a better system for Hawaiʻi.

Bob Miller: Convention leadership decided to settle the question early so that  all of the committees concerned with matters related to the legislature would be able to get  on with their work.

And since it was to be the first wide open debate of the Constitutional  Convention of 1968, President Porteous detailed the procedures to be followed in the Committee  of the Whole several days before the event.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: After consultation with the chairman and the members of the committee having  charge of unicameralism and bicameralism, inform you that there will be a resolution  that will reach this floor, we believe tomorrow morning.

It will then be referred to  the accounts and printing committee, but you are all put on notice that on Saturday morning,  within the session time this body will recon, will convene itself into the Committee of the  Whole for the purpose of discussion of this and for hopefully, action that morning with a report  back to the body on Saturday morning.

So those of you that wish to participate in that debate have  now the notice from Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, that on Saturday morning the subject will  be considered.

Are there any announcements?

Secretary: Mr.

President... Convention President Hebden Porteus: Yes, the Secretary is recognized.

Secretary: Mr.

President, I think it should be noted here that the, this is a special  kind of resolution that you're talking about.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: That is correct, thank you very much.

This is not a this is not a matter of going into  the Constitution.

At present, if the principle of bicameralism prevails, it is only in effect a  guideline to various other committees.

If the principle of unicameralism were to prevail again,  it would be a guideline to the various committees.

Bob Miller: But after three hours of debate on the following Saturday morning, the delegates voted by large  majority to sustain the committee recommendation to keep things as they are with a bicameral  legislature was an indication of what would happen to most of the proposals for radical changes to  the Constitution in the weeks ahead.

Committee on Taxation and Finance added a lot of new words to  the Constitution by the time that it had finished its work, but did more to change procedure than  substance.

After the Convention had been meeting for two weeks, Chairman Thomas Hitch told us  what his committee was doing and planning to do.

Chairman Thomas Hitch: For example, we've heard from a good many business organizations.

We have yet to hear from  the labor unions whom I've invited.

We've heard from a good many government people like Andrew Ng  of Budget and Finance and Clinton Tanemura of the Legislative Auditor and various others.

We have a  man coming out from New York to appear before us on Thursday, Mr.

Joe Vostel, who knows Hawaiʻi  and knows Hawaiʻi's finances very well.

He's been out here on a number of occasions.

He's the  municipal bond analyst for Kidder Peabody.

We've also been in touch by correspondence with Moody's  Standard and Poor's Dun and Bradstreet, the rating agencies, and also with a good many of the main  municipal bond analysts in New York and in San Francisco, to get their opinions about appropriate  debt limits and other other financial matters.

Bob Miller: The matter of debt limit is one of your major  matters of concern.

Is it not?

Chairman Thomas Hitch: Debt limit is one of the major matters of concern, but we're  concerned with the entirety of Article 6.

Article 6 deals with taxation and finance,  and so it involves other issues, such as the vesting of taxing power, whether it should be  entirely with the state, or whether it might be partly shared with the counties.

It involves  limits on taxing power.

It involves, of course, the debt limit which I mentioned.

It  involves budgeting and budgeting procedures and appropriation procedures.

It involves the  Office of the Legislative Auditor as well.

Bob Miller: When Andrew Ng, the Director of Finance of the state, was  testifying the other night before your committee for I guess it was over two hours, two  and a half hours or so, he recommended that the present limitation on debt be done away with, and  no new limitation be placed there.

Has there been any sentiment from members of your committee as  to accepting or rejecting this recommendation?

Chairman Thomas Hitch: There is one proposal that one delegate, who happens also  to be a member of my committee, has put into the Convention, which would  provide for no constitutional debt limit.

Bob Miller: Do you anticipate it this?

Or can you say?

Chairman Thomas Hitch: Well, I really don't want to anticipate too many things at  this point.

But while I don't want to, I think this is probably going  to be a minority viewpoint.

Bob Miller: Chairman Hitch is committee finished up its committee proposal, and  two weeks ago saw it accepted by the Committee of the Whole.

The long and highly technical  proposal does three things basically: it provides for an increase in both state and county  debt limits but relates the state's debt limit to general fund revenues where the state gets most  of its income rather than to real property taxes, which all go to the counties; proposal also  provides for the return to the biennial budget with provision for an annual review; and the  proposal eliminates a section having to do with equal taxation for non-residents, a right already  guaranteed under both the federal and the state constitutions.

Some of the most controversial  proposals to come before the convention were referred to the Committee on Public Health,  Education, Welfare, Labor and Industry, including collective bargaining rights for  public employees.

The chairman is Bob Taira.

Chairman Robert Taira: Sections themselves are quite brief.

They're general guidelines, and they're  not restrictive at all.

And at least in my case, I campaigned for this convention on the basis  that they are not that many major issues to be resolved at this convention.

I think you  know, as far as I do, that reapportionment, the type of legislative sessions, maybe the  judiciary, the voting age being low to 18, and collective bargaining for government  employees.

These are the major issues.

Bob Milller: Collective bargaining for government employees is  a matter which if coming before your committee.

Chairman Robert Taira: Oh yes, yes, coming before my committee.

Bob Miller: When are your hearings on that going to be?

Chairman Robert Taira: I'll begin our hearings next Monday afternoon.

That's August, the 5th or the 6th,  I don't recall exactly, 5th.

What I plan to do, I'd like to have our Attorney General's  office send their legal experts to explain to our committee members just what collective  bargaining, as used in our Constitution, means.

Because without an understanding of the meaning  and detail of collective bargaining for government or private employees, our committee members will  have a hard time making a basic [UNINTELLIGIBLE].

Bob Miller: The present constitution provides collective  bargaining for private employees.

Chairman Robert Taira: No, no.

Bob Miller: But not for Public Employees.

Chairman Robert Taira: Right.

Bob Miller: It says they may organize, uh, in unions.

Chairman Robert Taira: They organize, they may present grievances, they may negotiate  for better working conditions, but the term collective bargaining is not used at all in  connection with government or public employees.

Bob Miller: The problem deals with the matter of whether  they have a right to strike, essentially.

Chairman Robert Taira: I think that's going to be... Bob Miller: Whether or not they have the right to strike.

But there isn't any, there  isn't any statement in the Constitution that guarantees private employees the right to strike  is there?

At least in that section, there isn't.

Chairman Robert Taira: No, no.

My understanding is that in section one of Article 12 of our Constitution dealing  with organization in collective bargaining, the statement is something like this, people  in private employment shall be guaranteed the rights of collective bargaining period.

And  in section two, it goes on to say people in public employment shall be granted the rights  to organize, to negotiate, present grievances, but the term collective bargaining has not  been used to apply to them, you see.

Now I also understand that under certain judicial opinions  that have been rendered, whenever you apply the term collective bargaining to employee rights as  such, it's understood that they have a right to go on strike, and this is the thing which is being  discussed among the 83 delegates as to well, now, are we going to give public employees  the right to strike, or are we not?

Bob Miller: Well, the convention decided by not deciding it did adopt a proposal to  allow collective bargaining for public employees as provided by law.

The proposal read so that the  legislature will still have the final say as to whether government employees can have the right  to strike.

Convention turned out all proposals for changes in the Health, Education and Welfare  articles, including a guaranteed annual wage, tuition-free higher education and even the  committee's proposal that school advisory councils be provided for in the Constitution, all  of those were turned down.

Big Island Delegate John Ushijima is Chairman of the Committee on  Local Government.

O‘ahu Delegate Pat Saiki is Vice Chairman.

Early in the work of the convention,  they explained to us their committee's job.

Delegate John Ushijima: Pat and I actually stated to the committee our philosophy is  that we're entering into this whole thing without any preconceived ideas.

Like  the rest of the members of the committee, we want to start from the bottom, get as much  information as possible, and as I indicated, we're still in the process of trying to get as  much information as possible.

So it's pretty hard to answer at this point whether there  will be any drastic or basic changes made.

Delegate Pat Saiki: I think, however, that the whole area concerning local government is such a completely open one,  and there have not been as many guidelines set by the previous convention, that perhaps this is  an area that will render serious consideration.

And I think John and I are aiming for complete,  total deliberation and consideration for home, stronger home rule, or better coordination  between the state and the counties.

Bob Miller: We understand what we were just reading through it.

In fact, one of the delegates  to the convention has sent a memo around to his fellow delegates urging that due deliberation be  taken in the convention and expressing a concern that perhaps the delegates are looking into the  minutia of legislative matters and not concerning themselves with really constitutional questions.

Do you agree with the sentiment of Delegate Dodge?

Delegate John Ushijima: Well, I believe he's correct.

I think that we seem to lose track of what we're here for, and  basically it is to look at the Constitution without getting involved in lots of these  legislative matters.

We're concerned with the basic structure for the state, and I don't believe  that we should, we should burden the Constitution with lots of trivia, get into specific details,  those error that leave to the legislature.

Bob Miller: As for local government, the convention ended up by giving the  counties half a loaf, they will be able to adopt charters without having them ratified  by the legislature, but they won't have residual tax powers that they had asked for.

The question  of how Hawaiʻi's judges should be selected got more public attention than any other matter  before the Constitutional Convention.

Both daily newspapers editorialized in favor of  a Missouri or commission plan, which is also called The Merit Plan and a Citizens Committee  conducted an extensive publicity campaign in favor of it.

Both efforts probably did more  harm than good for the proponents, since many delegates openly expressed concern that they  were being unduly pressured to favor that side.

The chief protagonists were, appropriately,  Chairman Jack Mizuha of the Judiciary Committee and Vice Chairman Keith Steiner of that  committee.

Before the question came to the floor, we asked Delegate Mizuha about  reports of dissension in his committee.

Chairman Jack Mizuha: I wouldn't say dissension.

I think there is a difference in the point of view.

Was the method  of appointment of judges.

And as you know, the Bar Association has a specific proposal for the  establishment of a judicial commission to select judges.

The Citizens Committee also has a proposal  which is not as specific as the Bar Association proposal, and of course, they are the proponents  of the status quo.

And my committee must determine which of these methods of selection of judges  is the best for the people of this state.

Bob Miller: Members of your committee have not each, but I suppose many of them have submitted one  or another of these versions.

Yes, you yourself, Chairman Mizuha, have submitted a version of a  change of the existing judicial selection system.

Chairman Jack Mizuha: No, no.

I've just submitted a proposal for the lengthening of the tenure of the  judges, as well as the reappointment by a yes and no vote on the part of the electorate.

That's  the only change I've submitted in my proposal.

Bob Miller: Your vice chairman has his name attached to the bar the Bar Association's  proposal.

That's right, Mr.

Steiner, does this mean that I noticed that it says it's by request.

Do you agree with the Bar Association proposal?

Vice Chairman Keith Steiner: With every single part of it?

Not necessarily.

However, there were a number of people that wanted  this proposal brought before the convention.

It was a proposed, the, the actual wording of  the proposal that I put in had been drafted by a committee of the Bar Association, with one  exception, the Section Nine, which dealt with the actual setting up of the commission.

There was  a difference within the bar on how that should be set up and function how it should be set up  rather.

I put in the plan which called for the appointment of certain commissioners by the  governor.

And it did this to get the matter before the committee so we could have a free  and open debate on it and select what is best for the people of Hawaiʻi.

It's my feeling we're  not going to have another convention for many, many years.

The Constitution provides the question  of a convention will be put out to the electorate every 10 years, and they can answer yes, they wish  it or no they don't.

It's doubtful if some changes in the selection of judiciary would be sufficient  to call a constitutional convention together, say, 10 years from now.

I believe the reason  this one was, the reason this one was called, was because of the question of reapportionment.

A number of us feel that while we are considering that question, other matters should be gone  into also.

And also should we look we should look very carefully into the possibility of  improving the method of selecting judges, we feel we have a very fine method now, but  we're looking for possibilities of upgrading it.

Bob Miller: There is, well, there was a newspaper advertisement yesterday,  a full page calling for citizen concern in this issue.

There is the editorial in  this morning's newspaper calling for citizen concern.

And I noticed that there are  hardly any citizens attending your committee's meetings and hearings.

Do you consider,  are you concerned about this at all?

Chairman Jack Mizuha: No, I'm not particularly concerned about it.

I believe that there is a great deal  of interest on the part of the establishment, so to speak, in amending the state constitution  with reference to the appointment of judges.

What I'm interested in is whether or not all  of the lawyers in this town agree with the Bar Association proposal.

We had a few lawyers  speak in opposition to the proposal.

However, I contemplate that there will be a number of  lawyers who will be seeking a place on the program come August 9th, when Mr.

Glenn Winters,  the Executive Secretary of the American Judicature Society, presents the citizens committee's  plan.

And I hope that we can have the views of lawyers who actively practice in this city,  who are constantly before the judges and justices and who are most concerned with the  selection of good judges here in Hawaiʻi.

Bob Miller: The committee rejected the Bar Association's plan and all other commission plans  and reported out a recommendation for just three changes to the present constitution: to allow  the Chief Justice to have retired justices help out when the calendars get crowded, to extend  to 10 years the terms of judges and justices, and to strengthen the retirement and removal  provisions for judges.

Delegate Steiner attempted to amend the proposal from the committee by adding  a modified Missouri plan on the floor.

51 of the 82 delegates voted no later in the convention,  Delegate Mizuha offered an amendment to the election article relating to the judiciary  with an apology accompanying the amendment.

Chairman Jack Mizuha: Mr.

President, I offered the following amendment to the Committee  Proposal No.

1.

This is an amendment to section five of the committee  proposal.

It will amend the second, third sentence to read as follows, contested  election shall be determined by the Supreme Court in such manner as shall be provided by law.

Delegate Tony Kanimura: Mr.

President.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Delegate Kanimura is recognized.

Delegate Tony Kanimura: Second in motion.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: It's been moved and seconded.

The Chair now recognizes Delegate Mizuha.

Chairman Jack Mizuha: I wish to apologize to the members of the convention.

My arduous duties in conducting  that play the making of a judge somehow or the other occupied much of my time, and I forgot to  submit this amendment.

Now, if you, if the members of this convention will go back some two years  ago, there was another play in Hawaiʻi known as the making of a governor.

And during the course of  the election of that governor in the fall of 1966, there arose a contested election after the  election of the present incumbent governor.

The defeated candidate rushed to the Circuit  Court, which is now provided by law, to hear contested elections, and it took the Supreme  Court of this state almost two years before it had the case before it and to decide whether or  not the incumbent governor was legally elected.

Now it seems absurd to have the contested  elections determined in the Circuit Court and then through the process of appeal, finally  and definitely determined by the Supreme Court, if it takes about two years.

With reference to  the representative whose election is contested, he might have served one full term, and still  the Supreme Court hasn't decided whether he was legally elected or not.

Fortunately for the  Governor here, he had served two years before the Supreme Court said that everything that has  happened since he was sworn into office is legal.

I doubt very much whether there should be any  debate on this subject.

However, there is always someone who is questioning the offering of an  amendment of the proposal, and Mr.

President, I shall be happy to answer any question  that is within my power on this amendment.

Bob Miller: But the convention did not support Justice Mizuha's proposal to  make the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi the court of original jurisdiction and contested elections,  illustrating perhaps best of all, it is easier to win at the Con Con when opposing change than when  supporting change.

But of course, that was later on in the convention.

Earlier some changes were  possible, and the first and most controversial one to the present constitution was proposed by the  committee on election and suffrage; the proposal to reduce the minimum age for voting to 18 years.

The three youngest members of the convention were on the committee that made the recommendation,  but they weren't in agreement on the proposal.

Delegate Diana Hansen: No, that's true.

I don't believe it should reduce.

We should reduce the voting age to the age  of 18, simply because of several other factors, namely, the age of majority is still 20 in the  state, as it is in the other states that have the age of 18.

Personally, I feel that someone  who cannot be responsible for his contracts, for his debts, for drinking and this sort of thing  should not have the privilege or right of voting.

Bob Miller: And are you in agreement or disagreement  with Miss Hanson, Mr.

Larson?

Delegate Leland Larson: I'm in disagreement with Miss Hanson on this particular point.

I do feel, personally  and on the basis of testimony given to the Bill of Rights and suffrage and elections committee  that 18-year-olds through 20-year-olds certainly do have the political judgment and maturity  necessary to vote and to exercise this responsible function in our political democracy.

So I am  definitely in favor of this particular proposal.

Bob Miller: This is something that you're all going to have a chance or everybody in the convention is  going to have a chance to have a chance to debate about very shortly on the floor of the convention.

Mr.

Burgess, how do you stand on the question?

Delegate Hayden Burgess: Well, I'd like to go all out when you do something.

And I think if  you're going to give the voting age, well, if you're going to lower the voting age to 18,  then we should change the age of majority and give them all the responsibilities and the  rights of any other citizen.

Simple as that.

Bob Miller: I understand also in hearing testimony, I guess was in another  committee that do you Miss Hanson, are in favor of having legislators be as young as 20, or even  18, if that should be the age of majority?

Delegate Diana Hansen: I feel that you have to be arbitrary about one age and one age only.

And upon attainment of  age of adulthood, which is that age you should have all the privileges and responsibilities  of being an adult come with attaining that age.

That's not saying that we're going to have a whole  house and senate and a governor all 20-year-olds, but that's saying that every citizen who is 20  years old and who is an adult should have the privilege and right of holding any office in the  state.

Whether he wins or loses, up to the voter, but we should not, as an elite body max or  minimize the voter's choice to, for that office.

Bob Miller: Well, Miss Hanson lost, finally, on the 18-year-old vote question, but  she won on the legislative age question.

In the Committee of the Whole when the 18-year-old  vote proposal was being debated, Delegate Dennis O'Connor made a strong plea to change the wording  from 18 years for voting to the age of majority.

The amendment would, in effect, have put the  age question into the hands of the legislature.

Delegate Dennis O'Connor: The proposal to change this particular article to read that the age of majority, as established  by law, shall be the voting age should be the most meaningful and the most abiding language that we  can establish at this time.

And why is this?

Mr.

Chairman, the reason for this is obvious.

The  age of majority is established statutorily.

It is a statutory age of maturity.

There is  a definition of the age of majority in the Minority Report, which is before every delegate.

It's a full age, the age by which, by law, a person is entitled to the management of his own  affairs and to the enjoyment of civic rights.

This is an age which has been established in Hawaiʻi by  the legislature, t has been modified in Hawaiʻi by the legislature.

Prior to the laws of 1869, the  age of majority in Hawaiʻi by common law was 21.

In that body, the legislature established the age  at 20 for males and 18 for females.

In Hawaiʻi, those ages of majority lived until the legislature  of 1919, which changed the age of majority for females from 18 to 20.

And since 1919, the age of  majority in Hawaiʻi has been 20.

This is an age at which a child becomes legally a man or woman.

This is the age at which a child's contracts are binding upon him.

This is the age at which a child  can marry without having to obtain his parents or guardian's consent.

This is an age at which a  child may finally dispose of his property by will.

This is an age at which a child may finally, Mr.

Chairman, establish his own business if he cares to.

This is an age at which a child finally  becomes responsible for his own torts.

An age at which other men and women can look to a child  and have that child stand out in the community as someone who is responsible, Mr.

Chairman,  able to manage his affairs legally and by act of this state mature in the eyes of the law.

This convention would, from a legal standpoint, establish, Mr.

Chairman, an age of 18 as an  age at which certain civic rights are granted a child.

And this convention would do that,  Mr.

Chairman, without even giving that child the ability to fully appreciate or exercise his  right of suffrage, because that child would be unable to take himself into a court of this state  and enforce his right of suffrage or to compel, by mandamus, any official of this state to  in any way further the electoral process.

Bob Miller: The delegates spent a lot of time debating this question  of giving the vote to 18- and 19-year-olds, because they recognized that the proposal  would be taken very seriously by the voters when they go to the polls in November  to ratify the amendments.

One of the outspoken supporters of the suffrage and  election committee's proposal and also an opponent of the amendment Delegate  O'Connor, was Big Islander Nelson Doi.

Delegate Nelson Doi: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to speak against the proposed row, the amendment.

I do not want to repeat again the arguments presented by the chairman of the committee in  favor of the committee recommendation.

I agree with them.

But in addition, thereto I would  like to recite another reason.

Mr.

Chairman, ours is a representative form of government.

Our  representation, we were told by the Supreme Court in 1964 must represent all human beings.

All human  beings, including children, from the minute they are born, to the time when we pass away.

And if we  are, Mr.

Chairman, to effectively accommodate this requirement, and I believe this constitutional  convention is of the attitude, that we would like to accommodate and make effective this particular  concept enunciated by the US Supreme Court, then certainly it behooves us to make reasonable and  responsible adjustments downwards in the voting age.

It's my position, Mr.

Chairman, reasonable  and responsible adjustment is down to the age of 18, and you have already heard the reasons that  set out in the committee report in support of reason and responsibility.

Now, in direct response  to Delegate O'Connor, I would like to say this: the Constitutional Convention is a more basic  organization than the legislature.

More basic, especially from the standpoint of structuring our  government.

The legislature is a lesser body.

The question Mr.

Chairman of who should vote in our  government is more basic than whether we should have a governor's office or not, whether we  should have a legislature, or whether we should have a Supreme Court.

I don't think anyone  here would like to pass this question over to another body to decide for us as to whether we  should have a legislature or a governor's office.

It's our responsibility to meet the challenge  to decide clearly who will be the masters of the government for the State of Hawaiʻi.

And it's for us, therefore, and we're on the duty to set the requirement clearly.

As to  the questions raised by the majority, rather as to the questions raised in regard to the majority  age, I would say this is a lesser question, and let the lesser body decide this.

Let them follow  the leadership of the Constitutional Convention.

Bob Miller: The amendment was defeated.

The convention went on to approve the 18-year vote.

It  also approved three other changes in the election and suffrage article: To restore voting rights  to discharged felons without special pardon; To eliminate the literacy requirement for voting,  the purpose here was to allow those literate in languages other than English and Hawaiian  the same rights as the rest of the citizens.

It was incidentally an amendment which had been  voted down by the people two years ago; And to authorize a presidential preference primary.

The  convention changed to permissive the language in this amendment, which would originally have  required, required such a presidential primary.

Announcer: This has been Hawaiʻi report on the Constitutional  Convention with Bob Miller.

This program was produced by the Public Affairs Department  of the Hawaiʻi Educational Television Network.