Announcer: The Public Affairs Department of the Hawai‘i Educational Television Network presents Hawai‘i  Report.

Tonight, a look at the Constitutional Convention.

What has been accomplished, what  remains to be done.

Your reporter, Bob Miller.

Bob Miller: Good evening.

Last Tuesday, the Hawai‘i Constitutional Convention of 1968  finished up all but one item of its formal work.

Recessed until October 21 when it will meet  in the Throne Room of ‘Iolani Palace, so that the 82 delegates may sign the new constitution  which will be presented to the people of Hawai‘i on November the 5th.

Tonight, in the second of  two summaries of the two-month long convention, HETV will look at the final action taken last  Tuesday and some other important decisions taken by delegates in the weeks earlier.

In the middle  of August, after six weeks of work, the Convention was meeting in Committee of the Whole to debate  its first standing committee report and proposal; it was on Article Two, suffrage and elections.

As we said last week, the convention accepted the committee's recommendations for allowing  18- and 19-year-olds the right to vote, to eliminate the literacy requirement for voting  and restoring voting rights to discharged felons.

The committee also recommended a requirement for  a presidential preference primary in Hawai‘i.

Supporters of the proposal urged adoption  as a way to bring national attention to Hawai‘i.

Delegate Hiroshi Kato disagreed,  claiming that the cost would be too high.

He was answered by Nelson Doi, first Delegate  Kato in debate, chaired by Howard Miyake.

Delegate Hiroshi Kato: Mention has been made by the Vice Chairman of the Bill of Rights  Committee that the presidential preference primary election would be held in conjunction  with our regular primary elections.

Now this, of course, would not be timely for the national  conventions at the time that they nominate presidential candidates from their respective  parties.

So the only alternative or assumption is that the legislature will move up their  primary elections so that the presidential preference primary can be accommodated.

Now,  for the last two sessions of the legislature, attempts have been made to move up or move away  from the general election, the primary election, from period of 15 to 45 days, it has always  failed to pass.

I hardly see any likelihood of it passing in the future.

This would call for,  then Mr.

Chairman, a special election costing around $250,000.

Now, the sum of $250,000 may  not seem like a lot of money to some people, but if you think about the fact that they are going  to be voting for about 15 to 25 delegates only, I think it costs quite a bit of money so far as  our state is concerned.

Moreover, our delegates themselves comprise such a small part of the  national convention that I again have to question the cost that will be involved.

Another facet  of a special election, besides the cost factor is the low voter turnout that we always have  experience at these special elections.

Is it worth $250,000 to get only a third of the votes that are  eligible to be cast, cast at these elections?

Now, in closing, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to say that I  had, or I have an amendment on the clerk's desk.

The amendment is being withdrawn because it was  pointed out to me that what I had proposed in the amendment is already authorized or can be  done without any changes in our Constitution, if I may, go to the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, by way of explanation... Chairman Howard Miyake: Please do so.

Delegate Hiroshi Kato It just makes it permissive to give to the legislature the right  to provide for a special election, whereas the proposal here is a mandatory  provision.

If we vote down the proposal for the mandatory provision of that proposal,  the Constitution need not be changed, and the legislature can still provide  for a preferential election.

Thank you.

Chairman Howard Miyake: Thank you.

Delegate Kato.

The chair at this time, wishes to compliment the  speeches today, they're very concise and succinct, and I'm sure the students and historians who will  read the minutes of this Committee of the Whole will not ever think that we have questioned  egotistical rhetoric decisions inebriate by your own verbosity.

And I think we are making  progress today.

Thank you very much.

Chair, appreciate this.

Who wishes to  have the floor?

Delegate Fernandez.

Delegate Fernandez I think we're ready for the question.

Chairman Howard Miyake The chair... Delegate Fernandez Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman Howard Miyake Chair, any other speakers who wish to speak for against the  motion to amend?

Delegate Doi.

Delegate Nelson Doi Yes.

May I say a few words in favor of the committee proposal?

I arise this  morning to respond to some of the remarks made on this floor.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I think it's  worth $250,000 to influence the election of a president of the United States of America and a  vice president of the United States of America.

In fact, I think it's worth a lot of money.

You ask me the question, I don't know how much, but certainly more than $250,000.

Certainly means  enough for us to concern ourselves in this very, most important election.

The argument so  far from those who oppose the proposition, has been leveled principally  at the question of the cost.

It's been also rather with great unanimity  expressed on this floor, that we like the idea, we like the idea of the voter participation in the  primary, that we should have this law.

But number one, it's opposed because this is a legislative  matter and not a constitutional matter.

Well, Mr.

Chairman, we've waited for many, many years,  and the legislature has not acted.

Suddenly, this is a very, most important right, a basic  matter.

I think it's time the Constitutional Convention express itself.

Further I might  say this: eventually it's my personal thought that I would like to see the National Electoral  College wiped out, so that we would have direct, direct involvement of the people in electing  their president.

Certainly, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to see a uniform national primary law  or so.

Unless I feel the Constitutional Convention acts to adopt a provision as has been recommended  by the committee, we would not be moving in that direction.

We would not be bringing pressure on  people who have some national influence to bring all this about.

We suggested here this morning on  the floor that we might ask our two senators in Washington to assert their influence, to perhaps  adopt a uniform national legislation.

You know, Mr.

Chairman, I don't think they will assert  their influence in that direction.

These two fellows are part of the establishment.

It's  wishful thinking, and I think it's for this convention we represent the people of Hawai‘i, the  non-partisan election, to say that the people of Hawai‘i demand this right to participate in this  election all the way from the beginning to the end of the vice president and the president of the  United States of America.

Thank you very much.

Bob Miller: The committee proposal to require a presidential preference primary  was approved by the Committee of the Whole, but a week later, the changes to the suffrage  and election article came before the convention on second reading.

At that time, Delegate  Richard Ando rose to offer an amendment very similar to the one which Hiroshi Kato had  decided not to offer just the week before.

Delegate Richard Ando: Mr.

President, I move to amend Section Five of Article Two of the  state constitution in Committee Proposal No.

1, Draft #1, as amended, by amending  the last sentence to read as follows, quote presidential preference primary may be held  in accordance with law.

Thank you.

Mr.

President.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Delegate recognized.

Delegate Jacob Pyo: I second the motion.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: It has been seconded for the record by Delegate Pyo.

Delegate Ando is recognized.

Delegate Richard Ando: Mr.

President, I have stated in my initial objection the Committee of the Whole that  the legislature has the basic power to legislate in this area of primary elections and so forth.

I have with me a copy of the eloquent statement from the delegate from the District of Hawai‘i who  stated, well, Mr.

Chairman, we waited for many, many years and the legislature has not acted.

Certainly, this is a very, most important gripe and a basic matter.

When this gentleman had stated  that the legislature did not do this task, I was concerned that the legislature was apathetic.

That  it did not do one of the important responsibility of our society, granting as much franchise to its  people as possible.

But as I review the record, Mr.

President, the Legislative Reference  Bureau has stated that from statehood to today, researching the index of bills and resolutions  submitted to the state legislature, there was not a single bill proposing the enactment of  presidential preference primary before the state legislature.

It is apparent, Mr.

President,  that there has been no strong clamor for the enactment by legislation for such a franchise to  our people.

I ask the assembly, Mr.

President, is it not more proper that we suggest to the  legislature that when it appears that the people wishes to have this opportunity, that they enact  the proper legislation that would permit this kind of participation by the people of Hawai‘i, I raise  this question because there are instances when presidential candidates prefer not to participate  in presidential preference primaries and would not come to Hawai‘i or to any other state, as  it has been noted in some states of our union, to file and be on the presidential primary  election.

And therefore I believe, Mr.

President, with many of the convention here,  that we ought to leave this to the legislature.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Thank you very much.

Delegate Nelson Doi: Mr.

President.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Delegate Doi is recognized, and after that, I will recognize Delegate Loo.

Delegate Doyle is recognized.

Delegate Nelson Doi: Mr.

President, all I want to say is nothing new has been said this  morning by the move on of this motion to amend the Committee Proposal No.

1.

It appears to  me that the intent of this proposal to amend is to leave the entire question of whether we are  going to have a presidential preferential primary or not in the hands of the legislature.

Now,  if that be the case, why did not the delegate, for example, move to delete the entire  sentence?

This would have been more honest.

Bob Miller: We should note that Ando had attempted to delete the proposal the week before, but it had failed.

His amendment making a presidential preference primary permissive was approved.

It will be on the  ballot on November 5th for the voters to accept or reject.

But as both sides of the argument pointed  out, what the voters decide doesn't really matter, since the legislature already has the power  to institute a presidential preference primary should it so wish.

The Committee of the Whole  has completed action on the proposals made by the Standing Committee.

It took up other proposals  offered by delegates from the floor.

The most controversial was offered by 10th District  Delegate Hayden Burgess.

It would have ended the state's closed primary system, which takes  effect during the next two primary elections.

Delegate Hayden Burgess: Voting shall be preserved, and no record or list of the party ballot  selected by each voter shall be maintained.

Chairman Howard Miyake: Do all delegates have this  Amendment No.

18 on your desk?

Delegate: Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman Howard Miyake: Delegate... Delegate: I rise for the purpose of second in motion.

Chairman Howard Miyake: Move and second it that Section Four, Article Two of the state  constitution be amended by amending the last sentence to read as follows,  as provided in Amendment No.

18.

Delegate Hayden Burgess: Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman Howard Miyake: You wish to speak in favor of your motion?

Delegate Hayden Burgess: Yes.

First, I'd like to point out some significant points in this amendment.

It reads the party  ballot selected by each voter.

This amendment is not intended to mandate to the legislature that  they do have two party party ballots separately.

This is leaving the decision on whether the  ballots should be separate up to the legislature.

And I think they should be included in the  committee report if this amendment prevails.

Mr.

Chairman, fellow delegates, we have all had  our night to sleep on this idea, and we have had, in fact, all morning, to consider the present  proposal.

Within this convention, we have heard claims that this proposal is not constitutional,  that it is legislative.

That although certain delegates favor the idea of this proposal,  they will vote against it, simply because it is legislative.

To those who hide behind such  arguments, I ask, is the right for the ex-convicts to vote also legislative?

I also ask, is amendment  calling for a presidential primary not also legislative?

Or is the selection of judiciary,  their terms of office, their system of retirement, then not also legislative?

I believe that the  freedom to secretly associate, whether it be with a political organization, religious or labor  organization, is just as important as a freedom to secretly vote, and I believe that this should  be contained in the Constitution, not left up to the legislature.

But why do we hide?

Why do we  skirt the issue?

Why not stand up and be counted?

Bob Miller: The amendment was defeated by a margin of just two votes with 10  delegates absent.

Over the weekend, supporters of the amendment attempted to sway enough of  their fellow delegates to win on second reading, but with six of those 10 who had been absent on  hand for second reading, the amendment went down to defeat again by a slightly larger margin.

During the final week in August, the seventh week of convention work for the delegates, they  took up but made no changes to the articles on Hawaiian homes and public health, welfare and  natural beauty.

The Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Land had recommended no changes  to Article 10, but Chairman Hiram Kamaka had voted with the minority of the committee which wanted to  substitute a single executive for the land board, which technically runs the Department of Land  and Natural Resources.

Kamaka had an opportunity to be heard on that question when Delegate Doi  proposed an amendment to the committee proposal.

Delegate Nelson Doi: Recent experts will tell you, and that includes the Council of State Governments, the Western  Governors Conference, the Committee of Economic Development, the Constitutional Convention of  Maryland, will all tell you that they favor and urge strongly a single executive head for  the departments of the state who are directly responsible to the governor.

I do not want to get  into the details of the arguments, but I do want to say briefly and very hurriedly that the reasons  are, number one, better accountability.

Two, higher visibility, clearer visibility.

And  three, efficiency.

There's been much talk about the application of such a provision  and the operational effectiveness of such a accommodation in the State of Hawai‘i as applied  to Department Land and Natural Resources.

Well, let's look at the Department of Land and Natural  Resources in the State of Hawai‘i.

On the board, we have six people, one from each land district,  one at-large, and the director, which makes six.

We also know, as a matter of fact that on  each neighbor island we have a permanent full time office open to accommodate the needs  of the public and to better serve the public.

I am told that the Land Board representatives from  the several land areas in the State of Hawai‘i do very little in the way of representing their land  area for purposes of enhancing a statewide land program.

Rather, the fact that they sit on the  board leads up to long delays, cost increases, the cost of running the Land Department, and  in fact, the recommendation of the Director of the Land and Natural Resources is almost 100%  anyway, accepted by the Land Board.

Further, because they represent land districts, there's  a little provincialism that creeps into the decision.

Modus operandi here many times, and  sadly, so is you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

So hurriedly again, allow me to run down  the disadvantages of having a land board as Head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources:  delays, higher cost and the difficulty to place primary source of responsibility on anyone in  the department.

Because there are several on the Board, and as between the board and the  director, there's also this difficulty of saying exactly who stood for what.

Then again,  the governor's constitutional responsibility to generally supervise overall departments is  somewhat handicapped and frustrated because we have a land board at the Head of Department  of Land and Natural Resources.

In the halls of this constitutional convention, we have heard  many concerns expressed as to what the safeguards might be should we turn the department to a single  executive head?

Actually, the law does not change, but allow me sometime here this morning to  illustrate to you how the present safeguards would continue.

To begin with the Administration  Procedures Act, which applies to all departments in the State of Hawai‘i, will continue to  apply, and this act would continue and require that notices be given to the public, that public  hearings be held before any rules are adopted.

Bob Miller: The amendment was one of the most heavily debated during the life of the convention.

28 delegates, 12 more than debated the 18-year-old vote question spoke for or against the proposal to  do away with the Land Board.

Since Chairman Kamaka and Vice Chairman David Kaapu both supported the  Doi amendment, the responsibility for defending the committee's position fell to convention  vice president and committee member, Ed Bryan.

Convention Vice President Ed Bryan: I rise to speak in favor of the committee report and in favor of retention of the land  board, as provided in the present constitution.

The words in the committee report are fairly  brief and descriptive, perhaps if I read them, this will be the fastest way to get to the  point.

We recommend the retention of a board for the Department of Land and Natural Resources,  because the problems which involve our natural resources differ somewhat from those of other  administrative functions.

The state's natural resources are expendable.

In other words,  as we discussed in 1950 once they are gone, any change in the board cannot bring them back.

In this area where great damage and irreparable loss may result from hasty or ill-conceived  actions.

It is essential that the powers of management and disposition be entrusted to a board  rather than a single executive, single individual, strong influences and pressures are likely to  be encountered, and the board is less likely to succumb to such influences and pressures in a  single individual, since the pressure would be diluted among several members.

Further, a board  represents a variety of geographical, economic and social interest, and thereby tends to ensure  greater consideration of the interrelationships of the multiple fact multiple factors involved  in any decision.

To comment beyond the report, maintaining this Board will also provide greater  understanding and participation of the citizens in the government and the processes of government.

It will provide valuable agency, agency of liaison between the people and this branch of government.

And in Hawai‘i, where land is our most important natural resource, I think that we are not being  extravagant in either the cost of government, or the process of government, to retain a board for  this function of government.

Thank you very much.

Bob Miller: The debate went on for more than an hour, with the 28 speakers  almost evenly divided on the two sides, but the vote was not only.

28 delegates favored  the amendment.

47 were opposed.

That afternoon, the Committee of the Whole chaired by Vice  Chairman, Vice President William Fernandez, took up proposed changes to Article Four on  the executive.

The session ran like clockwork, at least at first, the age requirement for  governor was reduced from 35 to 30, and a salary base for governor and lieutenant governor set  at the level of their present salaries.

That the Committee of the Whole did bog down when it got to  the proposal that Senate confirmation of Cabinet appointments be eliminated.

After a heated debate,  the Convention voted down the change 45 to 25 but it did agree that all department heads, excepting  the Attorney General, may be removed by the governor with without the consent of the Senate.

And it approved reduction to one year the present three-year residency requirement for officers  in the executive department.

For the second week in September, the ninth week of work for  the delegates, they had approved changes in the articles on Taxation and Finance and Judiciary,  as we reported here last week, they rejected proposals for faculty student representation on  the University Board of Regents, free tuition for all resident undergraduates at the university, a  department of consumer protection and initiative referendum and recall.

The delegates approved  collective bargaining rights for government employees with legislative determination of the  question of whether Government Employees should have the right to strike and mandatory codes of  ethics for the state and for the counties.

That set the stage for consideration of the report  from the Committee on legislative apportionment and districting.

Early in August, after the other  legislative committee, Hung Wo Ching's powers and functions had come up with a recommendation  for retention of the bicameral system, and the Convention had approved the recommendation.

The apportionment and districting committee made its first decision.

It would not recommend that  all single-member House districts in Hawai‘i.

Then Chairman Richard Schulze discovered  some misunderstanding among reporters.

Delegate Richard Schulze Jr.

: One thing I think I should clear up.

I understand that some of the communications  facilities are carrying the story that we decided against the use of single member districts.

And  this is not quite accurate.

We decided against limiting ourselves to single member  districts.

We by no means did we decide we wouldn't use them.

We simply decided  that we would not use them exclusively.

Bob Miller: I noticed you that you didn't decide.

In fact, I don't believe  you even discussed using exclusively multi member districts.

Essentially, what happened  yesterday is that we're going to if, if that tentative decision becomes a real decision,  we're going to continue with a combination.

Delegate Richard Schulze Jr.

: That's right, it's tentative, because I wanted to keep all our decisions  tentative at this point.

Let me see if I can elaborate just a minute on this.

What we're trying  to do now is come to enough decisions on the kind of legislative districts we want and the kind  of factors we want to use to elect legislators so that we can turn this information over to  a team of statisticians and computer operators that we have engaged.

And these people are going  to prepare some maps of the state of O‘ahu, or the island of O‘ahu for us, showing how the  island might be districted, utilizing the criteria we set up.

This is an effort to try to avoid a  lot of partisan activity in the initial drawing of the map, something that takes a lot of time  and gets a lot of tempers up in the air sometimes.

So that our problem now is to come to enough  decisions to give them as many guidelines as possible.

It was for this reason that our first  decision was to favor registered voters over some adjusted population base.

Our second decision  was to avoid the exclusive use of single member districts.

There is no, no strength at all for  the proposition that we should use multi member districts only.

This is because in rural areas,  such as the large geographical expanses of the Big Island, where there are very few people, you  would you would tend to bury certain segments of the population.

If you made them elect legislators  from older member districts, they'd be awfully, awfully large.

So that in places like that is  clear, the single member districts are helpful, and then someplace on O‘ahu, it's also very  helpful to use them.

The question before us really was whether we were going to be very  rigid about our decision on what we would use.

Bob Miller After that, the Apportionment and Districting Committee  decided to base its apportionment on the number of registered voters and called upon a team headed  by state statistician Robert Schmidt to prepare a series of maps to district the state.

After weeks  of discussion, the committee made these decisions: Kauai's three House members would run at-large.

There would be one Senate District Two.

Maui's two Senators would run at-large, but the county  would be divided into two two-member districts: Moloka‘i, Lanai and West Maui, including  Wailuku in one district, East Maui, including Kahului in the other, with Kaho‘olawe.

The Big Island, three senators would still run at-large, but its six representatives  would run from these five districts: District No.

1, Ka‘u-Puna plus two precincts  of Hilo, one representative; District No.

2, South Hilo, including the downtown section, two  representatives; District No.

3, North Hilo, up to Hakalau, one representative; District No.

4, Hāmākua and North Kohala, one representative; and District No.

5, South Kohala and North  and South Kona, one representative.

The neighbor island districting was approved by  the delegates with relatively little objection.

The objection dealt with the separation of North  and South Kohala and the inclusion of those two Hilo precincts in the first district of Puna-Ka‘u.

O‘ahu Senatorial districts were left virtually as they exist at the present time.

Only slight  changes made there.

There were considerable changes made to the House districts, however.

Windward O‘ahu's present 8th District was split into two three-member districts, with the dividing  line running between Kailua and Kane‘ohe at the Mōkapu Peninsula.

Delegate Hiram Kamaka caught  an error just in time which would have separated Kalaheo Hillside from the rest of Kailua.

That  change was made during second reading.

The North Shore and Central O‘ahu were kept virtually as  at present, they will get two representatives, that district is No.

22.

Leeward O‘ahu was  divided into three different districts: No.

21 the Waianae coastline, including Wai‘anae,  Maile and Nānākuli, a single member district, the only single member district on O‘ahu; District  No.

20, including ‘Ewa, Waipahu, Pearl City, Waiau and part of ‘Aiea, three representatives;  and District 19, the rest of ‘Aiea, Hālawa, Red Hill, Moanalua, Aliamanu, Fort Shafter and the  Pearl Harbor, Hickam, Honolulu Airport complex, another district with two representatives.

The  City of Honolulu was divided into 11 districts with two or three representatives each.

Debate  during Committee of the Whole concerned the free, freeway line, which the committee had decided  upon as a means of reducing the present four to six member districts and a couple of other lines  were debated too.

Chairman Schulze used a large map on the floor of Convention Hall to explain  one of the more controversial Committee decisions.

Chairman Richard Schulze Jr.

: Why could we not have taken this boot area and include and eliminated School Street  as a boundary for the 18th and instead have drawn the boundary straight down in a line like  this?

The question is a fair one.

It's the kind of boundary we'd always like to have drawn.

The  fact of the matter is that if we had done that, the deviation in the 16th District would have been  26% above the average for the island as a whole.

Way, way out, far above any possible deviation  that could be permitted, and that would be permitted by the court.

May I say also that it's  true that there is a some difference between this neighborhood and that one, but the difference  really runs from about here over.

It's a very small area that has been sort of hooked on.

This  area fits in rather nicely.

We hate to do this, and it's something that we've always tried to  avoid, but it simply happened that in order to retain any 16th District at all, we had to get  a bottom boundary line, and it wouldn't work out any other way there.

We assume that that's a  temporary situation, we hope it will be cleared up four years from now.

It is very minor in terms  of number of people and but it's simply major in terms of deviations, and the Supreme Court won't  allow us to follow the results you've suggested.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Delegate Loo.

Delegate Loo: Mr.

Chairman, what I've indicated there is not  the whole front there that he indicated.

That, however, only just that portion that includes  the Bishop Museum track, which is part of that, the whole portion that he indicated that triangle  there.

However, I will accept his explanation, because even though it's not 26% it is my  understanding above the acceptable limits set forth by the Supreme Court.

Is that  right?

Mr.

Schulze, Delegate Schulze.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Delegate Schulze?

Chairman Richard Schulze Jr.

: That is correct, Mr.

Chairman.

In either event, no matter what we did, the  deviations in 18 are negative and those in 16 are positive.

And we simply can't  add more to 16 or take away any from 18.

Bob Miller: Some other delegates from the Kalihi area, though, were even more  unhappy with the committee plan, and one of them, Charles Kauhane proposed an amendment which, among  other things, would have eliminated the freeway as a dividing line in that part of town.

Because of  the complexity of Kauhane's proposed amendment, he was given until late the next day to prepare  it.

But after several trials, was still a long way from an acceptable arrangement of numbers  of registered voters.

The deviations on the plan that he proposed were well beyond the guidelines  that the committee had set in which they expected to be approved by any courts which might review  the matter at some later date.

The next issue in contention was the effect of the freeway line on  the present 14th District.

It would be cut into two, two member districts.

The four incumbent  representatives, all of whom live in the mauka portion of the present district, were all four  delegates to the convention.

Their opposition to the committee plan varied with the strongest  opposition coming from Delegate T.C.

Yim.

Delegate T. C. Yim: I will accept the committee report and a proposal by as it affect District 15, even though it means  a good possibility of my retirement in politics.

I only got to say this, that the committee  ought to maintain the criteria throughout O‘ahu, and I find that there are some glaring  errors that they have not used the criteria, and that discussion will come about in several  other precincts coming ahead of us.

I accept the committee recommendation as it pertains to  District 15, even though I have noted that the committee have not accepted Pali Highway as one  of the boundaries, even though, throughout the discussion, the committee somehow keep referring  to the Lunalilo Freeway.

The Pali Highway runs up to this point here and stop, then it goes to Old  Pali Highway.

There's every indication to be fair, to maintain, again, the criteria as set forth by  the committee that the Pali Highway ought to be used and be straightened out, and include this  section here now in the present 12th District, ought to be within the present 14th District, or  the proposed 15th District, for the reason that these people here are almost identical as those  people living in the Dowsett area.

I say this even though that the voters in this area here are two  to one Republicans and I am a Democrat.

Further, the committee have failed to use the Pali Highway  up to this point, they have used the old Nu‘uanu Avenue all the way down here.

And have not use the  Pali Highway Road coming down to Bishop Street.

I say this, even though I'm a Democrat, if you do  this, this section here, vote Democrat, almost two to one.

So I say to the committee members, I am  not talking about personal loss or personal gain.

I'm talking about certain criterias that  ought to be used throughout the city areas, and I say in certain areas, the  committee has violated those criterias.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Thank you.

Any other comments?

Delegate George Ariyoshi: Mr.

Chairman.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Delegate Ariyoshi.

Delegate George Ariyoshi: My only response to that is one of numbers that it's not possible to adhere to all of the criteria that was referred to  and have the numbers come out all right.

Bob Miller: The numbers referred to by Vice Chairman George Ariyoshi were what  the committee's plan was all about.

O‘ahu's number of registered voters were divided by the  38 House seats.

O‘ahu is entitled to under equal apportionment, the answer 5082 registered voters  per representative.

Using existing precinct boundaries as much as possible, the committee  attempted to come up with districts as near as possible to those correct numbers without  violating some other guidelines the committee had decided to work with.

These included  not favoring any special interest group, nor cutting up neighborhoods or communities  wherever it was possible not to.

There were places where the committee was forced  to violate some of its own guidelines, of course, notably where it separated North and  South Kohala on the Big Island, and where it separated Honolulu's McCully-Mo‘ili‘ili District  into three different representative districts.

Many of the delegates from the present  15th District opposed the committee plan, especially those who were also legislators.

Delegate Clarence Akizaki was one of them.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Here we were considering District 13, and those districts whose boundaries might affect District  13.

Delegate Ho had just completed speaking.

Delegate Clarence Akizaki: Mr.

Chairman.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Delegate Akizaki is recognized.

Delegate Clarence Akizaki: First of all, I like to veto my remarks, what Delegate Ho presented.

However, I think I should  try to... [NO AUDIO] Mr.

Chairman, I present to this convention that a committee itself did not  take into consideration its own criteria set forth for redistricting purposes.

Our on-committee  report, page 26, Criteria 3 reads in so far as is practicable, district to be contiguous and  compact.

How compact can the McCully-Mo‘ili‘ili area be with 10,000 plus registered voters?

It  can have one or two representatives by itself, either single-member district or multi-member  district.

This is a closely needed community as all the delegates to this convention from this  area knows.

Criteria 4, district lines must follow permanent and easily recognized lines.

What more recognizable lines than the Ala Wai Canal?

Yet the committee chose to disregard  this line to get into the McCully area because they needed 2,000 votes to justify Waikiki's two  representatives.

Criteria 5, wherever possible, the division of areas with a substantial  community of interest is to be avoided.

By gosh, this community has so much in common that they  fought for four and a half years to finally decide where their library should be located.

Criteria  6, the submerging of small areas or groups within larger districts where substantially different  social economic interest predominates is to be avoided.

Portion of McCully wasn't submerged,  it was sunk.

Entirely different social economic interest is involved also.

Criteria 7, district  may not be drawn as to unduly favor one person or political faction.

A big joke.

No explanation  needed here.

It's obvious.

Mr.

Chairman, the original plan, S1, that came out from the  so-called computer was the work of professionals, and only after humans took over that all these  ridiculous boundary lines was created.

One must ask why?

I can assure you that someone will always  have a legitimate answer to hide its real purpose.

After starting this plan, I know that my plea  is in vain.

It's a voice in the wilderness.

I can see that this plan has mustered enough  votes to be passed by this convention, but I am also convinced that only a court can come  out with a most equitable solution for our voters to sacrifice the McCully-Mo‘ili‘ili community, one  of the oldest community in the State of Hawai‘i, to support other areas to justify their number  of representatives because they lack voters, is ridiculous.

For this reason, Mr.

Chairman,  I shall vote against the so-called plan.

Bob Miller: There wasn't really a cry in the wilderness, even though an amendment proposed by Akizaki’s fellow  15th District delegate legislator George Noguchi failed, and the Committee of the Whole did go on  to approve the plan that had been put before it by the apportionment and districting committee.

For  over the weekend, a number of delegates had second thoughts, and rumors were rife in the convention  that the Akizaki-Noguchi amendment would be approved if it were offered on second reading.

The  committee decided to offer instead an amendment of its own, which would satisfy those concerned  about the division of McCully-Mo‘ili‘ili.

It was a plan that the committee had considered  earlier, and it was accepted by the convention.

Later Chairman Schulze told us about the  changes made that was made by the amendment.

Chairman Richard Schulze Jr.

: Tuesday afternoon in the session was to eliminate a line that had previously separated  the area of Waikīkī from the Mo‘ili‘ili-McCully area.

Previously, the districting line had run  down Isenberg Street and along Date Street to Kapahulu Avenue.

The net effect of this change  was to eliminate that line, and instead to put the district line all along Kapahulu Avenue.

This turns the area, which is now in District 12, into a three-representative area.

It includes  Waikīkī, the other side of Diamond Head, which is here, and the areas of McCully and  Mo‘ili‘ili and around Kaimuki High School, bordered on the mauka side by the freeway.

That change also, of course, cut down the size of District 11, which previously included  lower Kaimuki as well as a part of Mo‘ili‘ili, and now includes only Kaimuki and Kapahulu and has  two representatives.

I guess most of your watchers know that these representatives are assigned  entirely according to the number of registered voters who reside in each of these districts.

Essentially, what we've done in Honolulu is to utilize the freeway right during its entire  length to split the old representative districts in half.

They all used to run right from the  mountains down to the sea along the lines of the ahupua‘as.

We've cut them now along this line  to reduce the number of representatives which would be elected from each district an effort to  bring the representatives closer to the people, to permit the people to vote on small,  smaller ballots, and hopefully to provide a little closer identity between members of the  House of Representatives and the electorate.

Bob Miller: The other districts were not affected by those changes,  which were made during second reading, and the districts for Honolulu were  just as you saw them in that map being used by Chairman Schulze.

All of the new  districts, of course, throughout the state, will have to be approved by the voters on November  the 5th, as will several other related changes.

Chairman Richard Schulze Jr.

: Our actions taken by our committee, included the establishment of a Reapportionment  Commission, which will take care of all future reapportioning of the state.

We felt that it was a  little silly to let everything in the state grind to a halt every time we needed to reapportion and  we felt also that we ought to provide for handling the reapportionment at fairly frequent intervals.

We have set up a commission which will be composed of nine people.

Eight of these will be chosen by  the legislative leaders of the House and Senate, so that four will be of one party and four of  another.

It will be absolutely bipartisan as to those eight.

Those eight will select the ninth,  who will be the chairman, and if they can't decide upon a ninth, why the Supreme Court will appoint.

These people will go ahead and reapportion the state, just as our committee has done this  time every eight years.

One thing that your listeners might be interested in knowing is that  these people are not permitted to run for either house of the legislature for two terms after they  reapportion, and this effectively eliminates any person who might stand to benefit by the type  of redistricting he does.

Another action which we took up, which is slightly more complicated, is  the problem of providing effective representation for the neighbor islands.

As many of you know,  the island of Kauai already is permitted only one senator, according to its registered voter  population, and by the next reapportionment, it's possible that they will be reduced to  two or possibly even one representative.

We conducted hearings and a study on this matter,  and found that given the number of committees both in the Senate and in the House, and the fact that  it is in these committees that the actual work and the actual voting takes place in the legislature,  it simply was not possible for the people on the neighbor islands to be effectively and totally  represented in the legislature by only one man.

Indeed, our hearing showed that one would  need at least two people in the Senate and three in the House of Representatives to get  minimal coverage of the committees.

Our plan provides that if any county does not receive its  minimum of two senators or three representatives out of the initial 25 and 51, then we will add as  many as are needed to give them their minimums.

Let me give you an example, this time as we  go around and allocate the first 25 senators in the Senate, Kauai has only one.

According  to our minimum representation provision, Kauai will be entitled to two senators no matter what.

Therefore, we'll add one senator to the Senate, making it a 26-member body, and Kauai will have  two of those 26.

Now, many of you have heard of the one-man-one vote rulings of the Supreme  Court, and there was strong feeling in our body that these would not permit us to give two  full voting senators to an island like Kauai, no matter how great our geographical problems and no  matter how great our centralization of government.

So for that reason, we decided that we would  allocate only the one vote to Kauai, to which it's entitled.

But we give them two bodies  to carry out that one vote.

Thus Kauai's two senators will share a vote, exercising one half  vote each in the legislature.

It's been said by some of those who oppose the plan that a half vote  would have the same strength in a committee as a full vote sometimes, and I think that's probably  right.

But I think we have to remember that if the one senator from Kauai could handle all 10 major  committees in the legislature, in the Senate, he would do so, and the county of Kauai would then  have a single full vote in every one of those 10 committees.

The problem is not that Kauai is  not entitled to a vote on those committees, it's just that their one senator can't physically  get to every one of them to exercise that vote.

So what we've done is given two people that vote to  exercise it for them and to get Kauai's problems across and to get Kauai's stories across to the  people who do the acting in the legislature.

Bob Miller: Last Tuesday, the Constitutional Convention met for the second  time in the old Senate chambers of ‘Iolani Palace to approve on third reading, two final committee  proposals.

Convention President Hebden Porteus was in an unfamiliar position in a familiar  room, having served several terms as a senator, but never as presiding officer.

Tuesday morning,  the convention quickly adopted on third reading, the committee proposals on revision and amendment  and apportionment and districting.

There was some debate on the apportionment and districting  proposal, but no amendments were possible in third reading, and only nine delegates voted  against the proposal.

A roll call vote was taken as required under the rules for passage  of all committee proposals on third beat.

Delegate Rhoda Lewis: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Convention President Hebden Porteus: Thank you, Delegate.

Delegate: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Convention President Hebden Porteus: There were 65 aye’s, 9 no’s and 8 excused.

And that does take total 82.

It has the Committee Proposal No.

12, and it's RD 2, S1 form has  passed its third reading.

Bob Miller: That was the apportionment and districting committee proposal that was  passed.

The convention now had only to approve the report from the Committee on submission and  information on the ballot to be used to submit the amendments to the voters.

Because printing of  the ballot wasn't finished and because the form of the ballot had been submitted to the Attorney  General for approval for its form and had not yet been received back, President Porteus recessed  the convention until 4:30 last Tuesday afternoon.

But in the meantime, Delegate Tennyson Lum  called to the attention of convention officers an error in the description of one of the  representative districts.

After an hour of trying to decide what procedure to  follow, President Porteus has called the convention to order so that the action  taken in the morning could be reconsidered.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Motion has been carried.

The Chair now requests that the delegates suspend the  rules in order that we may proceed to consider this matter further.

Is there any... Delegate Robert Dodge: I shall move, Mr.

President.

Delegate Dennis O'Connor: I second.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: It has been moved by Delegate Dodge and seconded by Delegate O'Connor that the  rules be suspended.

All those in favor of suspension of rules, please raise your  hands.

Those opposed by the same sign.

Bob Miller: In the confusion, last Tuesday evening, President Porteus had  forgotten that the convention had still not approved the ballot as recommended by this  Submission and Information Committee.

He was explaining to the delegates that they would meet  again next month to sign the new constitution, when Chairman John Jaquette  reminded him of the omission.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Find the appropriate type of paper and size of paper, and also to find a printing  press that's large enough to print it.

Because apparently, the press that was used to print the  Constitution in 1950 is no longer available.

It has been disposed of, and we will either  find another press in Hawai‘i or one available somewhere, perhaps on the west  coast, in order to get this printed.

But certainly it will take several weeks to  do this.

So finally, when we do recess, we will probably recess till about subject to  call of the Chair, till about the 21st of October, in order to get this prepared for the delegates,  so that they may sign.

But at this time, the Chair will ask if there are any  final announcements.

Delegate Jaquette.

Delegate John Jaquette: Mr.

President [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Convention President Hebden Porteus: Yes, please.

I think you're quite correct.

Delegate John Jaquette: I wish to [UNINTELLIGIBLE].

Convention President Hebden Porteus: Delegate Minn is recognized.

Delegate Momi Minn: I second.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: I've been It's been moved and seconded that resolution, that Committee Report No.

84  with the accompanying resolution be adopted.

And I might point out to the delegates that if we  hadn't done this, we wouldn't have adopted a form of ballot.

All those in favor of the resolution  will please signify your, uh Delegate Lewis?

Bob Miller: There were some questions about the ballot and the descriptions of the amendments  on it, after these have been cleared up, the convention approved the ballot form and the plans  of the Submission and Information Committee to inform the voters about the amendments.

On Friday,  when the convention first met in ‘Iolani Palace after moving down from McKinley High School's gym,  the delegates had presented a silver punch service to President Porteus, and he showed the delegates  a commemorative plaque that he was having made at his own expense for each of them.

So last  Tuesday, it looked as though everything was over, but for the signing when President Porteus  called again for any final announcements.

Convention President Hebden Porteus: That the convention is in a position to adjourn sine die, but on recommendation of  the Chair, you will be asked not to so adjourn, but to adjourn subject to the call of the Chair to  make sure that there be no technicality that might arise which would prevent us from reconvening,  if it were necessary, in order to meet any such situation.

And therefore, while we have completed  our work, we will stand in recess, and our next time of meeting, unless you are otherwise  notified, will be on October 21st when, hopefully by that time, we will have a form for  you to execute.

Meantime, the Chair will permit any delegate who desires to be recognized.

And  first, the Chair will recognize Delegate Andrade.

Delegate Ethel Andrade: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Convention President Hebden Porteus: Thank you very much.

Delegate Ethel Andrade: Mr.

President, aloha.

[APPLAUSE] Convention President Hebden Porteus: Thank you.

Delegate Souza is recognized.

It's been moved and seconded that this  party stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

The Chair will notify  you, as of now, that you should reconvene in ‘Iolani Palace on October 21st unless  you are otherwise notified.

All those in favor of the recess will signify approval  by saying aye, those opposed by saying no, the motion has been carried, and this body  is in recess, subject to call of the Chair.

Bob Miller: That's the way it ended, except for the formal  signing ceremony three weeks from today.

Announcer: This has been Hawai‘i Report on the Constitutional  Convention with Bob Miller.

This program was produced by the Public Affairs Department  of the Hawai‘i Educational Television Network.