Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 5, Number 2, 1 February 1988 — Initiative Revisited [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Initiative Revisited

By Clarence F. T. Ching Trustee, O'ahu

Now that Ho'olako 1987, New Year's Day 1988 and the January 23, beginning of Ho'olokahi at Aloha Stadium have eome and gone, our thoughts must begin to focus on what the State Legislature has cooking for us. With such items as the Hawaiian Right to Sue Bill

(whieh has somehow failed to be enacted in past years) and questions of the scope and percentages of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' entitlements scheduled for debate, there is yet another issue that should be important to Hawaiians that could possibly be overlooked — Initiatiue. But let's take a look at a eouple of fundamental principles before discussing the issue. Have you ever wondered what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means when it says: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right . . . to petition the Gouemment for aredress of grieuances?" or the Tenth Amendment when it states: "The powers not delegated . . . are reserued . . . to the people?" Although there are those who think that government is all-powerful, there are those of us who remember that government only has those powers that we have given to it. We also know that if the people do not insist on exercising those reserved powers, government, whenever it ean, will usurp them. On the other hand, how do we petition government when we have grievances? Does this mean that we have to file lawsuits? What about those grievances relating to the surface testing of nuclear devices that the Courts say are not the responsibility of the federal government who did the testing? Or the infamous opinion by the Hawaii Supreme Court stating that OHA's entitlement is nonjustifiable, that it is a problem for the legislature? Would something akin to Initiative be the remedy? As we all know by now, lnitiative is the power of the citizenry to proposeandenact laws by petition. In recent years, the State Senate passed out Initiative bills only to have them held up by House inaction. One of the problems in the House is that Judiciary Committee chairmen, whether they personally are adverse to Initiative or whether being adverse to Initiative is a condition to be appointed the chair, have either failed to schedule hearings on proposed bills or have failed to report out workable bills. Coincidentally or not, it has been many years since a Judiciary Committee chair has been re-elected. Rep. Wayne Metcalf (D, 3rd District-Hilo-Kau-mana) became the Judiciary Committee chair in 1987. Following the old line in his first year, Rep. Metcalf claimed that the public was not sufficiently interested in Initiative and no hearings were held. Metcalf's position was clearly adverse to the findings of a survey conducted in recent years by Dr. Ted Becker of the University of Hawaii (Manoa) Political Science Department whieh eoncluded that the citizens of Hawaii indeed favored Initiative. Towards the end of the 1987 session, however, seemingly to placate supporters of Initiative who were up in arms, Metcalf left the door open when he said that he may consider holding a hearing on Initiative in 1988. It was a good thing that no one started celebrating. Before the year was over, Metcalf had changed his tune. In an October 9, 1987, letter to Common Cause, Metcalf wrote "... I have no plans to consider this matter during this forthcoming session."

In attempting to justify his position, Metcalf wrote in the October 9 letter: As national studies have shown, Hawaii has a very open and flexible legislative decision making process far more open and less compiex than is the case in most other states. Public hearings abound and form the cornerstone of the decision making process in Hawaii. At such hearings interested persons who are familiar with the issues have the opportunity to present their views. Legislators may question witnesses first hand to gather further information or resolve eoncerns. The consideration of issues takes plaee in an atmosphere conducive to objective decision making. All decision making is public and any legislation acted upon after meeting in committee must be accompanied by a committee report setting forth the justification for the action taken . . . (emphasis added) Auwe! In attempting to justify his opposition to Initiative, Metcalf violated the very hearings process he chose to rely on. The rhetoric may sound good, but on analysis, it constitutes meaningless, political double talk. The representative's record contains other inconsistencies. In a series of Common Cause surveys, Metcalf as a 1980 candidate responded "Yes" to the question: "Will you vote for a constitutional amendment whieh provides for an indirect Initiative . . . ?" Metcalf commented: "Hawaii County has a similar provision in its Charter. It has worked well." He further commented: "Would introduce an amendment." Rep. Metcalf was consistent in 1984 when he marked an "X" under the proposed response "Yes, I support Initiative." However, in the 1986 survey, for some reason known only to himself, Metcalf responded "No" to the question: "If elected, would you support a eonstitutional amendment to provide for the right of Initiative, whieh would allow voters to propose laws to the legislature and approve laws by popular vote." The facts presented here provide us with clues to become informed and responsive citizens. To sift the relevant facts out of the glut of available information will enable us as individuals to keep abreast of developments as they happen and to participate in the different activities of government. As we attain new levels of sophistication, we will be better able to eope with all challenges. Initiative is one of the tools we ean use.

A fishing shrine or ko'a found at the Kaho'olawe island archaeological district.