|Bernard Carvalho Jr.||D||P||3||I believe the decision to hold a state constitutional convention should remain in the hands of the voters. If the people of Hawaii decide to support or oppose a con con, then it is their voices and votes we must listen to.|
|Will Espero||D||Y||5||I support a state constitutional convention as this is an opportunity for residents to gather and discuss ideas that will impact Hawaii’s future. Our country was founded on the freedom to discuss issues and collectively solve problems. Hawaii has a very diverse population which must interact with each other in order to collaborate and find a path forward we can all support.|
|Josh Green||D||P||3||I don’t oppose a state constitutional convention because more democratic energy is always welcomed, however we need to be very careful about its scope as outside resources could overwhelm the issues in Hawaii on volatile and divisive issues.|
|Kim Coco Iwamoto||D||N||1||I do not support holding a state constitutional convention at this time. The Hawaii Supreme Court has made numerous rulings in recent years that evidence the strength of the current state constitution. The problem has been the lack of compliance and enforcement of the constitution by the legislative and executive branches.
Our state constitution, last amended by a convention in 1978, includes strong protections for Native Hawaiians, for organized labor, and for our precious natural resources. We cannot risk these fundamental protections by holding a constitutional convention at a time when the richest multi-national corporations are so entrenched in Hawaii politics that one of their professional lobbyists was able to take the helm of the state’s most powerful political party.
|Jill Tokuda||D||N||1||I oppose the convening of a constitutional convention.
The Hawaii Constitution is a good document that sets forth the basic rights of citizens, structure and powers of government, and general policies to guide the state. The constitution has stood the test of time.
My opposition to a constitutional convention is due to a preference for the present deliberative constitutional amendment process.
Under the process, a proposed constitutional amendment is introduced as a bill in the Legislature. If the Legislature approves the bill, the proposed constitutional amendment is submitted to the voters for approval or rejection. Only if approved by a majority of voters does the constitutional amendment take effect.
This process provides for review, discussion, public hearing, and language refinement of each proposed constitutional amendment by the Legislature.
|Marissa Kerns||R||N||5||I oppose con con. No way! We do not trust the Hawaii Democrat supermajority-controlled Legislature. They just torpedoed the state of Hawaii constitution, reference to Senate Bill 2922.|
|Steven Lipscomb||R||Y||5||The Hawaii constitution declares and confirms that 100 percent of the political power is held by the people and that the people are responsible to protect and to ensure their right to (among other rights guaranteed in the constitution) petition their government for the redress of grievances. The sole and only avenue the people have directly to do that is a constitutional convention.
The state constitution does not recognize the people’s right to propose laws through initiative, or to repeal undesired laws through referenda. It does not even recognize the people’s right to recall legislators who refuse to address grievances through the legislative process. The “con con” is the only avenue recognized in the state constitution to redress grievances that are not first brought before the Legislature in our one-party political environment. I support the con con.
|Jeremy Low||R||Y||5||I support holding a state constitutional convention. It’s been 40 years since the last constitutional convention. We need to re-examine our state constitution and improve it. See also his position statement for KHON2 at https://www.khon2.com/news/political-news/jeremy-low-r-/1326827094.|
|Renee Ing||G||N||1||We oppose holding another con con now.
The last con con was constructive because it was held at a time when people were engaged in the community and advocating for many good issues.
It was the time of the Civil Rights Movement, Hawaiian sovereignty, zero population growth, the women’s movement, etc.
But today, we live in the age of Trump and corporate domination where Wall Street owns Washington D.C. We live in a dangerous time when corporate lobbyists write bills for politicians to pass which are aimed at enhancing their corporate bottom line and making the ordinary citizen pay for it. When Big Money funds movements to harm and do away with many protections to our environment, the social safety net, our democracy, etc., it would be dangerous to have a con con in this environment. It would open up all of our protections to attack and manipulation by Big Money working to turn them around for Big Profits. It would undo the progress we’ve made toward becoming a better society that we fought for and accomplished since the New Deal. We shouldn’t give them the opportunity to do worse.
|Paul Robotti||N||Y||5||I think we should do it. It would just be another meeting of the minds.|