Proposed Charter Amendements on Ballot Initiatives

March 27, 2002

Charter Commission
Office of the Mayor
200 South High Street
Wailuku, HI 96793
808-270-7855, fax: 808-270-7870

SUMMARY

The Charter Commission's proposed amendements to the Maui County Charter regarding signature requirements for ballot initiatives are improvements upon the current Charter, but still leave Maui's requirements 20% more stringent that most stringent of the 50 States for Statute initiatives. Maui's requirements for Charter Amendment initiatives are left unamended, and are orders of magnitude more stringent that the most stringent State. The severe limits on the powers of Statute initiatives are left unamended, and represent a paternalistic attitude toward the public, with an implied trust of politicians greater than the trust of the voters.
It is recommended that the proposed Charter amendment be changed so that Maui sets its initiative requirements to those typical of the other States, with:

A one-year circulation period,
A signature requirement of 8% of the actual voters in the last general election for statute initiatives,
A signature requirement of 10% of the actual voters in the last general election for Charter amendment initiatives,
Deletion of the restriction on the powers of initiatives, so that any statute which may be enacted by the County Council may also be enacted through citizen's ballot initiative.

Dear Commissioners,

I wish to testify the Commission's proposed amendments to Articles 11 and 12 of the County Charter:

PROPOSAL FOURTEEN - REDUCE THE SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIATIVE AND RECALL.

(Articles 11 & 12) Initiative and Recall - revise these provisions to enable citizens to utilize these procedures more readily by requiring the signatures of 10% of the number of persons who actually voted in the last general election (rather than the current requirement of 20% of the registered voters) and increasing the time limit to obtain the signatures from 30 to 90 days.

Pros:

By reducing the number of signatures required and extending the time period in which such signatures can be obtained, these proposed changes will make it easier for citizen groups to put questions on the ballot through the initiative process and to require that a vote be taken on elected officials through the recall process.
The existing protections against abuse of the initiative process will be retained - i.e., topics related to financial matters, personnel matters, and emergencies cannot be addressed through the initiative process and the Council will still be authorized to enact legislation concerning an initiative topic before the initiative is put on the ballot.

Cons:

The initiative and recall process can be abused by special interest groups utilizing financial resources (sometimes from outside the County) to hire persons to obtain signatures and conduct advertising campaigns.

Comments:

It is gratifying to see the reduced levels of stringency proposed for signature gathering in Articles 11 and 12. The reduction in the number of signatures from 20% of registered voters to 10% of actual voters is equivalent, because voter turnouts have been around 67% in recent years, to a change from 20% to about 6.7% = 67% of 10% of registered voters, a threefold decrease in stringency.

Also, the increase in the time to gather signatures from 30 to 90 days is another threefold decrease in stringency. In terms of the fraction of voters per day of signatures required, the combined effect is a 9-fold reduction in stringency.

Where does this put Maui County with respect to the signature requirements of other places with ballot initiatives? As described in my testimony of January 15, Maui was 35 times more stingent than California. The proposed change would make Maui only 4 times as stringent. We must ask, however, why Maui should be 4 times as stringent as California?

Comparisons with other States

We can look more closely at where the proposed change stands among other states. The following data are taken from The Initiative and Referendum Institute.

**Figure 1. Required rates for signature collection (fraction of voters per day).**

In Figure 1, we can see that Maui today is far far beyond all other states in the rate that signatures must be collected. Figure 2 shows a closeup of Figure 1, and one can see that the proposed Charter Amendments still leave Maui 20% more stringent that the most stringent of the other States, Oklahoma.

**Figure 2. Detail: Required rates for signature collection (fraction of voters per day).**

The source of this extraordinary stringency can be seen by examining the signature percentage requirements and the gathering time requirements.

Figure 3. Signature requirements for statute initiatives, as fraction of actual voters. Number of registered voters is multiplied by approximate voter turnout fraction of 0.7 to obtain number of actual voters.

Figure 4. Signature requirements for Charter amendments, as fraction of actual voters. Number of registered voters is multiplied by approximate voter turnout fraction of 0.7 to obtain number of actual voters.

**Figure 5. Circulation Period for signature gathering. The y axis is 1/(number of days), so an unlimited period plots as 0, a period of 30 days plots as 1/30, etc.**

In Figures 3., 4., and 5., it can be seen that Maui's current signature requirements, and circulation period, are far beyond the range of any of the states. The proposed changes put Maui within the range, but in the upper percentiles of stringency. For fraction of voters required, it is in the upper 78 percentile. For circulation, it is in the shortest 96 percentile.

For the Charter Commission to recommend these signature gathering requirements, there needs to be some explanation of why signature number and circulation period should be in the 78th and 96th percentiles of stringency compared to the States. I do not see any reason for this excessive stringency. If the Charter were amended to put Maui exactly mid-way in the range of stringencies among the states, it would

require signatures totalling 8% of the voters in the last general elections for statute initiatives,
require signatures totalling 10% of the voters in the last general elections for Charter amendment initiatives, and
allow a circulation period of one year for both statute and Charter amendment initiatives.

Therefore, to bring the Maui Charter in line with the regulations for citizen initiatives in other States, please consider the following amendments to the County Charter:

Article 11 Section 11-1.3 is repealed.
Article 11 Section 11-3.2 is amended to read:
"Such petitions must be signed by registered voters numbering not less than eight percent (8%) of the number of votes cast for Mayor in the last regular Mayoral election."
Article 11 Section 11-4.1 is amended to read:
"1. Within one (1) year after the filing with the clerk of the affidavit described in Section 11-2, all papers forming an initiative petition shall be assembled and filed with the county clerk as one instrument."
Article 14 Section 14-1.3 is amended to read:
"3. By petition presented to the council, signed by registered voters numbering not less than ten percent (10%) of the number of votes cast for Mayor in the last regular Mayoral election, setting forth the proposed amendments."

Sincerely,

Dr. Lee Altenberg

Lee Altenberg, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Information and Computer Sciences, University of Hawai`i at Manoa
Address: 2605 Lioholo Place, Kihei, Maui, HI 96753-7118
Phone: (808) 875-0745, Fax: (808) 875-0348
Web: http://dynamics.org/Altenberg/

SUMMARY

PROPOSAL FOURTEEN - REDUCE THE SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIATIVE AND RECALL.

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Comparisons with other States

References: