Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 17, Number 7, 1 Iulai 2000 — Voting Changes for OHA trustees [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Voting Changes for OHA trustees

OVER THE years, people have commented to me about the OHA trustees and their service to Hawaiians. Recently, many have asked me my thoughts now that Rice vs. Cayetano is law, allowing all eligible voters to select OHA trustees. My answer is that I'm not sure there will be substantial changes and here are the two primary reasons: • OHA remains a statewide eleetion. whieh means all registered voters ean vote for every OHA position regardless of residency. In other words, everyone, regardless of residence on another island, votes for the O'ahu trustee; and • there's no primary election to whittle down the number of eandidates. The purpose of a primary eleeūon is to eliminate candi-

dates so that voters have a more meaningful impact in November. To me, this means incumbents will continue to have an advantage over most others. All OHA candidates run "at large." New candidates may not be "well known" and must financially be able to spend money to get their

name and message out to the entire state. A candidate from Ni'ihau must get her name and message out to everyone, as she ean be voted on by all voters. That means the

campaign will cost her lots of money, as unlike those seeking a seat as a state representative, she must spend money on every island and not in a single representative district. In "at large" races, primary elections are used so that the voters

in November cast their ballots for the top qualifiers. For example, if three incumbents are running for the "at large" seats, primary elections decide on the top six candidates who will be on the ballot in November. This way, the voters are given a "greater say" in for whom they cast their ballots. In the OHA elections, there may be as many as 10 candidates seeking only one seat, as many as 25 candidates seeking three

open "at large" seats. If you think about it, the chances for a well-known incumbent are exponentially improved as name recognition counts for a lot in politics.

Many times voters may cast their ballots "against" an incumbent. If there are only two candidates, the voter's ballot cast "against" an incumbent will mean mueh more than if there are, say,

10 candidates. The "negative" vote is watered down among the nine altematives to the incumbent who thus still enjoys a distinct advantage. Unless the election laws are changed, the incumbent holds a distinct advantage. Moreover, unless there is a mechanism for a "process of elimination," mueh like a primary election works to limit a Senate seat to one Democrat and one Republican eontender, the incumbent will likely

continue to enjoy a distinct advantage. Will the fact that Rice has now made it possible for everyone to vote change the results? Not in my opinion, so long as the eleehon laws do not change. Voting blocks such as ethnic groups or organized associations would have a greater influence on the election were there only two choices instead of 15. Because of the so-called "power of incumbency," most House and Senate incumbents rarely get defeated. Even fewer incumbent trustees have failed to be reelected. Some have called this system unfair. However, it really does not matter what one calls the system because just as many people disagree with the United States Supreme Court decision whieh allows all voters to select OHA trustees. But this is the law. So will OHA change because of the Rice decision? Will Rice be in the interest of the people? Only you ean be the judge of that. ■

'Will the fact that Rice has now made it possible for everyone to vote change the results? Not in my opinion, so long as the election laws do not change.'

CHAlRPERSON'S M ESS AG E

[?]

TRUSTEE MESSAGES

[?]