Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:36:10 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: Hawai`i Action Alerts, Information & Update #11 Aloha kakahiaka kakou. It's really hard to concentrate now . . . . TRACEY BENNETT: ACLU rally still on. MIKE GOLOJUCH: Info on the Family Rights Picnic at Ala Moana Park CONCON STUFF: TOM RAMSEY: Observation MARTIN RICE: Info on Plaintiffs & Attorneys GLENN EDWARDS: Notes on the Alabama case JOHN SOBIESKI: Letter REACTION TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: MARTIN RICE KEN SCOTT CAROLYN GOLOJUCH TRACEY BENNETT <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> And yes, the ACLU rally is still on: Thursday 12:30-2:30 at the capitol. Please come. Aloha, Tracey <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> MIKE GOLOJUCH: Info on the Picnic at Ala Moana Park I have 300 cups and we will provide ice water. This is a grassroots event and we don't have any funds for food so everyone is on their own for that but a big potluck can be fun!!! If you have a banner/poster etc to put up, please bring whatever you need to hang it between the trees as this is allowed in the park. Hope to see you there. It's going to be a great, enriching event, if you hadn't guessed by now. :) CG --------------------- Forwarded message: From: mjgolo@hawaii.edu (Michael J Golojuch) To: gocarolyn@aol.com, jimc@hawaii.edu, kenwood69@juno.com, wallym@juno.com Date: 97-04-16 12:23:48 EDT Please remind people to bring chairs or grass mats. There are only 5 to 6 tables in our area. There is a BBQ grill. We'll bring some charcoal and starter for any one who may need it. Also we should make up signs for the tables. PFLAG PICNIC, 4/19/97, 6:00 A.M. TO 3:00 P.M., PERMIT # I will try to get three C&C cones so we can have at least three parking spaces by us. One with a sign - HPD for PFLAG PICNIC, 4/19/97. BRING ROPE AND DUCT TAPE. WATER AND/OR JUICE JUGS, CUPS, SUN BLOCK, AND A PARTY FRAME OF MIND. What else? Mike <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> TOM RAMSEY: Observation One important detail---some voters ASKED election officials at polling places how their votes would count, and were told by polling officials that BLANK counted as NO. So, the lawsuit is factually in error on that detail. Best, Tom Ramsey <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > [snip] > >The suit said elections officals repeatedly told voters before the election >that blank ballots would not be counted. > >A court ruled in a similar 1995 Alabama case that it was unconstitutional >for an elections official to change the way votes were counted, even though >the Alabama Supreme Court had ordered the new counting method, Bennett said. > >He said "retroactive validation and counting of blank ballots" violates the >principal of "one person, one vote" protected by the 15th Amendment to the >U.S. Constitution. > >Had the state told voters that blank votes would be counted, campaigning >would have been done in a different manner and voters would have cast their >ballots in a different manner, Bennett said. > For everyone's info, the Alabama case referred to is Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 and 68 F.3d 404 (11th Cir. 1995). I've only skimmed it, but it involved the question of absentee ballots which had not been properly notarized. The state refused to count them after the 1994 election, but when it turned out that a couple of election results might actually turn on those contested ballots, the state court in Montgomery ordered the state to count any ballots which were substantially in compliance with requirements, even if not with the letter of the law. The winners of those contested elections then filed suit in federal district court, who ultimately enjoined the state from counting those ballots... The 11th Circuit, after certifying a question to the Alabama Supreme Court as to whether the initial state court interpretation of the state election law was correct (the Alabama SupCt said yes), remanded to the district court for fact finding as to what the practice had been with respect to absentee ballots prior to the 1994 election, and what information had been given to the voters regarding absentee requirements. The district court determined that past practice had been to discard the ballots and also that's what reasonable voters had reason to believe based on the practice and on what state officials had said prior to the election. The state court interpretation thus represented a post-election change in practices. The 11th Circuit affirmed an injunction ordering the state not to count the ballots, on the grounds that (1) voters who voted properly would have their votes diluted by the counting of improper ballots, and (2) if voters had known that they didn't have to comply with the state's notarization requirements for absentee ballots, some additional votes would have been cast (namely, by those persons for whom the burden of notarization was decisive in their failure to vote) and that those voters would be effectively disenfranchised by a retroactive change in voting procedure. The case, by the way, rests not on the 15th amendment, but the due process clause of the 14th. It should also be noted that the 11th Circuit had to distinguish a seemingly contrary precedent from the 1st Circuit (see the case for the cite). Glenn Edwards Yale Law School '97 glenn.edwards@yale.edu <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> MARTIN RICE: Info on Plaintiffs & Attorneys Aloha awakea kakou. Plaintiffs in the challenge to the Hawai`i Supreme Court ruling on the election results of the Constitutional Convention are: Citizens for a Constitutional Convention Let the People Decide Mark Bennett (with McCorriston, Miho, Miller & Mukai) Charles Frumin Bobby Carinio Mark Spengler The law firm handling the plaintiff's case is: McCorriston, Miho, Miller & Mukai P.O. Box 2800 Honolulu, Hawai`i 96802-2800 808-529-7300 Street address (no mail delivery): 5 Waterfront Plaza, 4th Floor 500 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawai`i Defendants: (Represented by Marjery Bronster, AG, and her staff) Mazie Hirono, Lieutanent Governor Dwayne Yoshida, Chief Elections Officer United States District Court Docket Number: 9700322DAE Judge Ezra District Court Clerk Federal Building, Room C304, Downtown Honolulu (Hours: 8am-4:30pm, Monday thru Friday) 808-541-1300 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> JOHN SOBIESKI: Letter To: The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii email: chamber@hula.net Honolulu Advertiser email: tiser@aloha.net Honolulu Star-bulletin email: letters@starbulletin.com The Maui News email: richa@maui.net Avery Chumbley email: abc@aloha.net Matt Matsunaga email: matsnaga@pixi.com Mike McCartney email: senmccartney@capitol.hawaii.gov Wayne Metcalf email: senmetcalf@capitol.hawaii.gov Dear Sirs: People who discriminate against another group of people find it very difficult to realize they are the ones doing the discriminating. They usually ask themselves, what is the problem? The discrimination doesn't affect me, why should those people complain? The people who are open minded enough to realize that discrimination is indeed occurring will find it difficult to accept a change in their attitudes. That change will be difficult for some people to adapt to, but that is no reason for the discrimination to continue. The state was told they do discriminate against same-sex people by denying them a marriage license. The state failed to prove it had a compelling reason to continue discriminating. People should be no different. Same-sex marriages present a new concept to many people who have never thought of the subject before. Just because it is something new and different is a poor excuse for the discrimination to continue. Legal marriage, or civil marriage is a totally separate matter from, and should not be confused with, holy matrimony. Holy matrimony is the church's way of blessing the coupling that the state allows when it grants a civil marriage license. If the churches don't want to marry someone, they don't have to. That's the way it is now and that's the way it will always be. Just because they don't want to bless my marriage is no reason for them to transform their church law into state law and prohibit the state from issuing a civil marriage license. The state legislature is considering granting marriage benefits that are separate but equal. If they could guarantee having all the benefits of marriage, the benefits, at best, would exist only while the couple is residing at home in Hawaii. None of the partnership benefits would accompany the couple while they travel to another state. Separate but equal is a sham. Marriage benefits can't be equal until they are the real thing. As soon as the state offers legalized same-sex marriages, I plan to get a round trip plane ticket, get married and have my honeymoon in Hawaii. If the state grants only partnership benefits, I'll still be on the first plane there, but my ticket will be one way. Majority opinion has never been on the winning side to stop discrimination. After the discrimination has been legally stopped, majority opinion would never allow the discrimination to be allowed again. Compare the opinion today against interracial marriages with what it was just thirty years ago. Please, don't let majority opinion stop you from doing what's right. Let the state issue marriage licenses to any or all of its citizens. Sincerely, John V. Sobieski, Dallas, Texas <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> REACTION TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: Martin Rice Aloha ahi ahi kakou. It appears that we've suffered a major defeat tonight. Several of the national TV affiliates in Honolulu reported the following at about 10:35pm HST: 1) An agreement has been reached on the language of the Constitutional Amendment that *will* appear on the ballot in November 1998: "The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposit-sex couples." 2) Medical benefits for reciprocal beneficiaries will take effect on July 1, 1997, but only for state government employees. Workers for the various counties and the federal government workers do not have the same rights extended to them, nor does the private sector need to comply. The medical benefits will also be up for review in two years. 3) State tax benefits for reciprocal beneficiaries will not be extended. I'm going to bed now. I think I've lost my respect for representative government. We don't have a chance if we don't represent ourselves. A hui hou, Martin P.S.--I will broadcast a more definitive reaction after talking to some key players. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> REACTION TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: Ken Scott Well, I was there and it was nasty. Lots of pretty words about this "necessary" legislation, this "historic" occasion, etc. Terrence Tom actually had the gall to say that they were addressing the needs of the gay and lesbian community. There was lots of talk about how, "now that we have agreed to this there can be a healing". Some healing. They've just stabbed the gay and lesbian community with a knife and twisted it. As far as I'm concerned there will be no healing. Well, gotta go to bed. I still have to earn a living. Aloha, Ken <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> REACTION TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: Carolyn Golojuch Tonight it was very depressing to have to sit and hear the legislators pat themselves on the back for being "fair" in a "historic" moment. How can they think it is fair to deny rights and benefits to a segment of our population, who they admit "can not legally marry?" Somehow Mike McCartney's words sounded so unbelievable when he spoke about learning during the session that "we are all the same." How can we all be the same if some citizens have rights and benefits that other citizens don't? What's fair about that? What's equal about that? The worst statement of the night belongs to Paul Whalen, who said he was concerned about the affairs of the state with disabled citizens having their benefits cut at a time when it will "cost the state to extend benefits to people who can afford to take care themselves." Too bad Whalen doesn't forgo the benefits he and his wife enjoy to help balance the budget and provide for the disadvantaged. All this was said right after Cynthia Thielen said she prayed the actions of the committee would not be divisive. So much for that! The only honest statement of the evening came from Matt Matsunaga who referred to some who had "gone beyond acceptable lobbying tactics." I wonder if he was referring to Pat Robertson's attorneys who appeared at the capitol on April 11 right as the joint committee was heavy in negotiations? Or could he be referring to the disgraceful newspaper ads by Alliance for Traditional marriage that targeted the senators, complete with pictures of their families? Or could it be those who act out of fear and homophobia, who threatened the senators with their jobs? Yes, Matt, I too think there were unacceptable lobbying tactics being applied to this battle for equal rights. Tonight, I am ashamed to be an American. It was a historic moment for sure. Tonight, we as Americans, lost any claim for our democratic reputation we use to have for fighting for those who are oppressed and discriminated against. Tonight, the privileged, haves took from the have nots and rubbed their hands in glee. It is a sad historic time to be sure! Read on, CG <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> REACTION TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: Tracey Bennett Please forward. A message from Tracey Bennett, lobbyist for Marriage Project Hawaii (yes, it really is 1 in the morning): There's a lot to say about what happened tonight. Stay with me because there's a really juicy--and surprising--part at the end. Or skip to the end if you can't wait to unwrap your present. The good news: Get out your reciprocal beneficiaries dresses and tuxedos. This July we are about to get about 60 rights and benefits. This legislation is historical, and if we weren't so close to total marriage benefits via the Baehr case, we might be dancing in the streets. The painful part is that the state is actually taking away rights, and it doesn't have a compelling interest to justify its actions. The Oh-S**t Part Early today we could feel the amendment picking up steam. Tonight it ran us over. The lousy preamble had many of us in tears tonight. While the senators spoke of beginning the healing process--for them, maybe--we are about to embark on the challenge of educating our friends, neighbors, and strangers about civil rights, about the constitution. I hope there will be a positive side to that effort, one that many of us experienced at the same-gender marriage hearings: our community came out, spoke from the heart, and shared a newfound strength and solidarity. We will heal our differences and make new friends in the process. Meeting the Senators Four of us from Marriage Project Hawaii delivered "report cards" to the offices of the four senate conferees. After dropping off 3 cards, imagine our surprise at finding all the conferees (plus Sen. Ihara) in Mike McCartney's office. "Come in. We were just talking about you." We were in tears, we were enraged, and they listened, really listened. They had a lot of reasons for what felt to us like selling out. The important thing is that they offered to meet with our community to explain, to listen, and to mend. They don't want to cut us off, and I don't want to cut them off. Ultimately none of us wants an amendment, and we need each other. I felt better after talking with them, and I hope you do, too. I'll keep you posted. The Juicy Stuff as explained by Dan Foley, who's known this all along, and who often has a constitutional finesse up his sleeve. Follow closely now: 1. The constitutional amendment will give the legislature the RIGHT to regulate marriage to opposite-sex couples. When does it go to the voters? Nov. 1998. 2. What's the soonest that the legislature can put its new power into action? At the following legislative session in 1999. 3. When will the court rule in the Baehr case? Probably early 1998. 4. So there will be a window of opportunity for legal marriages to take place, and probably a federal court case to maintain those marriages (and possibly extend marriage to others). So all is NOT lost. 5. If you're wondering about the 1994 law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, it's unconstitutional! The legislature can't pass such a law until the amendment gives it that power. Cool, eh?! Take heart, everybody. And yes, the ACLU rally is still on: Thursday 12:30-2:30 at the capitol. Please come. Aloha, Tracey <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ~~pau~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "One should never watch two things while they are being made: sausage and the law." --Unknown ~~~~~ Fred and Martin 24 years, yet strangers before the law ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~