Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:53:51 -1000
From: ramsey@math.hawaii.edu (Tom Ramsey)
Subject: HAWAII SEPT 11

		FEDERAL COURTS SUSPEND AN ORDER THAT 
             HAWAII MUST HOLD A SECOND VOTE ON WHETHER
                TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 

	The every-ten-year vote in Hawaii on whether to call a
constitutional convention just won't die.  Due to controversy
surrounding the 1996 vote (ruled to be a "no" vote by Hawaii's
Supreme Court), Federal Judge David Ezra ordered Hawaii to hold
the vote again.  Most recently, the second vote was scheduled
for Dec. 6, 1997.

	Now the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has suspended
Judge Ezra's ruling, pending an appeal by the state.  The 9th
Circuit Court will hear the state's appeal in January.

	Hawaii's Constitution specifies that blank and spoiled
ballots are counted as "no" votes when the people vote on
constitutional questions (specific amendments and the general
call for a convention).  In 1996 this was clear to everyone
concerning specific constitutional amendments.  Did it also
apply to the call for a constitutional convention?  In 1996 it
mattered and after the November 1996 election, Hawaii's
Supreme Court ruled on the question definitively.

	Judge David Ezra ordered a second vote to be held, on
the basis that the voters were not adquately informed PRIOR to
the 1996 election about how blank and spoiled ballots would be
counted.  

	When I cast my own ballot, I asked a polling official
at my voting place how blank votes counted, and the official said 
they counted as "no".  So it is at least arguable that voters
were indeed informed that blank ballots counted as "no".  However,
shortly after the election, the state's Attorney General opined
that blank ballots didn't count at all.  The Attorney General was
later overruled by Hawaii's Supreme Court.  Curiously, whatever the
confusion after the 1996 election about blank votes, the plaintiffs
who brought this issue to Judge Ezra have not been required to show
that in fact the voters were confused about their votes WHEN THEY
VOTED nor have they been required to show that any confusion would
have made a difference in the outcome of the election.

	Supporters of same-gender marriage oppose a Constitutional
Convention, because a constitutional convention could propose all
sorts of mischievous amendments that might over-turn our successful
court case (Baehr v. Miike) to win full marriage rights.   



					Best Regards,

					Tom Ramsey
					ex-officio, Marriage
					Project Hawaii Steering
					Committee

P.S.  In the meantime, we await Hawaii's Supreme Court final decision
on marriage licenses.  In December 1996, the Honolulu Circuit Court
ordered marriage licenses issued to same-gender couples and then
suspended that decision to give the state a chance to appeal to Hawaii's
Supreme Court.  All the paper work and evidence is now with Hawaii's
Supreme Court.  The Court has not yet asked for oral arguments,
and might not.