Hawaii House Bill HB337

Hawaii 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/25/21
• Refer: 1/27/21
• Report Pass: 2/19/21
• Refer: 2/19/21
• Report Pass: 3/5/21
• Engrossed: 3/5/21
• Refer: 3/9/21

Caption

Relating To Constitutional Amendments.

Impact

The legislation amends existing provisions in the Hawaii Revised Statutes, specifically Section 11-118.5, which governs how constitutional amendments are framed and communicated to the public. This modification is expected to facilitate a more informed electorate, as it directly addresses prior concerns that the language used in such proposals was often confusing or misleading. By implementing this requirement, the bill aims to uphold the principles of clarity in governance and ensures that voters have a reliable understanding of what constitutional changes they are being asked to approve.

Summary

HB337 is a legislative bill in Hawaii that aims to revise how constitutional amendments are presented and explained to voters. It mandates that any proposed amendment must include a straightforward question for voters to respond to with a clear 'yes' or 'no'. The language used in both the proposal and accompanying informational materials must be simple, concise, and direct, ensuring that voters can easily understand what they are voting on. This change is intended to enhance transparency and accessibility in state governance, thereby improving the democratic process in the state.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB337 has been largely positive, with support for its emphasis on clarity and public understanding. Many legislators and members of the public view the bill as a necessary reform that aligns with the principles of transparency and inclusiveness in the democratic process. However, some voices have raised concerns about the potential complexities involved in rephrasing established legal language, suggesting that while the intent is commendable, practical implementation needs to be monitored to prevent unintended disruptions in the amendment process.

Contention

Despite the broad support for the bill, discussions indicate some notable points of contention. Critics have questioned whether the requirement for simplicity will lead to oversimplification of complex legal issues. Additionally, there may be concerns regarding the timelines set for implementing these changes, particularly about the readiness of the state’s electoral infrastructure to manage the new requirements. This could lead to delays or complications when amendments are put forward for future votes.