Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.
Summary
SB1225 proposes a constitutional amendment to change how Hawaii counts votes on constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature. Under the bill, such amendments would be approved if a majority of the votes tallied on the question are “yes,” and blank, spoiled, or over-voted ballots would no longer be treated as votes against the measure. The bill states that this change is intended to make the ballot-counting rule clearer and to avoid outcomes that may not reflect a voter’s intent.
The measure does not alter the process for constitutional amendments proposed by a constitutional convention. It specifically amends article XVII, section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution, while leaving section 2 unchanged. The ballot question language included in the bill asks voters to approve removing the current requirement that the majority of votes on the question also equal at least 50 percent of the total vote cast at the election.
Impact
If adopted by voters, SB1225 would change the constitutional standard for ratifying Legislature-proposed amendments by eliminating the current 50-percent-of-total-vote-cast requirement for those measures. In practical terms, only affirmative and negative responses on the amendment question would count toward the approval threshold, and nonresponses or ballot errors would not function as “no” votes. This would affect the interpretation and administration of article XVII, section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution and could make future legislative constitutional amendments easier to approve.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and later passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee with only one dissenting vote. No committee transcripts were provided, but the bill’s findings and report language frame the proposal as a clarification intended to better reflect voter intent and reduce confusion in the amendment process.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether Hawaii should keep the existing higher approval threshold for Legislature-proposed constitutional amendments or replace it with a simpler majority-of-votes-cast standard. Supporters appear to view the current rule as confusing because blank, spoiled, and over-voted ballots are effectively counted against the amendment. Opponents, as reflected by the single no vote in Ways and Means, may be concerned that the change lowers the practical barrier for amending the constitution and could make constitutional change easier than under current law.
Applying to the Congress of the United States to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of proposing one or more amendments to the constitution to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office of federal officials and members of Congress.
Applying to the Congress of the United States to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of proposing one or more amendments to the constitution to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office of federal officials and members of Congress.
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii State Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.