Prohibiting state and local governments from using privately sourced moneys or equipment in connection with the conduct of elections and specifying who may perform tasks related to the conduct of an election (second consideration).
Impact
If enacted, SJR78 will radically alter the landscape of election financing by disallowing private moneys and equipment in electoral practices. This could lead to increased reliance on state funding for elections, ensuring that all primary and electoral functions are performed by officials designated by law. The implications of this amendment may significantly reduce the financial strain on parties and candidates who may otherwise depend on private donations or grants, fostering a more standardized funding model for elections at all levels of government.
Summary
SJR78 proposes a significant constitutional amendment aimed at modifying how elections are funded and conducted in the state. Specifically, it seeks to prohibit state and local governments from utilizing privately sourced funds or equipment in the administration of elections. Furthermore, it establishes a mandate that only legally designated election officials are permitted to perform tasks related to primary elections and referendums. This amendment was introduced as a response to increasing concerns over election integrity and the influence of private donors in electoral processes.
Contention
The proposed amendment has generated notable points of contention among legislators and advocacy groups. Proponents argue that such measures are essential for safeguarding elections against external influences and maintaining honest conduct within the democratic process. Conversely, opponents express concerns about the potential restrictions this amendment places on the ability of local governments to efficiently utilize available resources. There are fears that the stringent enforcement of this amendment could hinder election operations, particularly in areas where state funding may be inadequate.
Voting_history
SJR78 was recently put to a vote in the Assembly, where it was passed with 60 yeas and 35 nays. This indicates a considerable level of support for the measure among the legislature, although the opposition suggests that there are significant divisions regarding the implications of such constitutional changes.
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 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.