LOGAN MEW
STAFF WRITER
Hawaii would have had an important decision to make, to accept or block an amendment to the state’s Constitution regarding funding for education. The constitutional amendment, which was nicknamed “ConAm” in the Hawaii media, caught people’s attention in Hawaii politics because of its potential to change how investment property is being taxed in Hawaii.
The State Supreme Court ruled October 19 that the amendment was not constitutional and could not be counted. Because the ballots had already been printed by the time the court ruled, voters did not need to vote on that question. Any votes cast for that question were not counted.
The main goal of ConAm was to use the money gained from investment property tax to help support Hawaii public education. The proposed bill stated that Hawaii trails mainland schools in funding per child, relative to the cost of living. Also, the state legislature had in the past reasoned that most public school are aging, which would make funding for repairs and renovations necessary and needed in the near future. The bill also mentioned that when adjusted for the high cost of living, teachers that work in Hawaii are the lowest paid in the United States.
On paper, ConAm idealistically seemed like a good thing to add to the state’s Constitution. Taxing investment properties, and using that tax money to pay the state’s already underpaid teachers and underfunded educational system seems great, right? Wrong.
The danger in ConAm comes from the subtlety of the wording of the documents. Most critics stated that the bill was severely vague in wording, meaning that there can be loopholes that the state government can exploit in future circumstances. For instance, the bill did not provide a clear definition of, “investment real property.” This was dangerous because without a clear definition, any type of property could have been taxed, which could have driven the rent up of any type of property, depending on how the state government chooses to define the terms.
Also, the bill did not specify an amount to the tax, essentially writing a, “blank check” to the government. There was no defined and specified amount to which the stated properties would have been taxed. In such an important document such as a state constitutional amendment, you want the wording to be clear and concise to keep the government honest and in check.
Vague, questionable, poorly defined writing is where people will look to find loopholes around the law, which could lead to many problems (abuse of power for example) in the future should the amendment be ratified.
As a high school student, why should we have cared about ConAm? Living in this state is already expensive. In fact, Hawaii has the highest cost of living in the nation, as well as being second highest for tax burden.
This investment property tax would have inadvertently raised the cost of living for everyone if property owners passed the cost of the tax to families, restaurants, retailers, care homes, farmers, and many more types of properties. And while you are a teenager today, the amendment would have been in the state constitution for years, and by then you would be a full-fledged tax-paying adult. So ultimately, you would feel the pain.
The amendment would have had no positive impact on Hawaii and would have had disastrous implications for future generations. The court’s decision was a wise one.