Ford held her impromptu briefing on the subject outside the Pahoa Community Center last Thursday, June 12. The meeting to discuss the bond issue had already fizzled out and it seemed those who came out looking for action of the political kind were not quite ready to go home. While Puna Councilor Emily Naeole and her Hilo cohort Councilor Donald Ikeda lingered to discuss their concerns about funding for the new Kona civic center, Ford had gathered a separate contingent that wanted to hear her take on how "Puna got screwed, big time."
For those in need of a Civics refresher, reapportionment is a cyclical process that uses new data from the U.S. Census Bureau (updated every ten years), to establish voting districts. Under the Equal Protection Clause, each district must contain approximately the same number of residents and, hopefully, voters.
Take as evidence of her tenacity the fact that Ford pursued her complaint with the commission that redrew the Hawai`i Island electoral map all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. "People told me I had a .01 percent chance of getting it heard," said Ford, "but I still thought it was the right thing to do."
The details of the case Ford, the Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government and two other Kona residents filed against the Reapportionment Commission are better left to the annals of case law; the arguments made and the reasons for the series of decisions rendered, all against Ford et al, are quite complex. Plaintiffs argued that the county illegally included nonresidents in the population base to create the new divisions, and while the Hawai`i State Supreme Court agreed, it would not overturn the new plan as they requested.
Ford's campaign website makes this statement: "Between the two cases filed against the Reapportionment Commission (Holzmann, et al and CERG, et al), the residents from all over the island spent at least $100,000 to get a fair and legal plan. I personally, as a named defendant, took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court at my own expense . . . The U.S. Supreme Court denied my appeal."
Take as further evidence of Ford's tenacity the fact that none of this stopped her. After the court challenges hit the deadest of ends, she stuck with the issue. Now she is all about making sure the next reapportionment -- scheduled for 2010 -- proceeds fairly.
Ford claims that when the former reapportionment commission drew the new lines it had an ulterior motive. "It was illogical," she said of the final plan, "but it kept the incumbents in their districts."
In a phone interview several days after the Puna meeting, Ford clarified her statements. -"Here's the problem," she said. "There was an unstated criteria to make sure that no incumbent would have to run against another incumbent."
While Ford contends that the final plan was unfair to all islanders, she points to a figure of 1.89 as the number of divisions Puna should have ended up with according to the census data. With that figure much closer to two than the one division the community currently has, she figures Puna was shortchanged.
With each division comes a representative. "The more council people you have representing you," she said, "the better chance you have of getting things done."
The current scheme has Puna divided into three sections. Lower Puna, or Puna Makai (by the sea), is represented by Councilor Emily Naeole. Upper Puna, or Puna Mauka (by the mountain) is represented by Bob Jacobson. The remaining portion was added to the third council district, which also encompasses South Hilo. At the time of the reapportionment, District 3 was represented by James Arakaki; that council seat is currently held by J Yoshimoto.
Research the issue and you will find a heap of testimony objecting to these divisions when they were first proposed. Puna citizens asked the commission to keep their district intact and consolidate it even further. At the time, Puna Mauka was represented by Bob Jacobson's wife, Julie. The couple offered an alternative plan and found a great deal of support for it among Puna voters.
Back then Ford was working on a parallel track with Charles Flaherty. This team processed the census data using software similar to what the commission used to come up with its own plan. This second alternative, eventually became the preferred plan of the Jacobsons as well.
"Puna is what is known as a community of interest," explained Ford. "We produced a plan that kept it together but they (the commission) didn't even want to look at it."
So much for the past. Forward to the future and a council hearing last week during which Ford's bill aimed at preventing similar problems in 2010 failed by a one vote margin.
Ford's bill would have placed a charter ammendment on the ballot this year. She wanted the public to weigh in on a redistricting regime she believes will result in a more fair plan.
Studying case law and precedents set on the mainland, Ford came up with 13 rules that would govern the process. She also sought to have the commission convene in July, well before the census data was in, to allow for training.
"The last commission never got any training," she said. "They had training in the sunshine law and training in ethics but they had no training in redistricting."
The measure needed six votes to pass but only got five. "A charter ammendment needs a supermajority," she explained.
Clearly she is dismayed but, once again, undeterred.
"Four people let the most important issue for our council not be heard by the people," she said with obvious disappointment. "Everything we do is based on who elects us to office . . . If I am elected again, I will bring it up again. This time as an ordinance."
While this was what J Yoshimoto had suggested earlier, Ford stuck with the charter ammendment idea because she wanted the public to get involved and sought to prevent a future council from overturning the ordinance with a simple majority.
"Do people living in Mountain View have more in common with you or people in Na`alehu? Do people living in Ka`u have more in common with you or people living in South Kona?" These are the questions Ford put to her parking lot audience.
Jay Scharf wrote on Jun 22, 2008 12:10 PM:
The Judge asked the County to produce voting records which could prove the plantiffs case. The County's attorneys resisted, saying they did want to help the plaintiffs. The Judge insisted.
The next day, which was the last day in court,when the County did not produce the voting records, the Judge required them to include it in the final briefs.
The Judge's decision: He ruled against the Plaintiffs based on the fact the voting records were NOT included.
You read it right: IT WAS THAT BLATANT. the Judge blamed the Plaintiffs for NOT producing the voting records that he had ordered the County to produce. That was his only official reson for ruling against the Holtzman plaintiffs.
CORRUPT JUDGES is the story why Holtzman and Ford lost "