hunterbishop.com

Punaweb Forum readers debated for days while awaiting a response from Councilwoman Emily Naeole about why she voted to reject a redistricting bill that might have resulted in a second Puna Council seat. When some posters got surly about the delay, moderator Rob Tucker urged patience. He'd sent Naeole an e-mail on June 12.

Kale Gumapac, who is running to unseat Naeole in the Fifth Council District this September, introduced the Punaweb thread on July 12 in a press release questioning why Naeole voted against the bill.

Naeole was a swing vote on Bill 276, which would have established a county Redistricting Commission to replace the current Reapportionment Commission in the Hawaii County Charter (and I thought Hugh Clark had the only existing copy).

Today a response arrived on Punaweb from Naeole aide Tiffany Hunt:

"Let's see, spoke to Auntie Em, she said she voted against the measure because she didn't think it was necessary; she didn't want to "confuse people. People are already confused" about reapportionment, etc., she said."

Jaw-dropping, isn't it? The response is inadequate on so many levels while at the same time blaming others' confusion for her apparent inability to have a decent answer to the question over the course of several days. Is she running for re-election or expecting re-coronation? Makes you want to throw a pencil.

Meanwhile, the political odd couple, mayoral candidate Angel Pilago and Gumapac, have both made the redistricting vote an issue while they campaign with and for one another. I say odd because I can't remember that kind of political campaigning in Hawaii County in the past 20 years. It's at least the first such mayor-council campaign coupling in Hawaii County since the races became non-partisan.

When I asked Pilago on Wednesday if backing Gumapac was a slap at his Council colleague Emily Naeole, he said no, but he said Puna needs "good and fair" representation and he was certain his "kindred spirit" Kale Gumapac could provide that. "He's someone I can work with," he said.

The redistricting bill didn't get any play in the Stephens papers so maybe Naeole was right about the confusion. Maybe without the news coverage she too was confused. She certainly didn't seem conversant with the bill in her Punaweb response.

Bill 276 is actually something that proponents tried to enforce through the courts, challenging the County's existing law, but losing several times, finally in the state Supreme Court. And though it seems likely that the bill would result in another two Council seats for Puna, there are no guarantees how new lines would be drawn. The bill would only have established new rules for reapportioning voters to equal-sized districts around the island. But the Council vote keeps the question off the November ballot.

One part of the bill that both Pilago and Jacobson both emphasized was its transparency. The new commission would be subject to state Sunshine laws while the the current one is some weird hybrid agency that escapes such public scrutiny. I started to like the bill a lot more at that point.

Gumapac is now saying it's a matter of "great urgency" to get the question on the November ballot or wait another two years:

I am starting a petition so we can get enough signatures to place the Redistricting issue on the ballot so voters can decide. I need your "kokua" to make this happen....We have a big mountain to climb and I believe in Puna and "Keeping Puna Pono". If you would like to kokua in gathering signatures, please contact me at: kale4puna@gmail.com.

But the bill for all practical purposes is dead, unfortunately. A petition effort from the ground up aimed at November at this point  is a long, long shot. Especially on such a "confusing" issue.