Are there fatal flaws in our state Constitution that need fixing? That is the compelling question that should drive a move to having a constitutional convention. We should not have a ConCon because "it brings government closer to the governed, providing an on-ramp for delegates to become politically active without a politician's usual trappings." (Advertiser editorial, Dec. 21).

Because the state Legislature has not put the question of whether to have a ConCon on the ballot during the past 10 years, the lieutenant governor will be placing that question on the November 2008 general election ballot.

While it might be worthwhile to try to bring government closer to the governed, that is not a compelling purpose for a ConCon. ConCons should be called only to fix problems with our Constitution. If political life gets invigorated as a byproduct, that is fine. But to use this as the major reason means that there are no real ideas about what needs or doesn't need to be changed in the document and is very superficial. To spend all the money needed to hold a ConCon just to bridge the gap between the government and the governed is a reckless use of our tax dollars.

Any reasons given to hold a ConCon must be evaluated very critically. It is not enough for a few political pundits to write fluffy columns saying we need one or for politicians to proclaim the need. They must give us some depth and analysis of our current Constitution and why certain parts need changing. In addition, we need to know whether such supporters have tried to get the Legislature to propose those changes so they can be placed on the ballot.

Our statehood Constitution was much praised for its simplicity. There has been no such praise for the Constitutions resulting from the 1968 and 1978 ConCons because they added much detail and provisions that were probably unnecessary.

The 1950 ConCon, which drafted our statehood Constitution, was held for a very specific purpose — the need to show Hawai'i had a document that would take effect upon statehood. The 1968 ConCon was also held for a specific purpose — to fix a fatal flaw in the original document concerning reapportionment to conform to the U.S. Constitution. But the 1968 ConCon also added many other provisions. The 1978 ConCon was not held for any real reason except the general idea of "good government." While I do not disparage some of the work done in 1978, we should not repeat that as the reason behind holding a ConCon. And, the many provisions added then have, in the view of some, cluttered the document.

Before supporting a ConCon we need to weigh the costs and benefits. In 1978, there were 102 delegates. The number of delegates will be determined by the Legislature in its implementing legislation should the voters approve a ConCon. While the number of delegates would probably not be decreased, it is likely that it could be increased. In 1978, the cost for the ConCon was $2 million. Ten years ago, the estimate for a ConCon was $7 million but the voters wisely said "no" when the question of having a ConCon was placed on the ballot. It is probably not far-fetched to guess that it would now come close to $10 million.

Here are the criteria I think should be used to determine if we need a ConCon: