Two Campaign Spending Commission rules for the Big Island’s pilot project in comprehensive public election financing appear to unfairly discriminate against young voters and those in rural areas.
The pilot project provides for public financing of candidates for Hawaii County Council who qualify by getting $5 contributions from at least 200 registered voters in their district. This is the first election cycle since the pilot project was authorized.
The two problematic commission rules go beyond the requirements of state election law and appear to make it more difficult for certain registered voters to support the candidate of their choice.
The rules caused problems for 26-year old first-time County Council candidate Brittany Smart, who is running for the council seat representing Ka`u, parts of Puna, and South Kona.
Smart pointed to commission rules providing that those $5 qualifying contributions must be made by check or money order, and requiring each person to provide the physical street address of their residence in order for their contribution to be counted.
Smart says a lot of people in her rural district don’t have physical addresses.
“It’s common for people to say, ‘I live next to telephone pole 57 on Kamehameha Avenue,'” or by reference to other landmarks, Smart said.
The requirement goes beyond state election law (Section 11-15 HRS), which simply requires that a resident provide residence “information” in order to register to vote. Rules of the Office of Elections allow a person to provide either a “residence address or a description of the location of the residence….”
But the Campaign Spending Commission’s rule 3-162-1 provides that a description, even one accepted for purposes of voter registration, cannot be used to make a qualifying $5 contribution. If a registered voter can’t or fails to provide a street address, their contribution isn’t counted towards qualifying the candidate for public funding.
Smart said another commission rule which prohibits candidates from accepting the $5 contributions in cash also caused problems for voters in her district.
Many young people do not maintain checking accounts, and Smart said she found voters were reluctant to commit to paying the fee necessary to obtain a $5 money order.
It is generally legal, under state law, for campaigns to accept cash contributions, with the requirement that more than $100 in cash cannot be accepted without a receipt being issued.
There is no indication why stricter standards were applied to candidates trying to qualify for public funding during this pilot project.
Smart said these additional requirements made qualifying for public funding “a long haul.”
“It’s easier for incumbents,” Smart said, “because they already have a list of contributors from previous elections.”
Smart went door-to-door in the district. Her campaign eventually collected the $5 contributions from over 300 people, but the commission only accepted 209, just barely over the threshold of 200.
“But once I qualified, it’s been extremely useful,” Smart said.
It is not clear why the Campaign Spending Commission adopted rules for the pilot project that are stricter than those applying to voter registration or to campaigns generally, or whether the commission realized the discriminatory impact the rules have on certain voters or voters in certain districts.