The Republican Party has suggested voting NO for everything, that didn't sound right to me. Got the Hawaii Republican Assembly suggestions at the link.

http://hira.hawaiideservesbetter.com/pdfs/2016-Voting-Recommendations-from-HIRA.pdf

The Republican Party has suggested voting NO for everything, that didn't sound right to me. Got the Hawaii Republican Assembly suggestions at the link.

http://hira.hawaiideservesbetter.com/pdfs/2016-Voting-Recommendations-from-HIRA.pdf

Wife just did hers, and its spot on to this.

The Republican Party has suggested voting NO for everything, that didn't sound right to me. Got the Hawaii Republican Assembly suggestions at the link.

http://hira.hawaiideservesbetter.com/pdfs/2016-Voting-Recommendations-from-HIRA.pdf

Thank you. Sharing

Thanks for the link. I went through a mailer and decided no on everything that sounded like it would cost the city more money.

Started looking at the ballot which is an eyeful.  My personal opinion is I don't agree with the guide on No.1.  I have strong doubts about some of the police commission new appointees.
The rest I haven't decided yet but the ones that say should a dept. keep spending within their budget is ridiculous.  Of course they should without further laws.  If they exceed, no mo kala till next year!

Started looking at the ballot which is an eyeful.  My personal opinion is I don't agree with the guide on No.1.  I have strong doubts about some of the police commission new appointees.
The rest I haven't decided yet but the ones that say should a dept. keep spending within their budget is ridiculous.  Of course they should without further laws.  If they exceed, no mo kala till next year!

I agree. I voted NO on #1 (voted NOT to increase the threshold from $5,000 to $10,000) because I feel that seems to price civil suits out of the range of some (many?) people to whom $9,999 and below is a lot of money, thus favoring only (rich?) people who can afford to lose $9,999 because someone screwed them.

Also voted NO to those items about creating new departments, etc. which is always a mess. We need to simplify and reduce, not expand and complicate government.

Voted YES on a few things.

EVERY VOTE COUNTS, this is about Honolulu/Hawaii. Your local vote has way more influence. Please vote.

I agree. I voted NO on #1 (voted NOT to increase the threshold from $5,000 to $10,000) because I feel that seems to price civil suits out of the range of some (many?) people to whom $9,999 and below is a lot of money, thus favoring only (rich?) people who can afford to lose $9,999 because someone screwed them.

Also voted NO to those items about creating new departments, etc. which is always a mess. We need to simplify and reduce, not expand and complicate government.

Voted YES on a few things.

EVERY VOTE COUNTS, this is about Honolulu/Hawaii. Your local vote has way more influence. Please vote.

The reason I voted YES on #1 is it will cut down on people making stupid civil suits.  There are so many frivolous suits that it slows down the whole system.  Sorta like how mopeds are banned from freeways.  If it was allowed then everyone else would suffer. 

The reason I voted YES on #1 is it will cut down on people making stupid civil suits.  There are so many frivolous suits that it slows down the whole system.  Sorta like how mopeds are banned from freeways.  If it was allowed then everyone else would suffer.

I understand that. I just thought it would also eliminate valid claims from some people. Say, elderly couple cheated out of $9,000.

Anyway I guess our two votes cancelled each other out, LOL!

So, it's up to the others to see how they vote on it.

A good source for charter information:  http://lwv-hawaii.com/pro-con-2016.htm

I interpreted the #1 question to mean that cases under the $10k limit would be decided only by a judge.  A jury of your peers would only kick in above the $10k limit.  I did not think it meant that all cases under $10k are eliminated.  I could be wrong but that's how I read it.

Oh yeah,big thanks to dafrtknocker for posting.  Very helpful to hear everyone,s thoughts.