������Ƶ

Among the bills signed at a ceremony on June 23 was Relating to Elections.

Rep. David Tarnas, chair of the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, who did an excellent job managing JHA and trying to strike a balance with a number of controversial bills, was also present at the ceremony.

I like Chair Tarnas. I find him to be a fair, reasonable, and honest legislator.

Still, his comments with regard to HB 1294 were … odd. At least to me. Maybe unsurprisingly, he characterized the bill as a win for the public, saying, “We listened to the voters…. And we wanted to make sure that all candidates had to include their full, legal name. That (they were) available to the public, so that people would know they’re voting for.”

Except that’s not what the bill does.

It’s true that the bill, in its original form, did exactly that. Here’s the bill’s original description, as introduced by Rep. Darius Kila: “Requires every candidate for public office in Hawaii to use their legal name for election purposes.”

Compare that to the description for the version of HB 1294 that was signed into law: “Requires the office of elections and campaign spending commission to include a candidate’s legal name wherever the name requested to be printed on the ballot is used, except on the ballot.”

Act 117, which was lauded by both Gov. Josh Green and Chair Tarnas as a win for government transparency, falls far short of that goal.

The bill’s substance is 12 lines and explicitly excludes ballots as one of those places where a candidate’s legal name must be printed. So there is no confusion, here is the substantive text of the bill — unadulterated:

• “Legal name of candidates; publication. If the candidate name requested to be printed on a ballot is different than the candidate’s legal name, the office of elections and campaign spending commission shall include the candidate’s legal name wherever the name requested to be printed on the ballot is used, including but not limited to use on the office of elections and campaign spending commission websites, on voter information materials provided by the office of elections and campaign spending commission, and at the request of any registered voter; provided that when the candidate requests a name on the ballot that is different than the candidate’s legal name, the candidate’s legal name shall not be included on the ballot.”

So again, just to be clear, a candidate’s legal name must be printed on campaign spending reports, voter information materials, and must be provided upon the request of any registered voter (as if the information isn’t relevant if you’re not registered to vote).

But not on the ballot itself.

Name Recognition Vs. Campaign Substance

There was very little testimony submitted in total for this bill. And for all intents and purposes, it was supportive.

One testifier opposed the bill, saying that requiring candidates to run under their legal name who are LGBTQIA+ who don’t use their legal “dead name” shouldn’t be forced to use it.

Another commented that candidates, notably celebrities and politicians, should be able to use a “stage name” instead of their legal name. Augie Tulba, known publicly as Augie T. is one such example.

In a previous job, I had the opportunity to interact with Councilmember Tulba and his staff. They were all very nice, helpful, and professional.

Still, I’m not sure which of these arguments might have held sway with legislators. But I do believe they will more often than not avoid doing anything that makes campaigning harder. Or anything that increases the likelihood of competitive challengers (see publicly funded elections).

Even in its original form, I expected the bill would be minimally helpful and that it wouldn’t likely have any kind of real impact on elections. That the Legislature could water down a bill that was already fairly milquetoast is, sadly, unsurprising to me.

As such, HB 1294 never held for me any particular interest. But that the bill was included among the “government transparency” bills worthy of celebration is disingenuous at best. Laughable at worst.