������Ƶ

In today’s polarized political landscape, the idea of requiring legislators to follow their party’s platform is controversial.

As a state legislator, I experienced firsthand the tension between adhering to my party’s platform and acting on my personal convictions. When I chose my personal values over my party’s stance, the consequences were swift. I disagreed with their decision to punish me for defying Donald Trump, but it also showed me exactly who they were.

Reflecting on this experience, I believe that party members should hold legislators more accountable to their party platforms. Accountability brings clarity. Even though the process can be messy, it surfaces uncomfortable truths that voters deserve to know.

This month, Hawaii’s two major parties gathered at their state conventions to adopt their 2024 party platforms, which should be a collection of statements on policies, positions and values that tell voters what they can expect if they put that party into power.

Yet in Hawaii, as Civil Beat has previously pointed out, these platforms are mostly irrelevant, particularly in the Democratic Party where legislators hold a supermajority of elected offices yet often fail to act on the party’s ideals.

In a one-party dominant state, it’s natural for candidates of all ideologies to improve their chances by placing a D next to their name. Big tents full of diverse opinions and productive dissent are healthy for democracy, but at some point, the tent becomes too big and dilutes the party’s ability to pursue a cohesive vision and uphold its promises to voters.

As a Republican, I used to say that I was trying to expand the tent. I argued that there must be room for individual legislators to act according to their conscience and the specific needs of their constituents.

I still agree. But I have also come to believe that divergence from the party platform should be rare and well-justified. When I found myself disagreeing entirely with the direction of the Republican Party, I should have left immediately instead of trying to make it something else.

That said, a platform shouldn’t be static and unchangeable. Platforms should evolve in response to new information, changing circumstances and the needs and desires of the electorate. This evolution should be a collective process, involving input from party members and elected officials alike. In Hawaii, Democratic politicians, in particular, should spend more time shaping and building the party they benefit from.

By participating in this process, legislators can help shape the platform to reflect their constituents’ concerns and the realities they face. This dynamic approach ensures that the platform remains relevant and responsive while maintaining the integrity and coherence necessary for effective governance. If legislators routinely ignore their party and its platform, it creates confusion and undermines the party’s credibility with voters who select candidates based on their party affiliation.

So, what should Hawaii’s parties do to ensure that their elected officials remain true to the values and priorities they campaigned on? In a state like Hawaii, where the parties have little to no control over who runs for office under their banner, voters have the most power to hold lawmakers accountable. However, parties have a responsibility to bring discrepancies to light and inform voters if a candidate diverges significantly from foundational party values.

The Democratic Party of Hawaii lists candidate statements on their website, informing voters of where Democratic candidates stand in relation to the party’s platform. However, once elected, legislators are rarely held accountable for those commitments.

One way for the party to increase accountability would be to employ the censure process that’s already outlined in their rules. I’m hesitant, of course, because when former Congresswoman Pat Saiki and I for “disloyalty” from a GOP district leader, the situation was fraught.

Censuring party members for failing to uphold the party’s rules and commitments can easily turn vitriolic. But, if employed judiciously and discussed respectfully, it can spur important conversations and highlight disagreements that voters deserve to see.

In a world of toxic politics, censures should be a last resort. Ideally, party members and legislators would engage in an open dialogue that holds legislators accountable to their voting records while providing them a forum to explain their dissent.

When I applied to join the Democratic Party, I had that opportunity. As a sitting legislator, the party’s bylaws required that I gain the approval of their Oahu County Committee before I could become a member. It was a involving several meetings and one-on-one discussions to explain my voting record and test my alignment with the party’s platform. Members had a lot of tough yet fair questions, and while the process was difficult, I wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.

Very few legislators have the opportunity to truly engage with party members and explore their similarities and differences. That’s what I’m advocating for — real dialogue.

Ideally, lawmakers would engage willingly, but if not, parties should also keep legislators accountable by publicizing their commitments, reviewing their records and creating a system where deviations from the party platform are clearly explained and justified. While there must be room for evolution, adherence to the platform provides a crucial foundation for a functioning democracy. It is a commitment to the principles and policies that define the party and, ultimately, to the voters who place their trust in it.