������Ƶ

In Hawaii’s one-party dominant political system, few elections are more exciting than the one facing legislators who must soon choose a new House Speaker.

Unlike the public vote we should all participate in on Nov. 5, a vote for speaker (or any partisan leader for that matter) is much more “Game of Thrones” and significantly less “West Wing.”

For fans of political intrigue, it may be the most riveting time at the Legislature. For fans of good governance, not so much.

The issue came to the fore after House Speaker Scott Saiki, a veteran lawmaker and one of the state’s most powerful politicians, lost his Democratic primary race to community activist Kim Coco Iwamoto.

That means legislators will have to choose a new speaker for the upcoming session, which begins in January. It’s not the first time the powerful post has been up for grabs.

Of the three speaker votes I saw close-up, I’ll admit I found them exhilarating and infuriating in equal measure.

Here are the basics: House members vote for the speaker, and anyone wishing to become speaker needs 26 of 51 votes to win. Given a less-than-competitive election cycle, speaker hopefuls this year already have a pretty good idea of whom they need to win. But nothing official can happen until after the general election is decided.

Once the state House representatives are chosen, the candidates for speaker will have their official roster of members to solicit their support.

At that point, any candidate who’s obtained enough signed commitments will become the presumptive speaker until they can be officially voted in on Opening Day.

In theory, those signatures should come from within their own party, but they don’t have to. Speaker candidates can get votes from any member and offer pretty much anything within the speaker’s powers to grant, which is a lot.

In addition to an outsized influence on which bills actually get heard, the House speaker determines committee chairmanships, vice chairmanships and other powerful positions. They decide budgets for permanent and session hires, the office everyone moves into and where each representative sits on the floor. All of it is up for negotiation while speaker candidates are counting votes.

As a Republican staff member, I heard rumors and read news stories about the drama that took place among the Democratic majority every two years when a new Legislature was elected (or reelected). But, in 2010, I got a little closer to the process.

It was at least the fourth time the “dissident faction,” led by then-Reps. Saiki and Sylvia Luke challenged Speaker Calvin Say’s reelection to the post. The ongoing rivalry had enough of an epic quality that it was the first lore I learned as a session staffer. 

In 1998, both Saiki and Luke had helped Say oust Rep. Joe Souki as speaker, but relationships eventually frayed when his allies saw Say wanted to hold on to power beyond the six years they expected.

The Fight Spills Into Public View

After dissidents failed to replace Say in 2004, their challenge was significant enough in 2006 that U.S. Sen. to encourage a resolution and asked then-Rep. Dwight Takamine to mediate. When Takamine lost his position as finance chair over his role in the debate, Inouye , concerned that his request had only worsened the situation “with more, not less blood, on the floor.”

In 2010, the fight once again spilled into public view and dragged on through December, threatening to disrupt the start of the session. It appeared the dissidents had a better chance then ever. Enter my boss — Rep. Gene Ward, House Republican leader. 

At the time, I was the director of House minority research, which put me in charge of drafting any memo or press release put out on behalf of the Republican caucus. So I knew early on that Ward entered into a conversation with Say about using Republican votes to break the stalemate. And, I spent many hours prepping negotiations that ranged from what exactly the members could say to the media to what we should demand in return for our support.

Watching Say operate as speaker felt like a free masterclass in political negotiations. At the end of it, the Republican caucus “offered” all of their votes. Say to have their endorsement, but he wanted to work within the Democratic caucus first.

Ward helped Say regain the upper hand. Now, he wanted the rest of the Democrats, but he didn’t actually need them. For their help in breaking the stalemate, Republicans didn’t get any leadership positions or office upgrades. We did, however, get a bigger staff budget, and the speaker supplied staff meals for long weekends. Because, yes, everything is up for grabs in these negotiations.

The following cycle, Republicans got a little more. Then, we had a new minority leader, Rep. Aaron Johanson, and I was the newly elected floor leader. We had a lot more sympathy for the dissidents’ cause than our predecessors so when we had a chance to align with Saiki and Luke to restore Souki to the speakership, we went for it.

This time, Johanson made clear that we wanted to be a part of a real, public coalition. Our votes wouldn’t be used just as a hammer to get Democrats in line. While Johanson was in charge of the actual negotiation, I did my best to rally our own caucus, which was highly suspicious of the new Souki, Saiki and Luke proposition. The objections ran from Saiki’s supposed “anti-Christian agenda” to Souki’s alleged determination to “turn Hawaii into Las Vegas.”

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat opinion writers are closely following efforts to bring more transparency and accountability to state and local government — at the Legislature, the county level and in the media. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

Everything Is Up For Negotiation

My initial foray into speaker politics taught me that everything — even staff meals — were up for negotiation. So, I spent my time ferreting out demands from our members. What committee seats do they want? What bills are most important to them? Do they want to sit in the first or second row on the House floor? Do they want an office that provides their staff a window? Etcetera.

When Johanson negotiated a deal, I had to help keep our members on board, and I learned in real time just how many outside influences can impact these decisions.

Donors who were friends with Say or Rep. Marcus Oshiro, who was going to take over for Say, called me to suggest that I change my mind. Religious leaders told me that Johanson and I were being “led astray,” and our decision would be detrimental to religious freedom. I received daily “counsel” that Souki was using us, but Johanson and I were too young and too naive to understand. And, of course, I fielded frantic calls from Republicans both inside and outside our caucus who were all hearing the same.

Why does this matter now? My experience is in the past, but I have every reason to believe that the very same things that went on then are underway now. Now that there is an opening, you can be certain every frontrunner is going to be pulling levers to get the votes they need.

Policy decisions might play into the debate, and I do hope that many of our newer progressive legislators will demand meaningful action on housing, sustainability and other critical needs before committing their support.

Power and status will also be high on the list of demands for most members, as well as control over the Judiciary or Finance committees.

We shouldn’t lose sight of other, less obvious points of negotiation. Whose bills move or don’t move? Who gets a fourth floor or corner office? Who has to move into a smaller office? Who gets a seat on the floor where the press or gallery members can read your computer screen?

It’s all on the table.