File stamped motion and order granting tro, taal et al v mateo, exs a-j ...

Exhibit “A”

DANNY A. MATEO-001y K. NISHITA

County Clerk /° Deputy County Clerk

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF MAUI

200 SOUTH HIGH STREET WAILUKU, MAUI, HAWAII 96793 www.mauicounty.govlcounty/clerk -n

C) June 23 7 2014 m

< M 77 D

Honorable G. Riki Hokama, Chair Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee Council of the County of Maui Wailuku, Hawaii 96793

Dear Chair Hokama:

Respectfully transmitted are copies of the following communications that were referred to your Committee by the Council of the County of Maui at its meeting of June 20, 2014:

COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS:

No. 14-163 - Danilo F. Agsalog, Director of Finance No. 14-164 - G. Riki Hokama, Councilmember No. 14-165 - Donald S. Guzman, Councilmember No. 14-166 - Dennis A. Mateo, County Clerk

Respectfully,

DANNY A. MATEO County Clerk

/l ks

Enclosures

cc: Director of Council Services


JOSIAH K. NISHITA Deputy County Clerk


200 SOUTH HIGH STREET WAILUKU, MAUI, HAWAII 96793 www.mauicounty.gov/county/clerk

June 13, 2014

Honorable Chair and Members of the County Council

County of Maui Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii

0-fl 23

z -

rn W rn 0 In

—i

fl1 •,

Dear Chair and Members of the County Council:

SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS FOR INITIATIVE PETITION PROPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE CULTIVATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS

The Office of the County Clerk, County of Maui, would like to inform you that an initiative petition proposing an ordinance entitled "A BILL PLACING A MORATORIUM ON THE CULTIVATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS" contains more than the required amount of valid signatures. Copies of the proposed ordinance and certifications of results have been attached for your ease of reference.

Combined, the initiative and supplemental petitions submitted contained 9,062 valid signatures. Section 11-3(2), Charter of the County of Maui, requires 8,465 valid signatures to receive Council consideration.

Pursuant to Section 11-6(1), Charter of the County of Maui, the Council has sixty days from June 6, 2014, to consider the proposed ordinance.

Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 808-270-7748.

Sincerely,


Attachments

COUNTY COMMUNICATiON NO, _ 4 - ~ (42(p

RECEIVED

A BILL PLACING A MORATORIUM ON TH1201II FEB 21 PH 1: LI I CULTIVATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS

OFFICE OF THE Chapter 20.39 of the Maui County Code 19_ (20_ Edition, as amended) G VCy a new article to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"Article Moratorium on the Cultivation of Genetically Engineered Organisms."

SECTION 1: Summary Statement

The Hawaii Constitution states that the Public Trust Resources (including but not limited to the land, water, and air) shall be conserved and protected for current and future generations.

The Genetically Engineered (GE) Operations and Practices occurring in Maui County (also known as GMO) are different than GE food production farming and therefore pose different circumstances, risks, and concerns. In Maui County, GE Operations and Practices include the cultivation of GE seed crops, experimental GE test crops, and extensive pesticide use including the testing of experimental Pesticides and their combinations in what is effectively an outdoor laboratory.

The citizens of Maui County have serious concerns as to whether GE Operations and Practices and associated use and testing of Pesticides, occurring in Maui County are causing irreparable harm to the people, Environment, and Public Trust Resources.

Therefore, the citizens of Maui County call for a suspension of all GE Operations and Practices within the County through a Temporary Moratorium Initiative until an Environmental Public Health Impact Statement analysis of the impacts stemming from GE Operations and Practices and their associated Pesticide use is provided and reviewed by County Council.

SECTION 2: Findings

Cultural Heritage & Environmental Protection 1. The rapid and unregulated growth of commercial agricultural entities engaged in the cultivation and development of GE Organisms threatens the stability and growth of Maui County's agricultural economy, the health of its citizens, and its environment. Moreover, the lands of Maui County and the water surrounding it have cultural and spiritual significance to the indigenous people of Hawaii. This cultural and spiritual heritage will suffer irreparable harm if the natural environment of Maui County is contaminated by GE Operations and Practices.

1

2. Maui County residents have a right to decide if the risks associated with the GE Operations and Practices are unacceptable and to take action to suspend such Operations and Practices.

3. GE Organisms are not a part of the natural environment of Maui County and instead exist in the County as a possible invasive species. Protection from the possible threat of damage. and/or potentially irreversible alteration of the environment and cultural heritage from the threat of invasive GE Organisms is supported by the Hawaiian Public Trust Doctrine, the Hawaii State Constitution, and other State and County environmental laws.

4. The genetic engineering of plants and animals often causes unintended consequences. Manipulating genes via genetic engineering and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. The results are not always predictable or controllable. Mixing plant, animal, bacterial, and viral genes through genetic engineering in combinations that are not selected for in nature may produce results that lead to adverse health or environmental consequences and threaten Maui County's cultural heritage, Environment and Public Trust Resources.

Pesticide Concerns 5. GE Operations and Practices can have serious effects on the environment. For example, in 2013, 93 percent of all soy grown in the U.S. was engineered to be herbicide resistant. In fact, the vast majority of GE crops are designed to withstand herbicides, and therefore promote indiscriminate herbicide use. As a result, GE herbicide-resistant crops have caused 527 million pounds of additional herbicides to be applied to the nation's farmland. These toxic herbicides damage the vitality and quality of our soil, harm wildlife, contaminate our drinking water, and pose health risks to consumers and farm workers.

6. Increased use of herbicides in GE Operations and Practices has resulted in the rapid development and proliferation of previously unknown herbicide-tolerant superweeds. The proliferation of these superweeds threatens to overtake the habitat of native flora and fauna in uncultivated lands and forces farmers to use increasingly toxic and expensive herbicides to remove them from cultivated lands.

7. GE Operations and Practices and associated pesticide use pose a high risk of fostering rapid evolution of pests known as superbugs that become resistant to organic pesticides, to the detriment of conventional and organic farmers who are forced to use increasingly larger volumes and/or stronger pesticides to manage these new pests.

8. In some GE Operations and Practices, multiple Pesticides are applied at the same time or applied in close time proximity to each other ("pesticide cocktails"). This practice is often being used on test crops in a trial and error manner to test and develop new Pesticide resistant

Crops. In this process it is possible that new and unknown chemicals are created. Although individual Pesticides have been tested and regulated for their use in isolation, there has not been adequate testing and/or regulations concerning the various chemical combinations that occur during GE Operations and Practices, and few if any of which have been tested in either short term or long term animal or human studies.

Regulatory Issues

9. Inadequate regulatory oversight at the county, state, and federal levels leave the citizens of Maui County with significant concerns regarding the immediate safety and long term effects of GE Operations and Practices threatening the integrity of Maui County's cultural heritage, agricultural economy, tourism economy, and the health of its visitors, citizens, and the environment.

10. The rapid development and introduction of GE Organisms, combined with inadequate regulatory oversight at the state and federal levels, have left the citizens of Maui County with significant concerns regarding the long-term safety of GE Operations and Practices. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture does not have an adequate regulatory structure in place to monitor GE Operations and Practices or to aid in the understanding of the impacts of these Operations and Practices on Maui's economy, environment, cultural heritage, or public health. The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on Maui County regarding the long-term intensive GE Operations and Practices and associated pesticide uses have not been properly or independently evaluated.

Economic Considerations 11. Agriculture is a important component of Maui's agricultural economy. Organic agriculture is a rapidly expanding sector of Maui's agricultural economy.

12. Maui County's local economy is also dependent on the success of its tourism industry, which makes up the County's largest employment sector. The protection of Maui's land and waters is crucial to the continuing success of Maui's tourism industry.

13. Maui's agricultural economy relies on maintaining its reputation for high quality organic and conventional crops. Preserving the identity, quality, and reliability of Maui's agricultural products and exports is critical to its economic well-being.

Transgenic Contamination 14. The contamination of agricultural products with GE Organisms can have a myriad of significant impacts. Organic and many foreign markets prohibit GE product and even a single event of Transgenic Contamination can and has resulted in significant economic harm when the contaminated crops are rejected by buyers.

3

15. Transgenic contamination can and does occur as a result of cross-pollination, co-mingling of conventional and GE seeds, accidental transfer by animals or weather events, and other mechanisms. Transgenic contamination results in GE crops growing where they are not intended. For example, since the introduction of GE papaya in Hawaii County (Big Island), more than 50% of the non-GE papaya crops on the Big Island have been cross-contaminated by GE papaya.

16. Transgenic contamination prevents farmers and the public from having the fundamental right to choose whether or not to grow crops that are free from GE. Farmers and other parties who lose non-GE standing and markets through no fault of their own as a result of transgenic contamination have no adequate legal recourse.

17. Currently, no mechanisms exist to ensure that transgenic contamination will not occur.

18. There are no known or proven scientific methodologies or procedures to recall GE Organisms or remediate/decontaminate the Environment from any damages once GE Organisms are released into the Environment and contamination has occurred.

Risk ofHarm to Soil Resources

19. GE Operations and Practices in Maui County primarily involve seed crops and test crops that include aggressive and repeated use of pesticides before planting and during the growing cycle of these crops. Such Operations and Practices present risks and significant harm to soil resources. Some of Maui County's soil microbes are harmed by the application of pesticides used in GE Operations and Practices.

Risk ofHarm to Water Resources 20. Areas of Maui's groundwater are already significantly contaminated with Pesticides, including DBCP and TCP, from former conventional pineapple growing operations. GE Operations and Practices in Maui County involve unprecedented use of Pesticides which greatly exacerbate an already existing problem.

21. Many field sites are left fallow for significant periods of time while repeated Pesticide applications are applied. Pesticide laden water runoff from is exacerbated by repeated Pesticide treatments to fallow sites, presenting short and long term risks of significant harm to ground and surface water, beaches, and reefs.

Risk of Harm to Air Resources 22. Pesticide drift and fugitive dust from GE Operations and Practices present short and long term risks of significant harm especially to air resources, farm workers, and to persons living

4

downwind from GE Operations and Practices.

SECTION 3: Rights and Authority

1. County Authority

The Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 46-1.5(13) states: "Each county shall have the power to enact ordinances deemed necessary to protect health, life, and property, and to preserve the order and security of the county and its inhabitants on any subject or matter not inconsistent with, or tending to defeat, the intent of any state statute where the statute does not disclose an express or implied intent that the statute shall be exclusive or uniform throughout the State." We, the people of Maui County, hereby assert that we have a legitimate local purpose to enact this initiative on the county level to protect health, life and property within Maui County. Furthermore, the State Constitution expressly grants political subdivisions the right to uphold the Public Trust Doctrine under Hawaii State Constitution, Article XI, Section 1 and all persons standing to enforce such rights Environmental Rights under The Hawaii State Constitution, Article XI, Section 9.

2. Environmental Rights The Hawaii State Constitution, Article XI, Section 9 "Environmental Rights," states: "Each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources. Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations and regulation as provided by law."

3. Public Trust Doctrine Hawaiti State Constitution, Article XI, Section 1 "Conservation and Development of Resources" states:

"For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals, energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State. All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people."

4. Precautionary Principle In Maine vs. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986), the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution did not preempt states and localities from "protect(ing) the health and safety of its citizens and the integrity of its natural resources." That Supreme Court precedent also articulated a concept that has come to be known as the "Precautionary Principle," stating that

5

(the state in question) was not required "to sit idly by and wait until potentially irreversible environmental damage has occurred or until the scientific community agrees on what [environmental risks] are or are not dangerous before it acts to avoid such consequences." Maine vs. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986). Given the authority set forth in Section 2, above, the people of Maui County demand that the Precautionary Principle be applied in the form of a prohibition of all the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of GE Organisms in the County.

5. Rights Conferred By This Ordinance We, the people of Maui County hereby proclaim that the our residents, visitors, Public Trust Resources, and the Environment must be protected from the potentially hazardous health effects, contamination, loss of diversity, environmental and other potentially harmful impacts from the GE Operations and Practices that have not met the standards set forth in this Ordinance. Therefore, we are hereby exercising our right to utilize the County initiative process to impose a moratorium on the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of GE Organisms in Maui County in order to protect, our residents, visitors, and the environment, and to call for a detailed environmental impact study of the harms associated with GE Operations and Practices.

SECTION 4: Purpose

The purposes of this Article are:

1. to protect Maui County's Environment and Public Trust Resources from transgenic contamination by GE Operations and Practices;

2. to defend and promote the economic integrity of organic and non GE markets that are harmed by transgenic contamination by GE Operations and Practices;

3. to protect Maui County from hazardous aspects of GE Operations and Practices, including but not limited to increased Pesticide use;

4. to preserve the right of Maui County residents to reject GE Operations and Practices based on health-related, moral, or other concerns; and

5. to preserve Maui County's Environment and Public Trust Resources (with its unique and vulnerable ecosystems), while promoting the cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of Maui and indigenous agricultural Operations and Practices.

This Article shall be liberally construed to fulfill those purposes.

Section 5: Temporary Moratorium.

1. It is unlawful for any person or entity to knowingly propagate, cultivate, raise, grow or test Genetically Engineered Organisms within the County of Maui until such time that the terms of the "Moratorium Amendment or Repeal" (Section 6, below) have been met.

2. Subsection (1) of this Section does NOT apply to:

(a) the propagation, cultivation, raising, growing or testing of GE Organisms that are in mid-growth cycle when this chapter is enacted; (b) GE Organisms that have been incorporated into any food or medicine in any manner already prepared for sale for human or animal consumption; (c) any licensed health practitioner who provides diagnosis, care, or treatment to any human patient using products containing GE Organisms; and (d) any fully accredited college or university that engages in non-commercial scientific research, medical research, or education using GE Organisms, provided that such activities are conducted under enclosed indoor laboratory conditions, with the utmost precautionary measures to prevent accidental release of GE Organisms into the outside environment.

Section 6: Moratorium Amendment or Repeal

1. The temporary moratorium provided in Section 6 shall remain in effect until amended or repealed by the Maui County Council as described in subsection 2 of this Section, or as is otherwise authorized by law.

2. The County Council may consider proposed amendments to, or repeal of, the Temporary Moratorium provided in Section 6 for any specific GE Operation or Practice if an Environmental and Public Health Impacts Study (EPHIS) described in Section 7 has been completed for such GE Operation or Practice. The passage of any proposed amendment or repeal of the Temporary Moratorium for any such GE Operation or Practice under this Section shall require: (1) County Council and citizens review of the EPHIS as detailed in Section 8.2.a; (2) a public hearing; (3) the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the council membership;(4) a determination by the County Council that passage of the amendment or repeal pertaining to such GE Operation or Practice does not result in significant harm and will result in significant benefits to the health of present and future generations of Maui citizens, significantly supports the conservation and protection of Maui's natural beauty and all natural resources, including but not limited to land, water, air, minerals, and energy sources, as required under the Public Trust Doctrine embodied in the Hawai'i State Constitution, Article XI, Section 1, and the Environment.

7

Section 7: Environmental and Public Health Impacts Study (EPHIS).

1. Person or entities affected by and seeking release from the Temporary Moratorium in Maui County must provide Maui County the funding necessary to complete an Environmental and Public Health Impacts Study (EPHIS) as described in Section 2 and 3, below;

2. The County of Maui shall conduct an Environmental and Public Health Impacts Study (EPHIS) through a two-phase community-based process to address key environmental and public health questions related to large-scale commercial agricultural entities that engage in GE Operations and Practices and associated Pesticide use.

First Phase: 3. Within ninety (90) days of any person or entity providing Maui County the funding necessary to complete the EPHIS, there shall be a Joint Fact Finding Group (JFFG) chosen and convened by the Maui County Council of scientists and health experts free of GE industry ties and facilitated by an independent and non-biased professional consultant to determine the scope and design of the EPHIS. In determining the scope and design of the EPHIS, the JFFG shall provide notice to the citizens of Maui County and allow a thirty (30) day period for public input. The fmal scope and design and all results and all raw data of all studies shall be published on the County's website. The EPHIS must include, but shall not be limited to, research and analysis evaluating the extent to which:

(a) Transgenic Contamination from GE Organisms to non-GE organisms may occur; (b) GE Organisms released into the environment may effectively be recalled from the environment; (c) Pesticides associated with GE Operations and Practices used both as single Pesticide and as Pesticide combinations may contaminate the groundwater, surface water, oceans and reefs; (d) Pesticide laden air and dust from GE Operations and Practices may be harmful to the people and Environment; (e) Pesticide combinations associated with GE Operations and Practices resulting from two or more Pesticides are applied at the same time or within their period of active life ("Pesticide Cocktails") have or have not been tested for safety and the extent to which they may be harmful to the people and Environment; (f) Horizontal Gene Transfer from GE Organisms between organisms of different species may occur; and (g) there is any correlation between birth defects and the proximity to extensive GE Operations and Practices occurring in Maui County and Kauai County.

[:]

Second Phase: 4. In the second part of the process, the EPHIS shall be conducted by a non-biased professional consultant independent of GE industry ties with oversight by the JFFG and shall be completed within eighteen (18) months after publication of the final scope and design of the EPHIS described in Part (a). The EPHIS shall allow a ninety (90) day public comment period including four (4) public hearings, including one on the island of Molokai. Any relevant information, data, comments or public concerns shall be addressed in the EPHIS. The EPHIS may make recommendations that include, but are not limited to, possible actions the County may take in order to address any significant effects on the Environment, Public Trust Resources, and public health. The final results and all raw data of all studies shall be published on the County's website.

Section 8: Regulations

If necessary, the Department of Environmental Management or other appropriate County Department may enact and enforce regulations to implement this chapter, but it may not create any new exemption not listed in this chapter.

Section 9: Right of Action for Violations—Attorneys' Fees

1. The Department of Environmental Management may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any person or entity from violating this chapter.

Civil Penalties

2. The Department of Environmental Management may assess a civil monetary penalty against any person or entity violating this chapter in the amount of:

(a) $10,000.00 dollars for a first violation; (b) $25,000.00 dollars for a second violation; or (c) $50,000.00 dollars for a third or subsequent violation.

In assessing penalties, each day of violation must be considered a separate violation.

Criminal Recourse

3. In addition to any fines described above, any person or entity, whether as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise, violating or causing or permitting the violation of any of the provisions of this initiative, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than two-thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or imprisoned not more than one (1) year, or both, for each offense. The continuance of any violation after

conviction shall be deemed a new criminal offense for each day that the violation or violations continue.

Failure to Comply with Injunction

4. In addition to all other remedies, upon the failure, neglect, or refusal of any noncompliant person or corporation to remove Genetically Engineered Organisms after sixty (60) days of receipt of notice of noncompliance, the Director of Environmental Management (and Director's agents, representatives, and assistants, sub-contractors) are authorized to enter the property and remove GE Organisms at the violator's expense.

5. Any injured citizen of Maui County may, after giving notice of the alleged violation to the Maui Department of Environmental Management and the alleged violator and subsequently waiting at least sixty days, bring an action to enjoin violation of this chapter in any court of competent jurisdiction.

6. In a citizen suit action, the court may award to a prevailing plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in investigating and prosecuting an action to enforce this chapter. Such an award may not include monetary damages, but only fee and cost recovery

Section 10: Severability

Every provision in this chapter and every application of the provisions in this chapter are severable from each other. If any application of any provision in this chapter to any person or group of persons or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid, the remainder of this chapter and the application of its provisions to all other persons and circumstances may not be affected. Furthermore, if any part or application of this initiative is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this initiative shall be construed to have the broadest interpretation allowed by law which would render it valid and enforceable (in the spirit and in alignment with the intent of this initiative) and the remainder of the initiative's application to other situations or persons shall not be affected. All constitutionally valid applications of this chapter shall be severed from any applications that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in force, because it is the County's intent and priority that the valid applications be allowed to stand alone. Even if a reviewing court finds a provision of this chapter invalid in a large or substantial fraction of relevant cases, the remaining valid applications shall be severed and allowed to remain in force. If any part or application of this chapter is held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons will not be affected.

10

Section 11: Definitions

"Crop" includes test crops, seed crops and farming crops.

"Environment" means all Public Trust Resources and all non-GE life forms, the ecosystems that support them, and the interrelationships between them.

"GE Operation(s) and/or Practice(s)" means both intended and unintended product(s) and process(es) of any kind that is commonly associated with the creation, propagation, cultivation, raising or growing of GE Organisms (including but not limited to seed crops, test crops, or farming crops), and includes but is not limited to Pesticide application, transgenic contamination, and contamination of land and water resources.

"Genetically Engineered" or "GE" (also commonly referred to as "Genetically Modified", "GM", "Genetically Modified Organism", or "GMO") means produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:

(a) In vitro nucleic acid techniques which include, but are not limited to, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA), direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, encapsulation, gene deletion, and doubling; or

(b) Methods of fusing cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection such as conjugation, transduction, and hybridization.

For purposes of this definition: "In vitro nucleic acid techniques" include, but are not limited to, recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems; techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organisms such as biolistics, microinjection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, microencapsulation, and liposome fusion.

"Organism": means any biological entity capable of replication, reproduction, or transferal of genetic material.

"Person" includes natural persons, partnerships, joint ventures, societies, associations, clubs, trustees, trusts, corporations, and all other entities, and all officers, agents, employees, and any other representatives thereof, in any capacity, acting either for oneself, one's heirs, or for any other person under personal appointment pursuant to law.

11

"Pesticide" is an umbrella term, including but not limited to: (a) any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, or (b) any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant, and (c) any nitrogen stabilizer which has been declared a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or Hawaii's Pesticide Laws, and

(d) any herbicide.

"Public Trust Resources" as referred to in Hawai'i State Constitution, Article XI, Section 1 "Conservation and Development of Resources" means: "Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals, [and] energy sources."

"Trausgenic Contamination" refers to the unintended comingling of GE crops with non-GE crops.

12


JOSIAH K. NISHITA Deputy County Clerk



CERTIFICATE OF RESULTS

I hereby certify that the following is a true and correct tabulation of the result of my

office's examination of the petition submitted by the SHAKA Movement proposing an ordinance

by initiative power, entitled "A BILL PLACING A MORATORIUM ON THE CULTIVATION

OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS", which was deemed filed on April 7, 2014.

The petition is insufficient under the County of Maui Charter § 11-3(2), as it is signed by less

than the required number of qualified voters of the County.

Pursuant to § 114(2) of the Charter of the County of Maui, the following findings show

the particulars wherein the petition is defective.

Under the County of Maui Charter § 11-3(2), the petition must be signed by not less than

20 percent of the total number of voters who cast ballots in the last mayoral general election.

42,322 total votes were cast in the last mayoral general election. 20 percent of 42,322 equals

8,464.4, which represents the total number of signatures needed for sufficiency. Thus, 8,465

valid signatures are needed to meet the requirements in the County of Maui Charter § 11-3(2).

Office of the County Clerk Page 2 Certificate of Results

Total Number of Valid Signatures 4,720

Invalid Signatures

Insufficient information provided 581

Not Registered 2,611

Inactive Voter 342

Different Address 1,019

Different Name 9

Not Legible 137

Duplicate Signature 93

Registered in Different County in State of Hawaii 46

Other Invalid (e.g., affidavit not notarized) 162

Wrong Signature 48

Total Number of Invalid Signatures 5,048

Total Number of Signatures Submitted 9,768

Total Number ofAdditional Valid Signatures Needed 3,745

There may have been more than one reason for a signature to be considered invalid.

This certificate will be mailed to Post Office Box 790538, Paia, HI 96779, which is the

mailing address specified in the petitioners' committee affidavit.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the County

of Maui to be affixed on this 21' day of May, 2014.

( DENNIS A. MATEO4 County Clerk County of Maui

DANNY A. MATEO JOSIAH K. NISHITA County Clerk

Ro

Deputy County Clerk



CERTIFICATE OF RESULTS For

"A Bill Placing a Moratorium on the Cultivation of Genetically Engineered Organisms"

SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION Submitted May 27, 2014

I hereby certify that the following is a true and correct tabulation of the result of my office's

examination of the supplemental petition submitted by the SHAKA Movement proposing an ordinance by

initiative power, entitled "A BILL PLACING A MORATORIUM ON THE CULTIVATION OF

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS", which was deemed filed on May 27, 2014.

Under the County of Maui Charter § 11-3(2), the petition must be signed by not less than 20

percent of the total number of voters who cast ballots in the last mayoral general election. 42,322 total

votes were - cast in the last mayoral general election. 20 percent of 42,322 equals 8,464.4, which

represents the total number of signatures needed for sufficiency. Thus, 8,465 valid signatures are needed

to meet the requirements in the County of Maui Charter § 11-3(2).

The initial submission of the initiative petition contained 4,720 valid signatures. The

supplemental petition submitted contained 4,342 valid signatures. In total, our office received 9,062 valid

signatures pertaining to the initiative petition, which fulfills the requirements set forth in § 11-3(2) of the

Charter of the County of Maui.

Pursuant to § 11-5(2) of the Charter of the County of Maui, the following findings demonstrate the

sufficiency of the supplemental petition in conjunction with the initiative petition:

Office of the County Clerk

Page 2 Certificate of Results - Supplemental Petition

Total Number of Valid Signatures - Supplemental Petition

4,342

Invalid Signatures - Supplemental Petition

Insufficient information provided 578

Not Registered 2,573

Inactive Voter 648

Different Address 754

Different Name 7

Not Legible 145

Duplicate Signature 396

Registered in Different County in State of Hawaii 49

Other Invalid (e.g., affidavit not notarized) 53

Wrong Signature 81

Total Number of Invalid Signatures - Supplemental Petition 5,284

Total Number of Signatures Submitted - Supplemental Petition 9,626

There may have been more than one reason for a signature to be considered invalid.

Total Number of Valid Signatures - Initiative and Supplemental Petition 9,062

This certificate will be mailed to Post Office Box 790538, Paia, HI 96779, which is the mailing

address specified in the petitioners' committee affidavit.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the County of Maui

to be affixed on this 6th day of June, 2014.

DENNIS A. MATEO County Clerk County of Maui

Exhibit “B”

Attorneys at Law A Law Corporation

1003 Bishop Street 1600 Pauahi Tower

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Telephone: (808) 531-8031 Facsimile: (808) 533-2242

hawaiilawyer.com

DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT A LAW CORPORATION

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Danny Mateo, Maui County Clerk

Maui Corporation Counsel

Office of Council Services

FROM: Robert H. Thomas ([email protected])

Mark M. Murakami ([email protected])

RE: Ballot Question and other materials in connection with Proposed GE Crops

Initiative

This firm represents Citizens Against the Maui County Farming Ban, opponents of the proposed GE

Crops initiative. Despite the fact that the Maui County Charter has provided for the initiative power since

1983, no initiative has qualified for the ballot until now. Unfortunately, the Charter and the Maui Municipal

Code do not clearly provide a procedure or format for presenting the proposed initiative to the voters.

At a minimum, the Clerk must prepare a “ballot question” that will be presented to voters on the

ballot. On behalf of our client, we respectfully ask you to consider the following guidelines, all based on

Hawai‘i Supreme Court precedent:

1) An open and public process in which interested parties are able to provide comment;

2) A ballot question “which produces a knowing and deliberate expression of voter choice;”

3) A ballot question that provides voters with “the contents and effect” of the proposed initiative;

4) A ballot question that is neither “deceptive nor misleading;” and

5) A timetable that allows an opportunity to for a voter to challenge the legality of a proposed ballot

question without interfering with the conduct of the election.

ANALYSIS

A. An open and public process in which interested parties are able to provide comment.

There are several good reasons to allow interested parties to provide comment and assistance in the

completion of your election duties, including preparation of the ballot question and other descriptive

2

materials. First, the initiative is lengthy and relates to a complex subject-matter. Any assistance that can be

provided from those with expertise in the subject matter should be welcomed. Second, voters have a legal

duty to bring election irregularities to the attention of elections officials before an election when an

opportunity exists. Lewis v. Cayetano, 72 Haw. 499, 503-04, 823 P.2d 738, 741 (1992). Thus, avoiding

election issues altogether by including the public early in the process furthers this stated goal. Lastly, our

Supreme Court has indicated that the integrity of the vote is directly related to the duty of elections officials

to provide complete, accurate, and impartial information regarding the contents and effect of a proposed

initiative measure. Public participation in this process will assist you in this regard and may help avoid

charges of breach of duty.

B. A ballot question should be drafted to “produce a knowing and deliberate expression of voter choice”

by providing the voters with “the contents and effect” of the proposed initiative in a manner that is

neither “deceptive nor misleading.”

In Kahalekai v. Doi, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court considered a challenge to the election results

concerning a series of state Constitutional amendments presented to the voters. The ballot was complicated

by the presentation of numerous amendments for voter consideration. The Court expressed the basic

requirements of law necessary for the conduct of elections to satisfy the requirement of electoral approval.

Indeed, the Court concluded that where the electorate is not sufficiently informed, an initiative cannot be said

to have been lawfully adopted. Kahalekai v. Doi, 60 Haw. 324, 341, 590 P.2d 543, 555 (1979).

The Court stated:

[T]he ballot must enable the voters to express their choice on the [initiative]

presented and be in such form and language as not to deceive or mislead the

public….Thus, where information placed before the electorate is neither

deceptive nor misleading, and they are given sufficient time within which to

familiarize themselves with the contents and effect of the proposed

amendments, they will be deemed to have cast informed ballots.

Id. at 338-40, 590 P.2d at 552-53.

C. The “contents and effect” of the proposed initiative.

The proposed initiative ordinance is lengthy and relates to a complex subject-matter. However, the

operative provisions of the initiative are relatively simple. Its primary operative provisions are found in just

two sections: 5 and 9 and we believe that those provisions should be clearly and succinctly summarized for

the voters.

Section 5 bans any person from growing GE crops within the County. While styled as a “temporary

moratorium,” it is a ban. In our view, the term “temporary” is misleading. It is no more “temporary” than

any law enacted by a legislative body, which can be repealed or modified by the legislative body at an

unspecified later date. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word “temporary” as “[l]asting for a time only;

existing or continuing for a limited time (usu. short time); transitory.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1602 (9th ed.

3

2009). Indeed, Section 6 clearly provides that the “temporary moratorium” remains in effect forever “until

amended or repealed by the Maui County Council.” Even then, the Council can only amend or repeal under

certain conditions.1 Thus, Section 5 is even harder to repeal than a normal law. It is “temporary” in name

only. In addition, the term “moratorium” is similarly misleading. Again, Black’s defines the word

“moratorium” as: “1. An authorized postponement, usu. a lengthy one, in the deadline for paying a debt or

performing an obligation. 2. The period of this delay. 3. The suspension of a specific activity.” Black’s

Law Dictionary 1101 (9th ed. 2009). Obviously there is no “obligation” to farm and thus no postponement

of such an obligation.

The ban applies to the knowing growing or cultivation (e.g. farming) of all crops (including “test

crops, seed crops, and farming crops) produced from any organism that has been “genetically modified”

(a.k.a. genetically engineered). The term “genetically engineered” is further defined using a commonly

understood definition.

Section 5 also includes a couple of exceptions, but they have little practical effect on the farming

activity currently taking place in Maui. For example, there is an exception for any crops existing at the time

of enactment. Obviously that would apply to a single harvest following adoption. The ban on all future

crops would apply forever. Similarly, there is a modest exception for any GE crops already used in foods or

medicine sold for human or animal consumption. Again, this exception appears to have little practical effect.

In our view, there is no good reason to attempt to use a limited number of words available to describe the

initiative on these non-important provisions.

More importantly, Section 9 imposes criminal and civil penalties, including administrative entry and

removal of GE crops from private property to enforce the Section 5 ban. Section 9, paragraph 3 provides for

a criminal penalty, including a fine and/or imprisonment for up to one year for “any person or entity, whether

as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise, violating or causing or permitting the violation of” the ban

imposed by Section 5. The potential civil penalties include an injunction prohibiting further violation of

Section 5 and monetary penalties. The civil penalty could be imposed by the County or a private citizen. A

private citizen enforcing the ban could be awarded attorney’s fees and costs associated with any investigation

and legal action. Lastly, Section 9 authorizes the County to enter private property and remove GE crops at

the violator’s expense.

The other sections of the initiative allow the county to enact regulations (Section 8) and provide

definitions for certain terms used in the initiative (Section 11).

Thus, in order to comply with the policy and goals described above, the following ballot question is

respectfully offered for your consideration:

1 As mentioned, Sections 6 and 7 provide for the conditions in which the Council can amend or repeal the ban imposed by Section

5. These conditions include a two-thirds vote of the Council following a public hearing where the Council determines that a

specific GE operation or practice should be permitted based on the completion of a specified “environmental and public health”

study. The process for such a study is detailed in Section 7. We believe that including a description of this process is unnecessary

and misleading. The process would take a minimum of two years and would essentially require a farmer to pay for a study that

would attempt to “prove a negative.”

4

Shall the proposed initiative banning any person from knowingly farming

any crop using genetic engineering, and imposing criminal and civil

penalties for violation, including the removal of such crops from private

property, be adopted? Yes/No.

Thank you for your consideration of this memorandum and proposed ballot question. If you have any

further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

************

Exhibit “C”

Exhibit “D”

Voter Initiative Question: MAUI: Voter Initiative: Genetically Engineered Organisms

Should the proposed initiative prohibiting the cultivation or reproduction of genetically engineered organisms within the County of Maui, which may be amended or repealed as to a specific person or entity when required environmental and public health impact studies, public hearings, a two thirds vote and a determination by the County Council that such operation or practice meets certain standards, and which establishes civil and criminal penalties, be adopted for Maui County?

Exhibit “E”

OFFICE OF ELECTIONS SCOTT T. NAGO State of Hawaii Chief Election Officer

Page 1 of 7 This information is available in alternate formats. If you require special assistance (i.e., large print, taped materials, etc.) contact the Office of Elections at 453-VOTE(8683).

FACTSHEET

2014 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT QUESTIONS AND COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTIONS

This factsheet provides an overview of ballot questions that will appear on the 2014 General Election ballot. It includes the five (5) proposed constitutional amendments adopted during the Twenty-Seventh Legislature’s Regular Sessions of 2013 and 2014, in conformance with the requirements of Article XVII, Section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution. The factsheet also includes proposed charter amendment questions for registered voters of the County of Hawaii, County of Maui and County of Kauai. The City & County of Honolulu has no proposed charter amendments for this election. The five proposed constitutional amendments will appear in the same order as listed below on all ballots, statewide; followed by the respective county proposed amendment(s). Any questions regarding the proposed constitutional amendments should be directed to the Hawaii State Legislature and any questions regarding the proposed charter amendment(s) should be directed to the respective county clerk. Senate Clerk’s Office: (808) 586-6720 House Clerk’s Office: (808) 586-6400 County of Hawaii: (808) 961-8277 County of Maui: (808) 270-7749 County of Kauai: (808) 241-4800 The full text of the proposed constitutional amendments can be found on the Hawaii State Legislature’s website at: www.capitol.hawaii.gov. State of Hawaii - Amendments to the State Constitution Proposed by the Twenty-Seventh Legislature

H.B. 420, H.D. 1

CON AMEND: Relating to Disclosure of Judicial Nominees

"Shall the judicial selection commission, when presenting a list of nominees to the governor or the chief justice to fill a vacancy in the office of the chief justice, supreme court, intermediate appellate court, circuit courts or district courts, be required, at the same time, to disclose that list to the public?"


Cantonese: "向州長或首席法官提交首席法官、最高法院、中級上訴法院、巡迴法院或

地區法院待填補公職被提名者名單時，司法選舉委員會是否必須同時向公共

披露該名單？" Ilocano: "No iprespresentarda ti listaan dagiti nainominar iti gobernador wenno iti kangatuan nga ukom tapno madutokan ti agtugaw iti bakante a puwesto iti opisina ti kangatuan nga ukom, korte suprema, intermedio a korte ti apela, dagiti circuit court wenno korte ti distrito, makiddaw kadi iti komision iti panagpili iti ukom ken huwes nga igiddanda nga ibutaktak ti listaan iti publiko?"

Japanese: "裁判官選任委員会は主席裁判官、最高裁判所、中間上訴裁判所、巡回裁

判所あるいは地方裁判所の欠員を補充する候補者リストを知事あるいは主

席裁判官に提出し、同時にそのリストを一般に公開する義務を付けるべき

か?"

H.B. 748, H.D. 2, S.D. 1, C.D. 1 CON AMEND: Relating to Agricultural Enterprises

"Shall the State be authorized to issue special purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to assist agricultural enterprises on any type of land, rather than only important agricultural lands?"

Cantonese: "州府是否應當授權發行特殊用途收入債券並利用此類債券之收益幫助任何

土地類型（而不只是重要農業用地）上的農業企業？"

Ilocano: "Maikkan kadi ti pannabalin ti Estado a mangiruar kadagiti bono a suportaran dagiti mapastrek ti gobierno manipud kadagiti pakausaranna a naisangsangayan a panggep, ken mangusar kadagiti mapastrek manipud kadagiti bono tapno tulungan dagiti negosio nga agrikultura nga adda iti aniaman a kita iti daga, imbes a dagiti laeng napateg nga agrikultural a dagdaga?"

Japanese: "州政府は特殊目的歳入担保債の発行を許可し、重要な農地だけでなくす

べての種類の農地における農企業を支援するために債券の収益を利用すべ

きか?"


S.B. 886 CON AMEND: Relating to State Justices and Judges

"Shall the mandatory retirement age for all state court justices and judges be increased from seventy to eighty years of age?"

Cantonese: "是否應將州法院法官的強制性退休年齡從七十歲推遲到八十歲？"

Ilocano: "Maipangato kadi ti mandatorio a tawen ti panagretiro ti amin nga ukom ken huwes ti estado iti walopulo a tawen manipud iti pitopulo?"

Japanese: "州裁判官および判事全員の定年を70歳から80歳に延期すべきか?"

S.B. 1084, S.D. 1, H.D. 1, C.D. 1 CON AMEND: Relating to Early Childhood Education

"Shall the appropriation of public funds be permitted for the support or benefit of private early childhood education programs that shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex or ancestry, as provided by law?"

Cantonese: "在依法不實施種族、宗教、性別或血統歧視的情況下，是否應當允許為支

持或造福私立幼兒早期教育計劃之目的劃撥公共資金？"

Ilocano: "Mapalubosan kadi ti pannakailatang dagiti pondo ti publiko a pangsuportar wenno kas benepisio dagiti pribado a programa iti edukasion dagiti babassit nga ubbing a saan a mangidumduma segun iti puli, relihion, kinalalaki/kinababai wenno kaputotan, kas ibilin ti linteg?"

Japanese: "法律の定めにより、人種、宗教、性別あるいは祖先に基づいて差別しな

い、幼児教育の民間プログラムの支援あるいは利得のために公共資金の充

当を可能にすべきか?"


S.B 2876, S.D. 2, H.D. 2 CON AMEND: Relating to Dams and Reservoirs

"Shall the State be authorized to issue special purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to offer loans to qualifying dam and reservoir owners to improve their facilities to protect public safety and provide significant benefits to the general public as important water sources?"

Cantonese: "是否應當授權州府發行特殊用途收入債券並利用債券之收益向合格的水壩

和水庫東主提供貸款，以便改善其設施，保護公共安全並向公眾提供重要水

資源之類重大福利？"

Ilocano: "Maikkan kadi ti pannakablin ti Estado a mangiruar kadagiti bono a suportaran dagiti mapastrek ti gobierno manipud kadagiti pakausaranna a naisangsangayan a panggep ken mangusar kadagiti mapastrek manipud kadagiti bono tapno mangidiaya kadagiti utang kadagiti maikari a makinkukua iti dam ken pagpunduan ti danum tapno pasayaataenda dagiti pasilidadda ken protektaran ti kinatalged ti publiko ken mangipaay iti adu a benepisio iti sapasap a publiko kas napateg a pangalaan ti danum?"

Japanese: "州政府は大切な水源として一般の安全を守り一般市民に大きな利点を提

供するために、施設を改善するため、特殊目的歳入担保債を発行し、債券

の歳入を利用して適格のダムおよび貯水池の所有者に融資提供するために

許可すべきか?"

County of Hawaii - Proposed Amendment to the Hawaii County Charter

HAWAII: Term of Appointment for the County Clerk

Shall the County Charter be amended to create a four-year term of appointment for the County Clerk, with the County Council having the authority to remove the County Clerk from office by a two-thirds vote of its membership?


County of Maui - Proposed Amendments to the Maui County Charter

MAUI: Council: Affordable Housing Fund

Shall the Charter be amended to extend through fiscal year 2021 the requirement that two percent (2%) of the certified real property tax revenues be appropriated into an affordable housing fund to be used for the provision, protection, and expansion of affordable housing and suitable living environments for persons of very low to gap income?

Ilocano: MAUI: Konseho: Pondo Para iti Kabaelan-ti-Kaaduan a Panagpabalay

Rumbeng kadi a maamendaran ti Pagalagadan (Charter) tapno mailayon agingga iti fiscal year 2021 ti rekisito a ti dua a porsiento (2%) iti nasertipikaran a buis dagiti saan a magunay a propriedad (real property) ket mailatang a para iti pondo iti kabaelan-ti-kaaduan a panagpabalay ket daytoy a pondo mausar para iti pannakaaramid, pannakasalaknib, ken pannakaikalawa ti masakupan ti kabaelan-ti-kaaduan a panagpabalay ken pannakapaadda ti natalged a lugar a pagnaedan para kadagiti tattao a nababa ti sapulda wenno awan mategteggedanda no dadduma?

MAUI: Council: Penalties

Shall Section 13-10 of the Charter be amended to increase the current maximum penalty that may be imposed for violations of any provisions of the Charter and violations of ordinances and rules having the force and effect of law from $1,000 or one year's imprisonment, or both, to $25,000 or one year's imprisonment, or both?

Ilocano: MAUI: Konseho: Dagiti Dusa

Rumbeng kadi a ti Seksion 13-10 ti Pagalagadan (Charter) ket maamendaran tapno maingato ti agdama a kangatuan a dusa a mabalin a maipataw para iti pannakasalungasing ti ania man kadagiti probision ti Charter ken iti pannakasalungasing dagiti ordinansa ken pagannurotan a patawan ti linteg manipud $1,000 wenno makatawen a pannakaibalud, wenno agpada, ket mapagbalin daytoy a $25,000 wenno makatawen a pannakaibalud, wenno agpada?


County of Maui - Proposed Amendment by Voter Initiative to the Maui County Code

MAUI: Voter Initiative: Genetically Engineered Organisms

Should the proposed initiative prohibiting the cultivation or reproduction of genetically engineered organisms within the County of Maui, which may be amended or repealed as to a specific person or entity when required environmental and public health impact studies, public hearings, a two thirds vote and a determination by the County Council that such operation or practice meets certain standards, and which establishes civil and criminal penalties, be adopted for Maui County?

Ilocano:

MAUI: Karbengan ti Botante nga Agisingasing: Dagiti Organismo nga Addaan iti Nabaliwan a Hene (Genetically Engineered Organisms)

Rumbeng kadi a ti singasing nga inisiatibo a mangiparit iti panagpatanor ken panagpaadu kadagiti organismo nga addaan iti nabaliwan a hene (genetically engineered organisms) iti sakup ti County ti Maui, a mabalin a maamendaran wenno maibabawi para iti maysa nga espesipiko a tao wenno entidad no la ketdi adda dagiti kasapulan a panagadal a mainaig iti aglawlaw ken iti salun-at dagiti umili, maangay dagiti pannakiinnuman kadagiti umili wenno public hearings, ken mapaadda ti dua-nga-apagkatlo ti botos ken ikeddeng ti Konseho ti County a daytoy nga aramid ket nagun-odda dagiti kasapulan a pagrukodan, ken ipatawna dagiti dusa a sibil ken kriminal kadagiti panagsalungasing, ket maadaptar para iti County ti Maui?

County of Kauai - Amendments to the Charter of the County of Kauai

KAUAI: Relating to the Department of Personnel Services

Shall the Department of Personnel Services be changed to the Department of Human Resources, with additional human resources functions?

KAUAI: Relating to Charter Amendment

Should the county be allowed to publish summaries of charter amendments or a new charter in a newspaper of general circulation and the entire text on the official website of the County of Kauai?

KAUAI: Relating to Recall Ballots

Shall Charter section 27.07 regarding recall ballots be amended to comply with State law and to meet voting system requirements?


This Factsheet is intended for informational purposes only and should not be used as an authority on the Hawaii election law and deadlines. Requirements and/or deadlines may change pending changes in legislation. Consult the Hawaii Revised Statutes and other sources for more detailed and accurate requirements.

Office of Elections 802 Lehua Avenue

Pearl City, Hawaii 96782 Phone: 808-453-VOTE(8683)

Neighbor Island Toll Free: 1-800-442-VOTE(8683) TTY: 808-453-6150

Internet: www.hawaii.gov/elections

Office of Elections – FSBO134L Rev. 08/22/14

Exhibit “F”

Exhibit “G”

hawaiilawyer .com®

DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT A L A W C O R P O R A T I O N

Attorneys at Law

1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-6452

Telephone (808) 531-8031

Facsimile (808) 533-2242

E-Mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Website: www.hawaiilawyer.com

Bethany C.K. Ace

Matthew T. Evans

Diane D. Hastert

Caron N. Ikeda

Christine A. Kubota

Gregory W. Kugle

Kenneth R. Kupchak

Christopher J.I. Leong

Denis C.H. Leong

David P. McCauley

James C. McWhinnie

Mark M. Murakami

Anna H. Oshiro

E. Kumau Pineda-Akiona

Douglas C. Smith

Robert H. Thomas 1

Michael A. Yoshida

Madeleine M.V. Young 1

Of Counsel

R. Charles Bocken

Sara E. Coes 2

C. F. Damon, Jr.

Tred R. Eyerly

Clare M. Hanusz

Judith A. Schevtchuk

Charles W. Key

(1929-2008)

1Admitted in Hawaii and California

2Admitted in Hawaii and New York

Providing business clients

worldwide access to

sophisticated legal advice

and exceptional service.

August 29, 2014

VIA FAX (808) 453-6006

VIA EMAIL [email protected]

Mr. Scott Nago

Chief Election Officer, State of Hawaii

Office of Election

802 Lehua Avenue

Pearl City, Hawaii 96782

VIA FAX (808) 270-7171

VIA EMAIL [email protected]

Mr. Danny Mateo

County Clerk, County of Maui

200 South High Street, Room 708

Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii 96793

Re: Ballot Title; Maui Voter Initiative

Dear Mr. Nago and Mr. Mateo:

We represent a coalition of Maui County voters and Citizens

Against the Maui County Farming Ban, who are interested parties

regarding the ballot question relating to Maui County farming practices.

On or about August 26, 2014, we received a copy of the “FACTSHEET—

2014 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT QUESTIONS AND COUNTY

CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTIONS,” which on page 6, sets forth the

following wording to appear on the Maui County ballot in the upcoming

general election, which had previously been transmitted by the Maui

County Clerk to the Chief Election Officer:

County of Maui - Proposed Amendment by Voter Initiative to the Maui County Code

Maui: Voter Initiative: Genetically Engineered Organisms

Should the proposed initiative prohibiting the cultivation or reproduction of genetically engineered organisms within the County of Maui, which may be amended or repealed as to a specific person or entity when required environmental and

hawaiilawyer .com®


August 29, 2014

Page 2

public health impact studies, public hearings, a two thirds vote and a determination by the County Council that such operation or practice meets certain standards, and which establishes civil and criminal penalties, be adopted for Maui County? Ilocano: MAUI: Karbengan ti Botante nga Agisingasing: Dagiti Organismo nga Addaan iti Nabaliwan a Hene (Genetically Engineered Organisms) Rumbeng kadi a ti singasing nga inisiatibo a mangiparit iti panagpatanor ken panagpaadu kadagiti organismo nga addaan iti nabaliwan a hene (genetically engineered organisms) iti sakup ti County ti Maui, a mabalin a maamendaran wenno maibabawi para iti maysa nga espesipiko a tao wenno entidad no la ketdi adda dagiti kasapulan a panagadal a mainaig iti aglawlaw ken iti salunat dagiti umili, maangay dagiti pannakiinnuman kadagiti umili wenno public hearings, ken mapaadda ti dua-nga-apagkatlo ti botos ken ikeddeng ti Konseho ti County a daytoy nga aramid ket nagun-odda dagiti kasapulan a pagrukodan, ken ipatawna dagiti dusa a sibil ken kriminal kadagiti panagsalungasing, ket maadaptar para iti County ti Maui?

Hawaii law mandates that “[t]he essential requirement is that the

ballot not be misleading.” Kahalekai v. Doi, 60 Haw. 324, 333, 590 P.2d

543, 550 (1979) (citing Young v. Byrne, 364 A.2d 47 (N.J. Super. Law Div.

1976)). “[T]he ballot must enable the voters to express their choice on the

amendments presented and be in such form and language as not to

deceive or mislead the public.” Id. at 338, 590 P.2d at 552-53 (citations

omitted). Thus, “[w]here the ballot is in a form which produces a knowing

and deliberate expression of voter choice, the vote satisfies the

requirement of electoral approval.” Id. at 333, 590 P.2d at 550 (citing

Kohler v. Tugwell, 292 F. Supp. 978 (E.D. La. 1968), aff’d, 393 U.S. 531

(1969)). Conversely, when the measure is in a form which misleads or

improperly influences voters, does not show the measure’s character and

purpose, or is unclear, it cannot be placed on the ballot. Id.; Thirty Voters

v. Doi, 61 Haw. 179, 182, 599 P.2d 286, 289 (1979).

hawaiilawyer .com®


August 29, 2014

Page 3

The ballot title “Maui: Voter Initiative: Genetically Engineered

Organisms” is misleading, and consequently should be corrected so that it

conforms to the above requirements. Specifically, the title “Genetically

Engineered Organisms,” might cause a voter who is either in favor or

against adoption of the initiative measure to cast a ballot contrary to their

desires.

For example, a voter who believes the initiative is misguided, bad

policy, preempted by state law, would hurt Maui County farmers, or

simply believes that GEOs are beneficial, could read the title “Genetically

Engineered Organisms” and erroneously cast a “yes” vote because she or

he favors GEOs. By the same token, a voter who is in favor of the

initiative and reads the title “Genetically Engineered Organisms” may

erroneously cast a “no” vote because she or he is against GEOs.

Moreover, the term “Genetically Engineered Organisms” without

additional explanatory text is extremely overbroad, and could be viewed

by the voters as prohibiting such things as medical genetic engineering,

vaccines, and other areas which apply genetic engineering outside of the

agricultural context.

Thus, the ballot title as presently phrased is misleading and

deceptive towards both proponents and opponents equally.

Correcting the defect is a matter of the addition of a few words,

taken directly from the ballot question/summary:

“MAUI: Voter initiative: prohibiting cultivation or

reproduction of genetically engineered organisms”

Revising the current English and Ilocano versions of the ballot title

will conform them to the requirement that they be clear and not

misleading, and will allow the voters of Maui County to make an informed

choice about the initiative proposal. We ask that you do so immediately,

and respond to us at the earliest possible moment when you have done so.

If we do not receive a positive response from you by Tuesday,

September 2, 2014, at 3:30 p.m., our clients are prepared to undertake

whatever action they may need to in order to insure that the ballot

hawaiilawyer .com®


August 29, 2014

Page 4

language does not deceive or mislead the public, and is “in a form which

produces a knowing and deliberate expression of voter choice.” Kahalekai,

60 Haw. at 333, 590 P.2d at 550.

We appreciate your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT

Robert H. Thomas

Mark M. Murakami

RHT/MMM

Exhibit “H”

Exhibit “I”

AI-AN M. ARAKAWAMayor

PATRICK K.WONGCorporation Counscl

ED\YARD S. KUSHIFirsl Dcputy

I,YDIA A. ]'ODARisk Managcmcnl0mcer.ltl

No. (808) 270-7515fax No (808)270-1761

DEPARTMENT OF THE CORPORATION COUNSELCOUNTY OF MAUI

2OO SOUTH HIGH STREET, ]RI)FLOORWAILUKU, MAUI, HAWAII 96793

EtltAlL: CORI'[email protected] (808) 2707740!'ACSIMILE, (ti0n) :170.7r 52

Seotember 3. 2014

By email to rht@hawaiilawyer. comAnd to mmm@hawaiilawver. com

Mr. Robert H. ThomasMr. Mark M. MurakamiDamon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert1 003 Bishop Street. Suite 1600Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Re: Ballot Title for Maui Countv Voter Initiative

Dear Mr. Thomas:

The County of Maui does not intend to change the ballot title of the voter initiativedealing with genetically modified organisms.

Sincerely,

cc: Danny Mateo, County Clerk

TRICK K. WONG

Exhibit “J”

CREATIVE RESEARCH August 30-31, 2014

MAUI BALLOT INITIATIVE TITLE AND SUMMARY SURVEY

220- 3996-WT

N=202 FINAL

Hello, I’m ______________ calling from Creative Research in Honolulu, a public opinion research company.

I am not trying to sell you anything or ask for a donation, but I would like to ask you for a few minutes of your

time to answer an opinion survey about issues that are important to voters in Maui, Lanai and Molokai. All

your responses are confidential. May I speak with _________? (MUST SPEAK WITH VOTER LISTED.

VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED -- OTHERWISE TERMINATE.)

A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place

where you can talk safely? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE, ASK: Do you own a cell phone?)

Yes, cell and can talk safely -------------------------------------------------- 30%

Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------------------------- TERMINATE

No, not on cell, but own one-------------------------------------------------- 51%

No, not on cell and do not own one ----------------------------------------- 19%

(DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------------------------- TERMINATE

1. Next, in November of this year there will be statewide and local elections on Maui for candidates and

ballot measures. How likely are you to vote in the November election? Will you definitely vote,

probably vote, are the chances only 50-50 that you will vote, will you probably not vote, or will you

definitely not vote?

Definitely vote ----------------------------- 91%

Probably vote --------------------------------- 9%

Only 50-50 ------------------------------------ 0%

Probably not vote ------------- TERMINATE

Definitely not vote ------------ TERMINATE

(DON'T KNOW/NA) ------- TERMINATE

2. Would you say that things in Maui County today are generally going in the right direction, or do you

feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?

Right direction ----------------------------- 70%

Wrong track -------------------------------- 17%

(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 13%

CREATIVE RESEARCH 220- 3996-WT PAGE 2

3. Next, let me read the official title of a ballot measure that will appear on the ballot in this coming

November’s general election in Maui. The ballot measure title says:

“Maui Voter Initiative: Genetically Engineered Organisms.” If the election were today, would you

vote Yes in favor of this initiative or No to oppose it? (“IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely

(YES/NO) or just probably?”)

TOTAL YES --------------------------------------- 29%

Definitely Yes --------------------------------------- 18%

Probably Yes ---------------------------------------- 10%

TOTAL NO ----------------------------------------- 32%

Probably No ----------------------------------------- 13%

Definitely No --------------------------------------- 18%

(DON'T READ) Need more information ------- 37%

(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 3%

(READ SUMMARY SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY. THE SUMMARY PARAGRAPH IS ALL ONE

SENTENCE, BUT IT HAS A CLAUSE SET OFF BY COMMAS IN THE MIDDLE.)

4. Now, let me read you the official summary of this voter initiative as it will appear on the Maui County

Ballot. The summary says:

"Should the proposed initiative prohibiting the cultivation or reproduction of genetically engineered

organisms within the County of Maui -- which may be amended or repealed as to a specific person or

entity when required environmental and public health impact studies, public hearings, a two-thirds vote

and a determination by the County Council that such operation or practice meets certain standards, and

which establishes civil and criminal penalties -- be adopted for Maui County?” Hearing this official

summary, if the election were today, would you vote Yes in favor of this initiative or No to oppose it?

(“IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably?”)

TOTAL YES --------------------------------------- 39%

Definitely Yes --------------------------------------- 24%

Probably Yes ---------------------------------------- 15%

TOTAL NO ----------------------------------------- 32%

Probably No ----------------------------------------- 15%

Definitely No --------------------------------------- 17%

(DON'T READ) Need more information ------- 25%

(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 4%


HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.

5. Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Democrat, a Republican, or something else? (IF

"DEMOCRAT" OR "REPUBLICAN", ASK: “Would you call yourself a strong Democrat/

Republican or a not very strong Democrat/Republican?”) (IF "INDEPENDENT" IS

VOLUNTEERED, ASK: “Well, do you think of yourself as closer to the Democratic or Republican

Party?”)

Strong Democrat --------------------------- 38%

Not strong Democrat ------------------------ 6%

Independent/Democrat ---------------------- 8%

Independent --------------------------------- 25%

Independent/Republican -------------------- 4%

Not strong Republican ---------------------- 1%

Strong Republican --------------------------- 5%

(DON'T KNOW/NA) -------------------- 12%

6. What was the last level of school you completed?

Grades 1-8 ------------------------------------ 1%

Grades 9-11 ----------------------------------- 2%

High school graduate (12) ---------------- 20%

Community college/technical college -- 13%

Less than 4 years of college -------------- 15%

College graduate (4 year college) ------- 33%

Post-graduate/

Professional school ---------------------- 12%

(DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused -------- 3%

7. With which ethnic group do you identify?

Caucasian ----------------------------------- 35%

Chinese ---------------------------------------- 3%

Filipino -------------------------------------- 18%

Hawaiian or part Hawaiian --------------- 11%

Japanese --------------------------------------- 9%

Korean ----------------------------------------- 0%

Samoan ---------------------------------------- 0%

African-American --------------------------- 1%

Latino ------------------------------------------ 2%

Mixed, not Hawaiian ---------------------- 20%

(DON'T READ) DK/Refused ------------- 2%


8. In what year were you born?

1996-1990 (18-24) --------------------------- 1%

1989-1985 (25-29) --------------------------- 1%

1984-1980 (30-34) --------------------------- 0%

1979-1975 (35-39) --------------------------- 5%

1974-1970 (40-44) --------------------------- 6%

1969-1965 (45-49) ------------------------- 13%

1964-1960 (50-54) ------------------------- 13%

1959-1955 (55-59) --------------------------- 6%

1954-1950 (60-64) ------------------------- 15%

1949-1940 (65-74) ------------------------- 21%

1939 o earlier (75 & more) --------------- 13%

(DON’T READE) DK/REFUSED ------- 5%

THANK AND TERMINATE

GENDER (BY OBSERVATION): Male ----------------------------------------- 48%

Female --------------------------------------- 52%

ISLAND: Maui ----------------------------------------- 93%

Molokai --------------------------------------- 5%

Lanai ------------------------------------------- 2%

CREATIVE RESEARCH August 30-September 4, 2014

MAUI BALLOT INITIATIVE TITLE AND SUMMARY SURVEY

220- 3996-WT

INTERNET RESULTS

N=102

1. In November of this year there will be statewide and local elections on Maui for candidates and ballot

measures. How likely are you to vote in the November election? Will you definitely vote, probably

vote, are the chances only 50-50 that you will vote, will you probably not vote, or will you definitely

not vote?

Definitely vote ----------------------------- 91%

Probably vote --------------------------------- 9%

Only 50-50 ------------------------------------ 0%

Probably not vote ------------- TERMINATE

Definitely not vote ------------ TERMINATE

2. Would you say that things in Maui County today are generally going in the right direction, or do you

feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?

Right direction ----------------------------- 62%

Wrong track -------------------------------- 38%


3. Next, let me read the official title of a ballot measure that will appear on the ballot in this coming

November’s general election in Maui. The ballot measure title says:

“Maui Voter Initiative: Genetically Engineered Organisms.” If the election were today, would you

vote Yes in favor of this initiative or No to oppose it? (“IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely

(YES/NO) or just probably?”)

TOTAL YES --------------------------------------- 47%

Definitely yes ---------------------------------------- 23%

Probably yes ----------------------------------------- 24%

TOTAL NO ----------------------------------------- 53%

Probably no ------------------------------------------ 33%

Definitely no ---------------------------------------- 19%

(READ SUMMARY SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY. THE SUMMARY PARAGRAPH IS ALL ONE

SENTENCE, BUT IT HAS A CLAUSE SET OFF BY COMMAS IN THE MIDDLE.)

4. Now, let me read you the official summary of this voter initiative as it will appear on the Maui County

Ballot. The summary says:

"Should the proposed initiative prohibiting the cultivation or reproduction of genetically engineered

organisms within the County of Maui -- which may be amended or repealed as to a specific person or

entity when required environmental and public health impact studies, public hearings, a two-thirds vote

and a determination by the County Council that such operation or practice meets certain standards, and

which establishes civil and criminal penalties -- be adopted for Maui County?” Hearing this official

summary, if the election were today, would you vote Yes in favor of this initiative or No to oppose it?

(“IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably?”)

TOTAL YES --------------------------------------- 55%

Definitely yes ---------------------------------------- 20%

Probably yes ----------------------------------------- 35%

TOTAL NO ----------------------------------------- 45%

Probably no ------------------------------------------ 27%

Definitely no ---------------------------------------- 18%


HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.

5. Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Democrat, a Republican, or something else? (IF

"DEMOCRAT" OR "REPUBLICAN", ASK: “Would you call yourself a strong Democrat/

Republican or a not very strong Democrat/Republican?”) (IF "INDEPENDENT" IS

VOLUNTEERED, ASK: “Well, do you think of yourself as closer to the Democratic or Republican

Party?”)

Strong Democrat ----------------------------- 7%

Not strong Democrat ---------------------- 15%

Independent/Democrat -------------------- 42%

Independent --------------------------------- 12%

Independent/Republican ------------------ 14%

Not strong Republican ---------------------- 3%

Strong Republican --------------------------- 7%


6. What was the last level of school you completed?

Grades 1-8 ------------------------------------ 0%

Grades 9-11 ----------------------------------- 0%

High school graduate (12) ------------------ 8%

Community college/technical college -- 12%

Less than 4 years of college -------------- 16%

College graduate (4 year college) ------- 33%

Post-graduate/

Professional school ---------------------- 32%

7. With which ethnic group do your identify?

Caucasian ----------------------------------- 35%

Chinese ---------------------------------------- 5%

Filipino -------------------------------------- 18%

Hawaiian or part Hawaiian --------------- 11%

Japanese --------------------------------------- 9%

Korean ----------------------------------------- 0%

Samoan ---------------------------------------- 2%

African-American --------------------------- 0%

Latino ------------------------------------------ 0%

Mixed, not Hawaiian ---------------------- 20%

8. In what year were you born?

1996-1990 (18-24) --------------------------- 7%

1989-1985 (25-29) --------------------------- 0%

1984-1980 (30-34) --------------------------- 2%

1979-1975 (35-39) ------------------------- 12%

1974-1970 (40-44) --------------------------- 1%

1969-1965 (45-49) --------------------------- 5%

1964-1960 (50-54) --------------------------- 8%

1959-1955 (55-59) ------------------------- 13%

1954-1950 (60-64) ------------------------- 21%

1949-1940 (65-74) ------------------------- 25%

1939 or earlier (75 & more) ---------------- 5%


THANK AND TERMINATE

SEX (BY OBSERVATION): Male ----------------------------------------- 48%

Female --------------------------------------- 52%

ISLAND: Maui ----------------------------------------- 93%

Molokai --------------------------------------- 5%

Lanai ------------------------------------------- 2%

Date post:	21-Jan-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	civil-beat
View:	1,944 times
Download:	1 times

File stamped motion and order granting tro, taal et al v mateo, exs a-j ...

Documents