This year will mark the third time in a decade that Hawaii voters will be deciding issues related to mandatory judicial retirement. A review of these efforts shows a great many elements at play in the prior ballot efforts.
2005-2006: Eliminate the age (defeated at ballot box)
In 2005, Hawaii had the first Republican governor since statehood with the power to appoint judges via merit selection, a legislature made up of a supermajority of Democrats (41 to 10 in the House, 20 to 5 in the Senate), and several members of the state’s courts up against the mandatory retirement age of 70. The state’s senate proposed a constitutional amendment (SB 995) eliminating the mandatory retirement age of 70. The vote went along party lines, the move was viewed as partisan in general, and it which went down to a nearly 2-1 defeat in the November 2006 elections.
2007-2010: Raise the age
After the defeat in 2006 and taking the 2007 session off, the legislature went back to work on the subject. HB 2344 of 2008 would have raised the age from 70 to 72, while SB 3202 of the same year would have raised it from 70 to 80, but only for judges appointed after November 4, 2008 when the item would have been on the ballot. The 70-to-72 version went nowhere, the 70-to-80 version was approved in the House and Senate, but using slightly different language that could not be reconciled in conference committee in time.
A 2009/2010 version (HB 621) to raise the age from 70 to the end of the term in which a judge turned 70 was never even brought up for a committee hearing.
2011-2012: Raise and/or work around the age (defeated at ballot box)
The 2011/2012 session saw attempts to try and work around the mandatory retirement age of 70. SB 650 authorized the chief justice of the supreme court to appoint judges forced into retirement as “emeritus judges” to serve as per diem judges or judicial mentors in courts no higher than the court level they reached prior to retirement and for terms not to exceed three months. An amended version, removing any reference to “judicial mentors” was approved by the House and Senate unanimously, but there was a catch. Because it was a constitutional amendment, the legislature was required under the constitution to give the governor 10 days written notice before passage. They failed to do so and had to swiftly repass the bill to get it onto the 2012 ballot. Despite no apparent opposition, the provision failed when over 10% of voters simply declined to vote on the item. Final tally: 49.6% Yes, 39.9% No, 10.4% not voting.
In the meantime the effort to raise the age was reintroduced and redebated (SB 2206 of 2012) again with an eye towards raising it from 70 to 80. It was approved unanimously in the Senate and the House Judiciary Committee in March 2012, but the focus for the remaining months of the legislature was on SB 650, the work around, rather than the increase.
2013-2014: Raise the age (again)
Despite the loss in 2012, the legislature moved ahead in 2013 with two tracks. The first was a repeat, almost verbatim, of the judge emeritus concept again to voters (HB 275 and SB 346). The difference here was that House version applies to any retired judge or justice, trial or appellate, regardless of whether they are forced into retirement at age 70 or not; the Senate version mentions only “judges” and otherwise reproduces the language of the 2012 bill (i.e. only those forced to retire at age 70):
The second, and appearing on the ballot this November, is another attempt and an increase. HB 792, SB 886 (which will be on the ballot) and SB 1022 all increased the mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 80. SB 886 moved quickly through the 2013 legislature, going from introduction on January 18, 2013 to final adoption on April 4.