The Senate should get more time to weigh judicial nominations, according to one proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot this year.
In the 2025 Legislative Session, the proposed amendment quietly sailed through the State Legislature as Senate Bill 121. Championed by outgoing Senate Judiciary Chair Karl Rhoads, it modifies the amount of time the Senate has to act on judicial nominations.
If the amendment is approved by Hawai‘i’s voters, the State Senate will have 60 days to “consider and act” on the appointment of state judges and justices while the Senate is not in regular session or is otherwise set to wrap a legislative session. The 60-day window will apply to any appointments made between April 1 and December 31.
For the Senate, it can be hard to wrangle enough members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (let alone the entire Senate) to formally vote on these nominations while the Legislature is adjourned (it meets from late January through early May). Furthermore, the logistical headache of flying Neighbor Island senators over to Honolulu for individual nominations during a special session can emerge as an added cost to taxpayers.
The Senate is not a herd of cats, but it is a body full of many busy members with major priorities. The mechanics of these nominations present a big logistical challenge for the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the one person charged with overseeing all judicial nominations submitted to the Senate for advice and consent.
“Each special session costs approximately $5,000 for airfare and per diem for Neighbor Island senators, in addition to senator and staff time, and some special sessions address just one or two appointments,” one Senate Judiciary Committee report concluded on February 4, 2025.
“Accordingly, this measure will provide flexibility in the scheduling of special sessions and may reduce the number of special sessions by lengthening the period of time allowed for the Senate to consider judicial appointments when the Senate is not in regular session or is about to adjourn the regular session.”
As Senate Bill 121 advanced, the only written testimony came from the Administrative Director of the Courts, Rodney A. Maile. The testimony itself remained largely unchanged throughout each hearing, as the court’s primary concern did not evolve.
“If the constitutional amendment proposed by this measure passes and is approved by voters,” Maile explained, “it could leave judicial vacancies unfilled for an extended period of time, depending on when a vacancy occurs.”
Finding qualified applicants is difficult in Hawai‘i, from the District Courts to the Circuit Courts to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) and the Supreme Court.
The process is overseen by the Judicial Selection Commission, a body of individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the Governor, the Chief Justice, or the State Bar Association.
“We would note that the current process of filling judicial vacancies is already time intensive, with the posting of notice of the vacancy, application deadlines, candidate interviews, and the determination of qualified applicants in some cases taking more than a year after a vacancy occurs,” Maile acknowledged. “This proposed change would prolong the period of vacancy for certain appointments, thus delaying the onboarding of new justices and judges.”
Applicants for a certain position must go through the Judicial Selection Commission, which screens applicants before forwarding them to either the Governor or the Chief Justice to select a nominee. The governor nominates members of the Supreme Court, the ICA, and Circuit Courts to 10-year terms.
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice appoints members of the District Courts and the Family Courts for six-year terms.
From this vantage point, it is easy to understand why the state court system might have some reservations about lengthening the timetable for filling a vacancy.
Whether or not voters care enough to oppose this amendment remains to be seen. What is more important, however, is that they understand what’s in the amendment.
In Hawai‘i, voters formally approve any proposed change to the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i. In order to be adopted, constitutional amendments in the state must receive a majority of all the ballots cast in an election.
If there are more affirmative (yes) votes than negative (no) votes, but a substantial number of blank votes leave the affirmative votes as only a minority of the total votes cast, the amendment fails. A blank vote can have the inadvertent effect of becoming a no vote.
I don’t see how a voter would be concerned with such a minor, technical change. It’s a matter of giving the Senate more time to do its due diligence while saving some taxpayer money. Whether such additional time creates a larger administrative burden for our courts as they struggle to fill vacancies is another matter entirely.
Perry Arrasmith can be reached at hello@perryarrasmith.com.
For the latest news of Hawai‘i, sign up here for our free Daily Edition newsletter.
