A proposed constitutional amendment in Hawaii aims to unify the appointment and confirmation process for district court judges with that of supreme court justices and circuit court judges.
HONOLULU (KHON2) — A proposed constitutional amendment in Hawaii aims to unify the appointment and confirmation process for district court judges with that of supreme court justices and circuit court judges.
This change, outlined in proposed amendment number two, would streamline judicial appointments across all courts.
Under the current system, district court judges are nominated by the Judicial Selection Commission, chosen by the Chief Justice, and confirmed by the State Senate.
If the Senate fails to act within 30 days, the nominee is automatically rejected.
The amendment would change this to automatically appoint judges if the Senate does not reject them within the same timeframe, aligning district court appointments with those of other courts.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Karl Rhoads, who introduced the bill, emphasized the importance of recognizing the role of district court judges.
“They are workhorse judges, handling hundreds of cases each year. It sends a message that district court judges are vital to our judicial system and should be treated the same as other judges,” Rhoads said.
The proposed amendment outlines a clear process: the Judicial Selection Commission would present a list of four to six nominees, from which the Chief Justice would select one.
If the Senate does not confirm the selection within 30 days, the nominee would automatically be considered appointed.
Should the nominee be rejected, the Chief Justice must select another nominee from the original list within ten days.
If no judge is confirmed, the Judicial Selection Commission would have the authority to make an appointment without Senate consent.
“This amendment clarifies the process and cleans up statutes that no longer make sense,” Rhoads added.
A ‘yes’ vote on the amendment would standardize the selection of district court judges with the procedures of other courts, while a ‘no’ vote would maintain the current process.