No No No Yes Yes!

1. No 2. No 3. No 4. Yes 5. Yes

Those are the numbers and responses you should make when considering the five Hawaii State Constitutional Amendment questions being presented to voters this year. Here they are as appearing on Small Business Hawaii's website:

1. Shall the governor be required to select board of regents candidates from a pool of qualified candidates screened and proposed by a candidate advisory council for the board of regents of the University of Hawaii as provided by law?

SBH Position: NO. This measure would further dilute the powers of the Governor and not insure the best candidates would be nominated. The current process works well. The advisory panel is political and not independent.

2. Shall the Constitution be amended to provide for a salary commission to review and recommend salaries for justices, judges, state legislators, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the administrative director of the State, state department heads or executive officers of the executive departments, and the deputies or assistants to department heads of the executive departments, excluding the superintendent of education and the president of the University of Hawaii?

SBH Position: NO. Salary Commissions are a back door way of always raising the salaries of public officials without public input, debate or vote. Even the legislature doesn’t get to vote (except “no”) on the proposed increases. Many on salary commissions are former legislators or political appointees.

3. Shall the mandatory retirement age of seventy for all state court justices and judges be repealed?

SBH Position: NO. This is a blatant attempt to (1) limit the power of Governor Lingle to reform the Judiciary; (2) protect two current judges (among the worst) Chief Justice Ronald Moon (involved up to his eyebrows in the “broken trust” scandal) and James Burns, who are set to retire. Both knew going in that 70 was the retirement age. Most states have such a provision. it is constitutional. However, if we were to remove any age requirement, it should be done prospectively for the next appointees. (3) This would be another barrier to entry to younger, qualified, independent judge candidates, while protecting the old boys.

4. Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to provide that in continuous sexual assault crimes against minors younger than fourteen years of age, the legislature may define:
(1) What behavior constitutes a continuing course of conduct; and (2) What constitutes the jury unanimity that is required for a conviction?

SBH Position: YES. The public and even the legislature overwhelmingly supports this change (and did so previously). Only sexual predators and some defense attorneys (and ACLU) oppose this protection for young children.

5. Shall the State be authorized to issue special purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to assist agricultural enterprises serving important agricultural lands?

SBH Position: YES. The state already authorizes Special Purpose Revenue Bonds (SPRBs) for a narrow set of public purposes (education, energy, health, etc.) the state has no liability for the bonds but the agency gets a tax break and lower interest rate. Agriculture is a legitimate purpose for SPRBs.

The important thing to know of these is that you should not leave them blank. A blank vote is counted as a "no" vote on State Constitutional Amendment and City Charter Amendment questions. Of course a "no" vote combined with blank votes for items #1, 2 & 3 will certainly help!