Thursday, April 24, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 2 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Hawaii voters reject Constitutional amendments

By Gary T. Kubota

LAST UPDATED: 12:20 a.m. HST, Nov 07, 2012

State constitutional amendment proposals allowing state court judges to serve temporarily after age 69 and making financing of repairs easier to high-risk agricultural reservoirs and dams were defeated in Tuesday’s general election.

After the fourth and final printout Tuesday night, the temporary judges proposal received 48.7 percent “yes votes” vs. 51.3 percent “no,” blank and overvotes. Blank and spoiled ballots are counted as “no” on constitutional amendment proposals.

The second proposal for reservoir financing was defeated 50.3 percent “no,” blank and overvotes vs. 49.7 percent “yes votes.”

State Land Board Chairman William Aila said he still believed it was a good amendment and planned to reintroduce it for another vote.

"We have to back to the drawing board," Aila said.

Aila said he thinks people mistakenly thought the state would be liable.

Dam and reservoir owners would allowed to obtain some state support through special purpose revenue bonds to finance repairs, under a constitutional change on today’s general election ballot.

The bonds would help the owners get financing for the projects, but the owners would be responsible for paying the debt.

Several other entities already are designated to use special purpose revenue bonds, including utilities.

Lawmakers of both chambers would be required to review each special purpose revenue bond authorization, with approval requiring a two-thirds’ vote.

The proposed amendment followed a 2010 report to the state Legislature calling for improvements and looking at 113 high-risk agricultural reservoirs, in light of the Ka Loko Dam break on Kauai that killed seven people on March 14, 2006.

The judges proposal would change a constitutional provision that required state judges to retire at age 70.

State Sen. Rosalyn Baker who introduced the proposed amendment said she thought people may have not understood the measure.

"I still think it's a good idea," she said.

Baker said she needed to review the proposal before deciding whether to re-introduce it.

The amendment would allow the state chief justice to select Hawaii judges age 70 and older for three-month appointments and to a level no higher than the position they reached before retirement.

Supporters said the temporary appointments would give the chief justice more flexibility to draw from a larger pool of judges and enable him to select more experienced judges to deal with a backlog of cases, including foreclosures.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 2 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
pizza wrote:
I can breathe a sigh of relief knowing this election will not allow Levinson back on the bench again...
on November 6,2012 | 10:10PM
bigb087 wrote:
there was very little information available (both pro/con) on the amendment issues. it was difficult to make an informed decision even though i voted absentee and had the opportunity to do some research. i can imagine that those voting yesterday had no clue one way or the other.
on November 7,2012 | 09:49AM
Latest News/Updates
Political Radar

Political Radar
Second request

Political Radar

Warrior Beat
One last fling

Political Radar
Phased in

Political Radar
Palolo v. Pauoa