With the approach of Hawaii’s Democratic presidential preference poll on March 26, candidates should be sharing details of how they would keep Social Security strong for us, our kids and grandkids.

Social Security is the only source of income for more than 25 percent of Hawaii residents age 65-plus. For more than half of our older residents, it makes up 50 percent or more of their income.

The program needs to be updated for the 21st century so we can keep the promise of Social Security for future generations.

I am volunteering on AARP’s non-partisan “Take a Stand Campaign,” urging every presidential candidate to lay out their plan to update Social Security.

So far, we haven’t heard much about Social Security in the presidential debates. Those who think they should be president should be able to tell us their plan to keep Social Security strong for me and future generations.

Vicki Franco

Manoa

Former judges in awkward role

It is unfortunate that three former judges who previously swore an oath to maintain a “justice is blind” principle now find their distinguished reputations being sullied because, despite what may have been good intentions, they allowed themselves to be cast as biased agents of a politically motivated system (“Backroom push to silence ethics director lacks class,” Star-Advertiser, Volcanic Ash, March 20).

There may be more than meets the eye here, but one cannot be both evasive and above reproach at the same time.

Bill Fong

Punchbowl

HECO was right to end contracts

Solar lobbyist Robert Harris missed key points about the cancellation of SunEdison’s solar projects (“HECO can’t keep blocking third-party solar development,” Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, March 16).

Hawaiian Electric worked hard to get them approved, and worked for years to help the projects succeed. But we can’t ignore facts.

SunEdison admitted it didn’t comply with the contracts, including its obligation to obtain financing.

DE Shaw is a creditor seeking to acquire the projects in exchange for the debt it’s owed. It could have provided the money upfront to avoid delays.

While we hope SunEdison doesn’t go into bankruptcy, if it did, and if the contracts were still active, the projects could’ve been tied up in a long fight amongst other creditors — not just “a few months” — and Hawaii would have lost jurisdiction over the projects.

We had to make a tough decision to ensure that space on the grid is held for viable renewable projects.

Meanwhile, we’re pleased that the developer of another large solar project has obtained financing and is moving forward with its 27.6 MW project.

Shelee Kimura

Hawaiian Electric Co., vice president for corporate planning and business development

Not all in prison should be there

The Legislature’s consideration of releasing prisoners has stimulated some healthy conversation in the community (“Lawmakers consider releasing nonviolent offenders early to ease overcrowding,” Star-Advertiser, March 16).

There are many people incarcerated who should be receiving a different kind of help, especially drug users.

However, similar to the situation where our houseless are “swept” from our streets and parks with no place to go, prisoners shouldn’t be released until there is a program in place that will help them re-enter the community in a responsible way.

Drug laws should be changed so people with substance-abuse problems receive rehabilitation, not punishment. They should not be sent to prison.

Most of those being considered for release probably should be placed in a transitional program before re-entering the community, thereby greatly reducing the option of continuing unlawful and/or unacceptable behavior.

A safe, healthy community would be worth the extra expense.

John Heidel

Kailua

Fund UH sports and we all win

The University of Hawaii basketball teams have galvanized this win-starved community.

Seven-figure CEOs sitting next to their lesser-paid workers watching the game; construction workers talking to office strangers at the plate lunch place — there is no bigger impact on and pride for the entire state than UH athletics on a roll.

The UH athletics department has asked the Legislature for financial help, only to be repeatedly scorned for other needy projects.

Tell us how we can get as much bang for the buck for this community by spending a $3 million subsidy on something else.

Some people need jobs, some shelter, some housing and various other needs. But all need hope and a break from their daily issues to dream.

The Legislature should appropriate this money for an activity that benefits the entire state and the same people who put up the money in taxes paid.

William Santos

Kaneohe

Senate should do its duty to advise

The Republicans’ latest justification for not confirming the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court is to say it should be up to the voters to decide in the presidential election.

Have they not heard of the separation of powers?

The classic example of it is in the Constitution, because it involves all three branches of government, but not the voters.

The president has the power to appoint justices.

As the president correctly pointed out, that power does not end when the president is a “lame duck.”

The Senate has the duty to advise and consent as to the nomination.

That duty does not end when the Senate’s members are lame ducks.

Justice Antonin Scalia was above all a strict constructionist.

The Senate should honor his memory by doing its constitutional duty following the exercise of the president’s constitutional power to appoint a member of the third branch of government.

Nancy N. Grekin

Makiki

Schatz ignores ‘Biden Rule’

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz demands that Republicans do their constitutional duty to vote for a Supreme Court nominee.

How disrespectful.

Democratic leader U.S. Sen. Harry Reid advised that, “the duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote” (May 19, 2005).

The Biden Rule stated that, “if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings … until after the political campaign season is over” (June 25, 1992).

Then U.S. Sen. Barack Obama filibustered Samuel Alito’s nomination in 2006, blocking up-or-down voting on a nominee.

Why does Schatz ignore this collective wisdom?

Mark Felman

Kapolei