There have been a series of legislative proposals in 2016 and 2017 that target only judges, and attempt to radically change how they are selected, retained and compensated. Fortunately, most of these measures have been defeated.

However, one such bill is still advancing: Senate Bill 249, SD2, HD1, which would significantly reduce retirement benefits for future Hawaii judges.

I strongly oppose this bill. It is highly unusual because it would reduce retirement benefits for only a single group of prospective employees. Typically these reductions are made across the board. For example, in 2011, the state Legislature reduced retirement benefits for future judges, legislators and senior executive branch officials, and other future state and county employees.

Some may try to frame the 2017 bill as a “cost-saving measure,” similar to the 2011 bill. Cost saving is important, but it appears not to be the true motivation. Our state Employees’ Retirement System has testified that, “from a business perspective, the ERS believes [the reduction proposed in this 2017 bill] may be disproportionate to the small number of members affected by this legislation.”

I agree. The relatively small number of people it would affect — there are only 82 full-time judges in the state Judiciary — will not meaningfully reduce the future fiscal responsibilities of the state.

So the question is, why are judges being discriminated against? The context of the bills in 2016 and 2017 is telling. Although less obvious than attempts to change how judges are selected or retained, make no mistake about it — this bill that targets only judges appears to be another attempt to impose undue pressure on the Judiciary. More specifically, the bill again attempts to cause the Third Branch and its judges not to abide by the constitutional Doctrine of Judicial Independence.

Judges are duty-bound to base every decision on the facts and the applicable law, and not on politics, popular opinion or outside influences. That is why it is so important to insulate judges’ decision-making from apparent political pressure. That is why I oppose the current bill.

In fact, in 2006, voters approved a constitutional amendment to create a Commission on Salaries, charged with making recommendations on the salaries of judges, legislators and senior executive branch officials. I fully supported this system because this created an independent body to make decisions that would be approved or disapproved as a whole. In other words, the Legislature cannot pick and choose which branch of government, if any, gets a raise in any given year.

Accordingly, I submit that the 2017 bill, SB 249, violates the intent of the voters in creating a system for equal treatment of the three branches of government, and therefore is unconstitutional.

This is not about current judges, who have no financial stake in this bill. This is about the quality of our future Judiciary. Our judges serve the people. We need to be able to continue attracting the most qualified candidates to become judges: those with the integrity to do what’s right, the experience to make the best decisions in each and every case, and the heart to serve our community.

Ronald T.Y. Moon is former chief justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court (1993-2010).