Of the five proposed constitutional amendments before Hawaii voters, none is more controversial than ballot question No. 4, relating to early childhood education. It asks: "Shall the appropriation of public funds be permitted for the support or benefit of private early childhood education programs that shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex or ancestry, as provided by law?" The answer: Yes, as we have editorialized before.

The teachers union’s self-serving opposition muddies this issue, which is actually simple: As in every other state with publicly funded preschool, Hawaii’s state government needs to be able to contract directly with educational institutions to serve the greatest number of children, especially low-income ones. The most effective states rely on such a mixed-delivery system to offer the best value for taxpayers and for children and families. This is straightforward in most states, and can be in Hawaii, too, by lifting the current funding restriction.

But confusion about this amendment abounds, with fears about special education overblown. A free and appropriate education is already mandated by federal law for special-ed students from ages 3 to 21; passage of this amendment would not change that.

More understandable are the concerns of some early-ed specialists who decry the push toward academic "readiness" for pre-kindergartners, rather than letting play predominate. But we believe that a one-size-fits-all, "metrics"-driven preschool system is more likely to develop solely within the Department of Education than within a partnership that includes the DOE and a diverse group of private preschools willing to contract with the state, even under government-imposed educational standards.

If Con-Am 4 fails, the DOE option more likely dominates. Besides, we can’t leave another generation of youngsters to languish while adults engage in pedagogical debates. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Vote yes on Con-Am 4.

Moving on to the other ballot questions:

» Relating to Disclosure of Judicial Nominees: "Shall the judicial selection commission, when presenting a list of nominees to the governor or the chief justice to fill a vacancy in the office of the chief justice, supreme court, intermediate appellate court, circuit courts or district courts, be required, at the same time, to disclose that list to the public?" Yes.

Approval will be a victory for integrity, transparency and accountability in state government. This issue came to a head in 2011, when Gov. Neil Abercrombie refused to release the names forwarded to him as potential nominees to the Supreme Court, reversing his predecessors’ practice. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser sued and prevailed in court. The Judicial Selection Commission updated its own rules to disclose the names, but future commissioners could change the rules again, against the public interest. Amending the constitution makes this improved disclosure permanent.

» Relating to Agricultural Enterprises: "Shall the State be authorized to issue special-purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to assist agricultural enterprises on any type of land, rather than only important agricultural lands?" Yes.

Farmers and ranchers could tap new sources of loan financing to improve and expand their operations with the passage of this amendment, which promotes local food production. The financing mechanism relies on lower-interest loans from private investors. The bonds are not secured with public funds and there’s no risk to the state’s credit rating in case of default; interest payments on the principal are tax-exempt. Prospective borrowers must show that the proposed project serves the public interest and that they can repay the loan.

» Relating to State Justices and Judges: "Shall the mandatory retirement age for all state court justices and judges be increased from seventy to eighty years of age." No.

It would be better to lift the cap altogether, as we have previously advocated, than to replace it with another arbitrary birth milestone. No cap, combined with more frequent performance evaluations, would ensure that capable veteran judges continue to serve.

» Relating to Dams and Reservoirs: "Shall the State be authorized to issue special-purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to offer loans to qualifying dam and reservoir owners to improve their facilities to protect public safety and provide significant benefits to the general public as important water sources?": Yes.

Dams and reservoirs must be properly maintained not only to protect the public’s safety — the catastrophic failure of Ka Loko Dam on Kauai is proof of that — but also to sustain agricultural operations and to help recharge the islands’ aquifers. As in the question related to agricultural enterprises, these bonds would provide more flexible financing options for the dam and reservoir owners without using taxpayers’ funds.

Remember, a blank vote counts as a no vote, setting a very high bar for any of these constitutional amendments to pass. If you care about these issues, make every effort to get to the polls.