Hawaii Senate Bill SB2385

Hawaii 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/19/24
• Refer: 1/22/24
• Report Pass: 2/6/24
• Report Pass: 2/16/24
• Refer: 2/6/24
• Engrossed: 2/20/24
• Enrolled: 3/7/24
• Report Pass: 3/21/24
• Refer: 3/7/24
• Refer: 3/21/24

Caption

Proposing An Amendment To Article Vi, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Place Procedural Restrictions On The Timing Of Judicial Appointments And Confirmations.

Impact

If enacted, SB2385 would fundamentally change the scheduling of judicial nominations, effectively introducing a hiatus period during which no recommendations can be made for judicial appointments. The intent is to allow for clearer operational periods where nominations and confirmations can take place without the distractions or pressures that may arise from political cycles. This shift could also impact how justices and judges are selected, potentially reducing last-minute appointments that are often made as terms expire or judicial vacancies arise.

Summary

Senate Bill 2385 proposes an amendment to Article VI, Section 3 of the Hawaiian Constitution, which governs the procedural framework surrounding the appointment and confirmation of justices and judges. The key provision of this bill restricts the Judicial Selection Commission from presenting a list of nominees for judicial appointments to the governor or chief justice during a specified timeframe, namely from August 1 to November 30 each year. This amendment aims to bring more structure to the timing of judicial appointments, potentially facilitating a more organized selection process, especially around election seasons when appointments could become contentious.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding the bill reveal a mixed sentiment among lawmakers and legal stakeholders. Proponents of SB2385 argue that a structured appointment process is necessary for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the judiciary, while critics express concern that it may create unnecessary bottlenecks in filling judicial vacancies. The timing restriction could lead to prolonged vacancies during critical periods, which may hinder the judiciary's ability to function effectively. Ultimately, the bill has garnered attention for striking a balance between operational integrity and political realities in judicial selection.

Contention

The notable points of contention arise from the implications of the proposed time restrictions on judicial appointments. Detractors warn that limiting the commission’s ability to present nominees for more than three months could lead to delays in addressing urgent judicial needs, especially if multiple vacancies occur simultaneously. Additionally, critics have raised concerns about the bill being tethered too closely to political calendars, arguing that it could lead to a scenario where judicial appointments become overly politicized, potentially influencing the judicial independence that is vital for the rule of law in Hawaii.