WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1528

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3, OF THE HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION TO INCREASE THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE FOR STATE JUSTICES AND JUDGES.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Andrew Garrett and 1 co-sponsor

Hawaii proposes raising the mandatory retirement age for state judges via constitutional amendment to extend judicial tenure and institutional experience.

The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 10 Ayes: Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Belatti, Cochran, Hashem, Kahaloa, Sayama, Takayama, Garcia, Shimizu; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and Excused: none.
#constitutionalamendment #judges #mandatoryretirementage(conam)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1528

Legislative bill overview

HB 1528 proposes a constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory retirement age for Hawaii state justices and judges. The bill would modify Article VI, Section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution, which currently sets a retirement age that the amendment seeks to raise. This requires passage by the legislature and voter approval through a statewide referendum.

Why is this important

Mandatory retirement ages for judges affect judicial continuity, institutional knowledge, and the costs of replacing experienced jurists. Raising the retirement threshold could extend the tenure of sitting judges, influence the timeline for new judicial appointments, and have budgetary implications for the state court system. This also reflects broader national debates about whether mandatory retirement ages appropriately balance fresh perspectives with judicial experience.

Potential points of contention

  • Current retirement age not specified in bill description – The proposal doesn't clarify what the new age would be or what the current mandatory age is, making it difficult to assess the scope of the change
  • Fiscal impact unclear – Extending judges' careers affects pension obligations, salary costs, and the frequency of new appointments; fiscal analysis would be essential
  • Judicial philosophy concerns – Some argue mandatory retirement ensures generational diversity and updated legal perspectives, while others contend experienced judges provide valuable institutional stability

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.