We need to raise $75,000 by September 1 to ensure that our newsroom remains strong during this time when accurate and in-depth information is needed the most. While asking for your donation is not something we like to do, the simple fact is that our reporters, our journalism, and our impact rely on it. If you are in a position to help, we would be grateful for your support!
A Hawaii Senate panel deadlocked 3-to-3 Wednesday over a controversial bill that sought to trim retirement benefits for judges, effectively killing the measure.
House Bill 2006, as Civil Beat columnist Ian Lind explains, was introduced by Rep. Sylvia Luke, House Finance Committee chair, and House Majority Leader Scott Saiki.
It proposed slashing retirement benefits for judges appointed after June 30 of this year, and for judges already on the bench who are reappointed or promoted after that time.
Sen. Laura Thielen.
Cory Lum/Civil Beat
“Unlike several other bills that also targeted the Judiciary this year by threatening the courts’ independence from outside political pressure, this measure would hit current and future judges directly in their pocketbooks,” Lind wrote.
The Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee was split on HB 2006, with Chair Gil Keith-Agaran, Donna Mercado Kim and Mike Gabbard voting in favor and Vice Chair Maile Shimabukuro, Laura Thielen and Sam Slom voting no.
A seventh member, Sen. Kai Kahele, was not present for the vote
Thielen said it was not clear that the bill would result in cost savings and that it “unfairly” singled out the judiciary.
Stay Up To Date On The Coronavirus And Other Hawaii Issues