Last Friday, any proposed amendments to the state constitution passed the point of no return for this legislative session.

 Constitutional amendments must be sent to the governor at least 10 days before passing final reading in the Legislature. This year, it appears that no amendments will meet the constitutional requirements to appear on voters’ 2024 ballots for approval.

Yet, as the U.S. Supreme Court continues to remind us, a constitution is a key document that governs our basic rights. With that in mind, an in memoriam that highlights our state legislators’ ideas for our constitution seems worthwhile, particularly because they could be revived next year.

Why are state constitutions important?

The idea of a “state constitution” dates back before the American Revolution. Two months before issuing the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress encouraged the American colonies to begin drafting governing documents, which captured the political will of the colonists and became predecessors to the U.S. Constitution. 

Today, state constitutions remain the strongest means for states to protect individual rights that are not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Hawaii’s constitution was approved by voters in 1950 and went into effect in 1959 upon admission into the United States.

Since its inception, the constitution has been amended 269 times. Voters approved the most recent amendment – to allow the state to make bond and pension payments with excess general funds – in 2016.

How do current legislators want to amend Hawaii’s constitution?

In March, the Senate passed three constitutional amendments. They didn’t pass the House, but these made it the furthest.

1. Senate Bill 927 would factor military members and other non-permanent residents into Hawaii’s population when the reapportionment commission draws district boundaries. Excluding those residents creates larger constituencies for legislators with high military populations. Including them would shift more legislative districts to Oahu. Big Island Sens. Tim Richards and Joy San Buenaventura voted no.
2. Senate Bill 992  would increase the mandatory retirement age for justices and judges to 75 from 70 years old. It’s a moderate and logical increase to keep experienced judges on the bench longer. Yet, lawmakers proposed the idea at least five times in the last decade without gaining much traction.
3. Senate Bill 1167 suggests an amendment to protect reproductive freedom, including the right to abortion. Despite not passing this measure, the Legislature has acted to protect reproductive rights in Senate Bill 1, which passed earlier this year.

In testimony, the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission supported an amendment to protect reproductive freedom, stating, “In a parade of horribles, the Court has turned the clock back on abortion and reproductive rights and establishment of religion, while limiting state regulation of guns and open carry laws with expansive reading of 2nd amendment rights, giving notice that other hard-won rights are in its crosshairs.” 

In line with HCRC’s concerns, legislators also introduced an amendment that seeks to guarantee an individual’s right to marry any human being. Hawaii law protects marriage equality, but constitutional protection is the strongest defense.

However, this amendment would conflict with a 1998 amendment to Hawaii’s constitution, which gave the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite sex couples. A better first step would be to repeal that 1998 amendment.

Another amendment seeks to counter the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which determined that limiting corporate and outside group spending on elections was an abridgment of their First Amendment right to free speech. Senate Bill 917, which stalled in the House Finance Committee, would amend the state constitution to clarify that the freedom of speech does not include expending money to influence elections. Notably, all House Republicans, except for Rep. Kanani Souza, voted no or with reservations.

While some amendments focused nationally, most focused on local issues. A few sought to establish new individual rights, including the right to a clean environment, the right to vote at age 16, and the right to own your internet data. Others looked to change the makeup and powers of the Legislature, including allowing a continuous legislative session and giving the state the power to impose property taxes. (Before you panic, the property tax bill didn’t make any progress.)

Five amendments looked to impose term limits on legislators. The most popular was limiting members of the Legislature to 16 years of service, as recommended by the House Commission to Improve Standards of Conduct. Democratic House Speaker Scott Saiki and Democratic Senate President Ron Kouchi submitted a bill on behalf of the commission, while 14 House Democrats and Republican Senator Brenton Awa submitted versions as well. 

The House Republican Caucus introduced a similar measure that limits members to 12 years of legislative service. However, it’s the only measure that adds a grandfather clause for any legislator who has already reached their limit, meaning two of the bill’s introducers, Reps. Gene Ward and Lauren Matsumoto would be exempt.

House and Senate Republicans also introduced amendments that mirror national Republican efforts to elect school boards and attorneys general. More voter engagement is a noble goal. However, politicizing these roles would be unwise as national Republicans target down-ballot officials over culture war issues and school boards experience increased threats of violence as a result. 

Sen. Les Ihara’s plan to boost voter engagement is a better idea. His amendment would establish a citizens’ assembly that would propose changes to policies that govern elections, political campaigns, campaign finance and other government reforms. While every person can and should bring policy ideas to legislators, this change would actively and officially solicit citizen guidance.

None of these ideas made it past both chambers this year, but like bills and resolutions, it’s important to know what our representatives and senators are proposing. Someday, they could become law. Each of these ideas could be resurrected next session so reach out to the legislators who signed the amendments you care about to share your perspectives.