Just weeks after the state Salary Commission proposed substantial pay increases for state judges to try to attract the most talented lawyers to those jobs, Hawaiʻi lawmakers approved a bill to dramatically reduce pensions for future judges.

Senate Bill 935 would effectively reduce overall retirement payments by about a third for state judges who are confirmed after July 1, 2031, even as the state judiciary warns it is increasingly difficult to recruit top lawyers for judgeships.

The decision prompted calls for Gov. Josh Green to veto the measure, but he didn’t include it on his list of intended vetoes, meaning it will almost certainly stand, although legislators may make changes in the future.

Former Hawaiʻi Attorney General Margery Bronster, who was a member of the Salary Commission, said in an interview Thursday that action by the Legislature “shouldn’t have happened.”

The salary commission took a balanced approach to the pay issue, Bronster said, and for lawmakers to “attempt to take away retirement on just the judiciary just doesn’t show the respect that I think they should have for the judicial branch of government.”

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald said in an interview Friday the bill “sent a chilling message, and in essence, undercuts the positive effect of the increases that the commission had recommended.”

Recktenwald, who will retire in the fall, said he had asked Green to veto the bill. He said it raises a concern that perhaps “what judges are doing isn’t valued, or perhaps there’s something going on that we need to be concerned about in terms of our independence as an institution.”

Judiciary At A ‘Very Important Crossroad’

Early in the deliberations of the state Salary Commission this year, Recktenwald warned that judges’ salaries lag far behind the lucrative pay lawyers can earn in private practice.

“I think we are at a very important crossroad in terms of our ability to attract and retain the best and the brightest judges for our community,” Recktenwald told the commission.

“The public and the bar expect and deserve highly experienced, exceptionally skilled judges for their case, whatever the case is, and however big or small it is,” he said. “They’re entitled to have the very, very best possible folks we can have sitting, and for big cases that affect our community.”

Bronster said the salary problem stems in part from the actions of the last Salary Commission, which met in 2019. That commission granted judges pay increases of only about 5% over six years — less than 1% per year — which lagged well behind both inflation and the raises awarded to unionized state workers.

In recent years the state has seen a decline in applications for vacancies for judges, Recktenwald said, and the Judicial Selection Commission has had to extend application deadlines to attract enough qualified candidates for almost a third of the vacancies for state judges.

The problem is particularly severe on the neighbor islands, he said, citing a case on Maui where a Family Court position was vacant for a year. He also pointed to the vacancy for chief judge of the state Intermediate Court of Appeals, which remained vacant for 16 months.

The Salary Commission responded to those concerns on March 4 by recommending raises of about 40% for 95 state judges over the next six years, starting with a 10% raise on July 1.

The commission’s salary recommendations became effective after the Legislature adjourned, and will boost the salaries of the lowest-paid state judges from about $205,296 this year to $301,776 by 2031.

That was part of a larger pay package that included 48% raises for state lawmakers over the same period.

Push For Retirement Reductions

On the same day the commission finalized that new salary schedule, the state Senate voted unanimously for a draft of SB 935 that would have reduced pensions for all judges appointed after June 30 by about 30%.

The proposal would have reduced the multiplier applied to judges’ highest-paid years of service from 3% to 1.75% for purposes of calculating their pensions. Judges also receive annuity payments upon retirement that are not affected, so the bill reduces the total retirement benefit for affected judges including annuities by about 30%.

That proposal advanced to conference committee at the end of session, where Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Donovan Dela Cruz continued to push for it, according to Rep. David Tarnas.

Dela Cruz “wanted to include that for reasons I do not know, and I would not accept that for the current year,” said Tarnas, chair of the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee.

Tarnas said he accepted the language reducing future judges pensions “reluctantly” after Dela Cruz agreed to a compromise that delayed the effective date of the pension bill so it would only apply to judges appointed after June 30, 2031.

That’s the same year the next salary commission will make new pay recommendations. Tarnas said delaying the pension reduction until then will give that new commission an opportunity to consider the entire compensation package including both salary and retirement benefits.

The measure finally passed in that form with a vote of 23-1 in the Senate, and 40-10 in the House.

Dela Cruz did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Tarnas said he intends to push in a future legislative session to restore the pension calculation to what it was to allow future judges to enjoy the same pension benefits as current judges. “I softened the blow,” Tarnas said. “That’s all I could do.”

In the meantime, Recktenwald expressed gratitude for the pay raises, but said recruitment efforts would be harmed by the pension reductions.

“Obviously we’re grateful for those (pay) increases,” he said. “They certainly will help attract and retain folks to be judges. But you know at the same time, it’s sending this message that, ‘Hey, your retirement package is at risk.’ “