Thanks to a reader who pointed out another bill targeting state judges that was introduced by Sen. Gil Keith-Araran. This one would hit judges appointed after June 30, 2016, directly in the pocketbook by cutting retirement benefits from their current level, and extending the time they must work as a judge before qualifying for any retirement allowance through the state’s retirement system.

SB2244 passed the Senate last week, and has a triple referral in the House (Labor, Judiciary, and Finance). That’s a tough climb for any bill, so it’s fate is highly uncertain.

Several other bills introduced by Sen. Keith-Agaran also targeted judges, apparently in response to an unpopular ruling held the Legislature’s failure to provide sufficient funding to the Department of Hawaiian Homes was a violation of the state constitution, and directed the Legislature cease its unconstitutional action, presumably by providing the required budget appropriation to DHLL.

Three other bills were killed in the Senate after public attention was called to them, but this measure has managed to fly under the public’s radar so far this session.

The bill would require judges appointed after June 30, 2016 to serve 12 years and reach the age of 60 before being eligible for retirement.

Judges currently are appointed to 10 year terms. Senior attorneys appointed to serve on the Intermediate Court of Appeals or the Hawaii Supreme Court would be most likely to be impacted by the bill. Even after serving out a full ten year term, they would not qualify for any retirement unless reappointed and serving at least two more years.

According to testimony by Rod Maile, administrative director of the courts:

(Judges appointed) at age 59 or older will not meet the more stringent vesting requirement of 12 years as the Hawaii State Constitution requires mandatory retirement for judges at age 70. Some very experienced attorneys could thereby be deterred from applying as they would not be eligible for any pension benefits upon retirement and would give up actively earning more from their present retirement plan.

And the bill also reduces the way their retirement benefits are calculated. Currently, elected officials of the state or counties, along with legislative officers (“…a chief clerk, an assistant chief clerk, a sergeant at arms, or an assistant sergeant at arms of either house of the legislature”), and judges all accrue retirement benefits at the same rate.

SB2244 would reduce the retirement earnings for each year of credited service for judges appointed after June 2016 by one-third, while benefits of legislators and other elected officials, as well as top legislative employees, continue at the current, higher rate.

Like the other bills that targeted the Judiciary, it isn’t apparently where this bill originated.

The Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee’s report on the bill simply notes:

Your Committee finds that there have been various revisions to the Employees’ Retirement System, and implementation of this measure is necessary to maintain reasonable and fair benefits under the Employees’ Retirement System.

However, the executive director of the state’s Employees’ Retirement System testified that the ERS board had not had an opportunity to review the bill, clearly showing that it had not originated as an ERS recommendation.

The bill drew strong opposition from the Judiciary, as would be expected.

HGEA director Randy Perreira also expressed his union’s “strong concerns.”

Maintaining a fair compensation and benefits package for judges can incentivize experienced attorneys to public service to serve as judges. Adopting this legislation may dissuade those most adept and impartial from serving and will hinder the Judiciary’s ability to recruit the most qualified.

SB2244 is scheduled for a public hearing Tuesday morning, March 15, before the House Committee on Labor and Public Employment.