Question 1: Senate Time to Act on Judicial Appointments (S.B. 121)
Statewide — all of Hawaii
General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026
- Referred to the ballot by the Legislature through S.B. 121, introduced by Sen. Karl Rhoads with Sen. Dru Kanuha as a co-sponsor; a supermajority of the Legislature voted to place it on the ballot. The floor vote counts were not retrieved.[3][4]
The question on the ballot
Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to allow the Senate more time to consider and act on the appointments of justices and judges, by increasing the timeframe from thirty days to sixty days for appointments made between April 1 and December 31 when the senate is not in regular session or is about to adjourn the regular session?[1]
S.B. 121 would amend Article VI, Section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution so the Senate is deemed to have consented to a judicial appointment if it does not reject it within thirty days, or sixty days if the appointment is made between April 1 and December 31 when the Senate is not in regular session or is about to adjourn. The bill's findings say the 30-day window has required two special sessions in recent years and three in 2022, that each special session costs about $5,000 for neighbor-island senators' airfare and per diem plus staff time, and that a longer window may reduce the number of special sessions. No fiscal estimate beyond that is stated in the sources retrieved.[2][3]
A YES vote means
Increases the Senate's time to act on judicial appointments from 30 to 60 days for appointments made between April 1 and December 31 when the Senate is not in regular session or is about to adjourn; the current period would otherwise remain 30 days.
A NO vote means
Leaves the Constitution unchanged: the Senate keeps 30 days to act on judicial appointments, after which it is deemed to have consented.
The law today
Article VI, Section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution has the governor fill vacancies on the supreme, intermediate appellate and circuit courts from a list of four to six nominees from the judicial selection commission, with the Senate's consent. If the Senate does not reject an appointment within thirty days, it is deemed to have consented. The bill's findings say judicial appointments made while the Senate is out of session have required it to hold special sessions (two in recent years and three in 2022).[2]
Arguments made for
- S.B. 121 findings: “The legislature concludes that lengthening the period of time allowed for the senate to consider judicial appointments made when the senate is not in regular session or is about to adjourn the regular session will provide flexibility in the scheduling of special sessions and may reduce the number of special sessions.”[2]
Arguments made against
- Cautionary written testimony, not a campaign argument: State Courts Administrator Rodney Maile, whose written testimony said the Judiciary “takes no position on this measure,” noted: “If the constitutional amendment proposed by this measure passes and is approved by voters, it could leave judicial vacancies unfilled for an extended period of time, depending on when a vacancy occurs.”[3]
Research notes & limits
Question text is from the Office of Elections' preview ballot (the file is a password-protected PDF whose text was read after decryption with the empty user password) and matches HPR's reproduction. The Office of Elections' own explanatory text, a fiscal note and official yes/no statements were not located; yesMeans/noMeans are derived strictly from the ballot question and bill text. Each amendment needs a majority of ballots cast, so a blank vote counts as a no (per HPR and Ballotpedia News). Ballotpedia lists a third proposed amendment (a constitutional right to contraception) as not on the ballot. No organized campaign for or against Question 1 was found. The 'against' entry is a concern raised in written testimony by a neutral official, not an opposition argument; the only written testimony on the bill, per the Tribune-Herald, was the Judiciary's. Enrichment: no organized campaign, committee, campaign-finance filing or official fiscal note was found for Question 1; the only fiscal figure is the bill finding of about $5,000 per special session. The Judiciary's testimony took no position. The Hawaii legislature's measure page returned 403 to automated requests and was not bypassed; the full text link is the introduced bill as filed on the legislature's data site.
Sources · 4
Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.
- 1.Preview (sample) Ballot, November 3, 2026 General Election, Hawaii · Hawaii Office of Elections · 2026-10-13 Official record
- 2.S.B. No. 121 (2025), as introduced: proposing an amendment to Article VI, Section 3, of the Hawaii State Constitution · Hawaii State Legislature · 2025-01-15 Official record
- 3.Two amendments to the state Constitution are on the general election ballot · Hawaii Tribune-Herald · 2026-10-13 News report
- 4.Voting explainer: 2026 state constitutional amendment ballot questions · Hawaii Public Radio · 2026-10-13 News report