Sunday's Advertiser editorial regarding two proposed constitutional amendments on the November 7 ballot is supported by erroneous and false facts.

Writing in support of proposed constitutional amendment 3, regarding the retirement age of judges, The Advertiser's editorial board stated: "At the end of each 10-year term, the governor, Senate and Judicial Selection Committee can elect not to reappoint that judge or justice." This is false. The governor and the Senate play no role of any kind in judicial reappointments. This accurate and truthful fact is a major reason why citizens should vote "no" on amendment 3.

Guised in the sheep's clothing of age discrimination, much of the support behind this proposed amendment is the wolf of partisan politics. The current retirement age has been part of Hawai'i's Constitution since statehood. Only now, during the term of a governor who is the first member of her party to hold the position in 40 years, has this proposed amendment moved with lightning speed and without any study to the November ballot. It is a very bad idea to amend our Constitution simply to preserve the jobs of a few powerful judges who were appointed by governors of a different political party. And this is why the opposition to amendment 3, from Gov. Linda Lingle and former Gov. Ben Cayetano to the Hawai'i State Bar Association Board of Directors and all four county prosecutors, is so widespread and bipartisan.

The editorial opposed proposed constitutional amendment 4, which is designed to protect young children from continuous sexual assault. The editorial stated: "[T]he law is flawed, and the premise for the amendment is sound. The change, however, should be made statutorily, not by changing the Constitution." The premise that this change can be made by the Legislature with a statute is, again, wrong. The Legislature did try to make the change in a statute and the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled that statute unconstitutional.

This is why only a constitutional amendment will provide this protection to young children. It is also the reason why this exact amendment was placed upon the ballot after a studied approach and a "yes" vote by every member of the House and Senate. It is also why Hawai'i's citizens approved a virtually identical amendment designed to protect young children from sexual predators by a landslide vote in the 2004 election. The reason this proposed amendment is on the ballot for a second time in 2006 is, again, due to the Hawai'i Supreme Court. It overturned the sovereign will of Hawai'i's people by invalidating the adopted amendment in 2005 for purely technical reasons.

We hope that The Advertiser will reconsider its editorial position. And we respectfully urge Hawai'i's voters to vote "no" on amendment 3 and "yes" on amendment 4.

Mark Bennett is state attorney general and Peter Carlisle is city prosecuting attorney. They wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.