Among the myriad decisions voters will make at the polls Nov. 7 are five questions that would rewrite parts of the Hawai'i Constitution.

The topics vary widely — from courts to commissions to special revenue bonds — and in each proposed amendment, the details are crucial. It's also important to note that a blank vote on these issues counts as a "no" vote.

The Advertiser supports three of these amendments, and is opposed to the remainder. Download a factsheet (www.hawaii.gov/elections/factsheets/fsbo134.pdf) with details on the amendments. We also invite you to join the discussion on these changes by visiting www.honoluluadver tiser.com/opinion and clicking on the link at the end of this editorial.

Amendment 1: This would require the governor to select University of Hawai'i Board of Regents members from a pool nominated by a candidate advisory council. Currently, the governor nominates members, and the state Senate confirms or rejects the nominees.

The change would add politics to the selection process, rather than eliminate it. Indeed, the change was in some measure inspired by the political bickering surrounding the firing of former UH President Evan Dobelle.

There is no reason to change the current system, which UH President David McClain says serves the best interest of the university.

Vote: No

Amendment 2: This amendment would create single salary commission to review and recommend salaries for justices, judges, state legislators, the governor, lieutenant governor, administrative director of the state, state department heads or executive departments and the deputies to department heads of the executive departments.

Three separate commissions now handle these duties for three different groups of positions, creating inconsistency and lack of communication.

Having one salary commission, as the City and County of Honolulu does, would streamline the process.

Vote: Yes

Amendment 3: This amendment would repeal the mandatory retirement age of 70 for all state court justices and judges.

The only thing antiquated here is the law.

Vote: Yes

Amendment 4: This would allow the Legislature to define what behavior constitutes a "continuing course of conduct" and what constitutes jury unanimity that is required for conviction in continuous sexual assault crimes against minors younger than 14.

Advocates of this amendment rightly point out that it is difficult under current law to prosecute those who repeatedly sexually assault a child, because a child must be able to recall specific dates when they were sexually assaulted.

Indeed, the law is flawed, and the premise for the amendment is sound. The change, however, should be made statutorily, not by changing the Constitution.

Vote: No

Amendment 5: If approved, the state would be authorized to issue a special-purpose revenue bond and use the proceeds to assist agricultural enterprises serving as important agricultural lands.

First, some context: In 1978, a constitutional provision approved by voters asked the Legislature to identify and preserve important agriculture lands. "Important" was defined as lands that are capable of producing sustained high agricultural yields and contribute to the state's economic base and are needed to promote the expansion of agricultural activities. Once land was categorized as "important" agriculture land, it would be very difficult to remove that label and use it instead for development.

Because of today's growing pressure to develop land, private landowners need more incentives to distinguish and maintain their property as important agricultural land. Funds from this special-purpose revenue bond would go toward projects such as upgrading irrigation systems, which would serve as an incentive to protect and preserve these precious open spaces. This amendment deserves support.