"The Hawai'i criminal justice system is more unfair to law enforcement and victims than anywhere else in the nation," says Attorney General Mark Bennett, a vocal advocate of the proposals. "I believe these four amendments inch Hawai'i back toward the mainstream."

But criminal defense lawyer Brook Hart believes the proposals represent an overreaction to decisions by the high court that has a proud tradition of protecting constitutional rights, a record he suggests grew from our multicultural community and memories of the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

"Minority rights are protected by the constitution and when you get the majority amending the constitution to do away with protections that are provided to the accused and the most heinous among us, then you move a step toward tyranny," he says.

The proposals have drawn the support of Hawai'i's law-enforcement community and others, including City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle. Also supporting the measures are police chiefs of all four cities and counties, prosecutors from the other counties, the State of Hawai'i Organization of Police Officers, victim advocates such as the Sex Abuse Treatment Center and the Waikiki Improvement Association.

The supporters point out that both houses of the state Legislature approved placing the proposals on the ballot.

Opponents include the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i, the state Public Defender's Office, the Japanese American Citizens League, the League of Women Voters and union organizations AFL-CIO and the ILWU.

Both sides face challenges, says Neal Milner, University of Hawai'i political-science professor.

He noted that for the proponents, they must get a majority of "yes" ballots among votes cast on issues that generally have not had much exposure to the public, except for the proposal to allow prosecutors a third method of sending felony cases to trial. Blank ballots count as "no" votes.

For opponents, they have the task of explaining why they aren't against "law and order," Milner says. "Civil liberties for (suspects and criminals) is not an easy issue."

Voters probably know the most about the amendment proposal — Question No. 4 on the ballot — that allows city and county prosecutors to send a felony case to trial by filing sworn statements and documents for a judge's approval.

It was approved by 57 percent of 385,000 ballots cast in 2002, but the Hawai'i Supreme Court struck it down this year, ruling that the state failed to follow ratification procedures involving notifying the public about the proposal.

The amendment authorizes the state Legislature to allow city and county prosecutors to send cases to trial through what's known as "direct filing" or "information charging." It would be in addition to the two current methods — an indictment by the grand jury or a judge's ruling at a preliminary hearing based on testimony by prosecution witnesses that the crime occurred and the defendant committed it.

The other three proposals were triggered by Hawai'i Supreme Court rulings.

Question No. 1 deals with a 2003 decision on a state law carrying a maximum 20-year prison term for anyone who sexually molests or assaults a minor under age 14 three or more times. Under the law, the jury does not have to unanimously agree on three specific acts, just that three or more acts occurred. In a 3-2 decision, the court ruled the law violated the rights of a defendant by not requiring unanimous agreement on at least three specific acts.

The passage of the amendment would essentially reinstate the law.

Question No. 2 deals with the state's version of "Megan's Law" aimed at letting the community know about sex offenders. In 2001, the state Supreme Court ruled that offenders should get a hearing to explain that they are not dangerous and that the publication of their addresses and recent photographs are not necessary to protect the public.

The amendment would authorize the Legislature to determine which offenders are entitled to hearings.

Question No. 3 deals with a 2003 high court ruling that says a defendant accused of molesting a girl should have a chance to ask her about whether she told a counselor the crime never occurred. Advocates say the ruling undermines the confidentiality of victims' statements to counselors and discourages sex assault victims from reporting the crimes.

Opponents contend the state law's confidentiality protections are still in place unless it conflicts with a defendant's right to due process and the amendment could lead to innocent defendants being convicted.