But opponents, who include civil rights advocates, contend that the proposals set a dangerous precedent of altering the state constitution unnecessarily and, in essence, strip the Hawai'i Supreme Court of its authority to make sure that state laws do not violate rights guaranteed under the foundational document of the state government.

They also contend that the proposals won't produce the benefits cited by supporters.

The proposals have the support of Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, state Attorney General Mark Bennett, Neighbor Island county prosecutors, police chiefs of all four counties, the State of Hawai'i Organization of Police Officers, and the Sex Abuse Treatment Center.

Opponents include the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i, the AFL-CIO and the ILWU labor organizations, the Japanese American Citizens League, and the League of Women Voters, as well as criminal defense attorney Brook Hart.

For any of the proposals to be adopted, it must draw a majority of the "yes" votes among the ballots cast. Blank and spoiled ballots will count as "no" votes.

Of the four proposals, Hawai'i residents are probably most familiar with the amendment proposal to allow Honolulu and other county prosecutors a third option of sending a felony defendant to trial. The proposal was approved in the 2002 general election when 57 percent of some 385,000 residents cast "yes" votes.

But as a result of a challenge by the ACLU, the Hawai'i Supreme Court in February struck down the constitutional amendment. In a unanimous decision, the five justices ruled that the ratification process of notifying the public about the proposal was not followed.

The measure is once again on the ballot as Question No. 4. It allows the prosecutors to send a felony case to trial by a method called "direct filing" or "information charging."

Currently, felony defendants are sent to trial through one of two ways — a grand jury indicts or a judge decides at a preliminary hearing that evidence is substantial. Under direct filing, the prosecutors would submit sworn statements and other documents to a judge who could then order the defendant to trial.

The state Legislature this year passed a law that would implement the amendment should it be adopted. The law would allow for the "direct filing" for most of the Class C felonies punishable by up to five years in prison and some Class B felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison term.

But it would not apply to murder and sexual assault cases or Class A felonies that carry 20-year prison sentences.

Advocates of the proposal — including Carlisle, who has made the passage of this amendment a high priority — say direct filing would free police officers from waiting in court to testify at preliminary hearings and would cut down on multiple court appearances by victims and witnesses.

The current system of requiring a preliminary hearing or a grand jury indictment to send a case to trial is "cumbersome" and a burden on the courts, supporters say.

Opponents say it has not been demonstrated that direct filing would reduce the number of times complaining witnesses and police must show up in court. Without seeing the witnesses testifying at a preliminary hearing or watching a videotape of grand jury proceedings, defendants will have less of an incentive to enter plea agreements, which would result in more trials and pretrial hearings, placing more of a burden on the system and witnesses, the opponents say.

Also, direct filing does not allow jurors in grand jury proceedings or defendants' lawyers to question prosecution witnesses, a point that helps the credibility of the criminal justice system, the opponents say.

The other three amendment proposals are direct results of Hawai'i Supreme Court decisions.

Assaults on minors

Question No. 1 deals with the law establishing the crime of continual sexual assault of a person under the age of 14, a felony punishable by a maximum 20-year prison term.

The law requires the prosecution to prove that there were three or more acts of sexual misconduct. The jury does not have to unanimously agree on three specific acts, but just that at least three occurred over a period of time, even if the jurors don't agree on which three.

In 2003, the high court ruled that the law violates a defendant's rights to due process by not requiring unanimous agreement by jurors on three specific acts.

Proponents say many youngsters can't recall specific dates, times and places of each act, making it difficult to prosecute offenders. Opponents, however, say a unanimous jury verdict is a fundamental "cornerstone" of the criminal justice system and it would be dangerous to change the constitution to address one charge.

'Megan's Law'

Question No. 2 involves the implementation of what has been commonly known as "Megan's Law." The state's version of that federal law requires convicted sexual offenders to register information such as their home address and workplaces, summaries of their offenses and recent photographs. The state established a Web site to disseminate that information.

In 2001, the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled that before the information can be made public, offenders must be given a hearing to explain why they might no longer be a danger and why the information should not be made public.

The Legislature has set up a process that gives offenders a hearing. Honolulu and other county prosecutors this year started asking judges to place the offenders on the state's Web site. Judges have been approving prosecutors' requests, but only a fraction of the state's more than 1,900 offenders are currently listed on the site.

Proponents say the Legislature, not the court, should determine whether hearings are necessary for the most notorious and egregious offenders. But opponents say the amendment is not necessary and the current hearing process should be used to determine whether information about an offender is made public.

Confidential information

Question No. 3 relates to a Hawai'i Supreme Court decision last year that the amendment proponents say can be interpreted to mean that information given by a sexual assault victim to counselors now faces a greater chance of being admissible in court.

If victims fear that their confidential communications will be disclosed, they will be less likely to report crimes and seek medical help and counseling, the proponents say.

But opponents say state law already provides confidentiality of that information. By seeking to completely prevent the information from being admitted without regard to defendants' rights, innocent people may be wrongfully convicted or unjustly imprisoned, they say.