Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-2 (2026)

Appointment and tenure of district judges; per diem district judges

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§604-2 Appointment and tenure of district judges; per diem district judges. (a) The chief justice of the supreme court, with the consent of the senate, shall appoint district judges. Each judge shall reside in the judicial circuit for which the judge is appointed and shall have been an attorney licensed to practice in all the courts of the State for at least five years. District judges shall hold office for a term of six years and until their successors are appointed and qualified; provided that any judge may be reprimanded, disciplined, suspended with or without salary, relieved, or removed from office for misconduct or disability, as provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.

(b) The chief justice shall appoint district judges to serve on a per diem basis and as may be necessary to provide auxiliary judicial functions in the several districts of the State. Per diem district judges may engage in the private practice of law during their term of service, and shall receive per diem compensation for the days on which actual service is rendered based on the monthly rate of compensation paid to a district court judge. For the purpose of determining per diem compensation in this section, a month shall be deemed to consist of twenty-one days. [L 1892, c 57, §9; am L 1905, c 61, §2; am L 1919, c 108, §2; RL 1925, §2273; RL 1935, §3761; RL 1945, §9672; RL 1955, §216-2; am L 1965, c 97, §14; HRS §604-2; am L 1970, c 188, §9; am L 1979, c 16, §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1994, c 282, §1]

Rules of Court

Misconduct, see Hawaii Revised Code of Judicial Conduct; judicial conduct commission, see RSC rule 8.

Case Notes

Malfeasance of district judge reviewed. 5 H. 283 (1885).

Error of judgment not cause for removal, but continued career of gross mistakes might be. 5 H. 669 (1878).

Magistrate removed from office for misconduct. 7 H. 257 (1888); 8 H. 296 (1891); 8 H. 298 (1891); 27 H. 509 (1923).

Magistrate removed from office for accepting bribe. 10 H. 285 (1896).

Section was not in violation of Hawaii constitution's provision [article VI, §3] prohibiting full-time judges from practicing law during their term of office. 74 H. 394, 846 P.2d 894 (1993).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Application of Ferguson, 846 P.2d 894 (Haw. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Application of Ferguson, 846 P.2d 894 (Haw. 1993). · cites it 10× “At the hearing, appellee submitted properly authenticated copies of his Order of Reappointment and Oath of Office, and also cited to article VI, section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution (“The chief justice shall appoint per diem district court judges as provided by law”) and HRS §…”

State v. Basnet., 318 P.3d 126 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 8× “(emphasis added) (citing HRS § 604-2 and HRS § 571-8). However, the ICA determined that any impropriety with respect to the arraignment and failure of the family district court to enter a separate commitment order “constituted harmless error and did not warrant dismissal.”

Vail v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Hawai'i, 856 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1993). · cites it 2× “” HRS § 604-2, the statutory section which provides for the appointment of per diem district court judges, states in relevant part that such judges “shall receive per diem compensation for the days on which actual service is rendered[.”

State v. Augafa, 992 P.2d 723 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “2d 1 (1971), which states that “[t]he objective of deterring improper police conduct is only part of the larger objective of safeguarding the integrity of our adversary system”); HRS § 604-2 (1985). See also State v. Kirn, 70 Haw.”

Nice v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-2 (b); see also Application of Ferguson, 74 Haw.”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-2(b) — 1 case

State v. Basnet., 318 P.3d 126 (Haw. 2013). “(emphasis added) (citing HRS § 604-2 and HRS § 571-8). However, the ICA determined that any impropriety with respect to the arraignment and failure of the family district court to enter a separate commitment order “constituted harmless error and did not warrant dismissal.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.