Less than two years after voters soundly rejected a scheme by Democratic legislators to prevent Republican Gov. Linda Lingle from appointing a new chief justice of the state Supreme Court before her term ends, the Democrats are at it again.

Lawmakers are taking another stab at passing a constitutional amendment this year to end mandatory retirement at 70 for state judges to spare the current Democrat-appointed Chief Justice Ronald Moon, who turns 70 in 2010, from having to retire before Lingle leaves office late that year.

The Legislature put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2006 doing away with mandatory retirement for judges, but voters saw through the political motivations and rejected it by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 when blank votes were counted, as the Supreme Court has ruled they must be.

Democrats in both houses are moving this year to put a slightly different amendment back on the November ballot to accomplish the same thing. House Judiciary Chairman Tommy Waters says it's about age discrimination, not politics, but the bill he introduced (HB 2344) is Exhibit A that partisan politics is exactly what this is about.

Waters' bill would raise the retirement age only from 70 to 72 — taking care of Justice Moon's problem and allowing the next governor, who Democrats hope will be one of them, to appoint Moon's successor while doing absolutely nothing to address what Waters claims is the bigger issue of age discrimination.

This year's Senate bill (SB 3202) would raise the retirement age to 80; the measure passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last week by a party-line vote of 3 to 1.

Attorney General Mark Bennett and Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle object to bringing back the matter so soon after voters spoke so clearly. They propose a nonpartisan study of how other states handle judicial retirement and accountability to identify the best alternatives for Hawai'i.

They said in a Feb. 14 letter to senators that the only apparent purpose of pushing a constitutional amendment in 2008 instead of doing the study first and putting an amendment on the ballot in 2010 is to prevent Lingle from appointing Moon's successor.

They said if lawmakers want to remove politics from the equation they should apply a new retirement age only to future judges and not current judges who knew the rules when they were appointed.

But politics is the point, and this reasonable compromise has never been considered by lawmakers because it wouldn't save Moon.

Whether you like Lingle or not, she was elected twice by hefty margins and has the right to exercise the duties of her office without Democrats feeling free to impede her by changing the rules on a political whim.

The Constitution is the foundation of our government, and it's always a mistake to amend it to serve short-term politics or the selfish interests of a single individual.

A poorly conceived retirement amendment could place Hawai'i alongside Rhode Island as the only states with no check on judicial tenure and accountability by means of mandatory retirement, election of judges or periodic review and reappointment of jurists by the governor and Legislature.

The measure was opposed in 2006 as bad judicial policy by Lingle and her attorney general, former Democratic governor Ben Cayetano and his attorney general, the Hawai'i State Bar Association, the state Judicial Selection Commission and prosecutors from all four counties.

For politically minded Democrats to try to put it back on the ballot so soon after its overwhelming defeat is contemptuous of voters, who have already rendered a fair judgment.

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net. Read his daily blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.