Although it has increased the number of cases it terminates each year, the Hawaii Supreme court is unable to keep up with the growing appellate docket. Adding judges to the State supreme court would increase individual case processing time. Increasing the number of justices sitting in panel would dilute the court's law stating function. Establishing an intermediate appellate court to review trial court decisions is the most appropriate solution. Although the supreme court would retain the right of selective review, it would only review special cases, and most appeals would end at the intermediate level. With regard to the judiciary, judicial election politicizes the judicial system and fails to insure that the most qualified candidate will be selected. Executive appointment to the bench places judges under obligation to the executive and does not allow for review of candidates. Appellate court judges should be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the senate. Trial court judges should be appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court. An alternative to Governor and chief justice appointment is selection by a judicial confirmation commission. The present 10-year term should be retained, and a review commission should evaluate judges for retention at the end of each term. The legislature should retain its authority to establish the lengths of judicial terms. A constitutional amendment should be passed establishing a salary review commission. The mandatory retirement age of 70 should be retained. The constitution should be amended to vest the power of judicial removal in the State supreme court, based upon the recommendations of a commission for judicial qualification. A few tables and numerous footnotes are included in the report.