Both legislatively referred state constitutional amendment questions before voters on the general election ballot are pocketbook-related matters. Both deserve voters’ approval.

One asks whether to increase the threshold for a civil jury trial in Circuit Court from $5,000 in damages to $10,000. The other asks whether to allow the state Legislature to appropriate excess funds to pay down the state’s pension obligations.

Amendment No. 1 marks the third time voters in Hawaii have voted on price tag requirements for civil trials. In 1978, voters approved an amendment that increased the “value in controversy” requirement to $1,000 from $100. A decade later, an increase to $5,000 from $1,000 was approved at the polls.

Inflation alone supports the need for an increase, said attorney Edward C. Kemper, who submitted testimony on the matter to the Legislature. We concur.

Taxpayer costs tied to jury trials, which are held only in Circuit Court, are typically higher than cases handled before a judge in District Court. Kemper also argued that citizens should not be burdened with the hassle of being summoned for jury duty on a relatively small claim.

Two attorneys representing State Farm insurance opposed the proposal in written testimony, maintaining that the amendment would make courts less accessible to the average citizen.

“Our system of justice is based on the notion that the ordinary people that make up a jury are best able to hear the evidence and come to a reasonable decision based on their everyday experiences,” Rick Tsujimura and Bob Nash wrote to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor. “This is no less true in cases where the amount in controversy is less than $5,000.”

However, the average citizen needs to be realistic about the need for a jury trial, given the costs and time involved. A higher threshold would touch off fewer trials over manini disputes and ease court docket demands. Vote yes.

A “yes” vote for Amendment No. 2 would establish a new, third option for the Legislature’s handling of excess general fund revenues: as pre-payment toward general obligation bond debt service, or toward pension or other post-employment benefit liabilities.

The Constitution now requires that whenever the general fund balance at the close of each of two successive fiscal years tops 5 percent of general fund revenues, the Legislature must: issue tax refunds or tax credits, and/or make a deposit into a reserve fund.

This amendment would add the option of applying surplus dollars to pay down the state’s looming unfunded liabilities. It opens up a reasonable opportunity — not a mandated one — that might make good fiscal sense in unusually flush years. After all, the compounding costs of government employees’ pensions and benefits will not be going away.

The state’s Employees Retirement System is embracing the proposal because it has the “potential of reducing the longterm costs to taxpayers of paying for benefits which have already been earned and are protected by the state Constitution.”

Concerns on the amendment were raised by Wesley K. Machida, the state’s budget director, who testified that expanding options “would dilute and diminish” the intended handling of the money as specified in the Constitution. He added, “The Legislature can currently pre-fund these obligations by appropriating funds.”

In fact, the Legislature earlier this year did just that, appropriating $81.9 million more than required under its pension contribution schedule. In this case, the pre-funding aims to reduce annual health care contributions, resulting in $188.1 million in savings over a 25-year period. ERS compares the concept to making an extra principal payment on a home mortgage loan and saving future interest costs.

Creating a third option for the spending of excess general revenue dollars does not compel that option to be used; it simply creates a new path to ease known obligations. Vote yes.