Breaking down Hawaii’s 2026 state and county ballot questions
from Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
This election cycle, voters across Hawaii have the opportunity to approve or reject a number of amendments to the state Constitution and county charters.
Although many of the proposed amendments fall outside the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii’s core focus areas, there are several that could make government more efficient and a few that would not.
Grassroot also strongly suggests that voters read the language of each proposed amendment or the changes it would make to the law, rather than just the question language or a summary of what it would do.
* * * * *
At the state level, Question 2 asks whether Hawaii’s Constitution should be amended to allow “counties to issue RISE Bonds, exempt from county debt limits.” You can read exactly how the amendment would change the Constitution here.
RISE stands for “resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity,” and these bonds would allow future property tax revenues from projects such as installing infrastructure and building housing to be used to pay off the debt associated with the project.
The “exempt from county debt limits” language in this proposed amendment is concerning because a county generally should not take out more bonds if it is nearing its debt limit.
* * * * *
In Hawaiʻi County, voters will decide on only one amendment to the county’s Charter, which would allow the county auditor to hire a deputy auditor to help manage the office. You can read the exact changes the amendment would make to the Charter here.
The Hawaiʻi County auditor has recently produced reports on the county’s building permit process and its affordable housing credit program. Adding a designated deputy auditor to the office could expand its operational capacity.
* * * * *
Honolulu voters will consider 20 different changes to the city’s Charter, and several of them could reduce costs associated with the county government or make its operations more efficient.
A few others, however, raise some concerns.
Foremost among these is Question 1, which proposes setting up a food security fund that would automatically receive 0.5% of all county property tax collections. The fund would be used to provide “city programs, grants and subsidies” to increase access to locally grown food. You can read exactly how it would be incorporated into the city Charter here.
Special funds are a poor budgeting practice because — independent of any program’s merits — earmarking tax dollars for a specific fund bypasses the normal legislative process that allows councilmembers and the public to scrutinize spending decisions.
On that note, Question 13 and Question 14 also pertain to a special fund: the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, which is sitting on $70 million of unspent money. You can see exactly how they would change the Charter here.
These proposed amendments would increase the scope of that fund to maintain historic structures. On one hand, that could possibly put the money to use. But on the other hand, it would be better to just return the unused funds to the general fund so their use could be deliberated through the normal budgeting process.
Question 15 could also be unnecessary. It proposes that the city establish an Office of Data and Innovation.
A chief data officer and two data specialist positions were created by ordinance in 2022, which means they could be eliminated from the city budget in the future. A Charter-level office, however, could not be abolished without a subsequent amendment to the Charter. You can read the full text of the proposed Charter amendment here.
Two proposed amendments related to housing also raise concerns.
Question 7 would include a statement of purpose in the Charter declaring the city faces a severe housing shortage and that “a policy that encourages use of the city’s existing housing supply for city residents represents a clear, compelling, and desirable government interest.” You can read the complete wording of the proposed amendment here.
Meanwhile, Question 10 would require the city Department of Housing and Land Management to prepare a 10-year plan to address the city’s housing needs that would be revisited every five years. You can read the exact proposed changes to the Charter here.
Grassroot is not opposed to Question 7 or Question 10, but both proposals include specific language that could be concerning. It is difficult to know whether these Charter amendments will be used to support beneficial housing reform or justify policies that will further stifle growth of the housing supply.
In contrast to those concerning amendments, some of the 20 proposals could reduce the scope of government or at least refine operations.
Question 9, for example, would reduce government waste by removing the requirement that the city Department of Housing and Land Management hold a hearing on the transfer of any city real property interests. You can see exactly how the proposal would change the Charter here.
Many of the hearings are for simple transactions such as granting a utility easement, but the department is currently required to dedicate staff time and spend taxpayer funds on advertising and holding each of these poorly attended hearings.
Importantly, the public would still have the opportunity to weigh in on any transactions when they go before the Council for final approval.
Question 16 and Question 17 would change how the city’s boards and commissions operate, which could improve how the city vets programs and plans and provide boards with better oversight of county agencies. You can see the changes that both proposals would make to the Charter here.
Question 16 would allow “permanent resident aliens,” such as a business representative from Japan or a professor from the Philippines living locally on a visa, to serve on city boards and commissions. It would also eliminate the rule that requires board or commission members to have been registered to vote in the city for at least a year.
Question 17 would allow boards and commissions to meet quorum based on the number of filled positions, rather than the total number of positions, if the group has vacancies.
Many boards and commissions struggle to find volunteers to serve or convene with enough members present to meet quorum, so they are often hampered in their ability to conduct city business.
The Building Board of Appeals, for example, has four of its nine seats vacant. That means all serving board members must be present at a meeting to achieve quorum, which limits the board’s ability to render timely decisions on matters related to the building code.
* * * * *
Kauaʻi County voters also have the opportunity this election to decide on a Charter amendment that could streamline county operations.
This amendment would remove all references to the county Zoning Board of Appeals. Voters established the board through a Charter amendment in 2016, but it was never actually formed because of a lack of volunteers willing to sit through highly technical legal hearings. You can see the county’s explanation of the proposed amendment here.
* * * * *
Lastly, several of the eight questions on the Maui County ballot could also help county boards and commissions operate more efficiently.
Question 1 would modify deadlines for the county’s three planning commissions to review proposed changes to the General Plan and various land-use ordinances that come from the County Council. It would also require the county’s planning commissions to hold a hearing on any Council-initiated changes within 60 days of receiving the resolution from the Council. You can see exactly how it would amend the Charter here.
These changes could help reduce uncertainty in the land-use and permitting process, since they would make clear when the planning commissions need to hold a hearing on proposed changes and allow the Council to take action if any of the commissions fails to issue a decision, disagrees with the Council’s proposal or requests modifications to it.
Question 7 would repeal the Independent Nomination Board, which voters established in 2022 to help streamline the process of filling vacancies on other boards and commissions. You can read how this proposal would amend the Charter here, although the text also indicates changes related to several other ballot questions.
The INB has unfortunately not fulfilled its purpose, as many Maui County boards and commissions remain unable to do business. In general, it is good when governments recognize that a policy has not been effective and seek to repeal it.
* * * * *
There are many other amendments on ballots across the state, and our friends at Hawaiʻi Free Press have listed them and linked to the exact language for each one here.