Oʻahu voters can vote on a whopping 20 charter amendment questions in the November election. (Make sure to check the second page of the ballot AND front and back sides.)
Questions range from creating a food security fund to who can serve on boards and commissions.
HPR is breaking down the meaning of the charter amendments and explaining them in easy-to-understand terms. See below for details about the City and County of Honolulu’s measures.
The general election is Tuesday, Nov. 3.
QUESTION 1: Should the Charter require annual funding for a Food Security Fund, without having to simultaneously increase real property tax rates to fund the appropriation, to support programs and grants that provide locally grown or produced food to Oʻahu residents, as well as non-local food only in an emergency?
Vote “Yes” to establish a Food Security Fund, which would join the five already existing special funds. The fund would receive 0.5% of real property tax revenue — without requiring a tax rate increase — to provide grants for local food suppliers and producers. In the event of a declared emergency, the money would also be used to increase access to non-local food. Read more here.
QUESTION 2: Should the Charter be amended to replace its preamble with language recognizing the relationship between the people of the City and County of Honolulu and the ʻāina, honoring the wisdom of kūpuna and the legacy of Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, and affirming commitments to transparent, accountable government and stewardship of natural, civic, and cultural resources?
Vote “Yes” to replace the Honolulu Charter’s preamble with language emphasizing the relationship between Oʻahu’s people and the ʻāina, honoring the wisdom of kūpuna and the legacy of Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, and affirming commitments to transparent, accountable and participatory government. It would also include the state motto “Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono,” which translates to “The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.”
The proposed preamble is below. Bracketed text would be removed and the underlined text would be added:
“We, the people of the City and County of Honolulu, [accepting responsibility to seek to achieve in our time that righteousness by which the life of our land is preserved and to encourage and enable our people to participate in their governance,] tracing our civic origins to Kalohana, honor the enduring inheritance of Oʻahu and the ancestral wisdom of this ʻāina and our kūpuna. ʻĀina–that which feeds–binds land, water, resources, and people in a living reciprocal relationship that sustains the life, dignity, and well-being of our communities across generations. Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono reminds us that the well-being and self-governance of our communities remain inseparable from how we care for the ʻāina that sustains us.
From these foundations, and in the tradition of local self-governance advanced more than a century ago by Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, we affirm that public authority exists to serve the people. Honoring this legacy and the many peoples, cultures, and communities who together call Oʻahu home, we commit ourselves to transparent, accountable, and participatory government, and to care for the natural, civic, and cultural resources entrusted to us for present and future generations. In this spirit, we do hereby adopt this Charter of the City and County of Honolulu.”
QUESTION 3: Should an Office of ʻŌiwi Resources and Cultural Stewardship be established within the Office of the Mayor to oversee the management of ʻŌiwi resources within the City, develop related programs, and create a Cultural Advisory Council of kūpuna, cultural practitioners, and community representatives?
Vote “Yes” to establish an Office of ʻŌiwi Resources and Cultural Stewardship within the Office of the Mayor. It would also create a Cultural Advisory Council of kūpuna, cultural practitioners, and community representatives to help guide the office’s work. The office would help all city departments by identifying cultural practitioners, coordinating with communities and providing Indigenous and ancestral knowledge for city projects. The office could mirror Maui County’s Department of ʻŌiwi Resources, which Maui voters approved in 2022. Read more here.
QUESTION 4: Should a nine-member LGBTQIA+ Commission be established to advise the Mayor, City Council, and City agencies on matters affecting the LGBTQIA+ community and recommend policies, programs, and legislation promoting social, economic, and political equality?
Vote “Yes” to create a nine-member commission to inform city and county decisions on LGBTQIA+ matters. Hawaiʻi already has a statewide LGBTQ+ Commission under the state Department of Human Services; this measure would create one specifically for city-level issues.
The Mayor would appoint four members, and the City Council presiding officer would appoint four, subject to council approval. The Mayor would appoint the ninth member, who would also need council confirmation.
QUESTION 5: Beginning in 2032, should the City use ranked-choice voting to elect the Mayor, City Council, and Prosecuting Attorney, allowing voters to rank candidates in the order they prefer (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) in a single November election?
This question asks voters whether to adopt ranked-choice voting, also known as “instant runoff,” for some of Oʻahu’s highest-ranking city officials. Instead of choosing one candidate per race, voters would rank up to five candidates in order of preference.
If a candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, they win. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and their ballots are then redistributed, with each ballot going to the candidate ranked second. The process repeats until a candidate receives a majority.
If approved, the charter amendment would establish a trigger law, allowing ranked-choice voting to take effect as early as 2032 if the state Legislature approves it.
Supporters say ranked-choice voting helps ensure winners have majority support. They also argue it allows voters to choose their preferred candidates without worrying about splitting votes or settling for “the lesser of two evils.” They also say it could discourage negative campaigning.
“We currently have a system where someone can win and go forward without a majority — they just happen to have the most number of votes,” said Judith Mills Wong, president of the League of Women Voters of Hawaiʻi.
Ranked voting is used in 49 states, according to FairVote, including Hawaiʻi — but its use locally is limited to special federal and county elections.
QUESTION 6: Should the Charter be amended to require the Honolulu Police Department to 1) adopt policies to ensure the constitutional rights of all persons regardless of immigration or citizenship status are protected, and 2) assist federal immigration enforcement activities only when required by statute or court order, and after the requesting agency’s identity and authority have been confirmed?
The proposal aims to limit the Honolulu Police Department’s involvement in federal immigration enforcement, which has expanded under the Trump administration.
In written testimony, the Legal Clinic Hawaiʻi said the charter’s current language could create “operational uncertainty” because police respond to warrants and court orders implemented through departmental policies.
“It makes it very clear that if there's a civil immigration administrative warrant, so not signed by a judge but a Department of Homeland Security administrative warrant, the police have no obligation — and, actually, now under this law — should not comply with that,” said Tina Sablan, policy manager for TLC.
The law Sablan is referring to is one of two that the state Legislature passed this year dealing with local law enforcement agencies and their participation in federal immigration activities.
Act 141 bans local law enforcement agencies and officials from making agreements that allow county or state participation in immigration enforcement. Act 161 requires local agencies to notify those in custody of their rights before speaking with federal immigration authorities. The law “clearly provides space” for individuals to consent to those interviews, and can provide that information in more than a dozen languages.
The charter amendment question would, in part, align the City Charter with the new state laws.
QUESTION 7: Shall the Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu be amended to encourage increasing housing availability and preserving available housing as policies for the City and County of Honolulu?
This amendment would clarify the City’s intention to address the housing crisis on Oʻahu. The City Charter doesn’t have a statement acknowledging the island’s housing shortage and its impact on outmigration.
If approved, the charter would declare the need for more housing on Oʻahu a “compelling governmental interest.” According to a state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism report from 2024, Oʻahu could need up to 24,000 additional housing units through 2035 to meet the projected demand.
QUESTION 8: Should the Charter be amended to clarify that the Affordable Housing Fund is a revolving fund, with repayments, interest, earnings, proceeds, and other receipts derived from the Fund to be redeposited into the Fund?
This is one of three charter amendment questions related to the city’s Affordable Housing Fund, a special fund used to buy land and build affordable housing units.
The proposal would ensure that earnings from the fund are returned to it, increasing how much money is available for future projects. The charter commission says that, “currently, the Charter does not specify what happens to money that is loaned from the Affordable Housing Fund and later returns to the City with interest.”
Additionally, the amendment would allow the fund to support housing in mixed-use or mixed-income projects, including those that serve households earning more than 60% of the area median income. Such developments could include those built around rail stations.
“We don't want to be separating people on the basis of their incomes,” said Perry Arrasmith, policy director for Housing Hawaii’s Future, a nonprofit aimed at addressing Hawaiʻi's workforce housing shortage and local displacement. “Giving the city more latitude … intended to create more diverse communities.”
Expanding the fund’s usage could also help those who technically don’t qualify but are still impacted by the lack of affordable housing in the city, he said, including those who earn just above the 60% area median income threshold. Read more here.
QUESTION 9: Should the Charter be amended to no longer require a second public hearing for any transaction related to City real property interests?
The Honolulu Charter requires public hearings for transactions and activities related to real property to determine if they serve the public interest. For activities involving parcels greater than one-quarter of an acre, public hearings are required to take place in the Honolulu City Council district where the property is located. A “Yes” vote would strike that public hearing requirement.
Perry Arrasmith, policy director for Housing Hawaii’s Future, called the proposal a housekeeping measure and said the hearings draw little public engagement and are a waste of taxpayer money.
QUESTION 10: Should the City be required to prepare and carry out a functional plan for the development of affordable housing?
The Honolulu Charter currently requires the administration to prepare long-term planning documents for parks, transportation and environmental services — but not for housing.
A “Yes” vote would require Honolulu’s director of housing and land management to prepare a 10-year functional plan for the City and County of Honolulu to improve its housing supply. The plan would be reviewed and revised every five years.
In a written testimony, Hawaiʻi Appleseed said a housing plan would “require action on behalf of the city to meet said plan.”
Other supporters say a plan holds the City accountable for improving housing by establishing deliverables and a pathway to create more housing. The plan being in the Honolulu Charter would also make the goal last beyond specific administrations.
QUESTION 11: Should the Charter be amended to allow the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund and the Climate Resiliency Fund to award grants to federal income tax-exempt non-profit organizations that provide services that are consistent with each Fund’s purpose?
The Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, administered by the Department of Housing and Land Management’s Conservation Office, is a special fund established by the Honolulu charter to purchase land for conservation and public recreation. The Climate Resiliency Fund, administered by the Office of Climate Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency, is another special fund that supports projects intended to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Currently, neither fund can award grants to nonprofits; only the city’s Grants in Aid Fund can award grants to eligible nonprofits. A “Yes” vote on this question would amend the city’s charter to allow both funds to give grants to nonprofits whose work aligns with each fund’s mission.
QUESTION 12: Should the Revised City Charter be amended to allow the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, Affordable Housing Fund, Climate Resiliency Fund, and other funds established under Section 9-204 to receive funding from federal, state, philanthropic, and other sources?
The Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, Affordable Housing Fund and Climate Resiliency Fund each receive 0.5% of the city’s estimated annual real property tax revenue, for a combined total of 1.5%. Each fund generally receives about $8 or $9 million per fiscal year.
A “Yes” vote would create more flexibility for these funds, along with other funds established by the charter, by authorizing them to receive support from other sources.
QUESTION 13: Should the Charter be amended to allow the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund to be used for historic preservation, and to preserve and protect buildings, sites, structures, and objects that have been acquired by the fund; to rename the Fund the Land, Natural Resources, and Historic Preservation Fund, and the advisory commission for the Fund the Land, Natural Resources, and Historic Preservation advisory commission; and to allocate proposal review for Fund use between the advisory commission and the Oʻahu Historic Preservation Commission?
Since its establishment in 2007, the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund has helped acquire 14 sites totaling 1,459 acres across Oʻahu. The City holds those lands in perpetual stewardship to protect sensitive ecosystems, maintain public access, and support agricultural and education where appropriate.
The Honolulu Charter allows the fund to acquire and protect historically or culturally important land and sites. For example, fund money supported the protection of the Kūkaniloko Birthstones site in Wahiawā. But the charter does not permit the fund to go towards the preservation of historic buildings, structures, objects, and districts. A “Yes” vote expands the fund’s purview to include those uses.
Real property tax revenue deposited into the fund and not spent in a given year rolls over to the next year. Honolulu City Councilmember Esther Kiaʻāina said the fund currently holds a surplus of about $50 million. Kiaʻāina told HPR that she proposed the expansion of the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund because she thinks its surplus can help resource the work of the Oʻahu Historic Preservation Commission, which is currently inventorying city-owned historic properties and buildings for preservation.
She cited Kaimukī’s Queen Theater, which is for sale, as a good candidate for Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund support should voters elect to expand the fund’s scope.
QUESTION 14: Should the Charter be amended to increase the annual appropriation for costs related to operation, maintenance, and management of lands that were acquired using the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, from 5% of the moneys that were deposited into the Fund in the previous year, to 10%?
A “Yes” vote raises the cap on spending from the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund for operational purposes. Eligible expenses may include infrastructure repairs or improvements to ensure public access, as well as environmental remediation. About $440,000 is currently available for those activities across the sites acquired by the fund. That amount represents about 5% of the $8 million to $9 million deposited into the fund annually. If approved, the amendment would double the amount available for operational costs to about $880,000 a year.
The city’s Conservation Office opened applications this year for community stewardship of those sites. Currently, $50,000 is available for each site, but Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund Project Manager Tam Nguyen told the Honolulu City Council in August that approval of Question 14 could increase the funds available for stewardship.
QUESTION 15: Should an Office of Data and Innovation be established to use data to improve city services, promote government transparency and civic engagement, ensure that the city uses artificial intelligence responsibly, and protect residents’ digital privacy?
The Honolulu Charter doesn’t assign responsibility over the City’s data, the use of data to improve services, or residents’ digital privacy.
A "Yes" vote would create the Office of Data and Innovation, managed by Honolulu’s managing director. It will direct the City in its efforts to use and protect data, and provide guidance for artificial intelligence.
The City’s chief data officer and data specialist positions don’t fall under charter authority, meaning they can change in future administrations without a vote from the public. Those positions would be protected if codified in the charter.
QUESTION 16: Should permanent resident aliens who are residents of the City and County of Honolulu be permitted to serve on City boards and commissions?
Vote “Yes” on this question to allow green card holders who are residents of the City and County of Honolulu to serve on City boards and commissions, assuming they meet all other requirements and qualifications.
QUESTION 17: Should quorum and board action be based on the majority of members eligible to vote, excluding vacancies and non-voting members?
The City Charter currently defines a quorum as a majority of members of a board or commission entitled to vote. A quorum is required for any official action to take place. The charter commission says some boards and commissions with vacancies and nonvoting members could not take many official actions, even though they have enough members to hold meetings.
The proposed amendment would exclude vacancies and nonvoting members when determining quorum, though Neighborhood Boards would not be impacted.
QUESTION 18: Should the First Deputy of the Department of Human Resources be exempt from civil service provisions, like similar roles in other City departments?
A “Yes” vote would exempt the First Deputy of the Department of Human Resources from civil service. Assistant Directors of Human Resources in the other three counties in the state of Hawaiʻi are already exempt from civil service. Other members of Honolulu’s mayoral cabinet are also exempt, so the amendment would create consistency across all of these positions.
QUESTION 19: Should the City Clerk be required to provide technical and secretarial services to the Charter Commission?
A “Yes” vote would establish the City Clerk as the designated administrative home for the Charter Commission. The Commission is formed every 10 years, per the Honolulu Charter. The Commission currently has no designated administrative support. If the amendment passes, the City Clerk would handle tasks like updating the website, posting job descriptions, and keeping up with emails.
QUESTION 20: Should the Charter make a Councilmember, the Mayor, or the Prosecuting Attorney ineligible for election to any City office for two years if impeached, or if the official resigns after an impeachment petition has been filed, consistent with the provision for being recalled from office?
Currently, a Councilmember, the Mayor or the Prosecuting Attorney can be elected or appointed to another City office following an impeachment or a resignation as a result of an impeachment petition being filed.
A “Yes” vote would make those officials ineligible for election to any City office for two years following their removal or resignation.
