This November, Oʻahu voters face twenty proposed amendments to our City Charter. Many community members have asked how I plan to vote, so I am sharing my recommendations and the values behind them. These questions determine how government shares power, invests public money, and responds to the people it serves. For North Shore families, those structures matter every time flooding threatens our homes, housing costs push neighbors away, or public decisions proceed without meaningful community input.
My recommendations reflect the principles guiding my legislative work: strengthen public capacity, protect working families, care for ʻāina, and make government answerable to the public. I recommend YES on every question except 9 and 18.
Question 1: YES. A Food Security Fund would dedicate resources to increasing access to locally produced food. My work on free school meals and food security rests on a simple conviction: nobody should go hungry in communities surrounded by productive agricultural land. Supporting local food access also strengthens our farmers and disaster preparedness.
Questions 2 and 3: YES. Recognizing our relationship with ʻāina, honoring kūpuna and Prince Kūhiō, and establishing an Office of ʻŌiwi Resources and Cultural Stewardship would give Native Hawaiian knowledge a clearer place in City government. The preamble alone changes no legal powers; the office creates responsibility for coordination and collaboration with practitioners and communities.
Question 4: YES. An LGBTQIA+ Commission would give residents a dedicated avenue to identify inequities and recommend solutions. Equal protection requires government to listen to people whose experiences are too often excluded.
Question 5: YES. Ranked-choice voting would let voters rank candidates and place decisive City elections in November, when participation is broader. Implementation requires state authorization and could begin in 2032; races with six or more candidates would retain an August qualifying round. My civic education and democracy work has always centered meaningful participation.
Question 6: YES. Constitutional protections belong to everyone. Requiring lawful, verified grounds for HPD assistance with federal immigration enforcement helps protect those rights. Community safety depends on residents being able to seek help without fear.
Questions 7, 8, and 10: YES. These measures recognize the importance of housing for residents, keep Affordable Housing Fund repayments available for future housing investments, and require long-term housing planning. Our neighbors need homes they can afford within communities where they have family, work, and support. Planning must translate into lasting affordability, with infrastructure and environmental protection built into implementation.
Question 9: NO. This proposal removes separate public hearings on City property transactions, including the requirement to hold hearings locally for transactions involving more than a quarter acre. Council approval and testimony opportunities would remain, but Honolulu Hale is no substitute for accessible discussion in an affected community. Streamline routine transactions through narrower reform; preserve public participation in consequential land decisions.
Questions 11 and 12: YES. Allowing conservation and climate funds to support qualified nonprofits, and special funds to receive additional funding, can strengthen publicinvestment. Our flood recovery work shows how much community organizations contribute. Partnerships should expand government’s capacity while maintaining public responsibility and oversight.
Questions 13 and 14: YES. Historic preservation deserves support, and land acquired for conservation needs ongoing care. Expanding eligible preservation uses and increasing the maintenance allowance from five to ten percent would help protect public assets. Implementation must also safeguard watershed and agricultural conservation priorities.
Question 15: YES. My work on government data access and algorithmic discrimination underscores the need for an Office of Data and Innovation. Better services, public information, privacy protections, and scrutiny of automated decisions belong together.
Questions 16 and 17: YES. Let permanent residents contribute to appointed boards and commissions, and prevent vacancies from unnecessarily blocking their work. Officials should still fill vacancies promptly and preserve representative membership.
Question 18: NO. Removing civil service protection from the deputy human resources position expands political appointment power. Consistency with other departments does not, by itself, justify weakening professional independence.
Questions 19 and 20: YES. Charter review needs reliable administrative support. Officials removed through impeachment, or resigning after a petition is filed, should face a two-year restriction on holding City office. Our ballot is an opportunity to build institutions worthy of public trust. Please read these questions carefully and vote - my views are certainly a reflection of my experiences and work, and there is plenty of space for disagreement and different views on any of these bal- lot measures. I just offer these in the spirit of sparking conversation on important public policy issues.