Liberty on the Ballot: Reviewing Honolulu's 2026 Charter Amendments

By: Nick Zehr

Every ten years, Honolulu residents get an opportunity that receives surprisingly little attention: the chance to reconsider the basic rules governing the City and County of Honolulu.

The Revised Charter requires a Charter Commission every decade to review City government and propose amendments for voters. Unlike ordinary legislation, these amendments change Honolulu’s foundational governing document. Once adopted, they can shape City government long after the officials who proposed them have left office.

That makes the Charter review especially important from a libertarian perspective.

A city charter should not simply be a wish list of things we would like government to accomplish. It should establish the rules governing government itself: defining its powers, protecting individual rights and property, maintaining transparency, restraining spending and extraordinary authority, and ensuring citizens have meaningful ways to hold their government accountable.

I participated in this Charter Commission cycle with those principles in mind.

What I Proposed

I submitted ten proposed Charter reforms centered on a straightforward question: How can we better constrain government and protect individual liberty?

My proposals addressed eminent domain, citizen initiative and referendum, emergency powers, special funds, rail debt and spending, zoning and permitting, City land transactions, the Salary Commission, government transparency and public records, and recall of elected officials.

Although these proposals addressed different parts of government, they shared several themes: stronger property rights, greater citizen control, fiscal restraint, transparency, due process, and meaningful limitations on government authority.

Many did not survive the Commission process.

Instead, Honolulu voters will receive 20 Charter questions covering everything from food subsidies and new government offices to ranked-choice voting, housing policy, privacy, public hearings, and government administration.

So what do those amendments look like through a libertarian lens?

Rather than simply asking whether a proposal sounds beneficial, I think several questions are more useful:

Does it expand or constrain government power? Does it protect individual liberty and property? Does it increase compulsory spending? Does it treat individuals equally under the law? Does it improve transparency or accountability? And, perhaps most importantly, does this policy really belong permanently in the City Charter?

Here is how the final ballot looks when viewed through those principles.

Question 1: Food Security Fund

This amendment would create a sixth Charter-mandated special fund and increase the share of estimated property-tax revenues dedicated to special funds from 2.5% to 3%.

Food security and a resilient local food system are worthwhile goals, particularly on an island. The libertarian concern is the mechanism: permanently earmarking taxpayer revenue for government programs, grants, and subsidies.

A limited-government alternative would focus on removing regulatory, land-use, processing, and other barriers that make it difficult for local farmers and food producers to compete.

Question 2: Guiding Principles & Values

This proposal replaces the Charter's preamble with language recognizing relationships with the ʻāina, Native Hawaiian cultural values, stewardship, transparency, and accountable government.

Because the amendment does not itself change governmental powers or duties, it is primarily philosophical rather than regulatory. Transparency and accountability fit comfortably within limited-government principles.

The question worth watching is whether broad concepts such as governmental stewardship could eventually influence how City authority is interpreted.

Question 3: Native Hawaiian & Cultural Stewardship

This amendment creates an Office of ʻŌiwi Resources and Cultural Stewardship within the Mayor's office, along with a Cultural Advisory Council.

There is a legitimate role for properly managing cultural and natural resources already controlled by government. The libertarian concern is institutionalizing another permanent government office, advisory body, and set of programs in the Charter.

Something can be culturally valuable without necessarily requiring another permanent bureaucracy.

Question 4: LGBTQIA+ Commission

This amendment establishes a nine-member LGBTQIA+ Commission authorized to advise City government, recommend policies and legislation, serve as a liaison, and employ staff.

Libertarianism strongly supports equal individual rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The philosophical issue is whether those rights are better protected through neutral laws applying equally to individuals or through permanent government institutions representing particular demographic groups.

The latter expands the institutional scope of City government even when the underlying objective of equal treatment is consistent with individual liberty.

Question 5: Ranked-Choice Voting

Beginning in 2032, Honolulu would replace its current municipal primary/runoff system with ranked-choice voting for Mayor, City Council, and Prosecuting Attorney.

This presents an interesting libertarian question.

Ranked-choice voting can give voters greater freedom to support minor-party and independent candidates without necessarily losing the ability to express a preference among the remaining candidates. That could be particularly meaningful for Libertarian voters who routinely confront the "spoiler" argument.

The tradeoffs include additional ballot and tabulation complexity and whether an instant runoff is preferable to the existing system.

Question 6: Constitutional Rights & Immigration

This amendment would require HPD policies protecting constitutional rights regardless of immigration or citizenship status and generally restrict assistance with federal immigration enforcement to situations required by law or court order, with verification of the requesting agency's authority.

From a civil-libertarian perspective, requiring police to operate under clearly established legal authority and protecting constitutional rights regardless of status are significant principles.

The countervailing issue is federalism and whether the Charter should restrict otherwise lawful cooperation between local and federal law enforcement.

Question 7: Housing Availability

This is one of the most interesting changes from the original proposals.

Earlier versions of P170 contemplated an empty-homes tax targeting properties not occupied by owners or long-term renters. That raised substantial concerns involving taxation, property rights, and government attempts to dictate the productive use of privately owned homes.

That tax did not make the final ballot.

Instead, the amendment declares increasing housing availability and preserving available housing to be City policies.

The language that deserves particular scrutiny is the declaration that encouraging the use of existing housing for City residents constitutes a "compelling governmental interest."

Increasing housing supply can absolutely align with libertarian principles when accomplished through zoning reform, faster permitting, greater density, ADUs, mixed-use development, and greater freedom for property owners.

The concern is whether declaring a broad "compelling governmental interest" could later be used to justify more intrusive interventions into private housing decisions.

Question 8: Affordable Housing Revolving Fund

This amendment clarifies that repayments, interest, earnings, and proceeds from the existing Affordable Housing Fund return to the Fund.

There are really two separate libertarian questions here.

One can oppose government housing subsidies while simultaneously recognizing that if the Fund already exists, recycling money returned to it may be more fiscally responsible than continually requiring additional taxpayer resources.

This proposal therefore deals less with creating a new program than with how an existing one manages its money.

Question 9: Eliminating a Second Property Hearing

This proposal eliminates a separate public hearing for City real-property transactions while retaining public consideration and testimony when those transactions reach the City Council.

This is the kind of government reform that often receives too little attention.

Transparency matters, but more process does not automatically mean more accountability.

If two proceedings substantially duplicate one another, eliminating one can reduce administrative expense and delay while preserving meaningful public oversight.

Question 10: Housing Functional Plan

This amendment requires a ten-year Housing Functional Plan, updated at least every five years.

A libertarian critique is straightforward: it adds another government planning mandate.

The counterargument is also worth considering. Honolulu already has a housing bureaucracy and housing programs. Requiring that government to publicly articulate its long-term objectives can make an existing institution more transparent and measurable rather than necessarily expanding its substantive authority.

Question 11: Grants to Nonprofits

This amendment would allow the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund and Climate Resiliency Fund to award grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations.

Those nonprofits may perform valuable work.

But government funding of private organizations raises a different question: should taxpayers be compelled to finance organizations selected by government officials?

Expanding the number of special funds authorized to make such grants expands that relationship between government and private organizations.

Question 12: Outside Funding for Special Funds

This proposal allows several Charter special funds to receive federal, state, philanthropic, and other authorized funding.

Not all outside funding is equivalent.

Voluntary philanthropic contributions can reduce dependence on Honolulu taxpayers. Federal and state grants, however, remain taxpayer money and can encourage local programs to expand in response to outside funding that may not remain available indefinitely.

The libertarian implications therefore depend heavily on the source and conditions attached to the money.

Question 13: Historic Preservation

This amendment expands the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund to include historic preservation and allows money to be spent restoring and maintaining historic buildings, sites, archaeological resources, and culturally significant objects.

Preserving historically significant resources can unquestionably provide public value.

The limited-government question is whether that objective justifies expanding the permitted uses of a permanently funded government program.

Again, something being valuable does not automatically mean government should fund it.

Question 14: Maintenance Funding

This amendment increases from 5% to 10% the amount of the existing Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund that may be used for operation, maintenance, and management of property acquired through the Fund.

There are competing fiscal principles here.

Allowing additional spending deserves scrutiny, but government should also maintain property it already owns rather than continually acquiring assets without adequately maintaining them.

Responsible stewardship of existing government property can itself be a form of fiscal responsibility.

Question 15: Office of Data & Innovation

This amendment would establish an Office of Data and Innovation responsible for City data standards, digital privacy, artificial intelligence, and innovation.

Creating another permanent Charter-level office raises the obvious question of bureaucratic expansion.

But the other side involves increasingly important civil-libertarian concerns.

Government possesses enormous amounts of personal information, and artificial intelligence will increasingly affect how that information is processed and how government decisions are made. Strong privacy protections, transparency, and limitations on government use of AI are legitimate checks on state power.

The question is whether accomplishing those goals requires permanently establishing another City office.

Question 16: Permanent Residents on City Boards

This amendment would allow lawful permanent residents to serve on most City boards and commissions.

Importantly, this does not give noncitizens voting rights in City elections. It concerns eligibility for appointed boards and commissions.

From an individual-liberty perspective, removing an unnecessary restriction on voluntary civic participation has a straightforward rationale. The competing argument is that exercising governmental authority, even through appointed positions, should remain tied to citizenship.

Question 17: Board and Commission Quorums

This amendment excludes vacancies and non-voting members when calculating quorum and allows most actions to be approved by a majority of members actually present and voting.

This is largely an administrative reform.

Vacant seats should not necessarily prevent otherwise functioning boards from conducting business. Removing artificial procedural barriers can make existing government less cumbersome without expanding its underlying authority.

Question 18: Human Resources First Deputy

The First Deputy of Human Resources would become an appointed position rather than a civil-service position.

This creates a genuine accountability tradeoff.

An appointed deputy gives elected leadership greater managerial flexibility and makes it easier to hold senior officials accountable. Civil-service protection, however, provides insulation against patronage and political interference.

The question is which protection matters more for this particular senior management position.

Question 19: Charter Commission Support

This amendment requires the City Clerk to provide technical and secretarial support to future Charter Commissions.

Because the Charter Commission already exists and convenes every ten years, this primarily determines how an existing government function receives administrative support.

It neither substantially expands nor constrains City authority.

Question 20: Impeachment Accountability

This amendment would make certain elected officials ineligible for City office for two years following impeachment or resignation after an impeachment petition has been filed.

Accountability following an actual impeachment has an understandable rule-of-law rationale.

The more troubling issue from a due-process perspective is treating resignation following the filing of a petition similarly to an actual impeachment. An accusation is not a finding of wrongdoing.

Government accountability matters, but so does the principle that consequences should follow established findings rather than allegations alone.

What Didn't Make the Ballot?

The final 20 questions tell only part of the story.

Perhaps equally important is what Honolulu voters will not be considering.

There is no major Charter amendment strengthening private-property protections against eminent domain.

There is no substantial expansion of citizen initiative or referendum powers.

There is no significant new limitation on emergency powers.

There is no broad reform of zoning or permitting.

There is no sweeping taxpayer protection addressing public debt or major infrastructure spending.

There is no major reform of recall.

And despite Honolulu's housing affordability crisis, relatively little on the ballot directly addresses the regulatory barriers preventing additional housing from being built.

That reflects a philosophical difference over what a Charter should accomplish.

Some see the Charter as a place to establish programs, funds, commissions, offices, and governmental objectives.

I approached the process differently.

What Should a City Charter Do?

Once every ten years, we have an opportunity to ask a question much bigger than whether we support a particular government program:

What rules should govern the government itself?

From a libertarian perspective, a strong Charter does not need to promise government solutions to every social problem.

It should clearly define government authority, protect individual rights and private property, guarantee due process, restrain extraordinary powers, require transparency, protect taxpayers, decentralize decision-making, and provide citizens meaningful mechanisms for holding government accountable.

The remaining space should belong to civil society.

Individuals. Families. Businesses. Farmers. Charities. Neighborhoods. Churches.

Community organizations. And voluntary associations of every kind.

Reasonable people, including libertarians, can weigh several of these amendments differently. The value of applying libertarian principles is not creating a party checklist. It is asking the same fundamental questions consistently: Does this proposal protect liberty? Does it constrain government or expand it? And is government actually necessary to accomplish its objective?

Local politics rarely receives the attention of national politics, but decisions involving our homes, property, businesses, taxes, roads, police, land use, and neighborhoods often affect our daily lives much more directly.

Once every ten years, Honolulu gets an opportunity to rewrite some of those rules.

We should pay attention. If you intend to vote this year and live in the City and County of Honolulu, please consider the these principles as you vote on the charter amendments.

Liberty begins locally. So should accountability.