Voters Embrace Construction Bond Measure
Voters supported two amendments to the state constitution pertaining to judges and special bonds. Voters appeared to overwhelmingly favor two proposed constitutional amendments, including one that would allow counties to issue special bonds to pay for some infrastructure improvements, and another to give the Senate more time to confirm judges.
According to initial results released Tuesday evening, proposed constitutional amendment Question 1 regarding judges was passing by a margin of 59.9% to 40%, while Question 2 on bonds was similarly supported with 64.5% to 35.3%. Since blank votes are counted as no votes for constitutional amendments, these percentages include ballots that left the questions blank.
The early results covered all mail-in ballots processed statewide up to Saturday, as well as ballots from some voter centers on Maui and Oʻahu.
Unions and business groups invested over $2.8 million in recent months on radio, TV ads, and mailers to convince voters to approve Question 2. RISE Together Hawaii, a ballot issue committee, was primarily funded by the Hawaii Carpenters Market Recovery Program Fund.
Question 2 aimed to amend the state constitution to enable counties to issue resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity bonds to fund infrastructure projects in designated areas. These bonds, a type of tax-increment financing, are utilized in 48 other states and are currently allowed by Hawaiʻi law. However, the Hawaiʻi Attorney General has argued that the current state law is unconstitutional, as counties are not explicitly authorized to issue these bonds.
The bonds offer a method for county governments to invest in infrastructure without diverting existing tax revenue. Instead, they are repaid using increased property taxes generated by new developments in targeted districts. Proponents advocated for this approach as a way to reduce housing costs, especially along the Honolulu Skyline rail line, by shifting the financial burden from renters and homebuyers to developers. They also suggested that these bonds could be used to upgrade existing roads, bridges, and water and sewer systems.
Opponents, however, claimed that the bonds would lead to higher property taxes for all residents, as counties would need to offset the costs of additional municipal services in booming RISE districts. Proponents addressed this concern by proposing to set aside a portion of the tax increment for such services.
Question 1 was a simpler proposal, aiming to extend the time frame for the Senate to consider a judicial appointment from 30 to 60 days after the governor makes an appointment when the Legislature is not in session or nearing the end of the regular session. Currently, appointments made outside of the regular session require a special session of the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider and make a recommendation to the full Legislature.