Another election cycle looms, and history tells us that if we don’t do anything differently, turnout will be low and most races will have little competition.

Of course, residents can and should reverse the trend by voting, volunteering or running for office. But we also need bigger, systemic changes that make it easier and more rewarding for people to get involved.

One reform is within reach. The state needs to overhaul public campaign financing, and right now, the Honolulu Charter Commission has a chance to take the first step.

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat is focusing on transparency, accountability and ethics in government and other institutions. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

A Democracy Vouchers program similar to Seattle’s could become a model for all of Hawaiʻi. Here’s how it works:

Each registered voter receives a small amount of public money to donate to political candidates. The goal is to reduce the influence of large private contributions and broaden citizen participation in fundraising by making every voter a potential donor.

Seattle began using Democracy Vouchers in 2015 to improve local government. Each voter receives four $25 vouchers per election. Voters give these vouchers to candidates, and the candidates trade them in for city funds.

Candidates who join the program must follow spending and contribution limits, share more information and attend public forums.

This lets people support candidates without writing personal checks. The program is funded by a property tax of about $13 per homeowner. In August, almost 60% of Seattle voters chose to renew the program.

The benefits are clear. Seattle’s program increased civic participation and brought in a more diverse group of donors. In the first year, more than twice as many people gave to local campaigns. Voucher donors were younger, less wealthy and more racially diverse than traditional donors. One study linked the program to a roughly 5% increase in voter turnout.

The program also curbed the role of big donors and outside money. Before vouchers, almost 60% of campaign funds came from contributions of $400 or more. By 2023, that figure dropped to under 10%, and funding from outside the city fell from 29% to 8%. Candidates also changed their behavior, spending less time with wealthy donors and more time talking to everyday people. And, more diverse candidates ran and won elections.

What Hawaiʻi Has Isn’t Working

By contrast, as noted in a 2023 UHERO report, Hawaiʻi’s existing public financing program is too limited to make a difference. The state offers a voluntary option that only partially matches donations. Candidates who take part must agree to spending limits and collect a minimum number of small donations. For those who qualify, the state gives up to 15% of the office’s spending limit as public funds.

In 2024, just 4% of the 259 candidates on the ballot used this program. Only 10 people received a total of $52,053. Seven of these candidates won, mostly in Kauaʻi and Maui council races. At the state level, only two legislative candidates used public funds. with split results.

Why so little uptake? The UHERO study points to two core problems. The money is too low to matter, especially in legislative races, and the rules are complex and confusing. Funding levels haven’t been meaningfully updated in nearly 30 years. The numbers support these concerns.

Spending limits are too low, as are the amounts candidates can receive. For example, in a state House race, the spending cap is $1.40 per voter. Recent data on “cost per vote” shows how unrealistic these limits are for competitive campaigns. In 2024, the 10 most expensive races per vote were mostly for legislative seats. The highest cost per vote in the primary was $128.94. In the general election, the highest was $28.42.

Of course, money isn’t everything — many top spenders still lost. But this high spending shows that a 15% match on a low cap does not change how candidates campaign.

A voucher model could.

UHERO estimates that a Hawaiʻi program structured like Seattle’s, with four $25 vouchers per voter, would cost about $4.3 million per election at typical participation rates. Implemented only in Honolulu, the price tag would be far lower.

For context, in 2024, 10 Honolulu City Council candidates spent a combined $707,102, and none of those races cracked the statewide top 10 in cost per vote. Two council races were truly competitive. Scott Nishimoto won District 5’s primary with 58% of the vote, spending about $175,000, or $13.07 per vote. In District 3, Esther Kiaʻāina won the primary with 47.5% and spent about $137,500, or $11.28 per vote.

Increasing Competition And Diversity

Hawaiʻi needs to try something different. Research on public financing is encouraging. Where programs are generous and participation-oriented, they increase competition and diversity as well as more direct contact between candidates and voters.

According to UHERO’s report, the research is less conclusive regarding public financing’s impact on trust, corruption or big policy shifts. Still, increasing public funding in any form is unlikely to hurt on the corruption front.

The 2022 Commission to Improve Standards of Conduct recommended more public financing improvements precisely to reduce candidates’ dependence on affluent donors and special interests.

Democracy Vouchers would give every voter the same tool and ask candidates to earn support from actual residents.

Still, a statewide public financing overhaul is unlikely to happen soon because the Legislature has shown little interest in these reforms. However, the City and County of Honolulu has a unique opportunity to influence change through its Charter Commission. It operates only once a decade, but that happens to be right now.

If Honolulu moves first, we can design a program that rewards democratic participation and shifts candidates’ focus. Democracy Vouchers would give every voter the same tool and ask candidates to earn support from actual residents.

That’s healthier than the status quo. And if it works at the city level, it gives the Legislature a tested model to consider statewide.

The Charter Commission has an opportunity to align our financing system with our values: fair competition, broad participation, and accountability to the people who live here.

We won’t fix turnout or competition with one reform, but we can change the incentives that shape our elections.

Seattle’s experience shows its possible. Honolulu should take the first step.