The voting power of the average O‘ahu resident has declined in the past century.
When elected government first took shape in 1905, the Islands were less populated than they are today. In June 1900, a census count estimated that 154,001 resided in the entire Territory of Hawai‘i, of which 58,504 people lived on O‘ahu. The island experienced a great deal of population growth over the next decade, reaching 81,993 persons by the next count on April 15, 1910.
O‘ahu’s legislative body is always changing, if not to the detriment of the average resident’s voting power. At least one official history of the Honolulu City Council outlines the history of the Council’s evolution, dating back to its early formation just a few years less than a decade after Hawai‘i’s annexation into the U.S.
As of 2020, approximately 1,016,508 people reside on O‘ahu. Each member of the Honolulu City Council represents more than 112,000.
Given the island’s population expansion, it’s only natural. However, that shouldn’t have to mean that the voting power of an individual will shrink in perpetuity, subject only to the growth (or decline) of O‘ahu’s population.
However, that’s the way the current system is evolving.
THE TERRITORIAL ERA
Population growth is not the only natural reason for the shrinking power of an O‘ahu voter. The composition of the island’s Legislature, known initially as the Board of Supervisors and now as the City Council, has shifted since that point, too.
The size of O‘ahu has also expanded since 1905, the year counties were formally established across the U.S. Territory of Hawai‘i through Act 39 of the 1905 Territorial Legislature.
Elections for the first Board of Supervisors were made in late 1906. Three of the supervisors would hail from the City of Honolulu, one from the district of ‘Ewa, one from the districts of Wai‘anae and Waialua, and one more from the districts of Ko‘olauloa and Ko‘olaupoko, and an at-large member. Other county officers to be elected would be a Sheriff, a County clerk, an Auditor, a County Attorney, a Treasurer, and a Deputy Sheriff for each district of O‘ahu.
Even with O‘ahu’s 1910 population, each member of the Honolulu City Council represented less than 14,000 constituents each.
This framework, in the grand scheme of history, was nothing more than a brief aberration. More reform was on the horizon.
In 1907, the Territorial Legislature once again modified the fabric of O‘ahu’s organization through Act 118. The measure, among other gambits, formally chartered the entire island as the City and County of Honolulu. Members of the Board would serve two-year terms,
Before the end of the Territorial era, O‘ahu was already evolving from employing a Board of Supervisors to a formal City Council.
O‘ahu was also rapidly growing. Between April 1950 and April 1960, the island’s population grew from 353,020 to 500,409 people. While the populations of every other county were in sharp decline, the island was becoming the gathering place of an emerging U.S. State.
AN ISLAND IN A NEW STATE
The Board preceded the Honolulu City Council, which was not established until statehood in 1959. Honolulu, with statehood, was set to get a City Council.
In 1955, the Territorial Legislature once again initiated reform through Act 225. A new Charter Commission was authorized, resulting in the expansion of the Council to nine members. Under this new scheme, the composition of the Council would be divided between three rural members and six members selected from the entire county. The influence of rural voters was weighed more heavily than the votes of urban residents.
Each at-large councilmember now represented an average of approximately 83,400 residents. At this point, each councilmember now represented a constituency larger than the total size of the island at the time of the first council elections in 1906.
The inequities of the new system inspired controversy in the 1966 county elections. Resolution 173 provided two options for the future composition of the Honolulu City Council to the resident’s voters.
The first option proposed a new council of nine members elected at-large. The second option proposed an expanded council of 11 members. Six would be elected from at-large seats, while five would be selected from council districts.
The gambit confused voters. Nearly two-thirds of the voters favored both the first and second propositions. However, an electorate divided in three roughly even ways both meant that neither vote received a majority of the electorate’s support. The Council’s traditional structure remained in place.
The 1972 Charter Commission marked a turning point in the history of the county. Reform approved by the voters established nine district-based councils. Honolulu no longer had at-large seats.
By April 1970, O‘ahu’s population grew to 630,528 residents. As a result of the transition to geographically based districts aligned to the principle of “one-person one-vote,” each district now had approximately 70,000 constituents.
Compared to the system established before statehood, this arguably widened the relative voting power of individual voters. Since 1970, O‘ahu’s population has increased by more than 350,000 residents. The number of councilmembers, in the meantime, has stayed the same.
Since that point, Honolulu has enjoyed nine members, each representing a specific geographic district of the county. While O‘ahu’s population has exploded in the last 50 years, the composition and method of our Council’s shape has stayed static, while the voting power of the individual has declined.
THE CURRENT CHARTER COMMISSION
As of this writing, varied efforts are underway to re-imagine the ideal size and scope of the county’s councilmembers. Each proposal is geared towards increasing the voting power of the individual.
Many arguments for lowering the size of an individual council seat are inspired by the overwhelming size of a council seat relative to the size of a district in the State Legislature. In 2026, a member of the Hawai‘i State Senate – the upper chamber of our State Legislature, represents an average of fewer than 60,000 residents.
Proposal 53, for example, entertains increasing the size of the Council, albeit without a clear eye towards an ideal number of members.
Under Proposal 101, Trevor Nagamine wants to increase the size of the City Council to 81 members. “The large size of Council districts in both population and physical area limits the ability of Councilmembers to be responsive to community issues, especially since City matters tend to be highly local in nature,” Trevor explains. Tom Heinrich is a little more measured through Proposal 244, arguing that the Council would be better served with 13 councilmembers.
Milton Arakawa through Proposal 126, and Camron Hurt through Proposal 196, want to make each member of the Council a county-wide representative.
Many of these proposals are contradictory. However, they are a clear and present reminder that the size and shape of the City Council has never been fixed. It is a fluid construction, one that we could easily change.
Reform may come. The voting power of the individual may increase, if present reforms move against the trajectory of history.
