Requesting The Office Of Elections To Convene A Working Group To Examine The Fiscal Impacts, Potential Cost Savings, Administrative Considerations, And Broader Policy Implications Of Eliminating Primary Elections And Implementing Ranked-choice Voting In General And Special Elections.
H.R. 122 is a House Resolution requesting the Office of Elections to convene a working group to study whether Hawaii should eliminate primary elections and instead use ranked-choice voting in general and special elections. The resolution frames the issue as one of voter participation, cost, and electoral fairness, citing low primary turnout, the expense of administering primaries, and concerns that plurality elections can produce winners without majority support. It also points to Hawaii’s existing limited use of ranked-choice voting in certain special elections as a basis for broader study.
The proposed working group would include election officials, the Attorney General or designee, legislative appointees, party representatives, and public experts. Its charge is to analyze fiscal impacts, administrative and technology needs, voter education requirements, turnout and outcomes in other ranked-choice jurisdictions, and legal or constitutional issues, including whether amendments to articles II and III of the Hawaii State Constitution would be needed. The group must also recommend whether to pursue constitutional amendments to require ranked-choice voting and eliminate primaries, and report back to the Legislature before the 2027 session.
Because this is a resolution rather than a bill, H.R. 122 does not itself change Hawaii election law. Instead, it directs the Office of Elections to study possible changes that could affect the state’s primary election system, general and special elections, and potentially the Hawaii State Constitution. If the working group’s recommendations are later adopted, the measure could lead to legislation or constitutional amendments affecting political parties, candidates, election administration, voter education, and the structure of ballot access and vote tabulation statewide.
The resolution appears generally favorable toward ranked-choice voting and skeptical of the current primary system. Its findings emphasize low primary turnout, high administrative costs, and the possibility that ranked-choice voting could increase participation, reduce negative campaigning, and produce more representative outcomes. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided context means there is no documented opposition or support beyond the resolution’s own framing, but the text clearly signals an exploratory, reform-minded posture.
The main points of contention are likely to be the elimination of primary elections, the effect on political parties’ nomination role, and the practical and legal complexity of implementing ranked-choice voting statewide. The resolution acknowledges the need to examine constitutional issues, administrative burdens, technology upgrades, and voter education, suggesting these are expected areas of debate. Parties and candidates may disagree over whether ranked-choice voting improves representation and turnout or instead complicates elections and weakens traditional party processes.