Requesting The Legislative Reference Bureau To Conduct A Study To Determine The Necessary Steps To Replace The Chief Election Officer With The Secretary Of State, Elected By Voters, To Oversee Elections.
SCR115 is a concurrent resolution requesting the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) to study whether and how Hawaii could replace the appointed Chief Election Officer with an elected Secretary of State who would oversee elections. The resolution frames the proposal as a way to examine Hawaii’s current election administration structure, compare it with other states, and identify the legal and constitutional changes that would be needed to shift election oversight to a voter-elected statewide official.
The measure does not itself change election law or create a Secretary of State office. Instead, it directs the LRB to assess existing constitutional and statutory authority, determine the steps necessary to make the change, and recommend any needed legislation. The LRB would be required to report its findings and any proposed legislation to the Legislature before the 2027 regular session.
The bill’s impact on state law is indirect but potentially significant. If the study leads to enacted legislation, Hawaii could need to amend Article IV, section 3 of the state constitution and revise Chapter 11 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes governing the Chief Election Officer and Elections Commission. It could also alter the structure of election administration by shifting authority from an appointed official to an elected statewide officer, with possible implications for campaign finance, election oversight, and related administrative duties.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is exploratory and reform-oriented rather than adversarial. The resolution emphasizes standardization, voter selection of the official overseeing elections, and comparison with other states, while also acknowledging the importance of decentralized state election systems for adaptability and fraud prevention. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the materials about support or opposition.
The main point of contention suggested by the text is the policy choice between an appointed election administrator and an elected Secretary of State. Supporters of the study appear to favor greater alignment with other states and direct voter accountability, while the resolution itself notes that decentralized systems are important to election integrity and flexibility, indicating that concerns about centralization, constitutional change, and administrative disruption could be part of any future debate.
SCR115 would not immediately amend Hawaii law, but it could set in motion a review of the constitutional and statutory framework governing election administration. The resolution asks the LRB to examine the legal authority for the current Chief Election Officer structure and identify what changes would be required to replace that office with an elected Secretary of State. Any resulting recommendations could affect the Hawaii Constitution, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, and the organization of election oversight, potentially shifting responsibilities now held by the Elections Commission-appointed Chief Election Officer.
The resolution appears generally reform-minded and informational in tone. Its findings section suggests interest in standardizing Hawaii’s election administration with practices in other states and increasing voter accountability by making the chief election official an elected position. At the same time, the bill acknowledges the value of decentralized, state-based election systems for adaptability and fraud prevention, indicating a measured approach rather than a purely partisan or confrontational one. No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the text itself.
The central issue is whether Hawaii should keep an appointed Chief Election Officer or move to an elected Secretary of State with election oversight authority. Potential supporters would likely emphasize voter accountability, consistency with other states, and clearer statewide leadership. Potential opponents would likely raise concerns about constitutional changes, the risk of politicizing election administration, and whether consolidating authority in an elected office could undermine the independence of election oversight. The resolution itself signals some of these concerns by noting the importance of decentralized systems and fraud prevention.