BLOG POSTS ARE PRELIMINARY MATERIALS CIRCULATED TO STIMULATE DISCUSSION AND CRITICAL COMMENT. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS. WHILE BLOG POSTS BENEFIT FROM ACTIVE UHERO DISCUSSION, THEY HAVE NOT UNDERGONE FORMAL ACADEMIC PEER REVIEW.
By Trey Gordner and Colin Moore
In our last post, Bills, Backers, and Blocs, we analyzed the positions Hawai‘i’s politically active organizations took on nearly 2,000 bills in the 2025 legislative session, revealing patterns in lobbying strategy, frequency, and intensity. This companion post uses the same Legislative/Administrative Action Report (LAAR) data to examine lobbying at the bill level, identifying the issues and proposals that united or divided stakeholders. By interpreting why some bills commanded broad support while others faced strong resistance, this analysis provides a sharper view of political conflict in Hawai‘i.
From Cool Consensus to Hot Contention
First, we define a simple bill-level metric of political controversy called Heat Score (HS)—the share of organizations taking the minority position on a given bill. A score of 0 indicates complete agreement among testifying organizations, while a score of 0.5 reflects an even split between support and non-support (including opposition and comments). By this metric, 238 bills, or 14% of lobbied bills, were hotly contested in the 2025 session.
Table 1: 2025 Bills with Lobbyist Testimony Categorized by Heat Score
| Label | Rule | Count | Share (%) | Interpretation |
| Cool Consensus | 0 ≤ HS < 0.10 | 1,363 | 78% | Virtually everyone lined up on one side. |
| Warm Mix | 0.10 ≤ HS < 0.30 | 146 | 8% | A sizable minority is pushing back. |
| Hotly Contested | 0.30 ≤ HS ≤ 0.50 | 238 | 14% | Two camps are almost evenly divided. |
In this way, we can distinguish between bills with one-sided versus two-sided testimony. Figure 1 below plots the 151 bills with 10 or more positions by overall volume versus heat score. Bills on the left reflect Cool Consensus, while those on the right were Hotly Contested.
Figure 1: Total Positions vs. Minority Share by Category
High Support, Not High Drama
Some of the most heavily lobbied bills in the 2025 session were also among the least contested. Consider HB560, which was a bill to appropriate funds for community-based programs administered by the Judiciary. It attracted 29 lobbying positions with 28 in support and one comment. Similarly, SB1300, which expanded access to school meals, was supported by 26 organizations and faced no opposition. (For comparison, the typical lobbied bill has only 3 positions.)
But this level of activity was not a sign of controversy. It reflected strong and perhaps coordinated support. Such alignment may be the product of pre-session discussions between business and nonprofit leaders, legislative champions, and sometimes the governor’s office. A high volume of one-sided testimony can signal to lawmakers that a bill is a priority for many organizations, not just one. Even when there is little or no disagreement, persistent lobbying helps maintain momentum and can reduce the risk that it will stall or be overlooked in a crowded legislative calendar. Testimony is also a visible output paid lobbyists can show to clients to demonstrate effort on their behalf.
In these cases, lobbying may be less about persuading legislators or the public and more about demonstrating alignment, urgency, and action. For HB560 and SB1300, health and education nonprofits, public-sector unions, and advocacy groups showed up in force to make sure these measures were seen as important and continued moving forward.
Where the Conflict Is Clear
Contrast those bills with HB1308, which would have legalized and regulated sports betting in Hawai‘i. Seven organizations supported it, including labor unions and gaming associations. Another seven opposed it, led by religious groups and family advocates. It was one of the most polarizing bills of the year and failed in the session’s final days.
Lobbying conflicts are often framed as battles between major sectors, such as those between healthcare organizations and vice industries. But some of the most revealing moments in state politics happen when an issue divides some organizations within a sector against others. These intra-sectoral splits can expose hidden tensions within a powerful coalition over policy direction, regulatory risk, or political strategy.
The debate over marijuana was one such case. HB1246 and SB1613, companion bills to legalize cannabis and create a new regulatory structure, exposed splits within the health, nonprofit, and trade association sectors. Perhaps not surprisingly, private business organizations with a direct stake in legalization like the Hawai‘i Cannabis Industry Association supported legalization based on its potential to create a strong regulatory model and generate increased tax revenue. But more traditional business organizations, such as the Retail Merchants of Hawai‘i, voiced concerns about its effects on tourism and public health.
Table 2: Testimony on HB1246 by Position and Sector
| Sector | Support | Comment | Oppose |
| Trade Associations | Hawai‘i Cannabis Industry Association | Retail Merchants of Hawai‘i, Inc. | |
| Nonprofits / Advocacy | American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai‘i Foundation | Hawai‘i Family Forum | |
| Health | Hawai‘i Health & Harm Reduction Center | American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network | |
| Others | Marijuana Policy Project | ||
| Public Sector Unions | United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO | ||
| Corporations | TCG Retro Market, LLC, dba Cure Oahu | ||
| HB1246 was so contentious that it split multiple sectors that generally testify on the same side of an issue, such as trade associations and health organizations. | |||
Another sharply divided measure was SB897, which allowed electric utilities to recover wildfire mitigation costs through ratepayer surcharges. The bill generated 41 lobbyist positions with some trade associations and labor unions taking opposing positions. Because internal splits among long-standing allies are rare, these divisions offer important insight into how policy debates unfold within established coalitions.
The Conflicts You Might Have Missed
Some of the most contested bills in the 2025 session received little to no media coverage. Often these bills are highly technical, but the LAAR data reveals just how much lobbying activity takes place even when bills remain relatively unknown to the public. Indeed, these are the kinds of measures where lobbyists may have the most influence—outside the spotlight, when public scrutiny is low and policy complexity is high.
HB1 is a case in point. Introduced as part of the state’s response to the housing crisis, the bill proposed reforms to the State Building Code Council with the goal of reducing delays and construction costs. It required the council to conduct financial analyses of proposed code changes, distinguish between safety-related and non-safety-related standards, and consult more directly with developers, contractors, and trade associations.
It was supported by major developers and trade unions, who argued it would reduce delays and lower construction costs. Opponents, including the Sierra Club of Hawai‘i and the International Code Council, warned that the bill could weaken building standards and disaster preparedness. With 16 lobbying positions, HB1 revealed a quiet but substantive debate about how the state should balance the urgency of housing development with the need for regulatory oversight.
SB480 was another low-profile but heavily contested bill. It aimed to protect Hawai‘i’s participation in the federal 340B drug pricing program, which helps safety-net providers offer discounted medications. The bill responded to pharmaceutical manufacturers restricting access to discounted drugs when dispensed through contract pharmacies, which, supporters claimed, can be especially harmful in rural areas.
Support came from major local healthcare and physician organizations. Opposition came from pharmaceutical companies, who have long sought to narrow the 340B program. While SB480 received little attention in the press, the testimony data shows a sharp and consequential policy divide within a larger health sector that often testifies together on issues of funding and staffing. The conflict centered on access, regulation, and the state’s role in protecting vulnerable populations through federally supported programs. Ultimately, it received a single hearing in the Senate before being deferred.
Consensus and Conflict Among Sectors
Each bill represents a unique story, a meaningful instance where organizations agreed, disagreed, or remained silent. With the LAAR data, we can uncover themes behind these stories that link Hawai‘i’s economic sectors in persistent and surprising ways. We develop two measures of these cross-sectoral connections: breadth and depth. When organizations in two sectors testify together on many bills, regardless of their position, they have breadth. When organizations from the same sectors testify on the same side of an issue, they have depth. Put another way, breadth measures shared attention, while depth measures shared interests.
Figure 2 below plots breadth on the vertical axis and depth on the horizontal. At the top-right are broad allies, sector pairs appearing on the same side of many bills. In the top-left quadrant are broad adversaries, those sectors consistently appearing on opposite sides. In the bottom-right are narrow allies, sectors that align closely on a small range of issues. Sectors in the bottom-left have little overlap but tend to oppose one another in those rare cases.
Figure 2: Sector Alliance Map
The rightward tendency in the graph shows that state politics in Hawai‘i is far more collaborative than adversarial, with diverse sectors testifying together on a wide range of issues.
Most sectors rarely take sides on the same bills, which reflects specialization: tourism groups focus on tourism bills, health on health, and so on. But when we compare the results to chance, a few relationships stand out. Environment ↔ Native Hawaiian co-engage far more frequently than chance, and they usually take the same side. That pair of facts—high co-presence and high agreement—signals a consistent alliance on a shared set of priorities. Not all frequent meetings are among allies, however. Environment ↔ Tourism/Hospitality meet more than chance and on opposite sides of the debate. These are broad adversaries, consistent opponents on many fronts. Finally, some pairs show high agreement but low co-engagement relative to chance. These could represent occasional alignment between “uncommon bedfellows” or bills sufficiently broad in scope to attract unusually broad participation.
We recommend that readers pay attention to the size of the circles when interpreting the data for themselves. Size corresponds to the number of bills in common, so that a larger circle represents more confidence in the observed pattern. To avoid spurious results, no pairs are plotted with fewer than 10 bills in common.
Why This Matters
The LAAR data once again offers a unique and enlightening lens on the policymaking process. It reveals not only which bills matter to which organizations, but also where political coalitions in Hawai‘i appear to align, diverge, or remain intact on specific pieces of legislation. For researchers and political observers, the data reveal major policy disagreements among powerful actors, sometimes over technical bills that generate little emotion or public discussion but have significant implications for Hawai‘i’s future. These patterns help us better understand how influence is exercised and how policy takes shape in the less visible corners of the legislative process.