.
Strong Primary Results Create a Clear Path Toward Humane Animal Policy Coalition on Hawaiʻi County Council
The final results of Hawaiʻi County’s 2026 primary election tell a more complete story than simply counting how many supportive candidates advanced.
Across the nine County Council seats, five incumbents sought reelection. All five won. Four of those incumbents — Heather Kimball, Dennis “Fresh” Onishi, Holeka Inaba and James Hustace — had voted yes on the final passage of Bill 51, the county-land animal-feeding prohibition. Jenn Kagiwada had voted no.
That meant much of the opportunity for change was concentrated in the four districts without an incumbent.
At the same time, the election also showed that positions can evolve. Kimball, despite voting for Bill 51, had previously supported an amendment creating an exemption for certified community cat caretakers working through County Animal Control, and she later explained that her final vote came with major reservations, including legal-liability concerns and assurances that a TNRM pilot could still proceed. Her 2026 HAA survey then documented strong support for prevention, spay/neuter access, TNRM, managed community cat programs, public accountability and community-led solutions supported by government.
Kagiwada entered the election from a different starting point. She had already voted against Bill 51 and her HAA survey confirmed strong support for humane treatment, TNR, managed community cat programs, One Health, science-informed decision-making, accountability and community partnership.
Together, those two incumbents now represent an important part of the emerging humane-policy coalition.
The Five Incumbent Races
The five incumbent seats help explain both the limits and the significance of the primary results.
District 1 — Heather Kimball
Kimball won outright with 2,684 votes, or 56.4%. Hawaii County Primary Election …
Her history on Bill 51 is important context. She ultimately voted yes, but she had supported a certified-caretaker pathway and has since documented strong support for humane, managed cat policy through the HAA Election Center.
HAA’s outreach cannot establish what caused a candidate’s views to develop, but the survey and follow-up engagement make clear that Kimball now publicly supports a much broader humane-management approach than a simple feeding prohibition.
District 2 — Jenn Kagiwada
Kagiwada won outright with 2,980 votes, or 46.5% of all ballots reported in the district. Hawaii County Primary Election …
She had voted against Bill 51 and later completed the HAA survey with strong support for humane treatment, TNR, managed community cat programs, One Health, measurable outcomes and community participation.
Her reelection preserves an incumbent voice already supportive of humane cat policy.
District 3 — Dennis “Fresh” Onishi
Onishi won reelection with 3,430 votes, or 59.2%. His challenger, Kelton Chang, received 1,974 votes, or 34.1%. Hawaii County Primary Election …
Onishi had voted yes on Bill 51. Chang completed the HAA survey and was assessed as partially aligned: supportive of several humane-policy principles, but less clearly committed to TNR and managed community cat programs.
Chang’s 34.1% showing demonstrated that a challenger engaging with humane-animal-policy issues could attract meaningful support, even though he did not defeat the incumbent.
District 8 — Holeka Inaba
Inaba was reelected without an opposing candidate. The final report shows 2,657 votes, or 71.2%, with the remainder largely blank ballots. Hawaii County Primary Election …
He had voted yes on Bill 51 and did not complete the HAA candidate survey.
Because there was no opponent, voters did not have an alternative candidate through whom to express a different position on humane cat policy.
District 9 — James Hustace
Hustace likewise faced no opponent. He received 3,763 votes, or 77.6%. Hawaii County Primary Election …
He had also voted yes on Bill 51 and did not complete the HAA candidate survey.
Taken together, the incumbent races show an important reality: all five incumbents survived, including four who had supported final passage of Bill 51. The primary was therefore never going to remake the Council solely through incumbent defeats.
The larger opportunity was in the four open seats.
The Four Open-Seat Races
This is where HAA’s Election Center produced its most encouraging results.
District 4 — Eileen O’Hara and Lloyd Enriquez
See Eileen O'Hara HAA Profile and Survey Results
Eileen O’Hara finished first with 1,591 votes, or 33.6%, followed by Lloyd Enriquez with 1,151 votes, or 24.3%. Both advance to the general election. Hawaii County Primary Election …
O’Hara completed the HAA survey and expressed strong support for humane treatment, prevention, spay/neuter access, TNR, managed community cat programs, One Health, accountability and community partnership. HAA’s Election Center lists her among candidates whose responses strongly support managed cat policy.
Enriquez did not complete the HAA survey, so HAA does not yet have the same level of documented information regarding his position.
That makes District 4 one of the most important remaining opportunities for voter education. Residents deserve to understand how both candidates approach humane, science-based cat population management before the general election.
District 5 — Shannon Matson and Ikaika Rodenhurst
See Shannon Matson HAA Survey Results
See Ikaika Rodenhurst HAA Survey Results
District 5 produced one of the clearest positive outcomes for humane-animal-policy voters.
Shannon Matson finished first with 983 votes, or 22.5%, and Ikaika Rodenhurst finished second with 953 votes, or 21.8%. Both advance to the general election.
Both completed the HAA survey and expressed strong support for humane, managed cat policy. HAA’s candidate summary places both among candidates whose survey responses strongly support its managed-cat approach.
That means District 5 is effectively assured of electing a councilmember who has already engaged substantively with humane animal management, spay/neuter access, managed community cats, One Health and accountability.
For HAA, this is one of the strongest outcomes of the primary.
District 6 — Guy Enriques and Zed Aki
District 6 demonstrates that the election results were not uniformly favorable to HAA’s survey respondents.
Five candidates competed. Three — Justin Canelas, Jason Masters and Kyle Kepano Jones — completed the HAA survey. All three documented varying levels of support for humane managed-cat policy, but none finished in the top two.
Instead, Guy Enriques finished first with 1,364 votes, or 27.7%, followed by Zed Aki with 1,026 votes, or 20.8%. Justin Canelas received 935 votes, Jason Masters 768, and Kyle Kepano Jones 343.
Enriques and Aki have not, through the HAA survey process, provided the same documented support for HAA’s managed-cat policy framework.
District 6 therefore remains an important area for education and outreach rather than an established supportive seat.
District 7 — Manu Powers
Manu Powers won outright with 2,663 votes, or 58.6%.
Powers completed the HAA survey and was among the candidates whose responses strongly supported humane managed-cat policy.
Her victory secures one of the four open seats for a candidate who has already engaged with HAA’s policy framework.
What the Results Mean
Looking across all nine Council districts, the primary produced a mixed but significant result.
All five incumbents were reelected. Four of those five had voted for Bill 51, while one — Jenn Kagiwada — had voted against it.
At the same time, one of those four Bill 51 supporters, Heather Kimball, now has a clearly documented position in favor of humane, managed cat policy through the HAA Election Center.
Among the four open seats:
- District 7 has already elected Manu Powers, who engaged with HAA and expressed strong support for humane managed-cat policy.
- District 5 is guaranteed to elect either Shannon Matson or Ikaika Rodenhurst, both of whom expressed strong support.
- District 4 has one documented strong supporter, Eileen O’Hara, advancing to the general election against Lloyd Enriquez.
- District 6 remains unresolved from HAA’s policy perspective because the three survey respondents who expressed support did not advance.
That creates a clear arithmetic pathway toward five Council members with documented support for humane, science-based animal management, depending on the outcome in District 4.
The significance goes beyond a simple vote count.
HAA’s Election Center was designed to help candidates and voters move beyond the old “cats versus wildlife” framing and toward a more complete discussion of managed versus unmanaged cats. HAA’s framework emphasizes prevention, spay/neuter access, responsible ownership, TNR/TNRM where appropriate, professional colony management, wildlife-sensitive areas, One Health, public accountability and measurable outcomes.
Several candidates have also participated in extended conversations and educational sessions around these issues. That matters because future Council debates will not begin from zero. Some incoming and returning councilmembers will already have spent time considering how humane animal management, wildlife protection and public accountability can fit together.
“What excites me most isn’t simply the election numbers. It’s that we are building relationships with policymakers before the difficult legislation arrives. These conversations are not about whether someone likes cats. They are about how we prevent abandonment, reduce unmanaged populations, protect wildlife, support responsible pet owners and use humane approaches that are grounded in science and measurable results.”
— Greg Puʻuwai Aloha Baker, Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy
.
What Comes Next
The primary election was one step.
Between now and the general election, HAA intends to continue its voter-education work by meeting with candidates, offering educational sessions, and encouraging residents to ask substantive questions about humane animal management.
District 4 is especially important because voters will choose between Eileen O’Hara and Lloyd Enriquez, and only O’Hara has so far provided HAA with a detailed survey response documenting her position on humane managed-cat policy.
District 6 also remains important because neither general-election candidate has yet established the same documented record through the HAA survey process.
The objective is not to tell voters whom to support. It is to give residents enough information to make their own decisions and to give candidates a serious opportunity to understand the policy choices they may soon be asked to make.
HAA’s longer-term work will continue beyond November. The organization intends to advance prevention-focused policy addressing pet retention, abandonment, affordable sterilization, responsible ownership, professionally managed community cat populations and protection of sensitive wildlife areas.
The primary results create a stronger foundation for that conversation than Hawaiʻi County had before this election.
A Stronger Starting Point
The 2026 primary did not replace the entire County Council, nor did every HAA survey respondent advance.
What it did accomplish was more important than a simple sweep.
It preserved one incumbent who had already opposed Bill 51, documented a stronger humane-policy position from another incumbent who had voted for it, elected a supportive candidate outright in an open district, guaranteed another supportive outcome in District 5, and created a realistic opportunity for an additional supportive seat in District 4.
For humane-animal-policy voters, that represents meaningful progress.
And for HAA, it creates something equally valuable: a growing group of elected officials and candidates who have already begun engaging with the substance of humane, science-based animal management.
HAA’s Election Center is an issue-based voter-education effort. Candidate surveys, assessments and election materials are intended to help voters understand candidates’ documented positions and are not formal single-candidate endorsements.
.