A limited, independent experiment that compares verified records, campaign promises, policy feasibility and source quality—without requiring voters to conduct weeks of research.
Three candidates currently stand out because they combine meaningful public visibility, campaign viability and enough documented evidence to compare responsibly.
Why many supporters choose him: continuity during wildfire recovery, demonstrated executive output and substantial housing activity.
Main reservation: unresolved transparency, permitting and Bill 9 questions weaken confidence in a second term.
Why many supporters choose her: infrastructure, permitting and fiscal discipline are concrete mechanisms tied to housing and affordability.
Main reservation: long Council service has not yet produced a clearly quantified delivery record on her central promises.
Why many supporters choose her: the clearest anti-establishment message, cost-cutting agenda and direct opposition to Bill 9.
Main reservation: less evidence of countywide executive delivery and several proposals depend on Council approval.
Campaign claims were not accepted as evidence. Every candidate was evaluated using the same framework:
Community feedback and credible criticism helped identify questions worth investigating, but were not treated as factual evidence without independent verification.
The guide presents the strongest documented case and central concern for each candidate. No candidate is selected for the reader; priorities such as recovery continuity, permitting reform, affordability, fiscal restraint and institutional change may reasonably lead voters to different conclusions.
The decisive question is not which candidate states the best goals. Nearly everyone supports housing, affordability and recovery. The useful comparison is whether their past choices and proposed mechanisms make those outcomes more likely.
Evidence: substantial housing investment and recovery coordination, but weak public proof that permitting, transparency and economic strategy have met the standard promised in 2022.
Record versus promises →Evidence: long Council and budget experience, a defensible Bill 9 vote, and a practical infrastructure thesis. Still lacks a fully quantified housing replacement plan.
Record versus promises →Evidence: the most explicit cost-cutting and repeal agenda, but thinner proof of large-organization execution and several proposals requiring stronger fiscal validation.
Record versus promises →Earlier promises are compared with observable decisions and results, especially for the incumbent.
Each major proposal is tested for legal authority, funding, implementation path and expected effect.
Evidence, analysis and unknowns are labeled separately so readers can weigh them according to their own priorities.
Sources: Civil Beat candidate Q&A, Sept. 11, 2022; Maui County Council Bill 9 record and final passage, 2025.
The latest filings show Sugimura with the largest campaign and cash reserve, Bissen with substantial institutional support, and La Costa relying primarily on candidate loans.
Every candidate remains included. Detailed analysis is concentrated where there is both a plausible path to office and enough evidence to support judgment.
These are not campaign themes. Each example links a prior statement or concrete action to an observable result, implementation dependency or unresolved proof gap.
The County reported 427 Lahaina housing units rebuilt by January 2026, more than 500 affordable/workforce homes completed countywide in 2025, and more than 600 expected in 2026.
Those figures are substantial evidence of progress. They do not, by themselves, show which projects began before Bissen, how affordability is defined, how many units were enabled by county action, or whether permitting became faster. The fair conclusion is neither “nothing happened” nor “the housing problem was solved.”
As budget chair, Sugimura held evening budget meetings across Maui County and used a public survey to collect spending priorities.
That is a concrete example supporting her transparency claim. It is weaker evidence for her central mayoral promise—faster execution—because the public record reviewed still lacks a Sugimura-authored permit-time reduction, project-delivery dashboard or quantified housing ledger.
Her Cost Cutter plan proposes suspending the County’s 24-cent-per-gallon fuel tax through 2026 and estimates roughly $700 annual relief for a homeowner family of four when combined with other rollbacks.
Specificity makes the proposal testable. The mayor cannot enact the fuel-tax suspension alone, and the combined savings estimate depends on Council votes, legal timing, household behavior and replacement of foregone recurring revenue.
The official Council description says Bill 9 ends transient use “in the hope” that affected units convert to residential use.
That wording correctly exposes the unresolved link: owners may rent long term, sell, occupy, leave units vacant, seek rezoning or litigate. Candidate judgment should therefore be assessed by whether each plan states a forecast, cost, timeline and failure condition—not merely a desired outcome.
Found this guide useful? Receive occasional Maui real-estate, housing, community and market updates from Maui Mateo Real Estate. Signing up is optional and is not required to use the voter guide.