Hawaii Condo Quorum & Supermajority Calculator

How this calculator works

This is a quorum-and-threshold validator for Hawaii condominium member votes. Given the total common-interest vote, attendance (in-person, proxy, ballot), the vote type, and any declaration-specified overrides, it returns:

1. Whether quorum has been met (total ballots compared against the effective quorum under HRS 514B-122 or the declaration-specified override).
2. The yes votes required to pass for the vote type (67% of total common-interest vote for declaration amendments under HRS 514B-123; 75% of total for use-restriction amendments under HRS 514B-103; majority of quorum for regular votes).
3. The current ballot status (PASSED, FAILED, PENDING, or NO-QUORUM) based on the supplied vote tally.

Use the calculator before convening a meeting to confirm the procedural framework; use it during ballot counting to validate the threshold; use it after a meeting to memorialize the outcome in the secretary’s minutes.

The relevant HRS 514B statute

Hawaii condominium voting is governed by the Hawaii Condominium Property Act:

HRS 514B-122 — Default meeting quorum is 25% of the total common-interest vote unless the bylaws specify otherwise. The 25% is the statutory floor; the bylaws may raise it (commonly 33% or 50%) but the lowering question depends on the original declaration.

HRS 514B-123 — Declaration amendments require 67% of the TOTAL common-interest vote — not 67% of those voting. The declaration may specify a higher threshold; it cannot specify lower than 67%.

HRS 514B-103 — Certain declaration amendments affecting use restrictions and similar matters require 75% of the common-interest vote when so specified in the declaration. The 75% threshold is the statutory floor for the affected categories.

HRS 514B-32 — Declaration contents and reservations of developer rights. Defines what must be in the declaration and what may be amended only with developer consent during the development period.

Hawaii-specific gotchas (Part II nonjudicial restrictions, mandatory mediation)

The 25% default quorum is unusually low. Hawaii’s default quorum is on the LOW end of the state spectrum — California (Cal. Civ. Code § 4070) and Florida (Fla. Stat. § 718.112) both default to 50%. The lower Hawaii default reflects the practical attendance reality (many Hawaii condominium units are owned by mainland or international owners who do not attend in person, and many are vacation rentals with non-occupant owners). The practical effect is that as few as 26 units in a 100-unit association can control board elections and routine governance decisions when no higher bylaws threshold applies.

The CAM license under HRS 467 is property-management focused, not condo-specific. Unlike Florida, which has a dedicated Community Association Manager (LCAM) license under Fla. Stat. Ch. 468 Part VIII with condominium-specific training and continuing education, Hawaii’s Community Association Manager license under HRS 467 (administered by the Hawaii Real Estate Commission) is fundamentally a property-management license. The CAM license does not include the same depth of condominium governance training. Many Hawaii condominium associations rely on Hawaii-licensed attorneys with HRS 514B experience for the governance-procedural compliance review that an LCAM would handle in Florida.

Declaration amendments use TOTAL common-interest vote, not majority of voters. The HRS 514B-123 67% threshold is on the TOTAL common-interest vote — a true supermajority of all owners, not 67% of those voting. Boards routinely announce a declaration amendment as "passed" because a majority of voters approved it, only to discover later that the total threshold was not met. The calculator surfaces the correct threshold for each vote type to prevent this error.

The 67% to 75% threshold gap matters for the same amendment. Some declaration amendments overlap categories — a use-restriction amendment that also amends the declaration’s general provisions could be treated as either a HRS 514B-123 67% amendment or a HRS 514B-103 75% amendment. The cautious approach is to treat the higher threshold as controlling and structure the ballot for 75%; the alternative is to seek counsel guidance on which threshold applies and structure for the lower threshold if appropriate.

Mandatory mediation prerequisite for nonjudicial foreclosure is unrelated to voting. HRS 514B-146.5 imposes a mandatory mediation prerequisite for nonjudicial foreclosure of an association lien (see the companion foreclosure-timeline calculator). The mediation prerequisite does NOT apply to voting procedures; it is a foreclosure-specific procedural step.

Part II nonjudicial restrictions do not affect voting. HRS Chapter 667 Part II nonjudicial foreclosure restrictions affect the association’s lien-enforcement procedure, not its voting procedure. A board may vote to authorize a foreclosure at a regular meeting (majority of quorum) regardless of the Part I / Part II path question.

Worked example: regular vote

100 units. 25% quorum default. 15 in person, 5 by proxy, 10 by ballot. Vote: regular. 20 yes, 10 no.

• Total ballots: 30. Quorum: 25 (25% of 100). QUORUM MET.
• Vote type: regular. Threshold: majority of quorum. Votes required: 51% of 30 = 16 yes votes.
• 20 yes votes meets the 16-vote threshold. PASSED.

Worked example: declaration amendment — the total-common-interest trap

100 units. 30 in person, 10 by proxy, 20 by ballot. Vote: declaration amendment. 50 yes, 10 no.

• Total ballots: 60. Quorum: 25. QUORUM MET.
• Vote type: declaration amendment. Threshold: 67% of TOTAL common-interest vote = 67 yes votes required.
• 50 yes votes falls short of the 67-vote threshold. FAILED — even though 83% of voters approved.

Worked example: use-restriction amendment

200 units. 60 in person, 20 by proxy, 60 by ballot. Vote: use-restriction amendment. 130 yes, 10 no.

• Total ballots: 140. Quorum: 50. QUORUM MET.
• Vote type: use-restriction amendment under HRS 514B-103. Threshold: 75% of TOTAL = 150 yes votes required.
• 130 yes votes falls short of the 150-vote threshold. FAILED.

What this calculator does NOT model

The calculator implements the QUORUM-AND-SUPERMAJORITY math. It does NOT:

• Model the developer reservation-of-rights period under HRS 514B-32 (during which certain amendments may be made by developer alone without member vote).
• Validate the form or content of the meeting notice required under HRS 514B-121 (meeting notice procedures).
• Validate the form of proxies (signature, delegation chain, validity period under the bylaws).
• Model weighted voting where votes are allocated by common-interest percentage rather than one-per-unit (the calculator treats the totalUnits input as the weighted common-interest total).
• Model election procedures for board members (cumulative voting, candidate qualifications, election procedures).
• Validate compliance with the open-meeting requirements of HRS 514B-125.

For any consequential vote (declaration amendment, use-restriction amendment, material alteration, board election with contested seats), retain Hawaii counsel with HRS 514B experience to oversee the inspector-of-elections function and the procedural compliance review.

Sources

Last reviewed: 2026-05-16 against:

• HRS 514B-122 (meeting quorum).
• HRS 514B-123 (voting procedures and declaration amendment).
• HRS 514B-103 (declaration contents and certain amendments).
• HRS 514B-32 (declaration contents and developer reservations).
• HRS 514B-121 (meeting notice procedures).
• HRS 514B-125 (open-meeting requirements).
• HRS Chapter 514B (Hawaii Condominium Property Act).
• HRS Chapter 467 (Hawaii Real Estate Commission — community association manager licensing).
• Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) condominium specialist office guidance on HRS 514B governance compliance.