The Supreme Court of Hawaii issued four decisions in legal challenges to the recent primary elections, two in the election of Kauai’s mayor, and two in statewide elections. Election challenges are original proceedings, so the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, rather than the usual opinion of the court. The court made short work of the challenges.
There are two holdings of interest.
First, that Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-173.5(b) provides for only one remedy for “primary election irregularities” — the court may decide who was elected.
. . .
(b) In primary and special primary election contests, and county election contests held concurrently with a regularly scheduled primary or special primary election, the court shall hear the contest in a summary manner and at the hearing the court shall cause the evidence to be reduced to writing and shall not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fourth day after the return give judgment fully stating all findings of fact and of law. The judgment shall decide what candidate was nominated or elected, as the case may be, in the manner presented by the petition, and a certified copy of the judgment shall forthwith be served on the chief election officer or the county clerk, as the case may be, who shall place the name of the candidate declared to be nominated on the ballot for the forthcoming general, special general, or runoff election. The judgment shall be conclusive of the right of the candidate so declared to be nominated; provided that this subsection shall not operate to amend or repeal section 12-41.
In the Hoff case, the plaintiff had asked for an audit of the Kauai mayoral primary, in which the incumbent received a one vote majority, so was elected outright. The Taylor complaint asked for an investigation. Since neither sought a decision about who was elected, the court entered judgment in favor of the county clerk.
Second, the court held that in order to state a claim for relief under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-172 the plaintiff must demonstrate “errors, mistakes or irregularities that would change the outcome of the election,” and that this must be “actual information of mistakes or errors sufficient to change the result.” Quite a burden, since Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-173.5(b) requires such challenges to be filed within six days after the election:
(a) In primary and special primary election contests, and county election contests held concurrently with a regularly scheduled primary or special primary election, the complaint shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixth day after a primary or special primary election, or county election contests held concurrently with a regularly scheduled primary or special primary election, and shall be accompanied by a deposit for costs of court as established by rules of the supreme court. The clerk shall issue to the defendants named in the complaint a summons to appear before the supreme court not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after service thereof.
Since the plaintiffs did not provide “actual information” — only allegations — they lost their challenges.
The decisions are posted here (look for the Hoff, Taylor, Saunders, and Cunningham links posted on 10/10/2006 and 10/11/2006).
