Appellate Oral Argument: Is Intending To Live Somewhere Enough To Be “Residing” There?

The Court will be considering two issues:

• Physical presence. When a voter registers in a district, he attests that the district isthe location of his “fixed habitation” and the place he “intends toreturn.” In order to gain a “new residence” in another district, thevoter must have both a “physical presence” there and an intent to makethe new location his residence. The first question is whether the Boardwas clearly erroneous when it found that the councilperson registeredas a resident of Lahaina, Maui in 2006, and lives and works there, andthat he lacks a physical presence on Lanai.

• Standing.Hawaii’s Election law, Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 11 allows “any registered voter” to challenge another’sregistration with the County Clerk “for any cause,” and “the person ruledagainst” by the Clerk may appeal to the Board of Registration. The Board ruledonly that the councilperson is not a resident of Lanai for registrationpurposes. The second question is whether in these circumstances, thevoter who challenged the councilperson’s residency had standing and whetherthe Board exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling on that issue.

Here are the briefs in the appeal:

• County Clerk’s Opening Brief

• Councilperson’s Opening Brief

• Lanai voter’s Answering Brief

• Clerk’s Reply brief

• Councilperson’s Reply Brief

Here is the summary of the case from the court’s web site:

Appellants Solomon P. Kaho`ohalahala and Roy T. Hiragaappeal the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision entered bythe Board of Registration of the County of Maui (“Board”) on November1, 2008. Hiraga, the Maui County Clerk, ruled in response to complaintsby Appellee Michael P. Dupree and other voters that Kaho`ohalahala wasproperly registered to vote on Lana`i in 2008. Dupree appealed to theBoard, which overruled Hiraga’s determination and concluded thatKaho`ohalahala was a resident of Lahaina for purposes of the 2008election. The questions on appeal include whether: (1) the Board lackedjurisdiction because Dupree’s complaint was an untimely challenge toKaho`ohalahala’s eligibility to be a candidate for the Lana`i seat onthe Maui County Council, rather than his voter registration, (2) theBoard exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing issues beyondKaho`ohalahala’s voter registration, and (3) the Board erred inconcluding that Kaho`ohalahala was not a Lana`i resident.