Hawaii Voters File Petition with the Supreme Court Asking How State Can Certify Elections Without Completing Required Certification First

Hawaii Voters File Petition with the Supreme Court Asking How State Can Certify Elections Without Completing Required Certification First - Joe Hoft

joehoft.com

Hawaii Voters File Petition with the Supreme Court Asking How State Can Certify Elections Without Completing Required Certification First

Hawaii Voters, Candidate, and Elections Commissioner File Emergency Petition at Hawaii Supreme Court questioning whether Hawaii Can Certify Elections Without Completing Reconciliation Required by HRS 11-155.

Case No. SCPW-26-0000424 — Filed June 9, 2026

HONOLULU, HAWAII — A Hawaii Elections Commissioner, a candidate for state office, and a registered Hawaii voter filed an emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Hawaii Supreme Court on June 9, 2026, questioning whether Hawaii can certify elections without completing reconciliation required by HRS §11-155.

The case — Cushnie, Gregory & Pasnik v. Scott T. Nago and Hawaii Elections Commission, Case No. SCPW-26-0000424 — asks the Hawaii Supreme Court to compel the Chief Election Officer and the Hawaii Elections Commission to complete the reconciliation required by Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-155 before the 2026 statewide election is certified.

What the Law Requires

HRS §11-155 requires statewide election certification to be based on the comparison and reconciliation of canvass records, audit records, overage and underage reports, recount results, tally sheets, logs, and other election documents generated during the election process.

HAR §3-177-453 requires county clerks to maintain a complete and current count of all ballots issued, spoiled, and received. These records establish how many ballots were received by each county and are among the records that should be available for reconciliation before statewide election results are certified.

The Elections Commission has documented that records demonstrating compliance with HAR §3-177-453 were not provided for the 2024 General Election. Petitioners are asking the Hawaii Supreme Court whether election results can be certified under HRS §11-155 when records necessary to reconcile the number of ballots received have not been produced.

What the Evidence Shows

The petition is supported by a documented administrative record spanning multiple election cycles and including findings from the Elections Commission’s own investigative proceedings:

All four county clerk offices failed to provide chain-of-custody records compliant with HAR §3-177-453 following investigations by the Elections Commission’s Permitted Interaction Groups.

In some cases, more ballots were counted in the Statewide Voter Registration System than were physically collected.

On April 1, 2026, the Hawaii Elections Commission formally voted 5-4 to document that required ballot-accounting records demonstrating compliance with HAR §3-177-453 were not provided for the 2024 General Election — with the Chief Election Officer present in the room.

The Deputy Attorney General confirmed in a February 26, 2026 written memorandum that “the only established audit procedures for voted ballots are post-election, pre-certification audits” — meaning once an election is certified, the legal authority to conduct meaningful independent review becomes uncertain and legally contested.

Four years of administrative proceedings — including Elections Commission hearings, investigative reviews, audit requests, legislative escalation, and Attorney General review — failed to resolve the underlying statutory questions.

What Petitioners Are Asking

Petitioners are seeking prospective relief only. They are not asking the Court to:

Overturn any prior election

Remove any officeholder

Alter any vote totals

Supervise election administration generally

They are asking only that the Hawaii Supreme Court declare and compel compliance with Hawaii’s existing mandatory reconciliation requirements before the 2026 statewide election is certified — while there is still time to do so.

Who Filed the Petition

Ralph S. Cushnie is a duly appointed member of the Hawaii Elections Commission, petitioning in his individual capacity. He has participated personally in Elections Commission proceedings, investigative reviews, and oversight actions concerning ballot-accounting records and reconciliation compliance over multiple election cycles. Commissioner Cushnie voted in favor of the April 1, 2026 Commission motion formally documenting the HAR §3-177-453 failure.

Tara Malia Gregory is a candidate for elective office in the 2026 statewide election cycle. She has a direct and legally cognizable interest in competing in an election whose certification satisfies the mandatory statutory prerequisites the Legislature prescribed. The United States Supreme Court confirmed in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), that candidates have standing to challenge election rules regardless of whether those rules affect their electoral prospects.

Douglas W. Pasnik, a retired Marine Colonel is a registered Hawaii voter and resident who has participated directly in administrative complaints, Elections Commission petitions, and oversight proceedings concerning ballot-accounting and reconciliation compliance over multiple election cycles.

Legal Authority

The petition is supported by a framework of Hawaii Supreme Court precedent:

Solomon v. Abercrombie, 126 Hawaiʻi 283 (2012) — The Hawaii Supreme Court previously issued writs of mandamus directing the Chief Election Officer to comply with mandatory election-administration frameworks before they could govern an upcoming election cycle. The Hawaii Supreme Court has done this before.

Iwasa v. Nago, 144 Hawaiʻi 100 (2019) — The Hawaii Supreme Court held that election statutes impose mandatory rather than directory requirements, applied strict compliance, and invalidated an election when statutory prerequisites were not met. Ignoring election law has consequences — and fixing them after certification may be impossible.

Tataii v. Cronin, 119 Hawaiʻi 337 (2008) and Funakoshi v. King, 65 Haw. 312 (1982) — Establishing Hawaii’s strict statutory compliance standard for election law.

Green Party of Hawaiʻi v. Nago, 138 Hawaiʻi 228 (2016) — Holding that election administration procedures affecting voting rights must comply with Hawaii’s statutory framework.

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) — United States Supreme Court confirming that candidates have standing to challenge election rules independent of electoral outcome.

Why Now

The 2026 election cycle is underway. Candidate filing has closed. Ballots will soon be prepared and distributed. If the Court does not act before certification occurs, the Deputy Attorney General’s own written opinion confirms that the legal mechanisms for post-certification review are uncertain and contested — meaning the window for meaningful correction closes the moment certification happens.

As Iwasa v. Nago demonstrated, once election materials are commingled after an unlawful process, the only available remedy may be invalidation — a drastic outcome that prospective enforcement now could prevent entirely.

A Note on Partisanship

This petition is not about party politics. The petitioners include individuals of different political backgrounds united by a single concern: that Hawaii’s elections be certified in compliance with the laws the Legislature enacted. The April 1, 2026 Elections Commission vote that formally documented the statutory failure was a bipartisan finding by a Commission whose members are appointed by both Democratic and Republican legislative leadership.

Hawaii voters of every political affiliation deserve elections whose certification they can trust — and that trust begins with following the law.

Court Information

The petition has been filed and docketed at the Hawaii Supreme Court as Case No. SCPW-26-0000424. The public may access court filings through the Hawaii State Judiciary’s online portal at www.courts.state.hi.us.