Hawaiʻi court hears election commission’s staff-support dispute

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court heard arguments October 16 over whether the Office of Elections must provide staff support to help the state Elections Commission meet. The court recessed without ruling at the close of the hearing on a petition by commission members Ralph Cushnie and Tamara McKay.

The case, SCPW-26-0000498, asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the office to provide that support. The dispute centers on how the commission can convene while its chair position is vacant, and on who can request administrative help on the commission’s behalf.

Two interpretations of the support requirement

Cushnie and McKay argue that HRS § 11-1.5(b) requires the Office of Elections to provide staff support when the commission requests it. The office’s position, as summarized by the Hawaiʻi Judiciary, is that support follows either a commission action approved by a majority or a request from the commission chair.

Reporting on the dispute describes a majority as five of the commission’s eight sitting members. The parties’ disagreement is therefore about more than whether staff can assist with a meeting: it also concerns what authorization is needed before the Office must provide help.

The Judiciary’s case description says the commission prepared notice for a July 8 meeting to address the chair vacancy and requested staff support. The meeting did not occur after the Office declined to provide that support. Michael Curtis’ term as commission chair ended June 30, 2026.

The petitioners contend that the lack of staff support prevented the commission from holding a meeting that complied with HRS Chapter 92, Part I, Hawaiʻi’s Sunshine Law. That is an argument in their petition, not a finding by the court. The hearing did not resolve whether the Office’s interpretation or the petitioners’ interpretation of the support requirement is correct.

Hearing ended without an order

The Judiciary scheduled the oral argument for 10 a.m. in Honolulu. The five-member panel comprised Acting Chief Justice Sabrina McKenna, Justices Todd Eddins and Lisa Ginoza, and assigned Circuit Judges Peter T. Cahill and Dyan M. Medeiros. Civil Beat characterized the panel’s response as dismissive; that was the outlet’s description of the hearing, not a court finding or a decision on the petition.

At the close of the October 16 hearing, the court had not ordered the Office to arrange a meeting or directed the commission to convene. It had also not accepted either side’s interpretation of the law. The immediate result was that the petitioners had no hearing-day order requiring staff support, while the underlying dispute remained for the court to resolve.

The case puts the Office’s administrative role and the commission’s ability to meet at the center of a dispute over a vacant chair. The Judiciary’s case summary identifies the Office of Elections and the Elections Commission as the parties affected by the requested order; the hearing itself did not establish an effect on voters or ballot processing.