Dejean v. Chang
This text of Dejean v. Chang (Dejean v. Chang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0001155 23-OCT-2014 12:52 PM
SCPW-14-0001155
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
KHISTINA CALDWELL DEJEAN, Petitioner,
vs.
GARY W.B. CHANG, JUDGE OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT,
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent Judge,
and
SCOTT T. NAGO, Chief Election Officer; OFFICE OF ELECTIONS;
AARON SCHULANER, General Counsel, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO. 14-1-001348)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Petitioner Khistina Caldwell
DeJean’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on October 3,
2014, the respective supporting documents, and the record, it
appears that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that she has a clear
and indisputable right to stop the 2014 general election and have
her name included on the ballot as a candidate for governor. See
Haw. Const. art. V, sec. 2 (“The lieutenant governor shall be
elected at the same time, for the same term and in the same
manner as the governor[.]”); Hirono v. Peabody, 81 Hawai'i 230,
915 P.2d 704 (1996) (a candidate for governor must seek the
nomination to the office with a candidate for lieutenant governor
from the same political party); HRS § 12-8 (2009 & Supp. 2013).
Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested writ of
mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334,
338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that
will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and
indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to
redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested
action). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 23, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dejean v. Chang, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dejean-v-chang-haw-2014.