Dicks v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 2, 2024
DocketSCEC-24-0000761
StatusPublished

This text of Dicks v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections (Dicks v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections) 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.

Bluebook
Dicks v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections, (haw 2024).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX 02-DEC-2024 12:35 PM Dkt. 17 ORD

SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

KARL ORLANDO DICKS and EMIL SVRCINA, Plaintiffs,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAIʻI OFFICE OF ELECTIONS and SCOTT NAGO, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DISMISSING ELECTION COMPLAINT AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

On November 8, 2024, an Election Complaint (Complaint) was

filed by Plaintiffs Karl Orlando Dicks and Emil Svrcina

(collectively, Plaintiffs), which we construe as a general

election contest and petition for writ of mandamus. As a

general election contest, we find and conclude that Plaintiffs’

Complaint does not challenge the election results of any race in

the 2024 general election.

A general election complaint, at minimum, must plead that

the conduct in question by an election official could cause a difference in the election results of a race in the 2024 general

election. See Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 11-172 (Supp.

2021). Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not state a claim under HRS

§ 11-172. The Complaint instead seeks a declaration that early

voting, mail-in voting, and Act 136 of the 2019 Hawaiʻi Session

Laws are unconstitutional or illegal.

Moreover, a petition for writ of mandamus is not intended

to be used in lieu of normal court procedures, including normal

appellate procedures, that could be (and could have been) used

to address Plaintiffs’ questions of law concerning an Act that

has been effective since 2019 and related election procedures.

See Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319,

537 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023); see also HRS § 632-1 (2016).

It is ordered that the general election complaint is

dismissed for failure to state a claim and the petition for writ

of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 2, 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 11-172
Hawaii § 11-172
§ 632-1
Hawaii § 632-1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dicks v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicks-v-state-of-hawaii-office-of-elections-haw-2024.