Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCEC-12-0000716 27-AUG-2012 02:17 PM
NO. SCEC-12-0000716
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MARTIN HAN, Plaintiff,
vs.
JOEY MANAHAN, as an individual; ROMY M. CACHOLA; and SCOTT T. NAGO, Chief Election Officer for the State of Hawai#i, in his official capacity, Defendants.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna and Pollack, JJ.)
We have considered the August 16, 2012 election
complaint filed by Plaintiff Martin Han and the declaration and
documents appended thereto, and the August 23, 2012 motion to
dismiss filed by Defendant Scott Nago. Having heard this matter
without oral argument and in accordance with HRS § 11-173.5(b)
(2009) (requiring the supreme court to “give judgment fully
stating all findings of fact and of law”), we set forth the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter the
following judgment. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff Martin Han (“Han”) was one of three
candidates for the District 7 seat on the Honolulu City Council
in the August 11, 2012 first special election for the City and
County of Honolulu, which was held on conjunction with the
primary election.
2. The election results for the District 7 seat on the
Honolulu City Council were: (1) Joey Manahan: 7,123 votes
(51.0%); (2) Martin Han: 3,469 votes (24.8%); and (3) Lillian
Hong: 1,784 votes (12.8%).
3. On August 16, 2012, Han filed a complaint
challenging the election results. Han named Joey Manahan
(“Manahan”), his opponent in the election, Romy Cachola
(“Cachola”), the current District 7 councilmember who was unable
to run for a seat on the Honolulu City Council due to term limits
but ran as a Democratic candidate for the District 30 seat in the
State House of Representatives, and Scott Nago (“Nago”), the
chief election officer for the State of Hawai#i, as defendants.
The record, however, is devoid of any evidence that the city
clerk for the City and County of Honolulu was named a defendant.
4. Han contends that Manahan received an increase in
votes by violating Hawai#i’s electioneering law (HRS § 11-132
(2009)) and “work[ing] together for votes” with Cachola.
5. Han alleges that: (a) Manahan violated HRS § 11-
-2- 132 by displaying campaign posters less than two hundred feet
from two polling places on the day of the election; (b) Manahan
violated HRS § 11-132 by “purposefully le[aving] his campaign
signs within the 200 foot perimeter of two polling areas to
influence the approximately 40% undecided voters;” and (c) the
“unusually high amount of absentee ballots in Representative
District Precinct 30-02 . . . may indicate voter fraud in
District 7”.
6. Han seeks the following relief: (a) Judgment
ordering that Han’s name appear on the ballot for the November 6,
2012 general election; (b) Judgment ordering the Office of
Elections to review and compare the absentee voter names for the
absentee votes that Manahan and Cachola received from
Representative District Precinct 30-02; (c) Judgment ordering the
Office of Elections to review the absentee ballots for the
Representative District Precinct 30-02 for actual signatures
compared to an “X” marking; (d) Judgment ordering that the
absentee voters from Representative District Precinct 30-02 who
voted for Manahan and Cachola be interviewed “to determine if
their ballots were handled correctly or if there was any coercion
by any public official or persons acting on behalf of a public
official;” (e) Judgment ordering that the absentee ballots from
Representative Precinct 32-02 be reviewed and recounted; (f)
-3- Judgment finding that Manahan and Nago violated HRS § 11-132; and
(g) “[O]ther judicial determinations and orders necessary to
effectuate Defendant Manahan and Defendant Nago’s responsibility
in the violation of HRS § 11-132.”
7. Defendant Nago moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to name a necessary and indispensable party and failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
8. Defendants Manahan and Cachola were served with the
complaint and summons on August 24, 2012 and August 25, 2012,
respectively. The time for them to respond has not yet expired
but neither response is necessary to the resolution of the
election complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. HRS § 11-172 provides that a copy of the complaint
for an election contest “shall be delivered to the chief election
officer or the clerk in the case of county elections.”
2. HRCP Rule 19(a)(1) provides that “[a] person who is
subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the
action if [] in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be
accorded among those already parties[.]”
3. An election for councilmember for the Honolulu City
Council is a county election administered by the city clerk for
the City and County of Honolulu. The city clerk for the City and
County of Honolulu is, therefore, a necessary and indispensable
-4- party who should have been named as a defendant and served with a
copy of the complaint. The record, however, is devoid of any
evidence that the city clerk for the City and County of Honolulu
was named a defendant and served with a copy of the complaint and
summons.
4. Even if the city clerk for the City and County
of Honolulu was named or joined as a defendant and served with a
copy of the complaint, the complaint fails to state claims upon
which relief can be granted.
5. When reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true and view them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; dismissal is proper
only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle
him or her to relief. AFL Hotel & Restaurant Workers Health &
Welfare Trust Fund v. Bosque, 110 Hawai#i 318, 321, 132 P.3d
1229, 1232 (2006).
6. A complaint challenging the results of a primary
election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 fails to state a claim unless
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCEC-12-0000716 27-AUG-2012 02:17 PM
NO. SCEC-12-0000716
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MARTIN HAN, Plaintiff,
vs.
JOEY MANAHAN, as an individual; ROMY M. CACHOLA; and SCOTT T. NAGO, Chief Election Officer for the State of Hawai#i, in his official capacity, Defendants.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna and Pollack, JJ.)
We have considered the August 16, 2012 election
complaint filed by Plaintiff Martin Han and the declaration and
documents appended thereto, and the August 23, 2012 motion to
dismiss filed by Defendant Scott Nago. Having heard this matter
without oral argument and in accordance with HRS § 11-173.5(b)
(2009) (requiring the supreme court to “give judgment fully
stating all findings of fact and of law”), we set forth the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter the
following judgment. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff Martin Han (“Han”) was one of three
candidates for the District 7 seat on the Honolulu City Council
in the August 11, 2012 first special election for the City and
County of Honolulu, which was held on conjunction with the
primary election.
2. The election results for the District 7 seat on the
Honolulu City Council were: (1) Joey Manahan: 7,123 votes
(51.0%); (2) Martin Han: 3,469 votes (24.8%); and (3) Lillian
Hong: 1,784 votes (12.8%).
3. On August 16, 2012, Han filed a complaint
challenging the election results. Han named Joey Manahan
(“Manahan”), his opponent in the election, Romy Cachola
(“Cachola”), the current District 7 councilmember who was unable
to run for a seat on the Honolulu City Council due to term limits
but ran as a Democratic candidate for the District 30 seat in the
State House of Representatives, and Scott Nago (“Nago”), the
chief election officer for the State of Hawai#i, as defendants.
The record, however, is devoid of any evidence that the city
clerk for the City and County of Honolulu was named a defendant.
4. Han contends that Manahan received an increase in
votes by violating Hawai#i’s electioneering law (HRS § 11-132
(2009)) and “work[ing] together for votes” with Cachola.
5. Han alleges that: (a) Manahan violated HRS § 11-
-2- 132 by displaying campaign posters less than two hundred feet
from two polling places on the day of the election; (b) Manahan
violated HRS § 11-132 by “purposefully le[aving] his campaign
signs within the 200 foot perimeter of two polling areas to
influence the approximately 40% undecided voters;” and (c) the
“unusually high amount of absentee ballots in Representative
District Precinct 30-02 . . . may indicate voter fraud in
District 7”.
6. Han seeks the following relief: (a) Judgment
ordering that Han’s name appear on the ballot for the November 6,
2012 general election; (b) Judgment ordering the Office of
Elections to review and compare the absentee voter names for the
absentee votes that Manahan and Cachola received from
Representative District Precinct 30-02; (c) Judgment ordering the
Office of Elections to review the absentee ballots for the
Representative District Precinct 30-02 for actual signatures
compared to an “X” marking; (d) Judgment ordering that the
absentee voters from Representative District Precinct 30-02 who
voted for Manahan and Cachola be interviewed “to determine if
their ballots were handled correctly or if there was any coercion
by any public official or persons acting on behalf of a public
official;” (e) Judgment ordering that the absentee ballots from
Representative Precinct 32-02 be reviewed and recounted; (f)
-3- Judgment finding that Manahan and Nago violated HRS § 11-132; and
(g) “[O]ther judicial determinations and orders necessary to
effectuate Defendant Manahan and Defendant Nago’s responsibility
in the violation of HRS § 11-132.”
7. Defendant Nago moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to name a necessary and indispensable party and failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
8. Defendants Manahan and Cachola were served with the
complaint and summons on August 24, 2012 and August 25, 2012,
respectively. The time for them to respond has not yet expired
but neither response is necessary to the resolution of the
election complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. HRS § 11-172 provides that a copy of the complaint
for an election contest “shall be delivered to the chief election
officer or the clerk in the case of county elections.”
2. HRCP Rule 19(a)(1) provides that “[a] person who is
subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the
action if [] in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be
accorded among those already parties[.]”
3. An election for councilmember for the Honolulu City
Council is a county election administered by the city clerk for
the City and County of Honolulu. The city clerk for the City and
County of Honolulu is, therefore, a necessary and indispensable
-4- party who should have been named as a defendant and served with a
copy of the complaint. The record, however, is devoid of any
evidence that the city clerk for the City and County of Honolulu
was named a defendant and served with a copy of the complaint and
summons.
4. Even if the city clerk for the City and County
of Honolulu was named or joined as a defendant and served with a
copy of the complaint, the complaint fails to state claims upon
which relief can be granted.
5. When reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true and view them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; dismissal is proper
only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle
him or her to relief. AFL Hotel & Restaurant Workers Health &
Welfare Trust Fund v. Bosque, 110 Hawai#i 318, 321, 132 P.3d
1229, 1232 (2006).
6. A complaint challenging the results of a primary
election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 fails to state a claim unless
the plaintiff demonstrates errors, mistakes or irregularities
that would change the outcome of the election. Tataii v. Cronin,
119 Hawai#i 337, 339, 198 P.3d 124, 126 (2008); Akaka v. Yoshina,
84 Hawai#i 383, 387, 935 P.2d 98, 102 (1997); Funakoshi v. King,
-5- 65 Haw. 312, 317, 651 P.2d 912, 915 (1982); Elkins v. Ariyoshi,
56 Haw. 47, 48, 527 P.2d 236, 237 (1974).
7. A plaintiff challenging a primary election must
show that he or she has actual information of mistakes or errors
sufficient to change the result. Tataii v. Cronin, 119 Hawai#i
at 339, 198 P.3d at 126; Akaka v. Yoshina, 84 Hawai#i at 388, 935
P.2d at 103; Funakoshi v. King, 65 Haw. at 316-317, 651 P.2d at
915.
8. It is not sufficient for a plaintiff challenging an
election to allege a poorly run and inadequately supervised
election process that evinces room for abuse or possibilities of
fraud. An election contest cannot be based upon mere belief or
indefinite information. Tataii v. Cronin, 119 Hawai#i at 339,
198 P.3d at 126; Akaka v. Yoshina, 84 Hawai#i at 387-388, 935
P.2d at 102-103.
9. Taking Han’s allegations as true and viewing them
in the light most favorable to him, it appears that Han can prove
no set of facts that would entitle him to relief inasmuch as Han
has failed to present specific acts or “actual information of
mistakes or error sufficient to change the results of the
election.”
10. Possible electioneering at two polling places on
the day of the election, which Han admits were rectified by mid-
morning, does not amount to actual information of mistakes or
-6- errors sufficient to change the primary election results for the
District 7 seat on the Honolulu City Council.
11. The possibility that Manahan’s campaign signs
within the 200 foot perimeter of two polling areas may have
influenced approximately 40% of the undecided voters and the
possibility that an unusually high amount of absentee ballots in
Representative District Precinct 30-02 may indicate voter fraud
do not demonstrate that the results of the primary election for
the District 7 seat on the Honolulu City Council would have
changed.
12. According to HRS § 11-173.5(b), in a primary
election challenge, the supreme court has authority to decide
which candidate was nominated or elected. Funakoshi v. King, 65
Haw. at 316, 651 P.2d at 914.
13. Under the circumstances of this case, Han is not
entitled to the remedies he seeks.
JUDGMENT
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, judgment is entered dismissing the complaint.
Joey Manahan received 51.0% of the votes for the District 7 seat
on the Honolulu City Council in the August 11, 2012 election and
is automatically deemed elected.
The clerk of the supreme court shall forthwith serve a
certified copy of this judgment on the chief election officer and
-7- city clerk in accordance with HRS § 11-173.5(b).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 27, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
-8-