Jauch v. Tanigawa

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: SCEC-24-0000798
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX 10-JAN-2025 03:15 PM Dkt. 17 FFCL

SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

MICHAEL H. JAUCH, Plaintiff,

vs.

JADE TANIGAWA, Kauaʻi County Clerk and LYNDON YOSHIOKA, Kauaʻi Deputy County Clerk, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the election complaint filed on

November 25, 2024, the motion to dismiss filed on December 10,

2024, and the record, we rule in favor of Defendants and against

Plaintiff as to all claims stated in the complaint.

In accordance with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 11-174.5

(2009 & Supp. 2023), we enter the following findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and judgment. FINDINGS OF FACT

The 2024 general election was held on November 5, 2024.

Plaintiff Michael H. Jauch (Jauch) was an unsuccessful

Republican candidate for State Representative, District 17. The

general election result for this office shows that Jauch lost by

3,812 votes:

(D) MORIKAWA, Daynette (Dee) 6,450 63.8% (R) JAUCH, Michael H. 2,638 26.1% Blank Votes: 1,010 10.0% Over Votes: 5 0.0%

On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the election contest

with this court and thereby challenged the election result for

the office of State Representative, District 17. Plaintiff did

not name the chief election officer as a defendant.

On December 10, 2024, defendants Jade Tanigawa and Lyndon

Yoshioka (together, County Clerk) filed a motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint, or in the alternative, for summary

judgment.

Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants’ motion.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

An election contest is instituted by filing a complaint in

the supreme court “set[ting] forth any cause or causes, such as

but not limited to, provable fraud, overages, or underages, that

could cause a difference in the election results.” HRS § 11-172

(Supp. 2023).

2 To prevail on an election complaint seeking to invalidate a

general election, the plaintiff must establish “that a correct

result cannot be ascertained because of a mistake or fraud on

the part of the voter service center officials[.]” HRS § 11-

174.5; see also Waters v. Nago, 148 Hawaiʻi 46, 65, 468 P.3d 60,

79 (2019) (invalidating the special election where the correct

result could not be determined because invalidly received

ballots were commingled with the other ballots).

At the outset, Plaintiff’s complaint is procedurally

defective because it does not name and was not delivered to the

chief election officer. See HRS § 11-172 (“A copy of the

complaint shall be delivered to the chief election officer or

the clerk in the case of county elections.”).

Nonetheless, we review Plaintiff’s complaint on the merits

and determine that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to

establish any irregularities such that the correct result of the

election cannot be ascertained. HRS § 11-174.5.

Plaintiff appears to present, in pertinent part, three

claims. First, Plaintiff contends that the County Clerk does

not maintain a complete count of marksense ballots. Second,

Plaintiff claims that the County Clerk improperly reviewed

return identification envelopes on several days without

“Signature Verification Observ[ers].” Third, Plaintiff appears

to claim that, according to an election commissioner who was

3 present at a counting center on October 26, 2024, the number of

ballots counted by the State was different from the number of

ballots indicated in the Kauaʻi County’s chain-of-custody

documentation. Plaintiff appears to contend that based on the

foregoing, it is clear the Kauaʻi County Clerk’s office is not

acting in good faith to follow the laws required to safeguard

the election process, and that willful and intentional

maladministration, misadministration, and misfeasance occurred,

rendering the election null and void.

Plaintiff neither claims nor submits any evidence

demonstrating that any of the foregoing alleged actions or

irregularities would have had the effect of overcoming the

margin by which the State House District 17 election was

decided. On this record, Plaintiff failed to establish that the

correct result of the election cannot be ascertained because of

a mistake or fraud on the part of the County Clerk. See HRS

§ 11-174.5. Accordingly, the court rules in favor of the County

Clerk and against Plaintiff as to all claims in the complaint.

The court issues this decision based on the record before

the court. See HRS § 11-174.5(b) (providing “the court shall

cause the evidence to be reduced to writing and shall give

judgment, stating all findings of fact and of law”).

Accordingly, the motion pending before the court is denied as

moot.

4 JUDGMENT

Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,

judgment is entered in favor of the County Clerk, and against

Plaintiff.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 10, 2025.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens