Svrcina v. State

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: November 4, 2024
• Docket: SCEC-24-0000744
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX 04-NOV-2024 11:08 AM Dkt. 8 ORD

SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

EMIL SVRCINA and KARL ORLANDO DICKS, Plaintiffs,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAIʻI OFFICE OF ELECTIONS; SCOTT NAGO; ELECTION COMMISSION; and MICHAEL CURTIS, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

Upon consideration of the Election Complaint filed on

November 1, 2024, which we construe as a primary election

complaint and petition for writ of mandamus, and the record, we

find and conclude that the primary election complaint is

untimely because the complaint was filed in the office of the

clerk of the supreme court beyond the thirteenth day of the

August 10, 2024 primary election. See Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes

(HRS) § 11-173.5(a) (Supp. 2019) & Act 1 (March 5, 2024) (to be

codified at HRS § 11-173.5(a)). Even if construed as a petition for writ of mandamus,

Plaintiffs’ arguments fail as a matter of law, as already

discussed by this court’s per curiam opinion in Dicks v. Office

of Elections, No. SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 3534241, at *3 to *4

(Haw. July 25, 2024).

It is ordered that the complaint is dismissed as untimely

and the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 4, 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens