The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled against Kurt Fevella, who challenged the results of a tie in the August 2026 primary election for the Republican nominee for State Senator in District 20. The court's decision, issued on September 16, 2026, stated that Fevella did not follow the proper procedures to contest the election results. This ruling affects Fevella and his opponent, Bob McDermott, as well as future election processes in Hawaii.
The case arose after Fevella and McDermott received an equal number of votes, leading to a tie-breaker held on August 15, 2026. McDermott was declared the winner of the tie-breaker, which Fevella sought to invalidate. He claimed that the method used for the tie-breaker was improper and that two underage voters in Senate District 20 could have influenced the election outcome.
Fevella's petition for a writ of mandamus was filed on September 9, 2026, just days before the court's decision. In his petition, he argued that the tie-breaker method, which involved a traditional lau hala basket draw, required formal rule-making. Additionally, he pointed to the two voters who were incorrectly issued ballots for a different district, which he claimed constituted an underage that could have changed the election results.
The court, led by Justice Sabrina McKenna, ruled that Fevella did not meet the necessary criteria for an extraordinary writ of mandamus. The court stated, "A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus from this court has the burden of establishing a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and a lack of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong." The court found that Fevella had alternative remedies available, specifically the option to file a primary election contest.
The court also noted that the issues Fevella raised could have been addressed in a timely manner through the primary election contest process. The court pointed out that the information regarding the underage voters was available to Fevella before the deadline for filing an election contest. As a result, the court concluded that Fevella's petition did not satisfy the extraordinary writ standard.
In its ruling, the court highlighted the confusion surrounding the reporting of overages and underages in elections. It stated that the law regarding these reports is ambiguous and needs clarification to prevent similar issues in future elections. The court emphasized the importance of making such information available to the public and candidates in a timely manner to ensure transparency and fairness in the electoral process.
The ruling has significant implications for future elections in Hawaii. It underscores the importance of following established procedures for contesting election results and clarifies the responsibilities of election officials in reporting voting irregularities. The court's decision may prompt lawmakers to consider amendments to existing election laws to improve clarity and accessibility of information regarding overages and underages.
As for what’s next, Fevella's options for appeal are limited. The court's decision is final regarding the petition for a writ of mandamus, and it is unlikely that there will be a related case pending since the primary election contest deadline has passed. However, the court's remarks may lead to legislative discussions about improving election processes in Hawaii.