The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on September 4, 2026, that a new election must be held for the State Representative District 43 seat after a tie between candidates Kristen K. (Kanani) Souza and Sheila Medeiros. Each candidate received 842 votes, but the election was marred by a two-ballot overage, raising questions about the integrity of the results. This decision impacts the candidates and voters in the district, emphasizing the importance of accurate election processes.
The case, Souza v. Nago, was filed after the primary election held on August 8, 2026. Souza contested the election results, claiming that the overage of ballots counted could have affected the outcome. The court's ruling highlights the significance of ensuring that every vote is counted accurately and that election procedures are followed properly.
In this case, Souza was pitted against Medeiros in a Republican primary where both candidates received the same number of votes. The dispute arose when it was discovered that there was a two-ballot overage in the vote count, leading to concerns about how this discrepancy could affect the election's outcome. The Office of Elections conducted a tie-breaking drawing, which Souza challenged, leading to the court's involvement.
The court's ruling stemmed from a series of events that unfolded after the election. Souza filed her contest on August 24, 2026, and the court quickly joined Medeiros as a defendant. The Office of Elections attempted to dismiss the case, but the court held an evidentiary hearing on September 2, 2026, where election officials testified about the overage and the tie-breaking process.
The court found that the two-ballot overage was a significant issue. The evidence presented showed that two voters had been mistakenly issued ballots for the wrong precinct, resulting in the overage. The court noted that the Office of Elections could not ascertain the correct vote count due to this error. As a result, the court ruled in favor of Souza on Count I, stating, "The Office of Elections’ Report on the two-ballot overage is prima facie evidence that the Office of Elections counted two ballots in the official results for Precinct 43-03 from voters who were not accounted for in that precinct."
Additionally, the court found that the tie-breaking method employed by the Office of Elections was flawed. The court ruled that the method used did not comply with the required rulemaking process under the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA). The judge emphasized that the failure to follow these procedures constituted an error. The court stated, "Nago’s failure to comply with the rulemaking process required by HAPA was error." This ruling was significant because it underscored the need for transparency and adherence to established protocols in election processes.
The court ordered that a new election be held between Souza and Medeiros, to take place concurrently with the upcoming general election. This decision allows voters in District 43 another opportunity to cast their votes for their preferred candidate. The court also mandated that the ballot clearly indicate that it is for "Republican Party Voters Only," ensuring that only registered party members participate in the election.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate election. It emphasizes the importance of accurate election administration and the need for clear procedures when handling discrepancies. This case serves as a reminder of the potential for human error in elections and the necessity of having robust systems in place to address such issues.
Looking ahead, the ruling sets a precedent for how election contests are handled in Hawaii, particularly concerning ballot overages and tie-breaking methods. The court's decision reinforces the principle that every vote must count and that election officials must be held accountable for their processes.
As for what’s next, the Office of Elections is required to conduct the new election and to promulgate rules to implement the tie-breaker statute properly. The court retains jurisdiction over the matter, indicating that further action may be necessary to ensure compliance with its ruling. This ongoing oversight will help ensure that the upcoming election is conducted fairly and transparently.